Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:39, 29 August 2012

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

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.

August 24

Meteor Strike

Is a meteor like the one that killed the dinosaurs occur again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.130.215 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost certain that sometime in the near infinite future, a similar sized object will strike the earth. Certainly, such objects have hit it multiple times in the past, not just when the dinosaurs went extinct. There is no reliable way to estimate when it is going to happen. It's probably not going to happen today, and tomorrow doesn't look likely either. If we extend it out to a time scale of billions of years, then yes, it will most likely happen again. But a billion years is a very long time. The article Near-Earth object has some details. One of the most famous recent hits was the Tunguska event, and it is estimated that events that large only happen once per millenium, and Tunguska was several orders of magnitude smaller than the Dinosaur killer and had no long-lasting effects. You may also want to look into subjects like the Torino Scale or List of Earth-crossing minor planets if you want to research this topic some more. The dinosaur killer was the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, and is connected to an object which created the Chicxulub crater, though it isn't universally accepted that the Chicxulub impact was what caused the extinction. It is the most widely-held explanation, but not the only one. I can't find any estimates on how often a Chicxulub-sized impact occurs, but I wouldn't be shocked if it wasn't on the order of hundreds of millions of years between impacts. --Jayron32 13:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer Jayron. Very informative... I took the liberty of fixing the heading too as none provided... gazhiley 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Extinction event, which speculates on the reasons for any periodicity of such phenomena. if such an event happens in the - as yet very short - history of the species homo sapiens maybe a moot and futile speculation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dinosaur-killer hit about 65 million years ago, but as far as we know it's the largest impact from the last billion years, so it isn't likely that anything nearly as large will occur anytime soon. There have however been many smaller impacts within the last few hundred million years -- to me the most striking is Manicouagan crater in Canada, which is easily visible from space. That impact was about 215 million years ago. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shiva crater would be greater. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of impact craters on Earth list many large impacts in the last few hundred million years - some nearly Chicxulub-size. Rmhermen (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for rarity, there is Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 and Tunguska event. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --Jayron32 20:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the blast wave from the Tunguska event circled the Earth and returned to the point of origin. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Did you mention Shoemaker-Levy 9? Were you responding to Looie496's statement of rarity? (I sincerely apologize for my habit of actually providing links in my responses.) To quote the last person who copied my post verbatim, "my version was better." μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Earth has 1/318 the gravity of Jupiter and 1/122 the surface area, we can expect comets to hit Earth somewhat less often than they do Jupiter. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter hardly has a 318G surface gravity. Do you mean mass? In any case, the Earth is by far the largest body between Jupiter and the Sun. Large bodies have been observed historically to strike both the moon and Jupiter as well as the sun, and the results of such strikes on the Earth are known historically as well. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surface gravity is irrelevant; I'm considering relative gravity at a given distance. —Tamfang (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no equal or proportional distance at which Jupiter's gravity or escape velocity is 318 times that of earth. What you mean is that Jupiter has 318 times the mass of Earth. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thus exerts 318 times the force at a given distance. Who said anything about escape velocity? —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a more useful comparison is Hill spheres. —Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkes Land crater

"If this feature really is an impact crater, then, based on the size of the ring structure, it has been suggested by von Frese's team that the impactor could have been four or five times wider than the one that created the Chicxulub Crater, believed to have caused the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.[6]

Because mass concentrations on Earth are expected to dissipate over time, von Frese and coworkers believe the structure must be less than 500 million years old, and also note that it appears to have been disturbed by the rift valley that formed 100 million years ago during the separation of Australia from the Gondwana supercontinent.[6]

These researchers therefore speculate that it is possible that the putative impact and associated crater contributed to this separation by weakening the crust at this location. These bracketing dates also make it possible that the site could be associated with the Permian–Triassic extinction event.[6] The Permian–Triassic extinction occurred 250 million years ago, and is believed to be the largest extinction event since the origin of complex multicellular life.

Plate reconstructions for the Permian–Triassic boundary place the putative crater directly antipodal to the Siberian Traps, and von Frese et al. (2009) use the controversial theory that impacts can trigger massive volcanism at their antipodes to bolster their impact crater theory.[7]" Count Iblis (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off topic: Prof Nick Bostrom from Oxford´s Future of Humanity Institute argues in an interview (European Forum Alpbach, today), that advances in artificial intelligence - quantum computers + nano technology + whatever - may result in an extinction of humans or in a loss of the current dominance of our species. His argument is that a non-human super-intelligence may "escape" the control of (far less intelligent) humans and may decide that we are useless for their specific purposes. At best they may keep us as enslaved / domesticated nano cobblers in the pig sty. Unfortunately I only have a reference to a German language source containing a short interview. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image?

How can I find out if an image is copyrighted? I am referring to the Capital Beltway sign which I just uploaded. I know the rules about use on Wikipedia, so there is currently just one fair-use posting. What I want to know is if there is somewhere to look up whether it is copyrighted or not (such as a copyright or trademark directory). Thank you.

Without directly answering the question of "where would I find out", at Wikipedia the general policy is "If you don't know, assume it is under the greatest restrictions". That is, the default state is "everything is under copyright" and you assume that it is unless you can prove that it isn't. Many people mistakenly think that at Wikipedia you are free to use any image freely unless someone can prove that it is copyright. That's actually 180 degrees backwards. You cannot use any image freely unless you can positively prove it is unencumbered by copyright issues. --Jayron32 15:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thst is exactly what I did, which is why the image is only in one place as fair use. I want to find out for sure, because if it isn't, the image can have other uses, as the logos of other named highways do. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this page: Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields, but it doesn't look like it's been updated in a few years. Still, it is a lead. --Jayron32 16:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old restaurant or store on East 42nd Street, Manhattan

There is currently a TGI Fridays restaurant located in Manhattan at 47 East 42nd Street, running from 42nd to 43rd Streets, between Vanderbilt Avenue and Madison Avenue, one block west of Grand Central Terminal. It is obvious from the configuration, panelling, and overall structure of the space that it previously housed a very different, and I suspect more historically interesting, type of restaurant or store, but I have not been able to find out what used to be there. Does anyone either know, or have a suggestion for how I could readily find out? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ask them.

2) You can try the street view in Google Maps. It might happen to have a pic of the old business. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) I just tried this myself, but it is a TGI Fridays, with an adjacent KFC, there. Both look to be part of a much larger former business, 3 stories high and the width of several stores (extending from the KFC to Madison Avenue). I notice that most of it is TD Bank, N.A., so it's possible it all was, but then sold off parts. The grey and black (marble ? slate ? granite ?) is more of the type of look I associate with a bank than a restaurant. StuRat (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original name of the buiding was the Liggett Building, although the folks that are currently selling office space there refer to it as the Columbia Carbon Building. The image at my second link shows the building before the recent remodeling of the façade of the first three stories, but it's too damn small to make out what occupied the TGI Friday's space at that time (and Tineye can't find a larger version). When the building opened in the 1920s, much of the ground floor was occupied by a large branch of the Liggett's Drug Store chain; but I can't determine whether it extended to that part of the building, and all trace of it is surely gone, anyway. I can't find any information about former tenants online, but perhaps my clues can help someone with better resources. Deor (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an online database of old phone books or something like that? If you could search by address, you could probably work it out. --Jayron32 03:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or city directories, which often have listings by street address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This book shows a nice picture of the building as it appeared in the 1920s, on page 72 -- but not nice enough to see what they were doing on the ground floor. Looie496 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a possible lead. Doing some poking around, I found the NYPL "Ask A Librarian" section. This page here: [1] is from the "Milstein Division of United States History, Local History and Genealogy", a Librarian working in "local history" should be able to direct you to resources to answer this question. --Jayron32 13:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ate at that Fridays before 1994, so I doubt google maps is going to be very helpful. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your suggestions; I will follow up on them. (As for StuRat's initial suggestion of "ask them," I tried that a couple of times. Most of the staff had no idea, while one senior employee told me that "I think it was a Houlihan's before this," which even if true, isn't what I was looking for.) I'm surprised that it was a TGIF as far back as 1994, but that is interesting as well. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain I remember correctly. I worked at a TGIF before that date, and had brunch at a TGIF in Manhattan on the east side with someone who died shortly thereafter. If I am wrong then the location was in the village or downtown. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Help Identifying House Plants

I obtained these two house plants, and have no idea what they are. Any ideas? Buddy431 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 looks like a ficus of some sort; there are many ficus which are common as indoor potted trees. While all of the Wikipedia articles on ficuses feature full-grown outdoor trees, if you type ficus into Google, you get better pics of indoor ficuses. I'm by no means a plant expert, but that's my guess. --Jayron32 01:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Jayron in full, both look like potted ficuses. I'd try giving the second a little more but not too much direct sunlight. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a potted plant that looks just like number 1. Back in April, I went to a flower show and was able to find out what they are called. I wish that I could tell what the name is; the only problem is that I forgot the name. Sorry. Eskimopie300 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first plant reminds me of a poor specimen of schefflera arboricola, I say poor because it is a bit short on leaflets, it is a bit 'leggy' and looks neglected. The second plant is a really badly abused, neglected, unloved solenostemon, previously called coleus, I base this on the faint colouration of the leaves and the pathetic emergent flower spike. Richard Avery (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right about the Schefflera, but can you give a more convincing image for the second? It hardly seems like the non-woody coleus. μηδείς (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this pic shows the likely colouration that is 'washed out' by lack of light and this pic shows the inflorescence emerging from the top of the stem. You might also like to consider the shape of the leaves when compared to normal solenstemon plants. It is hard to find another image of a solenostemon like the image because it is so badly neglected few people would photograph it. The plant is flopped down because it has become etiolated by lack of light, if those stems were woody it would remain erect. But then again woodiness is a relative term Richard Avery (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do suppose the flowers could be those of a coleus. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. It's not too surprising that the plants are a bit poor looking - they've been living in a windowless chemistry lab for the last several years. We'll try to give them some real sunlight and see how they do. Buddy431 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon juice

The articles on ReaLemon (marketed in the US) and Jif (lemon juice) (from the UK) seem to contradict each other. Both appear to be the same product (as both are marketed in unique lemon-shaped containers, while Jif itself was once known as ReaLemon according to its article). However the articles make no mention of any relationship between them, and the ReaLemon article claims the idea for the name and packaging originated in the 30s, while the Jif article suggests the 50s. Are the similarities between these two products really just a colossal coincidence? It seems more likely to me that there has to be some sort of relationship between these brands, which the articles ought to mention if there is one. Are there any lemon juice experts here who'd be able to clear this up? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure (I don't consider marketing lemon juice in a lemon-shaped bottle that huge of a coincidence — it's a fairly obvious design idea and it's completely plausible that they could have independent origins), but apparently ReaLemon attempted to market its wares in the UK and got sued for trademark violation by Jif, and the judge sided with Jif. Part of the ruling apparently hinged on the difference between the ReaLemon and Jif bottles (the judge thought the ReaLemon bottles looked more like hand grenades than lemons) and the fact that ReaLemon modified their UK product to look more like Jif. Details: [2]. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jif? That is peanut butter, not lemon juice. More seriously, how could any company market lemon juice in squeezable lemon-shaped containers before modern plastics were on the market, which I thought happened in the 1950's at the earliest. If the juice were in a lemon-shaped glass bottle, I would not feel very motivated to buy it. Edison (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They made lemon shaped containers for lemon juice already. They're called lemons. --Jayron32 05:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's point is a good one. The ReaLemon article doesn't, after all, say that the product was always marketed in those squeezable, lemon-shaped containers. In my childhood (1950s), it could certainly be bought in normal glass bottles—they were green glass, as I recall—but I can't remember whether the yellow "lemons" were already available as a (smaller) alternative at the time. Deor (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia we clean our bathrooms with Jif. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have Jif bathroom cleaner in the UK (it didn't come in a plastic lemon, so there was no confusion). But a few years ago, the name was changed to Cif. Alansplodge (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In America we "torture" dogs by spreading JIF on their hard palates. μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing as that is, I suppose it is at least a plausible use for that alleged food substance, if for some reason you consider it necessary to torture a dog. Why anyone would buy it to eat is beyond me. --Trovatore (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is your complaint with peanutbutter as such, or just the Jif brand? Dogs seem to like peanutbutter, you know. They just don't have fingers to scrape it off the rooves of their mouths. μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jif brand, and all alleged peanut butters of the same sort. If you ever try real peanut butter you'll never go back. I recommend Laura Scudder's ("Just peanuts and salt — that's all). --Trovatore (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one of those Whole Foods types, eh? I'll try some boutique butter next time I see it, but I don't think Walmart carries it. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When Jif cleaner changed its name to Cif in the UK, the adverts made a big show of how this was to harmonise their sales across Europe - apparently Jif was being pronounced 'djiff' in English-speaking markets, 'zhiff' in France, 'hiff' in Spain and 'yiff' in Germanic countries. Cif, pronounced 'siff', was supposed to be easy for every European to say. Imagine my disappointment on finding that in Sweden it's still sold as Jif. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in Spain it's now Thiff? μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and please don't ask what Australians use Durex for... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone in the US said "When I was in town I got Cif, listeners would assume he had acquired a venereal disease. Edison (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old timers might. "Normal people" would assume he'd acquired an STD. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

My brother actually thought that those little plastic things were real lemons, from the name. He was very surprised the first time he saw an actual lemon. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I wonder if he ever got to visit a dairy. If so, did he run away screaming? But speaking of multiple uses, don't ever forget Shimmer, the 1970s product which was both a floor wax and a dessert topping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This thread now has three responses relevant to the actual question, along with 15 responses that are irrelevant to the question being asked and/or bad jokes. The signal-to-noise ratio is a little off if you ask me, especially when most of the discussion is on the banalities of what different consumer products are called in different countries. But by all means, carry on... :-/ --Mr.98 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, both your comment and this follow-up also count as noise. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

August 26

Jolly Sower?

We have the Grim Reaper to announce or carry out death. Does tradition have anything like a "Jolly Sower", or even a "Grim Sower", to foretell pregnancy? Pokajanje|Talk 02:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say for certain, but you'd probably do well to start looking through the rather extensive List of fertility deities. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Triple Goddess (Neopaganism), Fertility goddess, Virgin Mary, Saint Anne, Hera, Juno, Easter bunny, among others. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His arch-enemy, the Stork Deliverer, using his mighty Beak of Birth to engage in swordplay with the Scythe of Doom. If Marvel or DC come calling, you know where to send them. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That deserves a star! μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In as much as TGR decides on death (rather than just being a psychopomp, a functionary), Clotho decides on who gets born. 87.114.8.36 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what is the largest monetary judgment ever?

There is a recent judgment in california court of $1 Billion USD for Apple against Samsung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_Apple_vs_Samsung_trial) Is this the largest monetary judgment ever? If not, what judgments outrank it? μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Microsoft litigation for some larger awards. Rmhermen (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Exxon Valdez oil spill initially resulted in $5 billion in punitive damages and $287 million in actual, but has been whittled down. Not a judgment, but the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement says that ~~four states settled for $35 billion~~ states were to receive $206 billion over 25 years. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A judge ordered Harley International Ltd to cough up $1.07 billion in the Bernie Madoff mess.[3] Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant to exclude the tobacco "settlements" as neither private nor individual. I am curious what the actual Exxon Valdez payout has been. And there was also the BP gulf settlement, no? But again, I am looking for two private parties, not the jackboot thugs vs whomever. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Deepwater Horizon explosion#Disposition of financial obligation BP has settled with companies for $1.07 billion and $4 billion. Hut 8.5 09:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Samsung case is an award, not a settlement, though? Any chance there is an award in a case between two private plaintiffs of that size? Do we have a list?μηδείς (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few I found on Google:

[4] Exxon Mobil ordered to pay $1.5 billion
[5] BP ordered to pay the equivalent of $3 billion by a Russian court
[6] $6 billion awarded to 9/11 victims
Oral contract has an example of a $11.1 billion award
[7] claims the largest ever award is $150 billion to the family of someone with horrific burn injuries (though they "don't expect to collect any")

Hut 8.5 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the case in the oral contract link is the kind I was looking for, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the oral contract case, see also here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Alaska in WWII

I know that part of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska were taken by the Japanese in WWII. I do not know much about this topic, so if you could, please share some information so that I can expand my knowledge. Thank you. Eskimopie300 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aleutian Islands Campaign Rmhermen (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good place to start would be our Aleutian Islands Campaign article, which provides links to further material, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. An often-forgotten part of the Pacific war that probably had far more strategic significance than is generally realised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College Degree Question

I have a question, but let me use an example to ask it: Besse Cooper got her degree from a teacher training school which later became East Tennessee State University. Would her degree now be considered a university degree (from that university) despite the fact that it was only a teacher school (and thus with a much lower reputation) at the time that she got her degree? Futurist110 (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A degree depends on the accreditation of the school granting it. Accreditation is not retroactive. μηδείς (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. I got my degree in 1984 from what was at the time called the Canberra College of Advanced Education. About 5 years later it became the University of Canberra (U Can). I have ever since (that's over 22 years) referred to my qualification as being from U Can, nobody has ever questioned this, and it would be absurd to do so, now. Maybe in a court of law it would be necessary to be pedantic about the precise institution that awarded my degree, but for all ordinary purposes this is not necessary. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, in 1992, all the polytechnics became universities. It is now fairly common for people that went to them when they were polytechnics to refer to them by their new name. Their degree qualification is no different, although technically it was awarded by the Council for National Academic Awards, rather than the institution itself (now they are universities, they award their own degrees). --Tango (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not the case in the US, a name change is not the same as a change in accreditation. There is no positive indication in the Polytechnic (UK) article that degrees issued by the Council for National Academic Awards became university degrees after 1992. I don't normally happen to tell people which college of my undergrad University I was issued my bachelor's from, but that doesn't change the information on the transcript if they request it, even though there have been changes in school policy since I got that degree. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CNAA awarded degrees. The term "university degree" doesn't carry any special meaning, other than as a description of a degree. --Tango (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but saying you had a degree from X University on your resume when you had a diploma from the CNAA for a course of classes at X Polytechnic would be grounds for dismissal in the US--assuming they wanted an excuse to fire you. This is a matter of contention at Rowan University, formerly Glassboro State College which is planning to merge with Rutgers–Camden. People with degrees from Glassboro can't say they have degrees from Rowan University and people at Rutgers, even the Camden branch, do not want to have degrees that say Rowan University. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CNAA didn't just award diplomas, they awarded actual degrees that are no different to the degrees awarded universities (other than the name of the institution on the certificate). I didn't say people write it wrong on their resumes, anyway (although I expect some do). I meant they refer to them that way in casual conversation. It's just a name, though. The polytechnics didn't become any more prestigious when they were renamed universities. I don't know if it has ever been tested in court, but I can't see many people caring about getting the name wrong like that - you can tell from the dates if you really want to know what it was called when they went there. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. the name of the school doesn't have any official meaning at all. The accredation does. But schools which change names don't necessarily change any sort of status. "Four year college or university" is a catch-all term, but there is no functional difference between the names. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of North Carolina and Dartmouth College are all equivalently accredited degree granting institutions, and tradition and reputation aside, the degrees they grant should carry the exact same weight even though one is an Institute, one is a University, and one is a College. --Jayron32 02:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this place please

Resolved

[8] (probably in UK). Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhere in the north of Paris, since that's the Basilica of Sacre-Coeur in the background. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, actually it must be in the west of Paris. Isn't that a view from the Eiffel Tower? Maybe not from the top though...you can see Passerelle Debilly, Pont Alexandre III, Le Grand Palais, the Louvre and the Tuileries, among other things. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks like it has been taken from the Eiffel Tower the red building is the Musée du quai Branly. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do hackers cover their tracks?

I've got some idea of the various techniques hackers use to steal people's bank details etc. What I don't understand is how they can actually steal their money without getting caught. Obviously they cant simply transfer the money straight into their account. They cant order something with the persons details and have it sent to their house. So how do they do it? --178.208.199.18 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda get the impression that a lot of those Nigerian prince scams are part of the process of clearing that stuff up, get someone else to cash the checks. Bank accounts in the Cayman islands for shell corporations run by shell corporations run by dummy corporations is another means of covering their tracks. Alternately, sell the bank info to people who don't realize you have to cover your tracks. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See money mule for people who fall for the prince thing. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See money laundering. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the scam... It's also possible to get a blank ATM card and imprint it with the target's banking details. Go to a local ATM. Not worry about the couple of dollars that a third party bank will charge for an ATM transaction. And withdraw any money left in the account after those fees. Dismas|^(talk) 00:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We think of the financial system as being full of things to prevent this sort of fraud, but it's only true up to a point. One anecdote: a few years ago, someone used a check to buy food and electronics from CostCo. They had my checking account number printed on the bottom of the check. They didn't have the same name as me, they didn't fake any signature of mine. Just the correct account and routing number. Who knows where they got those from — maybe they just picked the account number at random? And you know what? My bank happily gave them the entire contents of my account. I had to call the bank, file all sorts of paperwork, and the bank eventually refunded me the stolen money after concluding that it would be indeed strange for me to be bankrupting myself at a CostCo on the other side of the country from where I lived. Good on them. Did they catch the guy? I really doubt it — all they had to go on was a bad check (with probably a fake name on it), and maybe security camera footage. That's how porous the financial system can be, for all of the apparent security checks that exist. Maybe at some point down the line the guy will do it once too many times and get caught. But I doubt anyone is spending a lot of time on it.

A few years ago there was a description in a New York Times magazine article of how one particular hacker used ATM cards and stolen PINS — it's the same as what Dismas describes. Show up to the ATM machines just before midnight, "cash out" with the daily withdraw limit, then wait until after midnight, do it again. Then get scarce. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond what the above answers have mentioned, it's not uncommon those getting the money don't live in the country they money is coming from, making getting it back or pursuing them difficult even if they did just transfer it directly in to their accounts. Of course transferring money via an international transfer directly to some random Russian bank account is likely to raise red flags if it's even possible, so they will likely transfer them to some other local bank account before they (start to) transfer to their bank account. These may include using innocent third parties, I know of someone offered a job via a student job website which was supposed to be helping a foreigner with their business by accepting money for them, but they realised something was fishy and as it turned out, it was phisers trying to get them to accept money fron hacked bank accounts and transfer it onwards. (This was a while back, 2004, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's still one method of getting the money out although possibly systems are in place to make it less effective.) Edit: See Finlay McWalter already linked to our article on this. Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SINGER JANE MORGAN

I am trying to reach the subject for 2 reasons:

First, she sang "In Jerusalem," in English, but I can't find it on the Internet.

Second, she performed with my father, some years ago, in the Catskills, and I wanted to determine whether she recalled meeting him.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.188.220 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on Jane Morgan gives some information on where she currently lives, which might help you track her down. Perhaps if you wrote to a local newspaper in Kennebunkport, Maine, where according to the article she owns a farm, they might be able to help. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is mis-labeled Great Value "wheat" bread sold by WalMart?

In all other breads sold in large grocery stores, either labeled as "Whole Weat" or simply "Wheat" bread, the consistancy and "texture" is sharply different from "white" bread -- in all stores. However, one slice from a Walmart's "Wheat Bread" loaf, gives the identically same experience as a slice of Walmart's white bread. The color is artifically added, one could presume, because years of expperience with artificial coloring mixed into white dough would produce exactly the same shade as Walmart's "Wheat Bread," and this should be just as evident to any experienced shopper as it is to any scientifically trained inspector. Two possibilities are evident -- that the Arkansas headquarters of WalMart is totally unaware that one or more of the bakeries is "shaving" costs on the production end, or possibly, that someone on the delivery section is siphoning money, convinced he or she is getting away with fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.28.254 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper products, especially "store brands", are known to be of inferior quality. There's also a big controversy over the labeling of breads, such as "wheat" bread, and many brands, not just the Walmart Store brand, are known for being basically what you describe: white bread with a bit of flavoring and coloring, and are not nutritionally distinct. Most sources recommend, if you want something nutritionally better than white bread, that you seek out the more expensive "whole grain" breads, labeling laws usually require that breads labeled things like "100% whole grain" need to be that. A google search should turn up a wealth of information about breads, and can confirm what I have said here. --Jayron32 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or read the label. Is the number of grams of fiber higher than the rest ? In the first ingredient actually while wheat ? What other nasties have they added ? StuRat (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your bread sounds like an instance of angel dusting. I suspect that it did contain a very small portion of whole wheat, with the rest being white flour. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White flour ... daily double. It's made from ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's wheat with all the healthy parts removed, something like corn syrup being corn with all the healthy bits taken out. StuRat (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ingredient list is available online. It does show whole wheat flour, but not very much -- less than the quantity of yeast, which would typically be a tablespoon or so for a loaf. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it also contains wheat bran, so, combined with whole wheat, they may total more than the yeast. But, in any case, it's a rather small percentage, I agree. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is wheat bread. It's not potato bread, it's not rye bread, it's wheat bread. Your "White bread" is also wheat bread, and could probably be sold as such. "Whole Wheat" does have a legally-defined meaning with regards to foods, but the Walmart "wheat bread" probably doesn't call itself "whole wheat". Buddy431 (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but idiomatically "wheat bread" in the U.S. refers solely to a light brown bread. Quality and ingredients differ greatly, but in the U.S. wheat bread unambiguously and always refers to a different product than white bread does, even if they are both technically made of wheat flour. Arguing that this shouldn't be so is a silly thing since it is the way it is. You aren't going to undo something like that with logic and reason. Wheat bread is light brown and slightly nuttier in flavor than white bread. Those are just the products as the customers expect them. --Jayron32 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rule/pattern?

At this test, whose questions are all progressive matrices, If you get 5 or less right (or do 5 or less and then submit, for that matter), your score is 79, but if you get 6 right, your score jumps to 81. So I do 5 of the first easy ones and try each of the options for the very last one to see when my score jumps to 81 because I'm curious which of the options for problem #39 is the right answer. The answer for #39 is apparently 'B'. Why? What is the rule/pattern for that one? Peter Michner (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging. The only help I can provide is that if you number them from 1 to 9 (top-to-bottom, left-to-right) then #3 rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise = #4, and #6 likewise = #7. The Masked Booby (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I retrieve my "astonishingly high" test score from a 1962 U.S. Military Induction center?

In the Spring of 1962, I attempted to volunteer for the Army, because I was classified 1A, and could not enroll in college, get any kind of loan, rent a decent apartment, or apply for a decent job, due to the Viet Nam War. Seated in my undershorts with over 300 other draftees (I changed my mind about volunteering because I was promised "anywhere" in the world where I wanted to go, to avoid combat), my name was yelled and an officer in a medical coat told me to "Get on that scale." Every eye in the ;place saw my "Thank you Jesus" expression when he said "Go home, we don't need anybody your size." I only weighed 115pounds. Now, I want to use that test score to apply for membership in MENSA. That was before computers. Are those records lost, or is it possibly a military archives is somewhere in the Midwest? I was born in Detroit, Michigan, but that test was in a huge building in Chicago's Loop, on Canal Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.28.254 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The American Mensa Qualifying Score FAQ gives details of where to get old military test records, see here. It might be easier to just take another test, though. See here for details of how to take their standard admission test. I do wonder if not thinking to check the FAQ shouldn't disqualify you, though! --Tango (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For information on how a person can obtain his or her US military service record from the National Archives, see here. I don't know whether records of people who are declined for induction are included—I suspect not—but they are the people whom you would ask. (I agree that it would probably be easier to take a new MENSA test than to pursue this avenue, however.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, getting into the Mensa isn't that difficult. There are many tests that will get you into it, just pick one you feel comfortable with and train to perform well in it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is truly wise—he who is granted a Mensa membership card, or he who figured out that he could charge $63 per year to sell Mensa membership cards? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about taking a new MENSA test? Last I heard, a person has exactly one chance to gain membership. If they fail the test, they can never reapply. Have the rules changed? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there appears to be a fee to join, once you've passed the test, it makes good economic sense to allow retries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Mensa International#Membership requirement: "In some national groups, a person may take a Mensa offered test only once, although one may later submit an application with results from a different qualifying test."Clarityfiend (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP hasn't taken a Mensa test before. He took an army induction test, which Mensa (probably, depending on exactly what test it was) accept as a qualifying test. Mensa don't have a rule that you aren't allowed to take the Mensa test if you have ever taken an IQ test or similar before at any time in your life for any purpose. That would be a pretty ridiculous rule. --Tango (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was just responding to New York Brad's comment. I only asked because back in about 1975 I thought I was interested in getting into Mensa and sat their test. I was told I scored very highly, but not quite highly enough. I was also told that that was my one and only chance of ever getting in, I would never be permitted to sit the test again, and the door was now permanently shut. It was as black and white as that. There was no mention of my being able to use any other qualifying tests. Irony is that now I couldn't care less about Mensa membership. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TenOfAllTrades sums up my position well. The founder of Mensa is the smart guy, those who join for the doubtful benefit of being able to boast of their membership (there are few others) are the fools.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's why most people join Mensa. I think the main reason is social, it is particular useful if they want a bit of intelligent company and they'd only meet Beavis and Butt-head clones otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so, in my case. I joined when I was about 18, to meet people I wanted to talk to. Once I went to University, there were plenty of these, and I let my Mensa membership lapse. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, how many of the Mensanese population are actually in positions of power, vs. those who are perhaps "too smart for their own good." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, no List of Mensans on Wikipedia? Ha, I knew it'd be a blue link. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

Carpathia

Hi, does anyone know if there is, or ever was, a region called Carpathia, presumably somewhere in or near to modern Romania, from which the adjective Carpathian derives? It seems "obvious" that there should be, but I can't seem to find any actual reference to it anywhere. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Carpathian. See Carpathian mountains, Sub-Carpathian Rus, Carpatho-Rusyn. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I have already been through all that stuff and more, and none mention a place/region that is actually called Carpathia. I also cannot find it on any map, nor any mention of it anywhere in Google search, which I find surprising. Lots of adjectival uses but no plain Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop press: I have just found http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uiHtJ9e1p6wC&pg=PA54&dq=carpathia , which refers to an old principality, though this seems to be a novel so I do not know if it is meant to be historically correct. This is the only mention I have found anywhere of a place simply called Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such place as Belgreb, as mentioned in the book, so far as I can tell. There is a small town named Berehove. Mukachevo and Uzhhorod are the largest cities in Sub-Carpathian Rus. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Carpathian Ruthenia. I think the answer is that it was a fictional nation, but only a roughly defined region overlapping several nations, in the real world, similar to The Levant. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked to that, StuRat. It was part of Czechoslovakia after WWI, briefly independent, then annexed by Ukraine after WWII. It is about as fictional as Transylvania. The IP seems to want to see a map with the English word Carpathia on it and nothing else. That's easily enough done with a google image search. Might as well look for a place officially called "Alp" or "Czech" or "Soviet Georgia". μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the maps you have found that show a place or region called Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Carpathia is the mountains; thus it is the dark green areas on this map. Other regions like Subcarpathia and Transcarpathia and Carpathian Ruthenia are named in relation to the mountains. I don't believe there ever was a polity or state or country or principality or whatever named Carpathia. It refers to a geographic region. The best U.S. equivalent would be Appalachia; there has never been a state or polity named Appalachia, but it is still a region. --Jayron32 02:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: the Carpathian mountains derive their name from the Carpi, so "Carpathia" could mean "the land of the Carpi", but I don't know if there was ever a formal state. I don't know that the Carpi people ever reached the level of state organization, or if they had a defined land with recognized boundaries. The Carpathian Mountains could just mean "the mountains near with the Carpi lived". Still, I think understanding the term "Carpathia" like the U.S. term "Appalachia" may capture it best. --Jayron32 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the mountains was originally the Carpathian alps, the alps that were in Carpathia. The land is not named for the mountains. The name is an ancient, and mostly geographical one. The analogy with Appalachia is a good one. But if you want a recent political entity, you have to look at Karpatalya. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section from ~~StuRat's~~ Jayron's link is very interesting: Carpi_(people)#Name_etymology. I should clarify something. I wouldn't call myself Carpathian ethnically, but Ruthenian. It is common for us to refer to ourselves as Russian, but to distinguish ourselves from Great Russians or "Moskow" Russians as Carpathians, especially to Russians and Ukranians. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Carpatho-Ukraine? It declared itself independent but the very same day it was invaded by Hungary. I doubt it was ever accepted anywhere as an independent nation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the Abkhazians. The point is, if you were going to point to a place you would call Carpathia, province or whatever, as a political entity, that would be it. Obviously it is a very contentious subject, with the official Ukrainian position being something like that of Iraq calling Kuwait "Province 19". μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ IP 86 above, I simply googled "carpathia map" for images. One of the results was ~~StuRat's~~ Jayron's map shown here, but it should be noted that this is a user creation at wikipedia, not an academic creation, and that the area labeled Carpathia is simply land over a certain elevation in that area. It doesn't correspond to any historical entity. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of minor concern, I added the map, not StuRat. --Jayron32 17:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "carpathia map" or "map of carpathia" was one of the first things I tried, but I could not find any maps that actually showed the name "Carpathia", except for one fictional one from a game I believe. I am not in any doubt about where the Carpathian Mountains are situated. Anyway, thanks for all the replies. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

planting cuttings- fresh or later?

Cutting (plant) says nothing about this. A friend who is experienced in gardening says it is better to plant cuttings a few days after so that the cut is healed and the cutting less susceptible to rot. Any idea? --Thirdmaneye (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend is not wrong, but many 'experts' also advise planting the cuttings immediately after severance from the parent plant. The difficulty with waiting a few days to allow the cut end to 'heal' is the high risk of the cutting wilting, especially if it is not a succulent. It is of course easy to place the cutting in a plastic bag to prevent this but that increases the risk of fungal growth. I am interested to know how your friend prevents the cuttings from wilting. I have read that some plants, cacti, epiphyllums, ficus and pelargoniums for example do make roots more certainly if the ends are allowed to dry before insertion into soil. I have taken many hundreds of cuttings and have never allowed the end of the cuttings to dry and have achieved probably 80% success rate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such does not contain 'how to' instructions but WikiHow does have information on taking plant cuttings. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I grow them hydroponically (in just water with nutrients added) until I see some nice roots, then I plant them. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tax lists

Is it possible to get a list of all taxes and fees paid by average employed citizens within a particular state?174.20.230.202 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this passport text awkwardly worded?

I know passport language can be more formal and unrecognizable from the language I'm used to so I'm not certain if the following sentence from a passport is gramatically incorrect or just of another sytle. What's everyone else's opinion?

"Please insert below particulars of two person who may be contacted in the event of accident." CORRECTION: "Please insert below particulars of two persons who may be contacted in the event of accident." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldegroup (talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bldegroup (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "persons" and probably "an accident", check again. Other than that, yeah, it's correct. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not insert 'an'. —Tamfang (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change "persons" to "people", although "persons" is valid, just less common. I'd also make it "the particulars" and "an accident", but I speak US English, which adds more articles than UK English. I'd also change "particulars of" to "particulars for". The placement of the "below" is a bit awkward, too. So, I'd write it as: "Please insert the particulars below for two people who may be contacted in the event of an accident." Also, "emergency" might be a better term than "accident", as presumably they would contact those people for emergencies beyond accidents, as well. StuRat (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it much, much worse. "Particulars for" is not English, whether US or UK. (BTW we are talking about the wording on the British passport.) --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? I get 719,000 Google hits. StuRat (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got 8,860,000 for "Particulars of", but on delving deeper I find that 'for' gets 877 distinct hits while 'of' gets only 806 (but that's google search for you), so I would say either is fine. Mikenorton (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I get 81,300,000 hits for "me and you are." There are several variations: "me and you are meant to be", "me and you are warriors" and so on. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text in my UK passport (issued 3 years ago) says "The holder should insert below particulars of two relatives or friends who may be contacted in the event of accident:", which avoids using 'person'. It looks fine to me, if a little terse. Mikenorton (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But should the list really be restricted to relatives or friends ? Say you move to a new city for a job, and don't have any friends or relatives there, couldn't you list your boss, who you would want to have notified if you can't come in to work ? StuRat (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the primary reason for the In case of emergency list in a passport would be so that family or friends could be notified that the person has been seriously injured or died or whatever probably when travelling (which is when people normally have their passports with them) since it's the sort of thing such people generally like to be informed about often even if they're now living in different cities, and they may also want to try and help the person. It's not normally considered that important to notify your boss that you can't show up for work in such cases, particularly since if you're travelling you may not be expected at work anyway. Of course if your boss is really one of the two most important people you can think of adding to such a list (and you aren't close to your boss) no one is going to stop you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words "persons" and "people" are not perfect synonyms. They are both plurals of "person", but usually "persons" implies more specificity than "people" does. It isn't a perfect fit, but usually "people" is a mass noun where "persons", if it is used, is usually used where a traditional plural would be. Thus, you would never refer to the "British persons", to mean the British people. You can sometimes use "people" in places where you would use "persons", for example you could say "I need two persons to volunteer." and "I need two people to volunteer", and those both sound equally natural to me. However, the environment of the word can tend to favor the usage of "persons" over "people", for example in the phrase "person or persons unknown", which sounds much more natural than "person or people unknown". In the OPs original example, persons is a perfectely acceptable word to use. People may also be acceptable, though some dialects of English may prefer "persons" if they treat that as the Count noun and treat "people" as a mass noun. --Jayron32 14:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my dialect, "persons" sounds strange, old-fashioned, and/or formal. I see "people" gets 24 times as many Google hits as "persons", so I suspect it's not just me. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Please provide contact information for two individuals to be contacted in case of accident."

There is no need for the word "below" if the above wording occurs within an enclosed box with obvious space left for the information it requests. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to humans as "individuals" is very off, unless you're making some distinction between them and groups, which is not the case here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book was better than the movie or: why listening to Debussy is like watching a movie

Everyone knows that the book is always better than the movie, yet nobody can quite explain it. Is the book engaging a part of our brain that the film adaptation ignores? What's going on here? And if we can imagine entire worlds out of language on a page, why can't we also see pictures from musical notes on a score? Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that books are always better. They tend to be far more detailed, just because it's not possible to put an entire book on film, unless it was several days long. But more detail isn't always a good thing. For example, Moby Dick tends to be a very dry read, with large swathes devoted to the history of whaling, etc., while the movie limits itself largely to the few action scenes in the book, making it more entertaining. StuRat (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not agree, but that is the consensus. Exceptions like Moby Dick aside. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is the consensus, based on the large number of people who see movies but don't read the book on which it was based. I suspect that many people just say they prefer the book to sound more literate. StuRat (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really unlikely explanation. It follows that when someone likes a book more than the movie, they usually explain why. For me, it's because I'm the one envisioning the characters, the scenes, the entire story, in my head. With a film, the director is putting those visuals in your head instead. The human mind is designed to think as little as possible (formation of habits, etc.) and reading forces it to actively create the story whereas watching a film is a passive process that requires one to merely be receptive. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of taste are purely subjective and defy objective definitions. If people say they like a movie better than a book, they do, and they aren't wrong about their own tastes. You can't say that people should like a book better based on your own preconceived notions of how quality should be judged. Once you're predefined people who prefer films to books as uneducated cretins (or whatever more diplomatic language you've chosen to say essentially the same thing) you can't then go and establish a set of ex-post-facto criteria to justify that assessment. People like what they like, and it doesn't make them less in any way because they like a movie better than a book. StuRat has given some excellent reasons as to why a person may find a movie better than a book, and those reasons are not invalid merely because you've decided that books are always better than movies. They aren't for some people, and those people aren't wrong in their preferences because preferences are arbitrary and personal, and aren't subject to measures of correctness and wrongness. You have your criteria, they have theirs, and neither is correct or incorrect. --Jayron32 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are talking to, but it surely isn't me. The statement that "people just say they prefer the book to sound more literate" is just ridiculous. There are significant reasons reader prefer books, and these reasons have been published in various articles. None of them say anything about "sounding more literate". Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that when some people prefer X to Y, they describe that as "X is better than Y". If they thought about it for one second, they'd realise their "better" ought to come with various qualifications. But they don't think. And then they get into debates and slanging matches about whether the movie or the film was better, when there will never be a right or wrong answer to that. If they said what actually was the case, namely, "I preferred the film to the book", and not "The film was better than the book", it would save a lot of time and trouble. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word. --Jayron32 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Slanging matches" ? Is that an Aussie-ism ? StuRat (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NSFW but you asked... --Jayron32 23:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(cough) Try this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yours may be true, but mine was more fun. --Jayron32 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People who like that sort of thing will no doubt find it's the sort of thing they like. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd say you can see pictures from musical notes, although people who don't read music would need to hear them played. It also helps if somebody explains which instruments represent what, as in Peter and the Wolf. StuRat (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about different things when I say "pictures". For example, a visual depiction of the ocean as seen in La mer. If one concentrates, one can actually picture the ocean while listening to it, much as one can envision the ocean while reading about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a double translation involved, first in converting written notes to sounds, then in interpreting those sounds as visuals. Probably just too far to go for most people. StuRat (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor. Listen to La mer and then reply. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know La mer well. As with all abstract music, we hear what we want to hear, except to the degree that we're pre-conditioned by the title, or by what, if anything, the composer has said about the piece. Had Debussy called it "Symphonic Rhapsody No. 1", I wonder if most people would be hearing anything to do with the sea at all. Conversely, everyone has different mental images when they hear Beethoven's 5th Symphony, but if he'd called it "The Siege of Vienna", everyone would be swearing blind they can hear cannons, the clash of swords, the groans of the wounded and dying and so on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and I think this piece is different. In the Wikipedia article, it says that Debussy used a unique approach, employing a "musical onomatopoeia" to evoke the ocean. This is exactly what I'm talking about; I'm proposing that without knowing the composer or the name of the piece it is possible for a musical passage to evoke an image, just like a word. It appears possible to communicate visual images through music in the same way that reading a book can leave an image of the story in the mind. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is impossible for music to reliably convey images except in the broadest and most general of senses, such as "tranquil", "violent/chaotic", etc. As has been mentioned, people are overwhelmingly influenced by the title of the piece. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music attempts to convey images all the time, from the landscape and temporal quality of Grieg's Morning Mood to the sounds and experience of Spanish palatial gardens in Concierto de Aranjuez and to the Fountains of Rome, to the seasons of the year by Vivaldi. Listening to these pieces is no different than the process of reading a book, and creating an image of the piece in the mind, regardless of the title. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you mentioned Morning Mood. We all think of Norwegian fjords, misty mornings, fog with a bit of sun breaking through, maybe a swallow or two circling around, yada yada. Lovely. Was this the image that Grieg wanted us to have? Decidedly not! It comes at point in Peer Gynt's story where he's in the Sahara Desert, of all places. We have the cool nordic mental associations because that's what we've been told to think by marketers of LPs and CDs, not because the music itself causes us to think of such things. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Tthere is a general agreement that there is a landscape and music can convey such ideas. This has been demonstrated experimentally. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) A particularly stunning bit of program music, I've always thought, is the thunderstorm in Strauss's An Alpine Symphony. It's impossible for me to say how obvious it is depicting a thunderstorm since I knew it was called that before I ever heard it. It would not be hard to conduct a little experiment, since most people probably don't know the piece. Find someone who has never even heard of An Alpine Symphony and play the thunderstorm part and see what they think... Anyway, I don't think anyone mentioned the page program music, which is about this kind of thing. I'm trying to think of an example that doesn't give away in it's title what it is supposed to be about. But even pieces like Strauss's Metamorphosen, which gives very little clue what it is about are often very quickly associated with specific imagery—in this case the destruction of Munich in World War 2, whether or not Strauss meant it to evoke that (I think he was aiming at something more complex and multifaceted than just that, at least). So even music that does not tell you what it is supposed to evoke often has acquired popular opinions that influence listeners. Pfly (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of territory has been explored previously on the ref desks. One such was in the context of a question I myself asked: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 April 23#Mental images of unseen people. It’s worth reading to the end. I produced a fairly stunning example of a performer knowing exactly what the composer was depicting, and not just in vague general terms but a specific notable landscape painted by a specific artist. So, yes, this sort of thing is possible. However, that example was very much an exception to the general case that music and visual imagery, while not unconnected, are not connected in a way that matches a particular set of sounds to a particular image. If I were to play La Marseillaise right now, what would people think about? Something French, no doubt – but what specifically? The Eiffel tower? The tricolor? The Arc de Triomphe? The storming of the Bastille? Cheese? Champagne? The Can-Can? The guillotine? Casablanca? The 1812 Overture? Napoleon? Louis Pasteur? The Burgers of Calais? The Mona Lisa? Condoms? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me join in questioning the premise. While I think that the book usually is better than the movie, there are clear exceptions. For example, most people think that The Princess Bride (film) is better than the original novel (although the novel is also quite good). The film The Graduate makes many greatest films lists, while The Graduate (novel) is not particularly well-remembered. Vertigo (film) recently topped a greatest films list, while The Living and the Dead (1954 novel) has topped no lists. There are many cases where it is not obvious whether the book or the movie is better. Both the book and the movie versions of Gone with the Wind and The Godfather, for example, have their adherents. And, of course, it's a rare case where a novelization is thought to be better than the original movie.

That said, the conventional wisdom is that books usually are better because they more directly engage the reader's imagination. Alternatively, it may be argued that a book represents the integrated creative force of a single author, while movies necessarily are created by many people working together, with the attendant disadvantages of creativity by committee. John M Baker (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for the best answer I've received so far. I agree. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws is another where many would agree the film is better than the book. However, I think StuRat has it partly right. A novel can contain a lot more information than a film, and adapting it as a film means cutting quite a lot of that out. Someone who enjoyed the novel may find that a lot of what they enjoyed is missing from the film and be disappointed by that. But another thing people tend to miss is the importance of form. A big part of a good novel is not just the ideas, characters or plot, but how the writer has used the form of prose to express them. No matter how faithfully you translate the ideas, characters and plot into another medium, something vital about the original - the way the author expresses himself in words - can't help but be lost.

I would also agree that music is abstract and conveys no actual meaning without words. Debussy cannot invoke the sea in music without using words - the title - to associate his abstract music with the sea. The mind then fills in its own associations of the sea. But the instrumental music carries no information itself. Someone who did not know the title would not imagine images of the sea - and neither would someone who had never experienced the sea. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to think about what you are saying, as it makes no sense. Words convey meaning because we have already agreed what they mean. But one word can mean many different things depending on the context. Likewise, music can convey meaning because certain sounds mimic or resemble the natural environment, an aural landscape that most people are familiar with and can agree upon. That is the informational content of the music. Someone who did not know the tittle might very well imagine the sounds and experience of the ocean, which is what happened to me the first time I heard it many decades ago without knowing the piece or being prompted by the title. Music can and does convey concrete information provided the listener is able to understand it. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question. I can't help it if you don't like the answers you get. Please leave off the abuse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with what I like and I'm not seeing any abuse. You said that music "conveys no actual meaning without words", which is an extraordinary statement. I have to ask, have you ever listened to music before? It's OK to answer no. There is relevant research that is at odds with your opinion. Samples: "Single sounds can activate representations of meaningful concepts in a similar fashion to chords and musical excerpts...the distribution and time window of the N400 effect found in this experiment is comparable to that in other domains such as environmental sounds or language."[9] "Recent studies have shown that music is capable of conveying semantically meaningful concepts...individual aspects of the acoustic input are all capable of signaling affective meaning...It is likely that the mechanism underlying this process is the basic ability to perceive emotional signals in one's auditory environment via the processing of several acoustic signals. These signals are rapidly interpreted in terms of their emotional expression, which are then linked to associated affective concepts...the information is capable of interfering with other types of affective information which in the case of verbal input, is coded in the meaning of the word....the experiments...suggests that individual musical features communicate signals which are procesed as affectively meaningful...These data provide the first evidence that several individual features of the musuical input are capable of communicating meaning..."[10] Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The movie adaptation of Grisham's The Firm (novel) is far better than his book. The movie has a clever ending, the book falls apart at the end. The difference is usually unity of purpose and artistic integrity. The usual motivation in filming a book is the profit to be made from a pre-existing audience. Artistic vision usually has littel to do with it. Peter Jackson's butchery of The Lord of the Rings shows you what happens when a hack puts his stamp on things better not messed with, like "Dwarf Tossing" that destroy the viewer's suspension of disbelief. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The motive you give is only one reason. Many, many movies hae been made from extremely obscure books. Usually a producer (or director) sees something in the book that he thinks will translate into a successful movie; examples include Dr. Strangelove and The Secret of NIMH. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am no cynic, just a realist. I did not say the profit motive is the only one. I highly recommend Bambi vs Godzilla, by David Mamet, which I am in the midst of reading for the first time right now. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you see is what you get in a film. But in a book you provide the specific details. A good writer takes you down the path most likely to allow for associations that will be especially powerful. This power is made manifest in the sights and sounds of a well-made film. There is an appeal in each art form. But the film is closer to reality. This can be a limiting quality if in the hands of a good writer abstract language can trigger more powerful associations than the technology of film is able to produce. Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Koelsch et al. conclude that [in some examples] music conveys semantic meaning in the same manner as words."[11] Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more the case that a derivative work is generally not as popular as the original? When a film is based on a well-known novel, many people already have an attachment to the novel and are likely to see any deviations from the novel as flaws, and since the storyline is not original, the film isn't so likely to receive critical praise. Novelizations of films are also generally not as popular as the films they are based on. An obvious counterexample is 2001: A Space Odyssey - the novel and the film were produced simultaneously, and both tend to be regarded as classics. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather interestingly, Clarke himself preferred the film to the novel. In notes he made on writing 2010, he specifically chose to make 2010 as a sequel to the film rather than the novel because some of the "happy accidents" that went into making the film he preferred over what he wrote in the novel; a major plot point difference between the two is that in the Novel, the Discovery is bound for Saturn, and in the film it is bound for Jupiter. The choice, IIRC, was made for stylistic reasons, I think Clarke mentioned that the special effects crew had an easier time creating realistic backgrounds for the Jupiter destination. Clarke, in writing the sequel, took these changes to his novel in stride, and ended up preferring the film's Jupiter setting better; it becomes a vital plot point given what happens on Europa during 2010. So you have a case where the author himself preffered the film version, and used that (rather than the novel) as the canonical version for future sequels. --Jayron32 14:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the operative vernacular is "different strokes for different folks" chaps. Take any creative endeavour that's realised in more than one medium and some people will prefer one interpretation, others another and still more will like all of them equally. Lord of the Rings is a good example. Both the book and film series are very good, but things that work on paper don't necessarily translate very well onto celluloid and vice versa. There's also the issue of the vast difference in time they were written/filmed. The books were written fifty to sixty years before the films were made and published forty five years before - a huge time difference in cultural terms. Many things in the books would feel very jarring to a modern audience if slavishly copied for the film. Tom Bombadil would seem incredibly twee by modern sensibilities, Sam seeming incredibly servile and class concious and a lot of very talky exposition, poetry and song that work well in the book but would be tedious on screen. Not to mention it would end up being much longer!. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Bombadil and cutting in general makes perfect sense for movie adaptations; much of the movie was very faithful and well done. My main problem was the washed out colors. Substituting Arwen on the ride to the ford made perfect sense. That so much attention was paid to faithfulness made stupid touches like dwarf tossing and the added nonsense with Aragorn being dragged by the hyaena-warg all that much the worse. Those touches in no way improved the movie. That has nothing to do with "different strokes." No person would have left the theater saying I really would have loved the films much more if they had included a Dwarf tossing joke. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of hat needed

Hello,

how do you call this type of hat:

Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An astrakhan hat [12], also known as Karakul (hat) --Xuxl (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edhi Van

What is name of the van used by Edhi foundation in Pakistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.47 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Edhi Foundation website states that the original 'Poor Patient Ambulance' was a second hand Hillman pickup. A Google image search on 'Edhi Ambulance' shows me that the current fleet mainly consists of Suzuki Carry and something that looks like a Daihatsu Fourtrak. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of Manusmriti

Where do we find the most accurate interpretation of the Manusmriti? Has Dr.BR Ambedkar interpreted it correctly in his Riddles in Hinduism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.26.202 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of Manusmṛti before now, and I've had only a very cursory look at the page. When it comes to interpretation of these old texts (or new texts, for that matter), who can say that any one interpretation is better or worse than any other? What would "accurate" mean here? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

Notable People With Large #s of Children All With One Gender

Mitt Romney has five sons and no daughters. Are there any notable/famous people who can beat Romney's record for sons or the inverse of Romney's record (5 daughters, no sons)? The reason that I'm asking is that the odds of having 5 consecutive kids of one gender are 1 in 32, or about 3%. It's even less than that for 6 or more consecutive kids of one gender. Futurist110 (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not famous, but my grandmother's sister had 9 boys and no girls. I can confirm that such events have happened in human history. --Jayron32 06:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that the random variables giving the sex of each child are independent identically distributed random variables, and also that each sex has the same probability. Most likely neither of those assumptions is correct. First, boys are generally slightly more likely than girls. But in any case, the father may have a different ratio of androsperm to gynosperm than the general average, or the mother may favor one or the other (supposedly this is influenced by the acidity/alkalinity of her internal environment). So the sex of the first child is going to give you a Bayesian update of the probability of each sex for the second child, and so on. --Trovatore (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much more to the point, until comparatively recently having 9 children was reasonably common, and 1 in 512 is quite a high probability when compared to the average national population. Straightontillmorning (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the assumption of i.i.d. births is pretty good (the main deviation is due to identical twins). --Tango (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have expressed myself very precisely. I'm not really talking about the effect of having a boy/girl on the sex of later children, or of it being easier to have a daughter as the second child than the first child, or that sort of thing. I'm suggesting that each couple has an unknown probability of having a boy, and that even assuming that the births are i.i.d. given that unknown parameter, having all babies the same sex might be more likely than you would calculate if the parameter were the same for all couples. Do you know whether that question has been studied? --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to take into account that various methods of sex selection are common in some places - in parts of China, the male-to-female ratio of newborns is as high as 1.3. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is 1/16, not 1/32. There is a 1/32 chance of having 5 boys and a 1/32 chance of having 5 girls, and 1/32+1/32=2/32=1/16. --Tango (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mother is the youngest of 5 daughters, and there were no brothers. My Dad also had a sister but no brothers. Consequently, all my aunts, uncles and cousins have surnames different from mine. Their loss. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question, Sidney Poitier (6 daughters, no sons) would trump Mitt Romney's score. - Ka renjc 11:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Is there anyone notable with a higher "score" than Poitier or with a higher son "score" than Romney? Futurist110 (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anyone, although Donny Osmond (5 sons, no daughters) is neck-and-neck with Romney. - Ka renjc 09:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's notable by Wikipedia standards and has an article, so ... Ede Staal fathered six sons. - Ka renjc 12:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a little searching, I've found:
- Carelton Delbridge had eight daughters and a zoo full of other animals.
- Charles Douglas, 6th Marquess of Queensberry had eight daughters, which meant his barony became extinct.
- Frederick Louis, Count of Nassau-Ottweiler had the same situation, so his cousin inherited his land.
- Sir Julian Goldsmid, 3rd Baronet; what's with these nobles having eight daughters?
- John Richard Partelow had eight daughters, but happily practiced his politics in Canada.
- Gene Dalton had eight daughters, and probably ran in the same circles as Romney: he was a Mormon and a Harvard Business School professor.

--M @r ē ino 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Goebbels. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Goebbels had five daughters and one son. Ka renjc 18:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apple has over 10 billion dollars in cash

Where does all that money sit?

210.82.30.69 (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they have numerous bank accounts. The details of which I'm equally sure you or I will never be privy to. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually short-term holdings, see Cash and cash equivalents Royor (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not in Steve Jobs' wallet. That only had $1 in it. Dismas|^(talk) 06:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He obviously plays the wallet game Two envelopes problem#History of the paradox. Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent financial statements are here [13]. Cash and cash equivalents at year end were $9,815m (page 44). Note 2 on page 55 gives a breakdown. --Viennese Waltz 08:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information provided by Viennese Waltz: Apple at September 24, 2011, had about $2.9 billion in "cash." That probably means mostly demand deposit accounts (accounts providing immediate access to cash, such as checking accounts) at a large bank with which Apple has its primary banking relationship, plus a variety of other banks at locations around the world where Apple may need local banks. Apple also had about $0.7 billion in certificates of deposit and time deposits, about $1.9 billion in money market funds, about $2.2 billion in commercial paper, and about $2.0 billion in other short-term securities. John M Baker (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Salvardori, English racing driver.

Who was Roy Salvadori's first wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.117.49 (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How sure are you that he had a wife before he married Sue Hindmarsh? This article claims they lived together in Monaco since the late 1960s. I've checked his obituaries and articles in the specialist press and can only find reference to Sue. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trick q? Sue Hindmarsh was his first, last and only wife. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's Roy Salvadori in respect to the great man let's have his name right. Richard Avery (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec

In your article about Quebec it states that the official language is french. Although this may be accurate from a provincial perspective, Quebec is still a part of Canada and as such has English as an official language in the NATIONAL sense ! Is there any way to correct this, as last time I looked Quebec is still part of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.210.162.182 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec#Language gives details about the status of French and English and includes an offical reference [14] which says "French is the official language of Québec." If you refer to the infobox at the top right of the article then infoboxes give limited details but you can make suggestions at Talk:Quebec. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is a federal country, like the United States and Australia, and as such, the subdivisions (provinces in Canada) have a form of limited sovereignty that, constitutionally, cannot be superceded by the Federal government. In other words, Canadian Federal Law does not automatically supercede provincial law. The official languages of Canada are both English and French, while the official language of Quebec is solely French; this is not contradictory because Quebec has its own form of sovereignty and is free to declare its own official languages that it uses, for example, on official documentation and is not necessarily bound by the laws that govern what the Canadian Federal government does. See Canadian federalism. It is worth noting that education is the sole jurisdiction of the Provinces, thus, per se, Quebec can decide not to make English education mandatory in its public schools even if it is an official language in Canada (in practice, many Quebecois learn both French and English and are functionally bilingual). It is also worth noting that Quebec in some places in the Canadian constitution is given special consideration distinct from other provinces. --Jayron32 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeating what the above say, but basically the official languages are the ones that are guaranteed for equal use and access by the level of government that makes the declaration. Federally, that means all nationally provided services much be offered in French and in English (but not necessarily limited to them). In Quebec it means that for provincial services only French is guaranteed. Other provinces may or may not have made similar declarations. New Brunswick is the only provincial level that has French and English. AS far as I can tell, British Columbia for example hasn't declared an official language, though English is defacto the main language of government. Mingmingla (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've traveled in Quebec and will tell you that outside Montreal, there are many, many Quebecers who do not speak English beyond a few words learned in school. I was in Chicoutimi and Rimouski and found this is true even for young people. I don't know what their parents are thinking, because in my opinion, it limits what they can do as adults.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switch the languages around, and that is true for virtually everyone in the rest of Canada too. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I dial this UK number from the US?

I want to dial 01803 31xxxx from the United States. Google is telling me to maybe drop the 0 after the country code, so I dial 011 44 1803 31xxxx. However, neither 011 44 1803 31xxxx nor 011 44 01803 31xxxx get me anywhere (I get a beeping noise, possibly signifying that the number is disconnected?). What's the basic process for dialing such a number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.3.192.2 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first way you're dialling is correct. The area code locates to Torquay, btw. This page has samples of the different tones the UK's phone system can make - engaged (busy) is broken beep, out of services is a solid beep. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this site which confirms Finlay's correct. Looks a cool site to me! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

International Phonetic Alphabet

Can someone convert the word Nexus into the phonetic alphabet? I'd like to add /[invalid input: 'icon']/ to an article I'm working on. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: /'nɛksɨs/ for General American (including Canadian) and Received Pronunciation. I can imagine Northerners and Scots saying /'nɛksʊs/ μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have /'nɛksʌs/, I think, but would probably be a little less specific on the unstressed vowel and write /'nɛksəs/. --Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The /ʌ/ vowel is not used in reduced positions, only full ones like "cup". The schwa /ˈnɛksəs/ is acceptible, that's what the OED has, although I definitely use the higher reduced vowel. See Wikipedia:IPA for English for /ɨ/ as in "roses" as opposed to /ə/ in "Rosa's". μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SHACKLOCK BICYCLE

I am researching the name of "SHACKLOCK", and find listed in the Australian 'VICTORIA POLICE GAZETTE' of 14 January, 1915, on page 151, the following notice under 'STEALING OTHERWISE THAN FROM THE PERSON OR FROM DWELLINGS' -

BANBURY, JACOB, labourer, yallock, reports stolen at Koo-wee-rup, on 28th ult.,a Shacklock bicycle, No. 243, enamelled carmine redwith single yellow lines, Eadie free-wheel, 28 by 1 3/8 Oceanic tires (sic), Taylor handles. Value 11 pounds 10 shillings. - 0.11494. 12th January. 1915

I write to inquire who and where was the manufacturer of SHACKLOCK bicycles? Ian Clarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.187.90 (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shacklock appears to be a motorcycle manufacturer from Manby Street, Wolverhampton ([15]). There is a Wikipedia article about it, but it's in Dutch. It doesn't appear to give a lot of information about the company. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did bicycles really cost such large sums of money in 1915 ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They were a high tech sporting hobby that workers indulged in. Bicycles were a combination of personal transport, leisure and sporting capacity. And cycling was big time sport. Compare to contemporary US hot rodding. £11/10/- Australian in 1911 is equivalent by CPI (a poor measure) to $1,042.37. That shows more how ridiculous the RBA's CPI series is than anything else. A $1042 bicycle isn't particularly pricey in 2011, that's about a good price to pay for a heavy duty commuter. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - Cucumber Mike's link above is to a motorcycle rather than a bicycle. You would expect a motorbike to be rather more expensive than the leg-powered type. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I should say, though, that I'm not sure that the item in question was a motorcycle - it has an 'Eadie Freewheel', something that you'd really expect to be on a pedal cycle. I guess it could be some sort of Derny though. My suggestion was that it's a pedal cycle made by the Shacklock Motorcycle Co. - it seemed more likely than the other Shacklock I found, an Australian wrought-iron stove manufacturer. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were British Motorized bicycles at that time - an example is the Phelon & Rayner 1.75 hp. Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, I found Northern Territory Times and Gazette for Thursday 19 August 1915, in which is advertised the "Universal Bicycle" which was "built of B.S.A. parts" with a "two speed coaster hub" and Dunlop tyres at the price of £12 and 10 shillings. So a reasonably upmarket unmotorised bicycle would have been in that price bracket in 1915. (Also available: gelignite at 87s 6d per case!) Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cash

Does anybody know the approximate value of all the cash that's going around in the world right now? Thanks in advance! 109.99.71.97 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 286: / Line 286: @@
 Anyhow, I found [http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3273370 Northern Territory Times and Gazette for Thursday 19 August 1915], in which is advertised the "Universal Bicycle" which was "built of [[Birmingham Small Arms Company|B.S.A.]] parts" with a "two speed coaster hub" and [[Dunlop Rubber|Dunlop]] tyres at the price of £12 and 10 shillings. So a reasonably upmarket unmotorised bicycle would have been in that price bracket in 1915. (Also available: gelignite at 87s 6d per case!) [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
+== Cash ==
+Does anybody know the approximate value of all the cash that's going around in the world right now? Thanks in advance! [[Special:Contributions/109.99.71.97|109.99.71.97]] ([[User talk:109.99.71.97|talk]]) 20:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)