Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:00, 26 April 2013

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.

April 19

Miami city flag

Does anyone know why the Miami city flag looks like the Indian flag? Is it just a coincidence, or was one modelled after the other? Ryan Vesey 04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Though judging from photos of the actual flag, the seal could probably be resized [1] – Connormah (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The seal in the middle is simply the city's seal. Not sure of the origin of the color scheme; though orange and green are commonly associated with Miami (see Miami Dolphins color scheme, the original color scheme of the Florida Marlins). Miami's green is usually more teal than the green of that flag, but the two colors are well associated with Miami, which would explain their use on the flag; as to why they are striped the way they are, or why orange and green are associated with Miami at all, I don't know. --Jayron32 05:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because if they were vertical it would look like the Irish flag or the one for Cote d'Ivoire ;-) IThe Miami Beach flag has two colours [2] so looking like a beach. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps associated with the colors of the University of Miami, which apparently date back to 1926. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be an excellent Wikipedia article about flags but I cannot for the life of me find it (it had lots of flags and an explanation of the symbolism of the colours). A site I found about flag colour symbology (http://www.articleswave.com/articles/country-flag-color-meanings.html) suggests Green is often used to signify 'agriculture', white 'purity/peace/harmony' and yellow 'the sun, wealth, energy and happiness'. I'm not sure if these sorts of things have any truth behind them but certainly some legends exist around flag colours...e.g. Flag of Austria#Legend. ny156uk (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The seal of Miami City states "Incorporated 1896" so it's possible that the flag was designed at that time, but I can't find any details on the internet. The colours of the Flag of India seem to date from 1921, and the "saffron color represents courage and sacrifice; white – truth, peace and purity; green – prosperity". Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling for the wind dangerous ?

Hello Learned Ones ! I think I read somewhere that whistling on board a sail-ship is forbidden, since it calls for the wind, which often comes as a gale...Was it in Melville ? Also asking for wind orally is ominous ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I can recall to whistling for a wind is in one of Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons series - I can't remember which volume. There, there's no prohibition on whistling casually that I can recall, but some characters do deliberately whistle for a wind at some point. Given Ransome's tendency to slip in lots of sailors' lore and literary references, I don't doubt that it's an authentic custom. However, I have never heard of anyone fearing accidentally whistling up a wind; and I'm fairly sure that at least in Anglophone maritime culture there's no concept of calling for the wind by voice. Others may contradict me, however. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching I would say that it's impossible to say who or where the phrase originated and would call it folklore or urban_legend. I suppose it could have something to do with the Butterfly_effect. Other interesting maritime superstitions can be found here: http://caribbean-pirates.com/nautical_superstitions.php but they don't cite any references. I've done a bit of sailing and calling for the wind orally is not a problem. However I also worked on a small commercial fishing boat (5 crew and 22 fisherman) and one thing you don't even discuss is the wind. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legend massively predates awareness of the butterfly effect. It's much more like sympathetic magic. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, to inject a little science here: The butterfly effect means that whistling is as likely to reduce the wind strength as it is to increase it - and the original statement of the effect with respect to weather is that the flapping of the butterfly's wing changes the weather halfway around the world and many weeks later. I'd bet that this all started with someone with a really annoying whistle being told not to do it by exasperated fellow crew members! ("I know...let's tell him he has to stop so he doesn't cause a storm!"). SteveBaker (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found Royal Navy & Marine Customs and Traditions which says; "Whistling is forbidden in most ships if only for the reason that it can often be confused with the sound of the boatswain's call used for attracting attention before making a pipe. A former reason for the no-whistling rule was that it was the custom to whistle a wind when becalmed in a sailing ship; if perchance a gale ensued the assumption was that they overdid it. So sailors, being superstitious, rigidly curtailed their whistling habits. At the time of whistling for a wind it was customary to drive a knife into the mainmast on the bearing the wind was desired." Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional, within many theatres it's considered bad luck to whistle, one of the most common attributions to this is that Fly crew were historically drawn from a maritime background, being used to ropes and knots, and that specific sequences of whistles (as would have been used at sea) were used to direct movements of often heavy overhead loads, and an inadvertent whistle could trigger a major accident backstage. --RedHillian | Talk 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be unrelated to the maritime context, but see Whistle Down the Wind (film) and Whistle Down the Wind (musical). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the last four lines of chapter 2 in Swallows and Amazons, the first book of the series;

“I can’t believe we’re really going to land on it,” said Titty.

“We aren’t unless there’s wind tomorrow,” said Captain John. “We’ll have to whistle for a wind.”

Titty and Roger, by agreement, whistled one tune after another all the way home. As they came to the farm the leaves of the beech trees shivered overhead.

“You see,” said Titty, “we’ve got some wind. Wake up early, and we’ll go out and do some more whistling before breakfast.”

And of course you should remember to never whistle for the Northern Lights. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?85.211.192.200 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many myths about the dancers. In Nunavik they say that whistling will make them dance harder. The Dene say that they will come down and dance for you. Others say you will die if you whistle. Around here, Victoria Island (Canada), if you whistle they will come down, chop off your head and use it for a soccer ball. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Rolex

A daughter has recently had a couple of work related trips to China and a running joke in the family is about the fact that she didn't bring us all back one those terrific Rolex watches one can get there at bargain prices.

She has spoken of them often. They are apparently extremely common in China, and "guaranteed genuine" by the sales people. Obviously they must sell a fair few of these. Do many buyers really believe they are getting the real thing? Are the watches actually any good?

(Yes, I looked for Fake Rolex, and ended up at Counterfeit watch, but it didn't really answer these questions.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to be a bit dim to believe that a $20 watch is a real rolex, even if it says "Rolex" on the front; especially when the real thing is typically over $4,000. Any guarantee probably isn't worth the paper it is written on. I had no allusions that the one I bought in Thailand was anything other than a fake. It looked good, but mysteriously broke after a few months. Even so, if I ever return to area I'll probably get a couple more as novelty items. Astronaut (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolex should start marketing cheap "genuine fake Rolexes" as novelty items. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the Chinese would start selling fake "genuine fake Rolexes." OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was thinking the Chinese would have been the ones making the genuine fakes for Rolex. My father recently took a trip with my sister and her family to Niagara Falls from Boston, while Mom stayed home. On the way they stopped at the Corning Glass Works where my dad bought my mom a small decorative candy bowl. She noticed that stamped on the bottom it said "Made in China". μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "authentically Australian" souvenirs that travellers buy here, such as boomerangs, cuddly toy kangaroos and koalas and the like, are made in China. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's a real problem for my daughter and her colleagues. When they travel to China they naturally want to take with them as gifts for their Chinese hosts some genuine and highly representative "Australian" things. They don't want to be taking things back to China. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These watches only work when the fly inside has the strength to peddle his bicycle.85.211.192.200 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that it's the merchant who does the peddling, and the fly who does the pedaling. Ain't English grand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure 85.211 was referring to a fly selling his bicycle on ebay. That would be the default assumption, surely. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Such tiny flies too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.192.200 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q: “Do many buyers really believe they are getting the real thing?” I don't think so. People (even whilst their perambulating in a eastern market whilst intoxicated with the of trills of being on holiday) will notice the lack of quality of the case and presentation.

Q: Are the watches actually any good? Twenty years ago (note: 20 yrs) I compared one to my 'expensive' dress watches (by a well known and reputable firm of watchmakers). I was impressed. Now howerver, I can purchase a very cheap radio controlled watch which is bang on to the second (better than 40 milliseconds so the spec tells me – allowing for transmission time and processing). That serves my personal needs completely. These days, it serves no good to tell a mugger “Hey, take my watch instead –'cause they know... So they end up walk off with just your wallet; full of exhausted store-cards and a few low domination dollars (reserved for tips) but not your genuine watch (which you offered them at the outset), nor the wallet in the extra pocket (as common in Europe) that your bespoke tailor sewed in to your expensive jacket. Think about it, some employers judge people by their appearance and if you hadn’t worn a fake Rollex (and borrowed a suit from your girlfriends second cousin twice removed) to get the job in the first place, you might not now, be able to afford a real Rolex, nor mix with people who inform you how to protect your wealth and side-step people who loss out in this rat-race. Instead you might find yourself in the same desperate place as your mugger. Err... I've forgotten what the original question was. Was it something about the west crushing the 19th century trade trade in Chinese porcelain from China by faking it.Aspro (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they are genuine, they would be Rolices, not Rolexes. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KageTora, it comforting to know that some Wikipedia editors know the truth and can put us right. But why do Rolice watch manufactures spell their brand name Rolex? Is it to confuse us foreigners? --Aspro (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Rolexes have a useful purpose in a con game. You claim you are broke and want to sell your Rolex for $500. You take the watch to a jeweller that the 'mark' chooses. After appraisal at 6K the con man swaps watches and gives you the fake. Don't try this at home kids, jewelers are aware of it now and warn the marks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR: The inner workings of fake brand-name watches, made in many places around the world, are often good quality and will last (with care) several years. It is the outer worksmanship that is poor, and begins to peel or chip after a short time. And, no, no one thinks they're getting a 99% discount on the real thing. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experience: They're alright watches, but you want to change the batteries as soon as you can. They can die spectacularly, and cover the insides of the watch in goop, which will make it near impossible to salvage. MChesterMC (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this applies to Rolexes, but many 'genuine articles' from different brands are made in China by the same skilled workforce as the fakes, to the extent that if workers at the official brand factory are dissatisfied, they can offer their services elsewhere for a small pay rise or better working conditons, making 'fakes' that are effectively the same as the originals. Though, I wonder if fake Rolex factories can get hold of the same high quality materials and parts, even if their staff know how to put the things together perfectly. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check cashing

In the US, when you deposit a check into your account, does it take less time to clear if the bank it was drawn from is the same bank? For instance, if I have a Bank of America account and someone pays me with a check from their BoA account, would it take less time to clear than a check from Key Bank? Dismas|^(talk) 14:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statutory limits for holds are outlined in our article on the Expedited Funds Availability Act. From a regulatory point of view, the main difference appears to be that checks up to $5000 – or the first $5000 of a large deposit – must be made available on the first business day after the deposit for checks drawn from the same institution, whereas the statutory hold extends to the second day after the deposit otherwise. (The full amount of a large deposit must be made available, in all cases, not more than 7 business days later.) This does not prevent a bank from setting its own policies that allow for shorter hold periods, or from clearing individual, specific checks faster than the statutory requirement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for the link. I wouldn't have known how to search for that term. Dismas|^(talk) 15:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For large quantities, and under some specific circumstances, there is some kind of money-laundering investigation that kicks in - we sold a car once and got a $20,000 check (I forget whether it was drawn on the same bank or not) - and they held it for something like 10 days because of the large amount involved, claiming that some kind of automatically invoked money laundering investigation had put a hold on it. (And that was with Bank of America). Sorry - I don't know the details of why. SteveBaker (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For large checks, even in the absence of any concern about wrongdoing, the portion above $5000 can be held for up to 7 business days following the date of the deposit, which can mean the funds aren't available for 11 calendar days (or longer, if you happen to hit a holiday). For instance, if you deposit a large check this year on Wednesday, July 3, the bulk of the amount doesn't have to be released until Monday, July 15—the fourth of July is a holiday, and July 6, 7, 13, and 14 are all weekend days. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently started two large accounts at separate banks with checks from the same large corporation. The first bank gave me an ATM card and the account rep offered me a cash withdrawal on the spot. The second bank did not give me an ATM card, but said it would be mailed. I advised them this would be inconvenient. They said I could use a check to make a withdrawal the next day. But I was traveling that night by train and needed money then. The account rep said no money would clear until the next day, but then went to her manager who authorized a $500 withdrawal immediately. As for cashing a check drawn on the same bank, employees used to get accounts with the same bank and branch their small employer used in order to be able to cash the check at the teller's window. I never had to wait for a check drawn on Chase bank to clear when I had a Chase account. But I have had small personal checks drawn on the same bank need to clear over night. But the last time I did that was before the 1990's banking law changes. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, some banks seem to like keep your money as long as possible, and deny you access to it. So, while they can probably tell within a second that a check drawn on their own bank will clear, they prefer to wait out the clock. Similarly, if they were required to do so, they could also verify accounts electronically with other banks in a second, but, since they aren't required to, they take their sweet time. Of course, there is always the possibility that their computers could be down. So, a more sensible law might be that 90% of such transactions must clear within a minute, and all within a day. Checks drawn on banks from other nations, which may use different banking networks, etc., would, of course, have to be excluded. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A friend that used to work for a bank said some are fast at clearing cheques and others take it to the limit to gain interest. RB was the slowest and TD was the fastest she claimed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes TD was the bank that gave me an ATM card and offered me cash on the spot. μηδείς (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Council Houses.

What year were the council houses built in Norman Road Burgess Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.68.55 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at old OS maps on old-maps.co.uk, they're there in the 1937 map, but not the 1912 map. Looking at the street in Google maps, they're pretty standard for inter-war council housing. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Historic Character Assessment Report for Burgess Hill only says that the Norman Road houses had been built "by 1947", but an accompanying photograph says "Inter-war council housing at Norman Road" (page 20). BURGESS HILL WAR MEMORIALS notes that most council housing was the result of the Housing Act, 1919 and that some of the resulting blocks of housing in Burgess Hill had names that commemorated World War I battles, such as "Mons Terrace" in West Street and "Marne Terrace" in Valebridge Road. I'm afraid that's all I could find. West Sussex County Council Record Office and archives would probably be more able to supply more details. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! I didn't dig deeply enough on the county council link that I posted. But lo and behold: Norman Road Housing Scheme: Certificates of completion of house for 38 houses in Norman Road Date: November 1921 - September 1927. Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was Uncle Ben (the rice guy) originally supposed to be a slave?

Question as topic. I got told recently that originally the guy was a slave, but that now they don't like to talk about that - what with things that were considered acceptable a long time ago in a different age no longer being so. I had just always assumed that the Uncle Ben pictured on the box was the guy who started the company.

Is there any truth to this, or is it just another one of those urban legends (like the KKK/Nazi stuff about Marlboro and Snapple)? --87.113.57.205 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have difficulty finding our article on Uncle Ben's Rice? It addresses your questions. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not link the actual article instead of being condescending? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle_Ben's_Rice#Marketing_origins is what Medeis is referring to. Definitely not the guy who started the company... SemanticMantis (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which references The Museum of Public Relations - The Advertiser's Holy Trinity: Aunt Jemima, Rastus, and Uncle Ben. Alansplodge (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Better yet, Rambling, why not duplicate the entire article here so the OP doesn't need to find it or figure out how to click on a link? μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're only trying to be helpful. If the OP could easily navigate his way around Wikipedia, he wouldn't be asking. Alansplodge (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. People accustomed to paper encyclopedias aren't aware of the level of detail we have in our articles, so wouldn't think to look there. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, the reference is to my eye, a lot clearer than the text of our article. Also, the next paragraph in our article suggests that Uncle Ben was a slave, whereas the reference is clear that he wasn't. Alansplodge (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Meds, you have your answers above. Perhaps you could use these reference desks for what they're intended, to help inform our readers, not for you to tweet your inner feelings and condescend those who ask reasonable questions? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it all comes down to what you mean by "supposed to be" a slave. Ben and Aunt Jemima are clearly rural, southern African Americans. Antebellum, they are slaves, postbellum freed. And they are fictional, therefore eternal. They create a mythic past when wholesome food was brought by smiling servants who could not be less concerned of their official legal status. The ambiguity about their slave status is the entire point. Say it loud, Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima are proud. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The KKK's motto and ownership of certain products...

Inspired by my question above...

Are 'Veni, Vidi, Vici', and/or 'To Rule Over Oppressed People' actually mottos/slogans used by the Ku Klux Klan, as the urban legends about their involvement with certain items would suggest?

Also, do the KKK actually have majority ownership in any major product brands? Yeah, I know that they could invest in anything that they wanted to as an organization or as individual shareholders, but is there anything popular that's mostly owned by the Klan? --87.113.57.205 (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this is covered at Snopes.com; see [3] -- Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of today, but apparently they were involved in music production, around 1920. There was a History Detectives episode about this: [4]. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The poor KKK is so misunderstood. They were just a bunch of fun-lovin' good ol' boys.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to relatives of the Boston bombers ?

If the bombing suspects are found guilty, and they have relatives in the US or Canada, which aren't citizens, would they be deported, due to them being considered too high of a risk to remain ? StuRat (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High risk to what? Be related to idiots? If your brother robs a bank, should we throw you in jail too? Mingmingla (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to debate the merits of such a policy. I want to know if there is such a policy. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read it otherwise, but your repeat clarifies it. My apologies. Mingmingla (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People in America can't be deported for being a "risk", at least not overtly. It can prevent them from being admitted in the first place, or their permission to stay here from being renewed, but as far as I know there is no basis for deportation that does not involve some sort of action. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do sippenhaft, although we could talk about what happens to your family for your asking that question. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they might be placed in protective custody, but nothing else.--Auric talk 23:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be punished by attainder of blood. Being deported if you are not a citizen is not a punishment since residence is not a right--it will depend on the specific law and findings of fact. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suspect 1 won't be found guilty of anything. He's free as a bird. A dead duck, that is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Oswald and her first daughter June were not deported to the USSR in 1963. Marina was not an American citizen, and June was born in the USSR, albeit to her American husband. She gave birth to their second daughter Audrey in Dallas just a month before JFK's assassination, who was a citizen. Marina later became one too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the general view in America these days of the Japanese American internment? Their only crime would seem to have been some ancestral connection with an enemy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who actually know about, that it was an evil thing to do, punishing everyone for the crimes of a few, and also confiscating their property. The one positive note is that they were only herded into camps and kept there, not exterminated like what the Nazis did to the Jews. There were apparently some Germans interned also, although much smaller numbers. I think this topic came up here some months back. Anyway, there were active attacks by the Japanese military on the west coast of the US, a fact that was well-known to the locals but was generally kept out of the national press. So there was certainly legitimate concern over both disloyal Japanese-Americans and over loyal but possibly endangered Japanese-Americans. But the carpet-bombing approach to this problem was shameful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the internments were justified, if only from a "protective custody" POV (although there was a case of a local Japanese worker helping out the Japanese after their attack on Pearl Harbor). However, there's no justification for confiscating their property. That should have been held for them and returned at the end of the war. And conditions in the camps should have been as pleasant as possible, given security needs. StuRat (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but neither you or Bugs are really authorized to have your own opinions be offered up as the "general view" in America. If you have real references for how most Americans view this, please, feel free to offer them up. But your own opinions are neither solicited nor germane. This is not a forum. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, feel free to keep your own opinions to yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a general view on any topic, only individuals have opinions. μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. There are many ways to establish what are common viewpoints among groups of people (such as "Americans"). E.g. polling. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash. Polling establishes how people answer polling questions. Not their considered views on things. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be obtuse. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important point, and I don't find it necessary to call you names to make it. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Obtuse" isn't a name. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeh? Maybe you've forgotten about Arc Angle and his three sons: Acute, Right, and Obtuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this column of some interest:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See:

For more information on Guilt by association we should defer to Michelle Bachman, an expert on the subject ("I'm just sayin'")... --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute the notion that Bachman would be a reliable source for any fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Stuart Smiley and Plugs Biden would be better. μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US government may not be able to prosecute relatives of terrorists, but there is no check or recourse against such actions as placing them on the No fly list or delaying permanent residence status. Edison (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a status of "undesirable alien" which can be assigned to someone, to keep them out of the US. Of course, this term always makes me think of her: [7]. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two friends of the bombing suspects were arrested in New Bedford, Mass for what a law enforcement spokesperson called "administrative immigration violations". A woman with them was escorted to a car with diplomatic plates. The two men who were arrested are from Kazakhstan. RNealK (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That needs a cite, RNealK. Bielle (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[8]. RNealK (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the original question, the US immigration law has the concept of "Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds" (TRIG), meaning that a foreign citizen who is deemed likely to engage in terrorist activity, or is closely associated to someone who is, should not be allowed to enter the United States. According to the USCIS,

The grounds for inadmissibility include, but are not limited to, individuals who:

Engaged in ‘terrorist activity’”

Are engaged or are likely to engage in terrorist activity after entry

Incited terrorist activity with intent to cause serious bodily harm or death

Are representatives or current members of a terrorist organization

Endorsed or espoused terrorist activity

Received military-type training from or on behalf of a terrorist organization; or

Are spouses or children of anyone who has engaged in terrorist activity within the last five years (with certain exceptions).

It is further explained that "Engaging in Terrorist Activity ... includes .... providing material support to a terrorist organization or member", while "the term “material support” ... includes any action that can assist a terrorist organization or one of its members in any way, such as providing food, helping to set up tents, distributing literature, or making a small monetary contribution." So if X is a terrorist suspect, and Y is his spouse or child, or if Y is believed by the immigration authorities to have given X some food, money, etc., Y generally is not admissible. There are certain exceptions designed to protect innocent relatives or associates, e.g. when the spouse or child "did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible", or when somebody who "provided support" "can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the [s/he] did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization."

There is of course no need for a court of law being involved in determining whether one is "engaged in terrorist activity"; the standard is, "a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe" that the person "is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity" (as defined above).

In general, becoming "inadmissible" after being lawfully admitted as an immigrant or a non-immigrant does not necessarily make one "deportable". But the law seems to pretty specific ([8 U.S.C. 1227]Sec 237 (1)(a)(4)(B), referring to 212(a)(3)(B) or (F)) that inadmissibility on terrorism-related grounds also implies deportability.

(Outside of the TRIG, it may be possible for a person already in the country to become inadmissible but not deportable. This means that when the person leaves the country, s/he will not be allowed to re-enter, even if he has a current green card or a non-immigrant visa. If the person is currently in the country in a non-immigrant status of some kind (visitor (B), student (F or J), foreign worker (H or L), journalist (I), etc), becoming "inadmissible" also means that s/he won't be able to either "adjust status" to permanent residence (even if otherwise eligible), or to extend one's stay beyond currently authorized period.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

FBI email

I tried to email the FBI earlier. I am in Canada and thus don't wish to phone them. Their HQ site states that they don't have an email but some of their branch websites do. The few branch websites I checked didn't have emails. Does anyone have one handy? It doesn't matter which branch.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the choices on the drop-down list on this page have email addresses for the specific field office. This list might work as well. AlexiusHoratius 00:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their main HQ and many of their branch offices don't have email addresses?? Way to keep up with the times guys. I guess they figure the Pony Express is much more secure and adequate to their needs. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The main office would probably have far too much trivial mail. I tried the same dropdown above and couldn't find any on the few I checked. The second list is very helpful though. Could admin now memorize this thread and then revdel it, thanks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this section fall under any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Revision deletion? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that's a play on spies and secret agents having to memorize messages and then swallow/destroy them to prevent them from being used as evidence. Assuming, of course, that the message does not self destruct. But now I've said too much! Matt Deres (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bugger. It was almost 3:00 am and I should have been asleep and my sense of humour was anyway. So in revenge I will not only delete this section but block all who took part in this discussion. Anybody who read any part of this should go to this page right away and so no one will know anything about my lack of a sense of humour. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it makes you feel better, it had me scratching my head as well. The "memorize" thing finally tipped me off, though I admit my first thought was to try to figure out what word they really meant. Finally, the penny dropped. Matt Deres (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a projection of a person on a wall, would people believe it's a real person? If not, why?

If there was a projection of a person on a wall, would people believe it's a real person? If not, why? Mattdillon87 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a moment, if it were real enough, I might believe it is a real person. However, most projections are not three-dimensional so most people can already tell from that. That is, unless you are talking about holograms. I've seen some decent ones that look pretty real. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An early motion pictures was of a train pulling into a station.; L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat which is said to have terrorised audiences who allegedly thought that an actual train was about to crash through the wall of the theatre (There's a YouTube video here). There is some doubt about whether this is actually true or not, but if it is, it suggests that being able to distinguish real and projected images is a modern skill. Strictly original research, but the creaky 1960s special effects of Dr Who and Lost in Space looked very realistic to me as a child, but look rubbish now, suggesting to me that our perception of what looks realistic is dependant on the media that we've already been exposed to. Alansplodge (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that. When I went to an IMAX showing of Terminator in Japan, quite literally everyone on the front few rows jumped off their seats. I've seen IMAX stuff since, and it's just like watching a normal TV. It's just what you're exposed to. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many subtle problems:

A projection can only add to the light already being reflected from the wall (or whatever) that it's being projected onto. That will make whatever is projected seem transparent and ghost-like. The only way to avoid that is to do this in a perfectly dark room...but then you can tell that there is something amiss because you have this bright figure in a dark room.
When a real person stands in a room, the light that bounces off of their body undergoes secondary reflections from nearby surfaces. This is almost impossible to manage with a single-source projection...for example if the image of the person is facing the viewer, the projection isn't capturing the light that would be reflected from the clothing on their back - then bounced off of some surface behind them and then into the viewer's eyes.
Sub-surface scattering: It's especially noticable that skin scatters light from behind and to the side of the person through the subcutaneous fat layers to emerge elsewhere on the skin. Without that, people look kinda weirdly plastic-ish.
The lack of three-dimensional information may be noticable if the viewer is standing close enough to the projection...but from a longer distance, that may not be a problem.
Projections are missing surface properties of real objects. For example, if there is something that's shiney, when you move your head, the "highlights" move with you...but when the picture we're using to project is captured with a camera from a single point of view - that shiney spot doesn't move when you move your head. Worse still, if the surface you're projecting onto is even slightly shiney - it adds it's own highlights - which is another dead giveaway.
Shadows: A real person casts a shadow onto the ground nearby...or onto the wall that you're projecting onto.
Parallax: As you move relative to the projection, it will become evident that where (for example) an arm is occluding the body behind it - you should be able to move your head just a little and see some of that occluded area.

You can "fix" some (perhaps all) of these by making sure that the viewer can't move his or her head at all...and by strictly controlling the lighting conditions and the screen onto which you're projecting to have precisely the right properties...but the more you constrain thing to get everything right - the more obvious it becomes to the viewer that what they're looking at isn't real - just because it's so unnatural to view things like that.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get by the problem of restraining the movements of the viewer, you can can only allow them to view the scene through a hole in a wall, say in a haunted house (then you can have something jump up at the hole, too). You could also do the projection onto a white body form, to make it look more realistic, as long as it doesn't need to move much. I also have one other problem to add to your list:

8. Make sure the projection occurs in a dust-free room. Otherwise, the projected light reflecting off the dust in the air is a dead give-away that you are viewing a projection.

StuRat (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If perspective is carefully constrained, one could use techniques of Trompe-l'œil to make such projection appear realistic, but it would need to be in a situation where the viewer's perspective is properly constrained. Trompe-l'œil images can appear quite unrealistic unless viewed from the proper angle. --Jayron32 16:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Immigration Law

Wish to find a summary of details in the proposed new immigration law. 71.54.246.184 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address is in Florida so I assume it's in the US (I actually assumed that before checking but let's not get into that discussion here). Try http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/16/the-senate-immigration-bill-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia vandalism

Are there any recorded cases of vandalism done by admins? Th4n3r (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% sure there is. There have been a few admins who have been later found to be up to some shenanigans, and have had their admin status revoked because of that. I distinctly remember one admin account that was being operated by someone who used it to unblock other accounts he was running that were blocked for vandalism or trolling. I can't find that specific case right now, nor any others, but remember that there are something like 1700 or so administrator accounts at Wikipedia. While ideally all of those would be the best and most upstanding Wikipedia citizens, that's still a pretty large number to effectively police, and a few trouble makers have slipped through in the past. A determined troll can, with a little technical know how and effective social engineering, maintain multiple "personalities" at Wikipedia and it has happened on a very rare occasion that such a person gets one of their accounts up to Admin status. It's very rare, but not unheard of. --Jayron32 20:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. User:Archtransit was promoted to Adminship in January of 2008, and later found to be a well-managed account run by known troll User:Dereks1x. There's links on Archtransit's user page which you can follow to read all of the details of the case as it unfolded. --Jayron32 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Th4n3r (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other cases, too. Arguably, any admin who's been "defrocked" or de-sysoped is guilty of "vandalism" in a broad sense, i.e. damaging Wikipedia. But there was kind of a scandal a couple of years ago involving some admin (not the one Jayron mentioned, but I forget just who) who was not only using a bad-hand sock account but that another admin knew about it and took no action. Something like that, anyway. Memories fade a bit in two years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me. That is, I was one of the admins who knew about the second account and said nothing. It was an admin who had been desysopped and then abandoned that account started a new account and got that one promoted to Admin. There was no vandalism, just some unpleasant nastiness by the first account: personal attacks and unpleasant fighting and stuff like that. The problem wasn't anything in the article space (as above with Archtransit), so no real vandalism. There were three admins total who were cited by ArbCom, though there were several dozen who knew about it: it was something of an open secret. I was reprimanded. A few other admins resigned, though anyone who kept their mouth shut had no action taken against them. Thanks for bringing that up. You can read the details here. Water under the bridge now, as it were. Been 3 1/2 years. --Jayron32 23:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That case struck me as particularly strange, as I thought it had been long-standing practice (if not policy) on Wikipedia to encourage previously bad users to return incognito as good users, with nobody looking too hard, on the basis that if it ever came up it would be because they returned to their old habits. That isn't anything like sockpuppetry. Is it that the culture has shifted so far from the early years, that most users no longer agree with this? I think most Wikipedia users in the early days started by "vandalising" in some sense, before realising what it could be and becoming good contributors. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It happens every April 1st. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well a read through WP:ANI will give the impression that most admins are worse than vandals but have a look at Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Theo is actually the one I was thinking of. It's interesting to see several names there who had voted "Nay" on my one attempt at adminship. The process of adminship is bizarre. It's a popularity contest, and if you survive that gauntlet, you're almost impossible to get rid of. It ought to be easier to become an admin, and easier to have it taken away for misbehavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar. Someone created an account and got it all the way up to being an admin so that he could vandalize the main page. 2001:18E8:2:1020:8CEA:C571:286B:2680 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very telling tale. The handful of "oppose" and "neutral" comments showed a lot more sense than the avalanche of "supports". That was about 7 years ago, so hopefully the voters are a bit more astute now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always amazed by the people who come here and immediately try to become admins, before they've written a single stub and almost before they've edited anything at all. Their interest seems to be in controlling others, rather than contributing to the encyclopedia per se. There ought to be a mandatory period of at least 1 year's service, during which time a significant positive contribution to the encyclopedia must be demonstrated, before an application for adminship should be even considered. Imo. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know of one that was here 4 months and 4 days before he got nominated and promoted 8 days later. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Theo is I think the obviously remembered one for all the regulars here... it wasn't all that long ago. There have been some arguably more notable ones since then (not saying they vandalized, but were desysoped or resigned for other reasons) but they're not as loud about it. That Former admin link is telling... this community eats its own as quick as it makes favorites. I'm [loudly] on record that adminship needs a much easier removal procedure, but thus far that hasn't happened. I don't say that cause i want to debate it here, just pointing it out. Shadowjams (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was only here for about 7 or 8 months before I became an admin, but that was 10 years ago, and like 4 people voted on it. Ah, those were the days. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

David brinkley letter

I found a letter written to my mother from David Brinkley. Just wondering if it is worth anything.Thanks robertp39660 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertp39660 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it has his actual signature on it, it's probably worth something. Lots of letters from celebrities are autosigned, though. Even then, he's not a major celebrity, so it probably wouldn't be worth a whole lot unless the content is really extraordinary. If it's the usual "thank you for your very interesting letter", not much at all. Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that every time someone destroys a deceased celebrity's autograph, the non-destroyed autographs increase in value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an autographed photo is priced at $30, and it comes with a certificate of authenticity. Getting yours authenticated might cost more than it's worth (plus you might find it was signed by a secretary). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there can be fraud involved in these "certificates of authenticity". The only 100 percent guaranteed autograph you can have is one that you personally collected from the signer. Hard to do with someone like Lincoln, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem highly unlikely that Brinkley would be the chosen medium for a scam, unless the letter was his apology to Clinton for calling him boring on-air on election night 1996. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding people

I'm trying to get in touch with old friend David Wallace Jones, Australian aged 51. Can you suggest anything ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.136.104 (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Friends Reunited?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone that age may well be on LinkedIn and might be on Facebook. --Dweller (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parade banner?

What's the most common name for one of these things? Is it typically a "parade banner", or is there something else more common? 2001:18E8:2:1020:8CEA:C571:286B:2680 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the American usage is to call these Marching Band Parade Banners or Parade Lead Banners. Simply 'Parade Banner' could refer to any banner used in a parade (e.g. this), or indeed a banner used to advertise a parade. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of the better ones, a Gary Larson creation.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the United Kingdom

Why is Birmingham listed as the largest city in England, rather than London? Cheers. TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greater London is not a city; Westminster and the City of London are. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article London sensibly does not agree with you, calling it both "capital city " and "largest city". The List of cities in the United Kingdom really should have in the lead that "This is a list of places in the United Kingdom that have been granted the official status of city" or something like that. The introduction should also make reference to why London (and Rochester upon Medway for that matter) are not listed. In fact I think I will make those improvements tomorrow. Sussexonian (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our articles on Rochester, Kent, and City of Rochester-upon-Medway, that place actually lost its city status in 1998, because of "an administrative error". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) If you are looking for the largest urban areas in the UK, you need List of urban areas in the United Kingdom - in which London ranks first. In the UK, the word "city" can have a very specific meaning - either having a cathedral, or having officially designated city status - as used in the List of cities in the United Kingdom. The urban area commonly called "London" is a very large area, which (as AlexTiefling says) contains two cities (including the City of London - which itself is very small!) and many other boroughs and localities. The West Midlands Urban Area contains the city of Birmingham and many other areas (such as Wolverhampton). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a hatnote to List of cities in the United Kingdom, which will hopefully direct readers looking for a list of largest urban areas to be directed elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to demuddify it and restate a different way what has been explained pretty well already, the word "city" can mean different things in different contexts, and in this case what is being conflated is two different meanings of the word. In one case, the English language uses the word "city" to mean "contiguous urban area" or "conurbation". In this sense, when one says the "city of London" (little c-city), one usually means Greater London (or sometimes just Inner London, this definition is a bit imprecise). This is how someone would describe where they come from to outsiders who are unfamiliar with the area. However, in some legal codes, the word "City" carries a special status, usually referring to a type of incorporation that allows for certain legal rights that other places are not granted. In this sense, that's what the (rather tiny 1 square mile) City of London (big C City) is. Unqualified, the word London refers to the entire conurbation, and when anyone talks about London being the largest city in the U.K., they mean it by the first definition. The second definition is a bit arcane, but still shows up occasionally. Municipal organization is very complex in different parts of the world, and these words mean very specific (and often contradictory) things depending on exactly what the context is. You can't apply one universal definition to a word like "city" and you need to pay close attention to the context to decide which definition is meant. --Jayron32 20:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City status in the United Kingdom has more details. I have added a wikilink to the lead of the List article, where it mentions "city status". Alansplodge (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Oregon Trail to airplanes

There was a featured article a few days ago, about a man who grew up on the Oregon Trail, and lived to fly in an airplane. There was a picture of him with the article; I think he was sitting, as an old man, and he had white/grey hair and a white/grey beard.

I can't remember his name, so I don't know how to find him in Wikipedia.

Please help.

Thanks,

wbgray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.216.153 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Meeker?

FYI, I found this by the unremarkable technique of copy/pasting your question: "man who grew up on the Oregon Trail, and lived to fly in an airplane" into Google and taking the first article it suggested. Google is good enough these days that just typing what you know into it will often get what you want.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable health care act - coverage for children

What is required for a child to remain on parents health insurance to age twenty six? Can the insurer charge a premium in addition to parents premium . premium for this coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.251.227 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question is borderline a legal question, and even if it weren't it's too technical to expect a good answer here. You should seek other sources. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ain't that complicated, at least in general. in the past and now, some employers cover spouses and dependents, some don't. those which do would (i assume) always charge extra for that; my experience with a few companies in one state is that the charge for a couple with no dependents has always been twice that for a single, and the charge for a couple with any number of dependents has always been 2.5 times that for a single, which means of course that big families are getting a break. but maybe that's just in this state, they all have different laws. (that's the actual insurance company charge, the employer can contribute to it whatever they want by whatever formula they want to) anyway, the addition of dependents under 26 law just pushes the age limit up and forbids charging different by age; i.e. if the insurer's rate is 2.5X for a family with kids under 18 then it will have to be 2.5X for kids over 18 under 26 as well, and similarly forbids employers from changing their contribution by age either; i.e. if your employer covers half the insurance cost for a family with kids under 18 then it has to cover half the insurance cost for a family with kids over 18 under 26 as well. also, the coverage/benefits can't vary by age either. basically, it's not basically different in structure from current dependent care, it just includes to 26. so, if i'm understanding the OP's question, yeah they can and undoubtedly will charge a premium in addition to the cost for just the parent(s), as they do currently, but the kid being over 18 or not doesn't make any difference. as for what's involved, the usual paper chase in any insurance transaction. each insurer will attempt to define "dependent child" in a beneficial (to them) way and there will probably be some jockeying, but the law already forbids allowing or restricting coverage on whether the child is financially dependent, a student, employed, living with the parents, and/or can get coverage elsewhere. Gzuckier (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typical nationalistic stuff

Where? What country? HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The heading suggests that it is the USA. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Am I supposed to know what American legislators are doing? I'm sorry, bit I don't pay attention to everything American. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to answer if you don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sure do pay attention to what american IPs are posting here though. Shadowjams (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the attacks, please. I didn't know it was an American IP. (I know I can look, but I thought it better to find out in conversation.) I asked a question to see if I could help. That's all I did. It was a completely innocent act. Sorry for thinking I might be able to help. HiLo48 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm collapsing this because our usual bullshit isn't helpful for goodfaith people that we haven't yet alienated at the reference desk. Shadowjams 11:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Inefficient toilet

A toilet in my home has an inefficient flush, to the extent that toilet paper sometimes will fail to disappear, even with repeated flushing.

Question 1: Is there a simple measure, either preventative or remedial, to address this problem? [this is the most important question!]

Question 2: In terms of physics, what is causing the toilet paper to stay in the bowl?

Interestingly, the toilet copes much better with toilet paper than it does with tissues, which it simply refuses to flush, regardless, it would seem, of size.

Question 3: Is there a scientific explanation for the difference in 'performance' between tissues and loo paper?

Many thanks and happy flushings, --Dweller (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you? Toilets around the world vary a lot in basic design. I'm Australian, a country that's worked hard to reduce the water usage in toilets (We're often a bit short on water here), and visiting the USA and seeing bowls brimming with enough water to do about five flushes here is always a shock. HiLo48 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and it has a smallish reservoir. --Dweller (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've identified the problem; the reservoir is too small to get the job done. Had the same problem once. Replacement was not an option because it was a short term rental, so I used a bucket to flush. Filled it in the bathtub. Worked just fine. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for your other questions, the answer is trapped air. Tissues are aparently less pervious to air than toilet paper, so the air takes longer to leak out. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I presume there is a way to fiddle with the mechanism in the reservoir so it fills closer to the brim. Is this the kind of thing I can work out for myself? (you can tell how DIY competent I am from the first part of this post!) --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would entirely depend on the type of mechanism, and there are several different mechanisms used, all based on different principles. It would be rather easy with a ball float mechanism such as this: [[10]]. Simply bend the metal stem so that the ball can float higher before it shuts the valve. Other mechanisms are more difficult or impossible to adjust. Unless the difference in water level is substantial, it is unlikely that fiddling with the water level is going to have much effect. You probably need to install a larger reservoir, or replace the toilet if the reservoir is not separate from the rest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is generally a little plastic nut and bolt at the end of the ball cock arm that controls how far it can rise. You might try tinkering with that before you start bending anything. Newer cisterns might have a plastic arm anyway. There are a lot of videos on YouTube that show how a cistern works, like this one. Alansplodge (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this might be helpful. Richard Avery (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may regret asking this, but why on earth have you been putting tissues down the toilet? Henry ^Flower 14:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called toilet paper for a reason...! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The toilet paper's less of a problem than the tissues, TRM --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I did. Said toilet has shared usage, including by the type of people who have also been known, over the years, to flush small but ridiculously expensive plastic objects away, throw stainless steel cutlery in bins, ram chicken bones down the plughole, place small items as far as they can up their noses and smear green ink on white painted doors, handrails and walls. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts:

1) Tissues and toilet paper flush much easier after they are soaked. For facial tissues which are relatively clean, you might just leave them there for a while, until they become completely soaked. For toilet paper which is, um, "used", that might be a bit gross, so you could pour some water directly on them with a bucket to soak them more quickly.

2) It also helps to increase the refill flow rate into the tank, as it starts to refill immediately when you start the flush, and much of that is also flushed, along with the initial content of the tank.

3) There may be a partial blockage in the drain. Try plunging it a bit. StuRat (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas 2 and 3 are very useful, thanks. Idea 1 may be true, but this toilet is refusing to flush even when the stuff is drenched. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of a solution, the number of things you can change is pretty limited.

Certainly you should remove the lid on the cistern and see how high the water level rises. As others have explained, the mechanisms vary from place to place - but usually you can figure out that there is a part that floats upwards on the water and eventually shuts off the valve allowing more water in. There is also an overflow tube that prevents the bathroom from flooding if that valve fails. Ideally, you want to adjust the little screw on the valve until the water level gets close to the top of the overflow tube - certainly within a half inch or so. That maximizes the amount of water in each flush...which helps your problem. In older toilets with a "ballcock" - there is a large ball on the end of an arm that shuts the valve, and bending that arm has a similar effect to adjusting the valve screw...I recommend adjusting the screw first and only bending the arm as a matter of last resort!
Blockages. You can certainly check that there is no blockage between cistern and bowl - and on the outflow from the bowl into the sewer line. Use a plunger to try to improve the latter. Removing blockages improve the flow rate - and hence the power of the flush.
On US-style toilets, the water is released from the cistern with a "flap" which is raised when you push the handle. Generally there is a chain that goes from the arm attached to the handle down to the flap. If that chain is loose, then the flap won't open all the way when you push down on the lever - and the initial, fastest flow rate will be less. You should be able to see how to tighten that chain. In UK-style toilets, the whole thing works using a far superior syphon-based mechanism - which eliminates that problem - but adds a new one where a faulty mechanism can prevent the toilet from flushing at all. In French-style toilets...urgh...it's a design nightmare...god alone knows why they did that...I recommend that you emigrate!
If all else fails - then (as others have said) a bucket of water dumped into the toilet will work wonders. In the event of blockages, a bucket of hot water with dish-soap in it will help remove material that's stuck inside almost as well as a plunger.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Wouldn't have helped with some recent vandalism at a local school. That involved someone tossing a bag of Plaster of Paris into the bowl, but that's probably not Dweller's problem.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tissues are best put in the trash rather than being flushed down the toilet: [11] because they don't break down into a mushy suspension as quickly as toilet paper. Even worse, naturally, are wet wipes, paper towels, tampons, or "flushable" diaper linings. For a flush mechanism for US type toilets, I have found the Korky or Fluidmaster type fill valve to be more reliable and easily adjustable than the older ball float type. Modern water-saving toilets use about 1/3 the water of older 3 gallon per flush ones, and often take 2 flushes to get everything flushed down. Modern high velocity low volume toilets like the Toto often are able to blast paper down the drain when it might just float on the surface, but they might not satisfy your local plumbing codes and practices.. Does yours have a cistern in the attic? Any idea what the volume of water per flush is? The overflow tube is the limiting factor, and sometimes a longer tube can be used to get more volume, the ultimate limit being where the porcelein tank has penetrations like bolts to attach it to the wall. Edison (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Definitions of toilet tissue - OneLook Dictionary Search.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other comment: Facial tissues with moisturizers tend to stick and clump far more than those without. So, if you can't keep people from trying to flush them, at least get the non-moisturized type. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Phelps

William C. Phelps was a teacher at Camp School, Hexham, Northumberland, England in the 1950s Can any user please supply me with any details regarding his teaching at this school. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "camp school hexham" into Google brought up the Francis Frith website, which has a picture of what I believe to be the same school and some comments underneath, I think you may be as well posting on there. Let me know if this isn't the same school and I'll have a further search for you. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Uh...thank you?

It seemed to me(allegedly without documentation - :D ) - that it was incredibly difficult and Byzantine to write a small thank you to whomever wrote a specific page - public, private, text box - uh I could have missed it but LOLOL

So, thanks to all who wrote the following entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Bremen_in_World_War_II

just read about the battle as a brief part of a history book on world war ii and thought "I think I will look that up"

Wikipedia - my regular first choice - I say - why not start there and if you need proof? - compare it with a whole bunch of other web sites on the topic. make your own judgement

for those not interested (grin), It is hard to explain the detail and coordination of data that these men/women - one guy?? - put into this subject the bombing of Bremen the pulling of directly related data from 3 or 4 different references that did not compare them but each had a piece there was a part where all the data was there but had not been put into percentages - and I'm thinking - nah, I'll never do that 1 or 2 hours work lol

- this is way better than I needed - I was curious - this is an f'in MAP of words of the Bremen bombing campaign

So, Thanks Bevan Audstone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.252.160 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan, we appreciate your acknowledgement. The people who wrote the article (I'm sure there'd be more than one author) would appreciate it too, and the best place for that is the talk page of the article itself. Just click on Talk:Bombing of Bremen in World War II and go to town. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's really the heart of the problem..."Who wrote this article?" - or even "Who wrote this sentence?" can be quite difficult to answer because most articles are edited by many, many people - with each sentence getting reworded and moved around multiple times. You can address thanks to everyone who worked on the article by giving it on the "Talk:" page - but strictly speaking, those pages are for people to discuss improvments to the article. Perhaps a better way is to look into the HISTORY tab and see which editors have been doing most of the work - there is a link there to their individual talk pages, where direct thanks is entirely appropriate.

No matter where you choose to offer your thanks, Wikipedians have a wealth of ways to express this kind of appreciation - the most popular of which is to award a "Barnstar" - you might like to read Wikipedia:Barnstars which explains the custom and offers a L-O-N-G list of awards to choose from. (Hmmm - as long as that list is, it doesn't include the reference desk barnstar!) SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, Steve, under "Wikipedia-space barnstars". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only definition of "squameus" I can find is "scaly". What am I missing? Or have I accidentally stumbled into an alternate universe wherein the Lizardmen (and women) rule supreme? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...scaly. We wanted to indicate that good ref desk denizens are thick-skinned and able to put up with a lot of nonsense. "Scaly" seemed to fit. Omniscient and benevolent are also desirable characteristics. Check back through the talk page archives and you'll find where we debated it. SteveBaker (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this book's title

I remember a couple of years back, I read this novel with an image of an Oreo biscuit on the front cover. If I remember correctly, it revolves around this fat boy who has mini Oreos for lunch everyday. Then one fine day, his Oreos get stolen. Not sure whether that's the main plot or not, but that's all I remember. Anyone knows? Thanks. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "book oreo stole" finds "Slob" by Ellen Potter, is that it? 88.112.41.6 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And searching for that book in Amazon.com produces a cover picture with the word "SLOB" and the "O" is replaced with an oreo cookie...so this fits our OP's description quite well. SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Numerical Order

"Traditional" numerical order would place the following numbers in the order as written:

165, 210, 1003, 1081, 1258, 2004, 10049 etc.

However, in computer applications one may find them ordered:

1003, 10049, 1081, 1258, 165, 2004, 210, etc (actual example [with omissions] from a workplace Excel spreadsheet whose ordering I may not modify).

Are there recognised names distinguishing these two (and other?) different numerical orders? I've already checked our article Collation which seems to be the most applicable, without success. (Incidentally, I thought about putting this query on the Computing or Mathematics RDs, but opted for Miscellaneous as I rarely visit those in my usual role of lurking occasional answerer!) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could call the latter alphabetical order. That is how Excel is treating them in this instance. Our article has a paragraph about the treatment of numerals.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your second example is called lexicographic order. It is the order that the numbers would be placed in if they were treated as strings of characters and then ordered in the same way a dictionary orders words. So 10049 appears before 2004 because it begins with a 1, whereas 2004 begins with a 2; 1258 appears before 165 because it begins with 12 whereas 165 begins with 16 etc. If you ask Excel to sort a range of cells, it will sort them in lexicographic order if it thinks (or has been told) that the values in the cells are text rather than numbers. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I've edited that section of the alphabetical order article to make this clear.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lexicographical order" – excellent. Now I'll know what to say when I whinge about it (which will probably do no good as the s/s in question is generated from an in-house database system which is flaky enough that we daren't risk trying to modify it further without dire need).

Thanks for your responses: I won't mark the query as resolved in case anyone else has pertinent comments to make. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that database storing numbers as character strings? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some experience with flaky database systems, so I can empathize. I presume you're getting this stuff into Excel using some kind of query? If so, you should be able to change the cell formatting without doing any harm to the DB providing the numbers. Making sure they're formatted as numbers should be enough to make the change you need (though it won't work fully if there's anything weird in the dataset, like letters appended to the numbers or poorly OCR'd characters or something). Matt Deres (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in cases like this you'll find there are space characters before or after the numbers and that's why they're acting like character strings rather than numbers, you'll need to import the data in a way that doesn't stick those in. You can see if you have any extra spaces by moving your cursor to the beginning and end of a value in the formula bar. Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space characters? Good thought, Dmcq, but not in this case. Is the database storing (these particular) numbers (which are Cell Site Reference numbers - we're in the business of fixing mobile/cell phone antenna equipment) as character strings? Haven't a clue, the programming-fu to find out, or the access and authority to do anything about it, Bugs. As for the spreadsheet formatting, Matt, the relevant cells are formatted as 'general', but again, the spreadsheets (2 separate ones produced twice a month) are generated by others in the way you suggest – I just have to fill in some of the text and value entries (we're talking about spreadsheets with 40-ish columns and 50–300 rows) on the front sheet (3 other complex sheets 'host' downloaded data, and tables of values used by formulae), which I do by cut-and paste from "my" spreadsheets (which use the "correct" numerical order) of data I compile daily from emails, reports and invoices on databases, etc.

Of course, much of this could in principle be further automated, but doing so might eliminate the need to employ me! I can, however, now proffer the suggestion that the spreadsheets in question be generated in numerical, not lexicographical, order and see if anyone bites.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "ASCIIbetical order".—Wavelength (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which brings me to another pet peeve, Microsoft's odd decision to have recent versions of windows sort filenames in directories by numerical order rather than lexicographical, so that file 1a7v8a9b7.txt will be nowhere near 17897avab.txt. While that makes fine sense for a series of files such as 1.txt, 2.txt, etc., it makes very little sense for an operating system which insists on generating random file names where numbers and letters are just treated as interchangable characters. 206.213.251.31 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beer question

I have thought about this for quite a while. Sometimes when I come home from work, I buy two or three cans of beer to drink in the evening. The cans stay in the fridge for a couple of hours before I drink them. Every single time, the first can of beer foams a lot in the glass when poured. It takes me twenty to thirty minutes to drink it. After that, subsequent cans don't foam nearly as much. What could be causing this? They've all been subject to the same amount of movement. Subsequent cans have had more time to cool in the fridge, but that is a relatively small amount. JIP | Talk 18:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use lip-balm (or lip-stick) ? Eating, whilst one is drinking, can also add grease to the glass. Grease (of any kind getting on the glass), kills the head on beer or larger. Try drinking it through a straw. Or try my Swedish method of laying on one's back on the bar floor whilst one's friends (any who are still sober enough to stand) pour it straight into one's mouth. Synchronizing swallowing and breathing is a must. Less fun, is washing the glass or using a fresh one each time. --Aspro (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pour a finger of 80-proof liquor in the glass first, and pour the beer slowly down the side so the surface is not agitated. You will get almost no foam whatsoever. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But who wants to down a draught of beer with no head? I certainly don't.--Aspro (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the carbonation in the drink, not a flat drink with three inches of foam on top. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, that does not address the OP's question. He does not appear to be talking about Pepsi et.al., in any way or form.--Aspro (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the head is caused by carbonation coming out of solution, what exactly do you think causes it? Beer fairies? What I have suggested works perfectly, the only objection would be if one doesn't like boilermakers. μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I I say that is NOT caused by carbonation coming out of solution,? The OP's question is about the stability (or in his case lack of) of Beer head in subsequent nipples.--Aspro (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be damned if I understand what you just said, Aspro. In any case, pouring beer into hard liquor helps reduce the head. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how many people are in the room, you might get head while laying on your back. But most people seem to prefer separating their drinking from their sex life. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see how huvud as in " is, kall, öl, Skummande, huvud, mot, svart, bakgrund "[12] has any sexual connotations whats so ever. However, please wait a-few-months, until spring comes and I sober up once more. Maybe my youth was wasted making too many Swedish snowballs? But then again.. How can one possible make tooo many snowball? Aspro (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better ask Aspro about the sex thing - oh, that's you. Anyway, I would never lie to you. Not even while lying on my back. But many lies have been uttered while laying on one's back: "Oh, darling, you're the best", for example. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

They've all been subject to the same amount of movement, but they haven't all been subject to the same amount of time to settle from that movement. If it takes you 30 minutes to open the second can, the movement during transit isn't likely to be an issue. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a "British head" is what you're after (i.e. about a centimetre of foam), just pour very slowly down the tilted side of the glass. If you want a European head, crack open the beer and pour as quickly as possible down the middle. Most of the time this will be a disaster. Europeans, particularly Belgians and Dutch will pour beer from the tap with a large head and "cut" the top off with a knife. You'll get a 2/3rds beer, 1/3 head result. And you'll pay 3/2 more than you would in England... Interestingly, no matter when I get a beer out of the fridge, I always gently tap the top of it about a dozen times. It never gets too excited after that for some reason..... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the OP's issue, its the dying head. “Signs of a not-so-beer-clean glass: Quickly dissipating foam head after a vigorous pour - oil residue kills foam structure. If you’ve ever seen someone stir their Solo Cup of Natty Ice with their pinky to break down the keg foam then you get my point”.[13] Yes, just your little little finger or lips etceteras. Its the grease.Aspro (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a combination of both. The beer in the fridge has had an extra half an hour to chill out and settle, and the glass has been contaminated. Hence the chilled out second beer syndrome... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't think so. There is not a lot in it – look [14]Aspro (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "chill", I meant "relax". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take all my beer drinking tips from people who drink Natty Ice out of Solo cups and think that sticking their fingers in it helps. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Onorem♠Dil (Thinks to myself... Ah! There but for the grace of God go I) ;¬)20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I worked as a bartender for nine years around the world when I was much younger, and one trick that we showed to punters was to rub your nose first, then dip your finger in the beer. This would get rid of the head within seconds. The reason is that certain oils can break down the acidity in the beer, reducing the head. If you are eating some snack like chips or nuts, then that will cause the same effect. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KageTora. That is what I stated at the out set. Can the OP please come back and confirm that this question is now {{Resolved}} to his satisfaction?--Aspro (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, I was going to post almost the exact same question a couple weeks ago, and talked myself out of it. Not much of a beer drinker, but a Coke drinker, and I noticed that after opening a new can or bottle of Coke, if I pour in a little bit (to get that foam), then drink that (coating one side of the glass), I can pour the rest of the Coke into the glass with almost no overflow of foam. I just discovered it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something I have noticed as well (both with beer and carbonated soft drinks). Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that while pouring the first drink the glass is room temperature, but when pouring the following ones it has been cooled down by the drink? I have no idea which scientific processes would apply here, but it is at least one of the few variables in the scenario. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may also have something to do with the liquid in the glass dissolving small bits of dirt on the side of the glass, which would act as nucleation sites on the first pouring. That's mostly speculation though. MChesterMC (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how fast you drink. Cold drinks usually cool the glass for a short time, after which they become close to room temperature. A new cold drink poured into the glass will cool it down again, but will warm up in the same way. This has nothing to do with the temperature of the glass, or even the drink when it is poured. They will both warm up sooner or later. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is has "nothing to do with the temperature of the glass" seems a bit too categorical, since you yourself notes that it very much depends on how fast you drink, the temperature of the beverage and the nature of the glass. It is perfectly possible for a glass to stay cool for some time after the drink has been imbibed, especially if it is a glass with a heavy bottom and/or sides which can absorb and store the coolness for a longer period of time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A glass that is now not as cool as it was after the liquid was poured into it, will not make a remarkable difference to a liquid newly poured into it. Oil and salts do, however, make a remarkable difference to the actual bubble effect, and this is what we are talking about. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just drink it straight out of the can! Alansplodge (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just deport this question to the Science desk, where it always belonged. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite television receiver (USA)

I hate going to a company's website looking for answers and all they want to do is sell you stuff. Anyway, I figured someone here might know the answer. ... I recently moved into an apartment that has Dish Network service. My old TV is cable ready, but not equipped for satellite service. I could by a converter box, but I am wondering - Does someone make a television that can be used with Dish Network without a separate converter box (i.e., with the converter built right into the TV)? If so, what should I look for when shopping for one? Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a bad idea, for several reasons:

1) If either the TV portion or the converter box portion fails, now you must replace the entire system, versus just the bad component. (You could always try to have it repaired, but that is rarely cost justified.)

2) If you want to upgrade either component alone, you can't.

3) Let's say your system only works with the Dish network, and later you want to switch to another satellite network. Again, you'd have to replace the works. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase to look for is Integrated digital television (our article is only a stub, unfortunately). --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the DISH Support Forum post "Is a Set Top Required ??" (Feb 19, 2013), a Social Media Representative says yes a set top is required.

I've previously gotten the impression that in the United States, satellite providers are considered different from cable providers in terms of requiring access with out a provider set top box.

For digital cable providers, the terms you'd want to research are QAM and CableCARD. But my understanding is satellite providers don't use QAM (or at least not unencrypted QAM) and aren't required to offer CableCARDs.

For example, in FCC.gov's Evolution of Cable Television, the section What is Cable Television? says "Programming delivered without a wire via satellite or other facilities is not 'cable television' under the Commission's definitions." The section Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Equipment is an introduction to CableCARDs, but I've had difficulty finding information that confirms or disproves satellite providers have the same requirements. --Bavi H (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dish Network provides the equipment. They'll also push free installation, but that locks you into a 2 year contract. By paying a $99 installation fee, you can avoid the contract. Base equipment will be free. Higher-end equipment such as DVRs or extra receivers will come with a monthly fee, but in some cases they will void the fee if you sign up for a higher-level programming package. 38.111.64.107 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie theater shootings history?

Besides the recent Aurora, Colorado movie theater shootings, what other shootings/bombings/mass murders have taken place in movie theaters in the USA? Was hoping Wikipedia had a list? --Navstar (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something you could research as well as anyone here, and write an article about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nah, way too many for a list. Search for "Movie theatre shootings -Colorado" and you'll find them all over the place: San Antonio[15], Philadelphia (for talking during the movie[16]), two on the same day in San Diego for Pete's sake[17]. This is the US of NRA we're talking about. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the studio premieres (or maybe including) I've attended in NYC, a showing without a shooting or at least a gun drawn is a boring night out. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in other violence involving movie theaters. John Dillinger was killed as he left one: John Dillinger#Biograph_Theater_and_death, while Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended in one, after he assassinated JFK. See Lee Harvey Oswald#Capture.StuRat (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the assassination of Abraham Lincoln occurred in a theater. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not a movie theater. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, was assassinated while walking home from a cinema. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting data point... but when you consider that in the U.S. alone there are (according to some MPAA stat I found) 1.47 billion admissions each year, each one lasts for say... 90 minutes, that's a lot of man hours. I wonder how those incident rates compare to other common activities. Shadowjams (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you Google "UK cinema shooting" or "England cinema shooting" or "London cinema shooting" you only get results about Colorado or colleges offering courses on cinematography. Mercifully, nobody here seems to take a gun with them to watch a film. Alansplodge (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real subtle. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to be fair, I'm sure the vast majority of Americans don't either. The ones Medeis goes to may be the exception. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battery, why

I had 100cc Yamaha which was not self-start, i.e. you had to kick it to start. But still it had a 12 DC Battery...why ? 124.253.255.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kick start motorcycles used to primarily use a magneto to generate the high voltage required for the spark plug. However a magneto does not really lend itself to producing low voltage to run your lights. So, at idling speeds the lights would be very dim. Later motorcycles use an alternator to charge a battery. At idling speeds the lights draw from the battery and at high speeds the battery gets charged.196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mopeds and small motorcycles often have 6 volt batteries. Large motorcycles have 12 volt batteries. 100 cc is small to medium, therefore it can have a 12 volt battery. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a violent society we live in. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

swimming pools UK

with summer coming and the weather getting warmer, I feel like setting up a small pool in my new garden, but I'm wondering, are there any guidelines on how large a pool I can have, without having to get some sort of planning permission or authorisation from the water suppply or anything of that sort?

213.104.128.16 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Canda I helped a friend put one in. The pool store that installed it knew all the local rules. It may be worth phoning/emailing them. We also found out later that if we had put in a low voltage light then we wouldn't have had to run $400+ worth of copper bond wire to all the metal parts and back up to the house. You may wish to look into electrical codes in case the pool guys don't know them well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the rules depend on where you live (e.g. National Park or conservation area). Some guidelines are here and here. Dbfirs 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you planning to dig it yourself or to have one of those raised metal pools? how big is your garden? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handicap parking

Why can't handicap parking rules be the same in all 50 states — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packertb (talk • contribs) 17:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure they're that different, but more generally, because the U.S. is a federalist republic and the United States Constitution leaves most rulemaking power to the individual states, who can choose to do things differently, within some broad limits. You might be surprised to learn that most criminal law is state-based. Shadowjams (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having 50 sets of laws does seem aggravating, at times, but also allows 50 different experiments, so, for example, we can find out if the world really does end if marijuana is legalized or homosexuals are allowed to marry. Assuming the states that try those first aren't reduced to smoking cinders, the rest of the states might then be encouraged to reform their laws, too.

As far as handicapped parking goes, I do wish my state would allow me to park there if there's no other parking available. I find it both infuriating and a waste of resources to see a row of unused handicapped parking spaces in an otherwise full lot. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens to the handicapped driver who turns up after all the handicapped spaces are taken by able bodied people? HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they have more of a right to park in a lot than the able-bodied ? They can go shop elsewhere, just as the able-bodied must when the lot is full. I'm for giving the handicapped equal rights, and if that means they need to park closer to be able to use the store, that's fine. But I oppose special rights. (Incidentally, I always park way in the back, even if there are closer spaces, since I don't mind the exercise, want to avoid door dings, and can't stand being trapped in because some line of idiots are waiting behind me for some other car to pull out.) StuRat (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I don't quite see where you're drawing the line. Isn't being allowed to park closer a special right? HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until the lot is full, it doesn't place an unreasonable burden on everybody else. But, when people can't park despite there being free spaces, that is an unreasonable burden. In another example, adding ramps to national monuments is not an unreasonable burden, in most cases, but, in cases where that's impractical, closing the monument is an unreasonable burden on the general public. StuRat (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some might suggest that life in a wheelchair is a pretty unreasonable burden to start with, and that anything society can do to help is reasonable. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To which I respond "some are handicapped due to their own reckless behavior, and some due to no fault of their own, but, in no case are they handicapped because of me, so I should not be punished". StuRat (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It always amazes me to find people with attitudes like yours, but thanks for the education as to the diversity of views in this wonderful world of ours. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a future world, able-bodied people will be allowed to park in spots reserved for disabled people with the proviso that when their remote alert sounds they will drop what they're doing and return to their car and move it, in under 5 seconds, or be fined for any degree of tardiness. Bus stop (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly the most ridiculous complaint I've ever heard. You'd love it here, where we also have spots reserved for pregnant women, drivers with young children, and drivers with electric or otherwise "green" cars (maybe only at Ikea). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Adam. The purpose of legislation is to provide rules for the governance of society. People with additional mobility needs are no less a part of society than you, me, or Stu, and lawmakers are quite within their remit - especially as we, the members of society elected them - to rule that those who are more able to shift for themselves should do so, and that those in greater need should be provided for. That is how societies, and communities, operate. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, can you give an example of a national monument that was closed entirely because it was impractical to provide ramps for disabled people? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may not come out and say why an area is not made accessible to the public, but this seems to imply a place which is closed for that reason: [18]. StuRat (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get that; but in any case you really seem to clutching at straws here in order to defend a preposterous position, one bordering on offensiveness when you put yourself in the position of the victim (!) in relation to disabled people. Why not ride a mile in their wheelchair before coming up with such lame and selfish points. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing able-bodied to use handicap spots in full parking lots would probably help you much less than you imagine when you see the empty spots. A small part of the spots are reserved for handicapped. If the lot is full and everybody was allowed the handicap spots then they would usually have been taken before you got there. And how should the rule be administered when able-bodied drivers claim "The lot was full when I got there". Should video recordings of the whole lot be required to show it wasn't full? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is remarkably on topic for the usual reference desk suspects, but still, I think we're veering off topic. I know for a fact there are studies that talk about the number of handicap parking spots designated by the AWDA, but I don't see any referenced here. Shadowjams (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being compelled to walk a little ways is not a "punishment", in fact it's good for you, if you can actually walk. And if all the handicapped spots are taken, additional handicapped persons will have to park some distance away also. And some stores have short-term (15 to 30 minutes) spaces near the handicapped spaces. And stores often require their own employees to park a distance from the store so they won't hog the good parking spaces. It would be nice if everyone could park near the entrance, but when there are many customers at once, it's not possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can those of you using the term "handicapped" lay off it please, it's offensive. "Disabled people" (thanks Jack) is much better. And no, I'm not being PC. --Viennese Waltz 13:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google [handicap signs] and then maybe direct your PC complaints to those companies advertising that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious VW's request was being made to people here. Do you usually tell people to get lost when they ask for your sympathy and consideration? The people putting up the signs don't read RD. You and I do. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out below, it's in common usage in America, even by those who are disabled. So cease your attempts at nannying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the term "handicapped parking space" is in common usage. And it's funny to hear "handicapped" described as offensive, when it was once the euphemism. Bill Veeck, who wore an artificial leg, said in the early 1960s, "I'm not handicapped, I'm crippled." Now he would say, "I'm not disabled, I'm crippled." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, the word "handicap" fell out of favour 20 years ago or more. It was deemed in the top ten offensive terms for disabled people in this vote by disabled people. That excellent BBC News article includes this snippet (apologies for reproducing another offensive word): ""Handicapped" is a word which many disabled people consider to be the equivalent of nigger. It evokes thoughts of being held back, not in the race, not as good, weighed down by something so awful we ought not to speak of it." --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I pointed out above, "handicapped" was once considered a polite euphemism for "crippled". And maybe it's an N-word in the UK, but in America it's commons usage, including by people who get those stickers for their cars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it, do you. It being common usage is neither here nor there in terms of whether it should or should not be used. The point is to change offensive language. And disabled people get to call themselves whatever they like. You don't. (I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the RD should be coming out with such offensive claptrap as we have seen here today.) --Viennese Waltz 14:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's YOU that doesn't get it. Comparing the common euphemism "handicapped" to the N-word is truly offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it with the opinions. This is a reference desk. I've presented a reference showing that disabled people in the UK believe that it is a valid comparison. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've presented a reference that shows it's in wide, ordinary usage, at least in America. So stop it already, with your own opinions and nannyism. Wikipedia is supposed to be about description, not prescription. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page says you are English. This is an international encyclopedia and the connotations you have with a word may not be experienced in other countries. I guess it was mainly voted in the top-10 because it's a common term and not because it's among the worst things a person can say. Few people will vote for something they rarely or never hear. Whenever a term for mentally or physically challenged people or whatever we call them has been used for a while, there are some who will use it in a derogatory way (often about people it doesn't apply to), and some who will advocate for a new term. See Euphemism#Disability and handicap, and try not to judge others for using a word that may be perfectly acceptable where they come from. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to scroll up a few lines and refresh your memory: I was careful to write, in the opening words of my comment, "In the UK at least". To dismiss the reliable source I brought with a personal opinion is poor Reference Desk form. Calling the comparison and by (extension therefore calling me) "offensive", is itself, offensive. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metal polishing with electric drill

I need to polish a stainless steel splashback, and want to buy a set of polishing attachments for an electric drill. But when I look online it is really confusing. Has anyone got experience of this? What should I look for in a store like B&Q or Wickes? How much should I spend? I don't want to use glasspaper, but I need to use something more than just cloth in the first instance. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a large flat surface like that I would think what you need is a kit that includes a large cloth disk and polishing compound. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As all ways.... Wikipedia has an article meeting your needs. The splashback is probably already polished so you only need loose cotton buffing wheels and 'Green” polishing compound. The green colour comes from the fact that Chromium(III) oxide is blended with the fine alumina abrasive. Use vinegar first, to dissolve any lime scale. Get rid of that stuff first. This looks like suitable kit.[19] Personally, I just use vinegar, my daughter's old cotton sweat shirt as a cloth (wash it first if its thick with motorcycle grease- Oh why can't she ride ponies like other normal girls?), stainless polish, and a little of the wife's elbow grease. Doesn’t take her long. Its just polishing.--Aspro (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider what finish you want. Often stainless has a finish with a "grain" or brushed finish is linear. If you use mild abrasive it is easy to produce this finish or to restore an area where someone has gone the wrong way with a scouring pad. A factory where I once worked used a belt sander to finish stainless, with fine sandpaper. But that was to apply the brushed finish to virgin metal. Avoid any sanding/buffing attachment which places a whirling disk against the surface producing curved abrasions. You can just using commercial stainless polish and a cloth to polish a stainless appliance. A perfectly smooth "mirror" finish is also doable with metal polish and a soft cloth. If I were using a cloth buffing wheel on a drill, I would make sure there was no grit left on the wheel from when a more coarse abrasive had been used in the past, and that the edge of the wheel was moving parallel to the grain of the surface if any. I have not had good luck with a rotating buffing hood placed flat against a shiny surface, since circular marks are easy to leave and hard to get rid of. Edison (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One caution about using a drill instead of a device actually designed for polishing: A drill is normally only used for a few seconds at a time (even if you are drilling a series of holes, there's a rest period between each). So, a drill may overheat if used continuously for long periods, as in polishing. Hopefully it will shut off automatically before it damages itself, but a cheaper drill might not. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all this helpful advice. I think I will start by hand like Aspro says. I found these compounds in this store which looks like it is aimed at professionals. [20]. Given that they're not expensive, would I just buy the green one? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to purchase several different grades of Green. Some for initial buff and the others for final buff. I suggest that you try final buff first, because sometime, if you try to do it too perfectly, the end result can look too out of character to the rest of the kitchen. This of course, is not the way that a professional would go about doing a 'professional' job on just a splashback. Yet, it may give you the finish that blends in with the rest of the decor and not cause too much of a eye catching contrast in finish. So, try that first, then stand back consider ... is this the look I desire (ask your friends for their opinion as well, they will soon spot any cringing short coming). Some kitchens are so perfect, that just a crumb on a work-top can make them look untidy – but a kitchen is a work-place, where one's time is better spent, preparing food in a hygienic environment, rather than fussing about how just the splashback looks. I can not however, comment on branded products that I haven’t used.Aspro (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"savers" or "basics" foodstuff

IS it true that sometimes "savers" or "basics" (the cheapest supermarket own brand version of a foodstuff) is the same food as in their "normal" food but just with different packaging? I bought a "basics" blue cheese and a "normal" one and same for corn flakes and I personally can't tell the difference. so now I am going to buy the cheaper one, but is it actually just the same foodstuff but in different packaging, or are there subtle differences that I cannot detect with my palate? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about store brands?—Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, shop in question is Sainsbury in the UK but could apply to any really as a question? Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, supermarkets sell "own brand" goods and then an even cheaper version. Baked beans are an example; Sainsbury's sell the Heinz version at £1.51 per kg, Sainsbury's own brand at £0.80 per kg and Sainsbury "Basics" at £0.60.[21] In this case, the cheap ones seem to me to have more sauce and less beans, but this is original research. Alansplodge (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK you probably don't have subscriptions to Consumer Reports (or reasons to subscribe, they testing us and canada market products), but:

In blind tests, our trained tasters compared a big national brand with a store brand in 29 food categories. Store and national brands tasted about equally good 19 times. Four times, the store brand won; six times, the national brand won.[22] i think that page is free without subscription. 206.213.251.31 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we don't, but we do have Which? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be quite so generous in my assessment of house brands. Some are good, but many are not. Spaghetti sauce is an example of one where the store brands I've tried seemed inferior. But, I suggest you do a blind taste test, to determine if the store brand is as good as the name brand (you'll need a helper to bring them to you in random order).

Incidentally, a store chain near me, Meijers, follows a bizarre strategy of positioning their store brands to compete with premium brands, as opposed to generic and discount brands. I doubt if that strategy will work. StuRat (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsbury's (to continue the UK thread) does all three: It has a "Basics" range at the budget/discount price point, a "By Sainsbury's" range at the standard/everyday price point, and a swanky "Taste the Difference" range at the premium price point. All three appear to sell well. (I buy items from all three ranges, for a start.) I agree with Alansplodge that the 'Basics' range often appears to contain a bit more filler for a bit less actual food; it also often provides a way to buy mis-shapen or uneven fruits and vegetables. But the chopped tomatoes in the 'Basics' range certainly appear no worse than 'everyday' price-point chopped tomatoes, whether the store's own brand or a competitor's. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target does the same thing; "Target Brand" stuff is the economy brand, and "Archer Farms" is their premium store brand. --Jayron32 12:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

3 book collection I am looking for

My father when I was young had a 3 book collection of a "series" I remember the type of each of the books they were both separated by "Location" "thing(like a monster or a weird beast)" or I think the 3rd was "vehicles" but I am not for certain. each book was black cover and they were hard back. My father would never let me read them because he said they were scary but I read some of them anyway. I remember that in the "monster" book there was some sort of beast that may have been a worm or a mole like creature that lived the western united states that was in a desert. I hope this information was sort of useful please help me relive some lost childhood moments. I also do not know how old they were I read the books between 1994-2004. thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.47.115 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from Hyperphysics

This question is duplicated on the Science desk, please follow up there. Looie496 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I suppose many here are familiar with this good academic physics site. I'm trying to find out if the use of the stuff contained therein, including figures, are free to cite and use within the framework of writing a paper. My previous appeals to addresses found there weren't answered as yet. Thank you, BentzyCo (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one can stop you from citing them. But regarding reuse, the website explicitly retains all rights to the content it hosts. There is a such a thing as fair use which allows you to republish content without permission, but whether that applies in your case is a legal question we can't provide an answer to. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to reuse a couple of figures in the paper I'm talking about. "Citing" isn't a question of course, otherwise no scientific discussion would take place. BentzyCo (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your options are: A) wait for his permission; B) find similar figures somewhere else; C) make your own figures that are not simply derivatives of his; D) claim fair use and hope no one sues you. If you want to know if a fair use claim is valid for your purposes, you'll have to find a lawyer. Other websites have laxer rules on providing legal advice than we do, but you may not want to take it from strangers on the internet. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option C) is normally fairly easy in physics as Copyright#Scope is mainly about presentation not factual content. Just think about the content and do your own presentation being especially careful to avoid copying the style or any artistic element. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Europe SVG map with capitals

Hi, I would need a SVG map of Europe, including capitals. SVG is needed, since I need to be able to remove cities easily. Where could I find one? --Olli (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start here. --Jayron32 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, what one would you recommedn ?--Olli (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does File:Europe.svg work for you? Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a better old looking but, if there is no better alternative available, I need to take it. --Olli (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 378: / Line 378: @@
 :: hi, what one would you recommedn ?--[[User:Olli|Olli]] ([[User talk:Olli|talk]]) 16:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 :::Does [[:File:Europe.svg]] work for you? [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 16:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
+::::It's a better old looking but, if there is no better alternative available, I need to take it. --[[User:Olli|Olli]] ([[User talk:Olli|talk]]) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)