Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 1

Lowest temperature possible with 90% humidity

I need to maintain a minimum of 90% humidity in a controlled environment for a research project. What is the minimum temperature that will allow the test environment to maintain 90% humidity?Silasalbert (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Er - I think you have a slight terminological misunderstanding here! The amount of water the air can hold is indeed less at lower temperatures - but when we talk about "90% humidity" we mean ninety percent of the humidity that the air could theoretically hold at that temperature. So 90% humidity air at 1 degree Centigrade is pretty dry air - but 90% humidity at 38 degrees is like breathing soup! So I guess you can have "90% humidity" at any temperature above freezing...at which point the term becomes somewhat meaningless. SteveBaker (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Even below freezing there is a equilibrium vapor pressure [1]. So one can continue to talk about the "humidity", though in practice no one does. Dragons flight (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt responses. I'm still grasping for undersanding.Silasalbert (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want 90% relative humidity at 0 degrees Celsius, make the dewpoint -1.44. At -20 C, make the dew point -21.21. At -100 C, make the dew point -100.48. At -200 C, make the dewpoint -200.04. At -273C, make the dew point -273.03, per [2], which also cheerfully calls for a dewpoint of -273.18, lower than absolute zero, at absolute zero(-273.15), for 90% RH. Edison (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As the other posters have pointed out, there's no _theoretical_ lower limit. The _actual_ lower limit will depend on your environmental chamber, and you'll have to look in at the manufacturer's datasheet to find out what that is. Heraeus-Vötsch's range can regulate humidity between 10 C and 95 C (see page 4 of the datasheet), and other manufacturer's ranges will be similar. Tevildo (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Age of loss of virginity in the UK

I read somewhere (thestudentroom.co.uk I think) that 75% of people are virgins at 16, 50% at 18(?), and 25% at [i forgot]. Can anyone help? Thanks and happy new year. 81.129.216.86 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

People lie when asked about such things, so such statistics are very unreliable. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

True. However, this survey suggested that the proportions are about 70% at age 16, 30% at 18, and 8% at 20 - a broadly similar breakdown to this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would refuse to answer such personal questions, so those who do answer may be an untypical subset. Even if the surveys are similar, then it just shows people lie in the same way on average. 92.24.83.55 (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

only 8% at 20? I find that very unlikely. There's a lot of uncool, unpopular, or plain ugly people out there, more than 8%.Aaronite (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes...because you'd have to be one of those subsets to possibly be a virgin...Anyway, some people have mentioned self-selection and sampling bias, which I may as well link you to. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not "loss" of anything, instead it's gaining something about which Queen Victoria allegedly said Oh Albert, this is far too good for the ordinary people. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough Vic said this to Al when he was in the can. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you. 81.129.216.86 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Car key remote

Is there a machine which would enable a thief to flip through car key codes so as to unlock strangers' cars? Rather like a radio receiver flipping through the air waves looking for valid transmissions. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's probably possible, but: the number of total codes is probably quite large, to the point of making such a brute force attack pretty pointless. The car itself can probably only evaluate only one code at a time, which cuts down on the possibility of parallel attacks. And if the car has any kind of delay in evaluating codes (e.g. 1 second per code or something like that), then you're talking about it taking thousands of years to hit the right one. Now all of this is speculative, but assuming the people who made the key codes had any serious interest in their security, and didn't want it to be trivial to unlock all cars, they would have implemented at least one of the above safeguards. (See Brute force attack for a general discussion of the problem.) It is probably easier to just break a window and hot-wire the thing, but I wouldn't know about that. ;-) A far more useful and clever tool would be one that intercepted car codes as people locked or unlocked their vehicles—though there are probably safeguards in place to make that more difficult too (the lock code is probably different from the unlock code, for one, and the infrared signal is probably fairly directional, for two, and if they were really interested in security it would be some sort of challenge-response system that would prevent against interception so easily). Now, of course, all of this might be wrong—it would hardly be the first time that a commercial enterprise used really bad security mechanisms for something important—but that would be fairly surprising, as most of this stuff is Security Thinking 101. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (in Australia), car alarm/immobilizer remotes use radio, not infra-red. Also they use a rolling code to prevent replay attacks. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's something in or about that specific car that the thief really, really wants badly, he's going to spend his time busting into unlocked cars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily at all, Bugs. Yesterday's copy of my local daily newspaper, the Southern Daily Echo, carries a police warning about a current spate of thefts from cars in Fareham both locked and unlocked. ". . . Many of the [13] vehicles were broken into, but a number of cars were left unlocked." Someone broke into my own car a few years ago by putting a brick through the front nearside window (though nothing in it proved to be worth stealing). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Typically, thieves are going to go with the path of least resistance. "Typically", though, is not the same as "always". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Windows don't offer much resistance to bricks. Since nobody pays any attention to car alarms it isn't really any more difficult to steal from a locked car as an unlocked one and there are far more locked ones. Therefore I would expect most cars stolen from to be locked. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the details of hot-wiring a car to steal it, but ... If I saw someone simply open a car door, get in and drive off - even after poking around about under the bonnet/hood - I wouldn't be suspicious. But if I saw someone put a brick through the window, I would almost certainly call the police.Mitch Ames (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See KeeLoq for (alleged) and (theoretical) vulnerabilities in one (fairly old) device. Tevildo (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Two Mercedes cars were unlocked, stolen from and relocked 2 nights ago in Chelsea, London. Within 1/2 mile of each other. How? One of them had been done twice before. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And the lesson to be learned there (which I learned through bitter experience) is to keep any valuables in the trunk, and keep the trunk release locked, assuming it uses a conventional key. That will protect better against the low-tech thief. There are no guarantees, though. So here's another question: In the KeeLoq article it mentions a higher level of incryption. Is it possible or practical to have one's car re-keyed with the higher encryption level? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not in-situ. MicroChip's range of security devices have the algorithm hard-wired into the chip - they can't be re-flashed or anything similar. You could, of course, replace your existing central-locking system with an OEM model that has a more secure form of encryption. Tevildo (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Biedrzycki

Is Paul Biedrzycki notable enough for an article in Wikipedia? --Aiden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.211.127 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably know more about him than we do. Read up on the criteria at WP:Notability (people) and see if he meets our standards. If you have any questions after that, feel free to ask again here or at the help desk. —Akrabbim^talk 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that a simple Google search demonstrates that there is more than one plausible candidate with that name. Do you mean the Milwaukee health official, the film director, or someone else? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a "film director" www.imdb.com gives the guy credit as "Stills Photographer" on just one movie - YouTube suggests he produced a rap band's video. So, no - I don't think anyone of that name has sufficient notability. The Milwaukee health official seems somewhat more notable - but I don't see anything there that would warrant an article. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent featured pic

In a recent featured picture of the USS Annapolis which is was taking part in the 2009 Ice Excercise, there's some strange formation of marks in the background of the shot... It's multiple straight lines forming almost a "Tv aerial" shape in the ice...

I was wondering if anyone had any idea what they are? I assume they are part of the Excercise, but I can't think what they would be used for... They seem very random to me, and very pristine.. If they were part of the Excercise I would expect the area around them to have been scuffed by multiple men running around or something...

Thanks... Gazhiley (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the centre of this cross with arrows pointing inwards marks the position that they were supposed to emerge through the ice. Mikenorton (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that, but I would hope they have a higher level of accuracy that that! Plus why so large an area covered? Why not such a simple cross? And it's so sharply marked too, almost as if it's meant to stay a while, which would not work with it just being a target for surfacing... Ta for your input though... Gazhiley (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of it being to allow a visual check from the air, rather than for the submarine itself to use. Mikenorton (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would _guess_ that there was another submarine - er - parked? moored? - there, which has submerged, leaving a straight gap in the ice which is in the process of freezing over. However, this is just a guess. Tevildo (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The marks form a symmetrical cross, each arm with 4 inward pointing chevrons, as far as I can tell and allowing for foreshortening. Mikenorton (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly guess that either another submarine came up there previously - or perhaps the Annapolis made two attempts - the first one merely cracking the ice - and the second being successful. If you pushed up against the ice with a fairly small object (such as the conning tower) - the resulting cracks could easily be roughly symmetrical. But this is all guesswork. SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The marks are man-made from the surface, nothing else would produce such straight lines, most fracturing (as seen around the conning tower of the Annapolis) is pretty disorganised. There appears to be a track extending from the left-hand end of the leftmost arm of the cross. This US Navy report [3] describes this as a joint exercise with the Applied Physics Laboratory Ice Station(APLIS), so I'm guessing that they made the marks. APLIS is established on a drifting ice floe about 180 nautical miles north of Prudhoe Bay. Mikenorton (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input... I certainly agree that they are man made from the surface du eto the sharpness of them, but i suppose the only definative way of knowing why would be from someone who was there or involved in this sort of thing... Gazhiley (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The girl who took the photograph is not difficult to find. I got her with a quick Google search. Her unusual name helped. She was there, wasn't she? Maybe she knows what the marks are. I personally reckon that it was some sort of mark put down at a geo location where the sub was supposed to surface. Looks like a close shot. Richard Avery (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

well, not difficult to find articles about her and this pic, but no idea how to get hold of her... Any ideas? Gazhiley (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if anyone is still watching but you can try contacting her via the US Navy. Either contact someone and explain you want to contact her and why (tell them you don't mind if they forward on your message and leave it up to her whether to respond) or alternatively just try sending a message addressed to her C/O US Navy (or whatever) of course explaining why you are contacting her (they may open it wondering about the strange letter or who the heck you're trying to conact so it will help in more ways then one). Will probably help if you're an American yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

something untoward in the food

If you find something untoward in the food served to you by a host, is it proper to speak up about it? Or should a guest just remain silent and shunt the offending entity off to the side and cover it with mashed potatoes so as not to cause anyone any embarrassment? Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of untoward thing are you thinking about? If it is something that could have contaminated the food and made it dangerous, it is important to speak up to avoid anyone else being poisoned, however that is an unlikely situation. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually make a joking mention of it (pet hairs are not uncommon when there are many pets in the house), but if it was really dangerous (eg: glass, plastic, metal, ice in cooked-from-frozen food, etc.) I would definitely mention it to the host.

It is a different matter in a restaurant, they have cleanliness standards to uphold and regular inspections should be carried out. So a couple of months ago in a restaurant, I found an earwig - dead, and well fried - under the fried fish I had almost finished. It didn't upset me too much, but I did complain to the waiting staff who seemed pretty horrified and quite apologetic. However, I was surprised to later learn that we didn't get a discount. Astronaut (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's something like a (head)hair in the food that won't make you not finish the meal, you can just subtly pick it out and continue, leaving that portion to the side, even if it's a little bit gross. With a good friend, you can make it a joke, but not at a formal dinner. If it's a formal dinner, or you don't know the host well, discretion is best, and the default reaction. If it is something like you've noticed that the meat is off, then mentioning it is possibly better than condemning everyone to food poisoning. Generally, etiquette says that avoiding embarrassing the host is of high importance, so it would take something that might later cause embarrassment (i.e. making others ill) for you to draw attention to it. If you still wish it drawn to the host's attention, it's best done privately, after the meal. If the untoward thing makes the whole portion of food inedible, a polite excuse of a food allergy or intolerance can get you out of that course. Steewi (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaining about the food. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is your duty as an agreeable guest not to engender any feelings of inadequecy or regret in your host. For heaven's sake, remove it without a fuss and say nothing of it. If you find several small nails in your casserole, however, all bets are off. You can have a good laugh or if you find it very alarming then you may question their intent and/or sanity. Vranak (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Does anyone know where one can look to locate their family Coat of Arms ( Family Crest) Norwegian ancestry ? lundofwi at core dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.57.91 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In what country would it have been matriculated? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Families don't have Coats of Arms, individuals do and they are inherited by another individual when that holder dies. Unless you have some reason to believe you are entitled to a specific Coat of Arms, then you almost certainly aren't. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tango's is a particularly British point of view that is correct for Great Britain (and perhaps Ireland) but not elsewhere. In other European countries, including Norway, burgher arms are an accepted tradition. The tradition of burgher arms has been widely adopted in the United States, even by families of British descent. For help with arms that may exist for a Norwegian family, you might try searching this site or contact the Norwegian Genealogical Society, which should have more authoritative information. Marco polo (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That article on burgher arms isn't entirely clear, but it seems to be talking about individuals rather than families (except for one mention in the lede). --Tango (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Nothing in the Burgher arms article explicitly states that they do not, once granted/adopted, generally follow the same rule of inheritance as Tango describes, though in unregulated jurisdictions varying practices are likely; perhaps someone with appropriate confirmatory citations could amend it?

That article could also be read as wrongly implying that in Britain arms are still restricted to the upper classes, whereas for many decades anyone of good character (i.e. without a criminal conviction or similar 'black mark') has been able to apply for a grant of arms. Incidentally, one of its citations ([5]) is to an incorrect page number, and I cannot immediately find the intended material in my copy of the volume, though I will continue looking.

Finally, it is quite possible that the OP has some traceable armigerous ancestor(s), and might therefore be able under his/her current heraldic jursidiction to apply for a new grant of arms suitably differenced from them. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You need a little more than a clean sheet to get arms in the UK, but not much. Any university degree will do it, for example. You also need £3950 to burn - you have to have the heralds at the College of Arms design it and, as you might expect from such a monopoly, they have high fees. [4] --Tango (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the College of Arms has no significant income apart from the fees, they don't seem to me inordinate, but YMMD. Note that the Lyon Court's fees [5] (applicable only to Scots, obviously) are somewhat less, at £1,926 for non-corporate arms with crest and motto. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read this dialogue, I stand somewhat corrected. It seems that in Norway, too, coats of arms belong to individuals and not families, although apparently there aren't many Norwegian individuals "entitled" to coats of arms. Nonetheless, it is quite common for Americans to adopt or display a "family" coat of arms. I guess that from a European point of view, most do so "illegitimately". Of course, the United States is not Europe. Marco polo (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it "illegitimate", just "unregulated". It can only be illegitimate if there are legitimate ones, which there aren't. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It could at least be considered in poor taste, considering that most USAians with any interest in heraldry could legitimately apply for valid arms from an ancestral jurisdiction (The College of Heralds, for example, will consider applications from anyone of English, Welsh or Northern Irish descent).

It would become illegitimate if they should visit the jurisdiction from which their 'usurped' arms originate (assuming they then used them there), and in the case of Scotland (where the Lyon Court is still a functioning arm of the criminal judiciary) they would be liable for prosecution, fines and the confiscation of anything marked with the arms in question. Using another's arms amounts to impersonation, and may be deemed to involve obtaining money, goods or services by deception.

Moreover, if one does have an armigerous forebear, many heraldic jurisdictions recognise regular systems of 'differencing' by which slightly modified versions of the forebear's arms are deemed appropriate for and usable by the descendent in question, which they will advise on and which may not require full, or any, rematriculation fees. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from their website, the English College of Arms (or Heralds, as you call it) doesn't care about your descent. They will grant arms to anyone, anywhere as long as they are considered eligible (from their website, linked above: "There are no fixed criteria of eligibility for a grant of arms, but such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account." - it sounds like it would be easier for someone from the Commonwealth to be considered eligible, but that isn't a requirement). I think you need to be reasonably closely related to the armigerous forebear (or heirs thereof) for differencing to work - if you have to go back more than 2 or 3 generations then you would end up with a complete mess. However, our article on Cadency did lead to me to this part of the College of Arms website which seems to say all sons of a bearer of arms inherit the arms and the use of differencing is optional (daughters inherit the arms for their own lifetime, but can only pass them on to their own children as a quartering and then only if there are no surviving male heirs). That does somewhat contradict my first statement in this section - while I was correct that it is individuals that bear arms, the same arms could be used by a whole family. --Tango (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On your last point, they wouldn't be the same (i.e. identical) arms, but slightly different or 'differenced' versions of what could be called the 'family' arms, so each individual's arms at any one time would be unique, (though similar), which is the most fundamental requirement of arms in the first place: if standard cadency marks were being employed, these would then change as the undifferenced arms were inherited by successive heirs; with other systems the differences (which can also be charges and/or tincture variations) may be inherited permanently by a given cadet line. As far as optionality goes, I understand that to mean an individual doesn't have to use the arms at all, and if he does (yes, the system is still a bit sexist) he can choose to use either the standard cadency marks which don't require formal 'College 'clearance', or other means that the CoH would have to approve.

As far as eligibility under the CoH goes, books I have (some written by members of it) state variations on the theme that it covers anyone of English/Welsh/Northern Irish descent, and also citizens of some (unspecified) Commonwealth countries who lack their own Heraldic Authority (others, such as Canada, having established their own): of course, given that the CoH website is more up-to-date than any printed book, things may have changed. I fear however this is all drifting rather far from the OP's concerns, which fall within a Norwegian context. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been told (by a herald, if memory serves, but it was a long time ago) that grants may be made to any subject of the Crown. Clearly this includes any British citizens, and may well include (if we ignore the fact of the separate crowns) citizens of other Commonwealth realms. I was told that if a citizen of a country other than a Commonwealth realm is granted arms by the CoA, this is actually a posthumous grant to their most recent ancestor who was a subject of the Crown, and cadency will do the rest. I have also (again, if memory serves) seen a grant to an American man who was eligible by his membership of the American priory of the Venerable Order of Saint John, of which the Queen is sovereign. I apologise for the monumental anecdotality of this comment. Marnanel (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Norwegian wikipedia has an article no:Slektsvåpen, i.e. family coat of arms, which briefly discusses whether these should be regarded as personal coats of arms or family coats of arms. Translating from that article:

A family coat of arms is usually a coat of arms that someone themselves have aquired/created, and that their descendants have continued to use. This was done in the middle ages, in later centuries and by many heraldry-interested persons today. Family coats of arms have not been a priviledge for nobility - at least not in Denmark and Norway.

The borderline between a family coat of arms and a personal one, can raise several questions*. Most family coats of arms were first used by one person, and later used by their descendants and/or other relatives (for example the nephew of Tordenskiold). *This sentence doesn't read particularly well in the Norwegian version (a borderline asking questions); I've tried to keep the translation faithful to the original. None of the relevant statements are sourced. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 14:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

White working class of London

Where is the white working class area of London? I had been told it was South London, but there are many immigrants and gentrification. Others said Ilford/Redbridge, but I have found this is not a "traditional" white working class community. It has also been suggested to me that there really isn't such a place in London anymore--that the north of England was the only spot where there is a strong majority of white working class people. I am curious to find such a community to compare it to the rest of London where I am living for six months. Thanks. I have a reference question (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, the East End of London was the working class area (and would have been predominantly white). I'm not sure what it is like today... --Tango (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This review of a revised version of Family and Kinship in East London, discusses whether the local authorities in Bethnal Green discriminated in housing either for or against Bangladeshi immigrants as against the white inhabitants: Kin Outrage from The Guardian, 25 April 2007. As a traditional dockside place for arrival, the East End has seen Huguenot, Jewish and Commonwealth immigrants. The British Union of Fascists under Sir Oswald Mosley led provocative marches in the Jewish areas of the East End in the 1930's. See London's East End: Point of arrival (1975-6) by Chaim Bermant (ISBN 978-0025100909). —— Shakescene (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The prevailing wind in London is westerly, which means that the industrial areas concentrated on the east of London and therefore homes for the workers are similarly concentrated there. However there are many working class areas outside the east, and in any case almost all of the inner city has seen substantial population shifts so that there are many non-whites living there. For the few places where there is a substantial working class population and the population is almost all white, try looking in the London Borough of Havering: South Hornchurch ward is 94.5% white (London average 71.2%) and has a workforce that is only 20.1% professional and managerial (London average 34.3%). Gooshays ward (a council estate on the far side of Romford) is 96.4% white and 18.0% professional and managerial. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the most common wind is from the south-west. The factories, and hence the working class areas, concentrated in the east I would imagine because they could more easily transport things along the Thames, and hence around the coast or abroad, and that is where the docks were. Which reminds me - a solid working-class area may still be Dagenham which is said to have or be the largest council-estate in Eirope. Some years ago the place in Britain with the lowest proportion of graduates was I recall Basildon - but that is a commuter suburb rather than London proper. 92.24.69.222 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There are similar areas in south east London: Cray Valley West, on the south east fringe of the city is 94.9% white and 21.1% professional and managerial. Warofdreams talk 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Personal Observation -- My recent visits to the area (in which my father was born and raised) suggest that its population now has a very substantial Commonwealth Asian (Indian, Pakistan, Bangladeshi) component as well as other 'non-white' and 'white non-British' communities, but not necessarily that they are now in the overall majority, rather that the area is much less racially/culturally homogenous and is 'patchworked' on a small scale. The Jewish community (with which my father's family were quite closely associated socially, professionally and possibly by some descent) seems now much less evident.

The UK Office for National Statistics obviously collects relevant information via the decennial UK National Census and otherwise - the OP could pursue enquiries through the web pages linked from those articles, but there may be restrictions on the availability of some of the most recent data. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Should perhaps have said that my information is from the 2001 Census. The website to go to is this one although it can be a bit complicated. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

London is a palimpsest. You'll find elite and working class neighbourhoods next to one another all over the place. It's extremely hard to generalise about such a large and complex place. Direct marketers use tools such as ACORN and MOSAIC to help them find the kinds of people they want, but they're still quite likely to end up sending promotions for lawnmowers to residents of towerblocks. Taking East London as an example, yes, there are some very impoverished areas, but there's also fantastically expensive properties in London Docklands. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Notting Hill and Notting Hill Gate are classic examples of districts whose prestige and composition seem to have changed at least once every couple of generations since the 18th century, from extremely fashionable to dangerously desperate to hip and trendy to ordinary working class, and then back and forth again. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Find the Middle Point between locations

Is there some of website that mashes with Google Maps and allows me to find the geographically middle point between 2 or 3 locations? Acceptable (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Like http://www.geomidpoint.com/ perhaps? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work so well on my old PC. But I wonder how it would deal with entering two points that are on exactly opposite sides of the globe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I just entered the north and south poles and got the answer: "The center of the earth". Personally, I would have preferred "Error. No unique midpoint exists for antipodal points.", but each to their own. --Tango (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

They opted for humor over a factual answer. Because, based on that premise, any point-to-point of more than a very short distance should be subterranean! The right answer for the north and south poles would be "the equator", and for any other two points would be some particular great circle. That might require some extra programming, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the equator or a meridian, they could give that line as an answer. For other great circles, it would be very difficult to describe (not impossible, but it wouldn't be easy to understand for most people). That's why I would just have not given an answer at all. --Tango (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it gaves the same straight-through-the-earth answer to any opposite points or only to the poles. An easy example would be the points where the Greenwich meridian and the international date line cross the equator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it gives the same answer. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The website worked quite well for my intentions. Thanks a lot guys. Acceptable (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2

Fireworks from airplanes

Do airplanes or airports take special measures during bonfire and new years eve when there are loads of fireworks being let off? Like low flying aircraft or those coming into land? Or do fireworks not effect them at all. Also, are there any cool videos of fireworks on new years eve from airplanes I could watch, I'd love to see the sky below erupt into light at midnight from above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found a YouTube video at www.youtube.com/watch?v=buP19dne1d0 which shows fireworks from a plane. There are probably more out there if you do a bit of googling. As far as airports go, I found this document which makes it clear that there are rules about using fireworks near the flight paths of Manchester Airport in England, and that what is permitted depends very much on the category of the firework, ie how high it goes. It also states that flights are suspended briefly on Guy Fawkes night to allow people near the airport to let off fireworks. I suspect you will find all other airports have similar arrangements. The document also warns: "Failure to comply with the guidelines outlined may result in a charge of ‘Endangering the safety of an aircraft,’ this charge carries a prison sentence of up to five years", so it looks as though legislation can be used to enforce these rules, in England at least. Karenjc 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom) has issued guidelines for use of fireworks near airports. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

January 3

Color in a witch ball

How is the color added to, and maintained on, the inside glass of a clear glass witch ball? Papatollah (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So other people don't have to look it up like I just had to... Witch ball. Dismas|^(talk) 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to depend on when the ball was made and who made it. This site, which refers to antique witch balls, suggests older balls were made with coloured glass, "daubed with colour" inside, or silvered. I own a large Christmas ornament like a witch ball which, when broken, revealed that the glass itself was clear and the purple colour was indeed metallic paint on the inside of the ball. We have an article on Glass coloring and marking, and there is some information on how glassmakers coloured and marked glass in medieval times at Medieval stained glass#Applied paint and silver stain. Karenjc 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to read financial statements

I'm trying to fill in the finance-related fields in {{Infobox company}} on the article South African National Roads Agency. The financial statements are in the Annual Report 2009 (warning: 6MB PDF) starting at page 104. Now I think I've managed to figure out the operating income, profit and total assets, but I can't figure out the revenue or the equity. Anyone here know how to read a balance sheet? Thanks, htonl (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think operating income and revenue are the same thing. Equity is the difference between assets and liabilities and should be the bottom line on the balance sheet - it may be called "shareholder equity" or "stockholder equity" or something similar. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Please see Operating income and Revenue before guessing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a guess, it was a deduction. "Operating income" should be income from operations, which is the same thing as revenue. According to those articles, "operating income" is actually used to mean "net operating income", which is news to me. Accounting terminology is incredibly inconsistent, unfortunately, so sometimes such deductions end up being incorrect - that is why I prefixed the sentence with "I think". --Tango (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tango, I'm really disappointed in this. Revenue is the amount of money received from sales. Income is profit: revenue minus the costs it took to create that revenue. Operating income is income when excluding the effects of interest paid (for the loans you took out to pay those costs) and taxes paid. This is all very elementary, hence my conclusion (which I still maintain) that you are guessing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is elementary for someone familiar with that specific accounting system. Different people use different terminology and sometimes (as in this case) they are contradictory. The terminology I'm familiar with defines "income" as "money coming in". Profit is income minus outgoings. What you are calling "operating income", I would call "operating profit" (or "net operating income" as I mentioned above, but I'd prefer "operating profit"). Take a look at our article on revenue - it begins "Revenue is an income...". --Tango (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. You could define "income" as money coming in, yes, but you're ignoring and/or misunderstanding the importance of the word "operating". It is not (as you said) income from operations. As Comet Tuttle rightly said, it's income (i.e. revenue, or earnings) less interest and taxes. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think we're clear on what "operating" means. The disagreement is over "income". I define income as money coming in, Comet Tuttle is defining it as synonymous with profit - money coming in minus money going out. --Tango (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I would probably take issue with Comet's assertion that "income is profit", but that's not what we're talking about. You put that operating income is the same as income from operations, which is what I'm saying is wrong. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously I was speaking loosely, but I think that definition is approximately the same as yours. A company's income can come from operations (eg. sales) or investments (and maybe a few other minor things). Operating income is the income from just the operations, not the investments or anything else. I think that's pretty much the same as saying it is total income minus interest. We are, of course, both talking pre-tax. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This company is in a negative equity position of -798,943 Rand. In other words it has more liabilities than assets which is a strange position for a company to be in but note that this appears to be a Public Sector company backed by South Africa's Treasury - if a Private Sector company was in the same position it would have been declared Balance Sheet Insolvent, I'm pretty sure that it is illegal (at least in the UK) for a privately owned company to be in a negative net assets position (net assets being the same thing as equity.)

It's hard to define revenue as due to the company's Public status the company seems to get "revenue" from various sources, with it's main earned income coming from tolls (1,314,402) but it's also getting other sources of income like Govt. grants. --Coolcato (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

tallest bldg in new england.

i know the tallest building in new england is the hancock blg in boston. this made me curious about how tall the casinos in my area are. Foxwoods- mgm bldg and mohegan sun. i got my answer to the mohegan sun it is 32 stories high about half of the hancock whic is 60 stories. so my question is how many stories is the MGM resort hotel bldg on the property of Foxwoods casiono in Ledyard, CT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.2.88 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this website [6] the MGM Grand has 30 stories. Mikenorton (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Although technically a "fact," it seems odd to me to speak of 'the tallest building in New England.' As a group of states currently joined mainly by political leanings, what specialness is there to New England that a tallest building should be measured within its bounds? It's like talking about the tallest building in the former Confederacy. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many many things that are still "New England this" and "New England that". It's a major marketing point and the phrase is still used to refer to the area. For example, do a search for [New England magazine] and you'll see how many publications are dedicated to it. N.E. has strict boundaries which are well known even today. You can't say most of those things about the old Confederacy. Dismas|^(talk) 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely flummoxed by the idea that New England is something other than a specific geographic location, comprising six states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island). --LarryMac | Talk 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Having lived in other parts of the United States, and now living in New England, I can say that there is no other region in the United States that has such a strong regional identity. It is a much stronger identity than, say, "the Upper Midwest" or even "the Pacific Northwest". New England has a regional identity stronger than the individual identities of most U.S. states (Texas, Hawaii, and maybe California being the main exceptions). I think that this comes from the shared history of having been founded by religious dissenters, with an early economy based on mercantile activity, at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution, Abolitionism, and other movements. As a result, the region shares something of a common culture. So it makes sense to refer to extremes within the region. Marco polo (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is so much smaller than the other regions you mention may also help - does New England have a stronger regional identity than, say Washington? (Washington has approximately the same area, although half the population.) --Tango (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

January 4

Moral boundary

• This question has been removed as it may be a request for medical advice. Wikipedia does not give medical advice because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to you and your symptoms. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting the appropriate health professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for medical advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided).

We have a policy on the reference desk that we do not respond to requests for medical diagnosis. This question appears to have asked for psychiatric diagnosis. It is against our policies to respond to these questions. If you need assistance, we encourage the OP to seek a professional counselor or psychiatrist, who will be better equipped to answer such questions. Nimur (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Specialty wood supplies

Brief background: I like to do woodworking as a hobby and after completing a continental U.S. map puzzle in oak, I thought that I would like to do another in which each state is cut from wood of the state's official state tree. So...

I've been searching online and I cannot find suppliers of rather unusual woods. Has anyone seen or heard of one? For example, where can I order a small Sabal Palmetto board to cut a tiny shape of South Carolina from? -- kainaw™ 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The craft of Marquetry often makes use of MANY different sorts of woodstocks, a google search of marquetry supplies may turn up some fruitful leads. --Jayron32 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many companies that sell small pieces of various specialty woods to woodworkers, a number are on the internet. However, for some species with no commercial value, you may need to talk to local tree removal companies directly and dry the wood yourself. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

TV special on DVD

In the fall of 1985, CBS aired a special. It was called We Are the World: A Year of Giving. Harry Belafonte served as the host. Remarkable stories were told. The first one was about Band Aid. The second one was about We Are the World. In between those two stories, there was also footage of artists in other supergroups doing their famine relief charity singles. Then there were the stories of Live Aid and Farm Aid. The final footage was of starving people finally getting something to eat. I've been trying to find a copy of this special on DVD for quite a while. Who knows what I'm talking about? Can anyone help me?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it's on the 20th anniversary edition 2-disc set "We Are the World - The Story Behind the Song", on sale at amazon.com and other places. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did it mention how Dan Aykroyd snuck in there? Livewireo (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Danny Boy takes work wherever he can get it. He had a reasonably serious supporting role in Driving Miss Daisy, fer cryin' out loud. That's a long road from doing an add for the Bass-a-matic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He was on a mission from God. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

oldest languages with grammar book

I am looking at least 1000 year old, still-alive languages, with grammar books written. Basically, I am searching for a language which has grammar book as old as Tamil (Tolkappiyam). --V4vijayakumar (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic language is close to 1000 years old. Staecker (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Your question does not really have an answer, as there is no clear criterion by which one can claim that a language is 1000 years old, and still alive. Greek and Icelandic are cases where the same name is used for an ancient and a modern language, but it is not clear that the case of Greek is really that different from Latin, where the modern version is called Italian. Latin certainly has grammars well over 1000 years old. I don't know how much Tamil has changed in the last thousand years. --ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Norse and modern Icelandic are not the same languages either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

They're really close though, right? Old Norse says that modern Icelanders can read Old Norse and understand it. (I don't know either myself, so I can't say for sure.) Staecker (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"A language is a dialect with an Army and a Navy". There are lots of languages which are mutually intelligible but which are considered seperate languages. For a long time, Occitan was considered a "dialect" of French, while Spanish and Portuguese have long been considered seperate languages; and yet one could argue that French and Occitan are about as mutually intelligible as Spanish and Portugese are. It isn't as simple as "People who speak this language can understand this other language" as to whether or not two modes of communication are "the same language, but different dialects" or "different languages". --Jayron32 20:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is still debate - even here on Wikipedia - about Flemish and Dutch. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Arabic. See Islamic_grammatical_tradition#History--agr (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mahmud al-Kashgari wrote several dictionaries and grammars for Turkic languages back around 1000 CE. But, as ColinFine points out, no language that was spoken that long ago can really be said to be the same language today. For example, English spoken that long ago (late Old English or early Middle English) is incomprehensible to English speakers today. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Arabic is kind of artificial; the written standard is essentially classical, but the spoken languages are completely different. At least for Latin, people still use it regularly, but it is clearly differentiated from Italian or other descendants, so does that count as alive? In that case the grammar has been the same for about 2200 years, or more. (I guess in that case, Modern Standard Arabic also works.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit, though in decline, still has some claim to be a living language, and it has a grammar dating to the fourth century B.C., so it's probably the strongest candidate. John M Baker (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical Hebrew --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Coptic language? --Dmcq (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at Grammar and it gives a history referring to the earliest grammarian as Yāska for Sanskrit in about the 6th century BC. So it think that wins fairly well. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And I see that article refers to Śākaṭāyana who was even earlier Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that the Sanskrit article doesn't mention either Yāska or Śākaṭāyana, though it does discuss Pāṇini. John M Baker (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. When I started to looking for old languages (at least a variant, or, dialect is still-spoken), with grammar books (still-available, still-applicable) written in that language, I had few languages in my mind, like, Sanscrit, Chinese, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic; but, finding out whether they have proper written grammar books, when they were written, and what they have to say about letters, words, meaning of words, how to tie words together, how to write poems, etc. is really difficult task. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be a bit late to the party, but since you mentioned Sanskrit then maybe you consider other liturgical languages to be alive? Some good examples are the above-mentioned Classical Arabic and Hebrew, which both differ from their modern forms. For something less well-known in the west, there's Ge'ez (used used as a liturgical language by Ethiopian Jews and Christians) or Coptic (used by the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Coptic Catholic Church). Hope this helps! – ClockworkSoul 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit also has (limited) nonliturgical use. Perhaps more to the point, do any of these languages have grammars that are older than Sanskrit's? John M Baker (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, historical linguists have to some extent (and with disputed reliability) reconstructed Proto-Indo-European through study of Sanscrit and its other descendents, and published papers or books on its hypothetical grammar: new stories have been written in it, and someone has even proposed making it an official language of the European Union to reduce that organisation's translating costs (by using it as an intermediate -- this might work on paper but not, I suspect, in reality). If acceptable under V4vijayakumar's criteria, this would have to trump any other claim. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

January 5

Explain to me how 2010 is the start of a new decade. Please???

If there was no year zero, then a decade must be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. I read the Wikipedia article on the Gregorian Calendar and it says "There is no year 0; AD 1 immediately follows 1 BC." So why is everybody thinking that we just started a new decade? Why can't everyone see that the year 2000 was the final year of the 20th century? January 1st, 2001 was the beginning of the current decade we are in. When I read or hear "the start of a new decade!" in the media I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world. I need to hear from an INTELLIGENT source whether I've got this correct or not. I eagerly await your answer. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndukane (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Two responses that are really one:

People perceive it as a new decade because of a change in 2 digits instead of just 1.

There is no real need to begin counting from the origin of the counting. You can say you've been working at a particular office for a decade, and that decade doesn't necessarily coincide with a decade of history (the 80's or the 90's). While 2000 may have belonged to the 90's if one begins counting the 90's from 1991, most people don't care that, technically, from the origin of the numbering, year 1 was the first year. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're on the subject of how to refer to time periods... It's the "80s or the 90s" with no apostrophes since you are not suggesting possession or using the apostrophe to substitute for some missing letter(s). You're referring to 1980, 1981, and so on which is simply the plural and thus simply "80s". Dismas|^(talk) 02:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a rule or merely one side of an opinion? If I wanted to say that the letter q should never appear without being followed by the letter u, I would tend to write, "Q's shouldn't appear without being followed by u's," and that's because single letters are not often used in a sentence, and to indicate that I'm not making a typo or something like that, I would place an apostrophe in a non-possessive form. That is what I was doing for above, because numbers are similarly not often used in sentences in the manner in which I used them, and to avoid confusion, I used an apostrophe in a non-possessive, non-contraction form. Does such an informal form not extist? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is like deja vu. It's like deja vu. The first day of the 21st century was January 1, 2001. The first day of the "two-thousands" was January 1, 2000, by conventional usage. Hence January 1, 2010, is the first day of the "two-thousand tens" or "two-thousand teens" or whatever it eventually gets called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, the "twenty-tens". One thousand and sixty-six and all that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Millennium article has discussions of this debate (over the course of 1000 years rather than 10; but it's the same debate). Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter if there was no year zero? You can start a new ten-year period whenever you want. We start them in years ending in zero. All it means is that two thousand and ten years ago was 1 BC, not 0. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually 2010 years ago would have been 5 January 1 BC/E. 2009 years ago would have been 5 January 1 AD/CE. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another point to keep in mind is that it's not as though the years mark time from some notable event, from which only 2009 years have passed. The current calendar dates from the year that Dionysius Exiguus believed to be the birth of Jesus. (Well, more precisely, January 1 of that year would have been the date of his circumcision, if he had been born on the traditional date of December 25 and circumcised on the eighth day, as specified in the Jewish law, with his date of birth counting as the first day).

But Dionysius almost certainly got it wrong. So January 1, 2010 is 2009 years after nothing in particular. --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's about time that they readjusted the calendar to make the solstice fall on the 25th, as it did at the time; and to add about 5 years to the year to make it coincide with the more recent guesstimate of Jesus' birth year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And of course - some media outlets are apologetic. Nanonic (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 is the last year of the first decade of this millennium. The next decade begins January 1, 2011. Didn't we go through this 10 years ago? Edison (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Was wikipedia around then? The first decade of the 21st century runs from 1/1/01 through 12/31/10. The first decade of the 2000s ran from 1/1/00 through 12/31/09. That's as per conventional usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You foolish fool; Wikipedia has been around forever! HalfShadow 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No wonder those stars they hand out are tarnished. They're just not aging well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

January 1st to December 31st is a period of one year. So is the period from February 6th to the next February 5th. Or November 12th to the next November 11th. Any ten years can be a decade; don't get too caught up on them. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 is the last year of the first decade of this millennium. The next decade begins January 1, 2011. Sure, and the 7th decade of the 20th century began in 1961 and ended in 1970. But the decade we call the 1960s began in 1960 and ended in 1969. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well explained, Pfly. As long as it is called the 2010's, the off-by-one pedants don't have much of an argument. If people ever said that last week was the beginning of the 201st (or is it the 202nd?) decade, I too might think about correcting them. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my thing: there's exactly ten different numerals in our numeral system, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. 10 is not a numeral, despite what the OP thinks. 10 is where it starts over, starts fresh. Of course 2010 is the start of a new decade. The last numeral is 0, which is the lowest numeral! Last year, it was 9, which is the higest numeral!

Also, every computer programmer knows that if you allocate a vector with 10 items in it, the first item is 0 and the last item is 9. Listen to the computer programmers! Belisarius (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I challenge you - I dare you - to publish a book about this issue, in which the first chapter is called Chapter 0, and the first page is numbered 0. No, I thought not. See, despite what computer programmers say, natural people count things starting with 1. They're able to distinguish between naming the set of numerals we use (which, as you say, are usually specified as "0 1, 2, ... 9"), and starting with 1 when it comes to counting things. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you could consider the inside cover or the back of the title page to be page 0, but since nothing is written on it, writing page 0 sounds pretty dumb. But of the hundreds upon hundreds of books I have read, I can not recall a single one that had page 1 be on the left and page 2 on the right, implying that the publishers do start their numbering with 0. Googlemeister (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is already (correctly) answered by the excellent individuals above, but I wanted to add the example Stephen Jay Gould quotes in Dinosaur in a Haystack, namely that the first decade just had 9 years instead of 10. Elegant, if not exact. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, let's say you're reading a book that's exactly 100 pages long. The story starts at the tippy-top of page 1 and ends right at the very bottom of page 100. Would you say you'd completed the book (i.e. read 100 pages) at the top of page 100 or at the bottom? Counting means counting the ends of things, not the beginnings. Just being devil's advocate. :) The year zero thing is kind of red herring, or at least a somewhat over-simplified version of the real problem (if you can call such a thing a problem in a world where there are people starving). The year 2000 did indeed mark the turn of the millennium, it's just that the important date was on December 31, not January 1. Why? Because that was the bottom of the 2000th "page". You can celebrate that you're on the last page or the 100th page or the 2000th page, but the book, page, and millennium aren't over until you reach the bottom. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning 100%, Matt. Which is why I disagreed with Belisarius's Of course 2010 is the start of a new decade. 2010 may be the start of the "twenty-tens", but the 2nd decade of the 3rd millennium doesn't start till 1 January 2011, the day after 31 December 2010. Only on that date have we got the "bottom of the page/decade". 1 January 2011 turns us over to a new page/decade. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who started counting from when and whether they counted from zero or one - people like to celebrate nice round numbers. 2000 was a nice round number...The End. SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is the Jesus you speak of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.170.108 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You disappoint me, Steve. There's enough material in the history of our calendars for a quite substantial scholarly book. One might take a leaf out of Stephen Hawking's book and call it "A Not So Brief History of Time". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

craigslist

what section of craigslist do people put a request for tickets in exchange for services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're offering the tickets, probably the "tickets" section; if you're offering the service, the "services" section. Remember that the "service" must be legal. Xenon54 / talk / 02:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indie fans

Why do some indie music fans not want to see their favorite artists get huge? I mean, they bitch and moan constantly about how mainstream media sucks because it promotes music that they consider to be bad, but when one of their own makes it, then they turn on them. I don't get it. If you really like an artist, and they're not getting the recognition that their less talented peers are getting, then shouldn't you want for that artist to be just as popular so the public can be exposed to what you consider to be great yet underrated music? It's like as soon as a certain artist becomes known outside a small circle and starts attracting national attention, then all of a sudden they're "selling out". Don't artists make music with the intention of getting it heard by as many people as possible? If they only wanted to play it for a couple dozen of people, then why would they bother getting record deals? They would just continue toughing it out in local bars and clubs. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Several things

1. There is the perception that when a band signs to a major label, the band loses some creative control. Major labels tend to push certain things that will "sell", and thus bands which sign with major labels often have to change in ways that the original fans may not like. Thus, the band you used to like stops playing the kind of music you liked them for.
2. Many independent types of music have a DIY ethic which places a value on self-sufficiency. Depending on a major label to book studio time, find a producer, release singles, promote the album means surrenduring a lot of control that runs counter to this DIY ethic in many independent music scenes.
3. Some fans feel "ownership" of bands they follow, and if more people are fans, then it dilutes your ownership, just like more people owning stock in a company means your shares are worth less. For some people who are emotionally invested in a band, this can be a significant effect.

Just some ideas. --Jayron32 05:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I understand point 1 & 2, but point 3 just sounds crazy. I mean, you can't really "own" an artist, they're not like birds you can keep in a cage. Even then, every once in a while they must fly out. The Beatles are the most massively popular band of all time, but I've never heard anyone complain that the fact everyone knows their music means they're worth less. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because that is all true does not diminish the psychological feeling of ownership in this way. Emotional investment of this type is very real for some people, even if you yourself do not feel the same way. The real feelings of other people exist even if we don't think they should. Being silly and incomprehensible doesn't make it go away... --Jayron32 05:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Jayron re: point 3. It's not that they really beleive they 'own' the band, but when you love a small less-heard-of band it brings great joy to be able to 'tune' people into that band. Once the band is big then you lose that 'joy' (can you imagine saying "i've uncovered this great band - The Beatles"?). It is a little 'silly' that people lose interest in a band they love because it has become big, but some people are keen to be 'different' from mainstream-culture and so will leave that band and chase the next up and coming one. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they like a certain band before it was mainstream signals some information that the person deems important (e.g. that they have good taste, that they are open to new experiences, that they take their music seriously). When the band becomes mainstream the cost of that signal is diminished, thus they are upset.--droptone (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another factor can be access to the bands: for some people, it is important to be able to see bands close-up and perhaps talk with them. This becomes more difficult as a band becomes more popular. Warofdreams talk 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I still find it absurd... I mean, for me, the joy is in discovering the artist when they are new to people, then watching them grow over the years and gaining more fans along the way... I actually find it pretty cool when I'm not the only person in the world that knows that band, I don't understand how getting the response of "who?" when you tell a person about an artist you know can make some people feel "cool". And I understand that the artist has worked hard to get where they are, it's stupid to begrudge their success. Sure it sucks when they start moving up from small venues to stadiums and arenas, and therefore tickets become harder and more expensive to obtain, but even I'm willing to let go of that and be genuinely happy that my favorite band has come out on top. Well if these type of selfish fans are what one risks attracting when one decides to work in the indie/alternative scene, then I'd rather not make music at all and pick another career.24.189.90.68 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above. Being absurd doesn't mean it isn't real. You're perfectly free to find it absurd that others feel this way; it doesn't make them any less likely to feel that way. If you want genuine answers to "why", you were given them. If you want to belittle people who have these very real feelings, thats fine too, but Wikipedia's reference desk isn't the appropriate place to do that. --Jayron32 03:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Used bookstores -- urge to defecate

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a strong urge to take a dump after being in a used bookstore for more than a few minutes? What causes this? This happens to me literally every time I go to a used bookstore. Thank you for your help. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a strong urge to not answer questions like this and instead leave a snide, unhelpful remark which mocks the OP? What causes this? This happens to me literally every time I read the reference desks. --Jayron32 05:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is just you. Both of you. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with libraries (which I visit far more often than bookshops), but it takes more than a few minutes - perhaps half an hour. I have absolutely no idea why this happens. Using a toilet before going to the library doesn't make any difference. 58.7.188.135 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking a huge measure of AGF, I'll answer seriously. It's a well-known phenomenon that when people relax, they often find they need the toilet. Second hand bookstores that I know are usually extremely calm environments. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnes & Noble stores typically have restrooms. Maybe that helps account for the store's popularity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A common aggravating factor is the tendency when at a book store to have recently downed a cup of coffee. --Sean 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Borders bookstores all have signs in the restrooms saying, "Staff Must Wash Hands". I've waited and waited, but no staff have ever shown up, and I've had to wash my hands myself. PhGustaf (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If the paper towel dispenser says on the front "Pull down and tear up," do you leave it a heap of mangled metal on the floor? Edison (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you just give it a yank and then start to cry. Steewi (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, if you lunch at the Taco Bell next door, you might have to make a run for the Borders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"...when people relax, they often find they need the toilet" - perhaps, but the problem is apparently unique to bookstores/libraries, not other forms or places of relaxation. "... recently downed a cup of coffee." - This would cause an urge to urinate, not defecate. 220.235.12.32 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is because used books are dog-eared. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My thesis professor said long ago that whenever his Dad said he was going to clean out the garage, the kids knew he would shortly be running to the toilet to defacate. Maybe walking around in a used book store is for some like cleaning out the garage once was for others. Maybe standing up and walking around (in a bookstore or elsewhere) stimulates peristalsis of the colon, in those who would be otherwise sitting inertly on that part. Edison (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

IS ENGLAND A COUNTRY?

Is the following true, when our Prime Minister John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty back in 1992 under a little read section on regional funding, England was abolished and replaced with nine Euro regions. (Look up English regions on You Tube) England can no longer be found on any official EU map. Try putting English on your passport application and it'll be returned as UK citizen. Read the latest Encyclopedia Brittanica where England is stated to no longer exist. Next time your putting software on your system and it asks you to state a language, it may allow you to put English but when asking for your home country it will have no 'English' option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FRANKIE THE BULLET (talk • contribs) 08:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, England has not been "abolished". Within the UK, citizenship and nationality is that of the UK as a whole (with special considerations applying in Northern Ireland). It has not been the case since the formation of the UK that one's official nationality could be described as either English, Scottish or Welsh - officially we are all "British". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The question "Is England a country?" has been much discussed at Talk:England. Basically, it depends on your definition of "country". It has not been a sovereign state since 1707, when it combined with Scotland to form the UK, but it is still defined as a country within the UK and by some international bodies (such as FIFA). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

...and "England" still seems to exist in this current version of EB - albeit not as a "political unit" - but then it hasn't been that since 1707, or before the 13th century if you mean current boundaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

England, of course, exists. But the nation has long been the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Even as far back as 1951, to my certain knowledge, one had to declare oneself British. But one could use British/English (or Scottish, etc.) Citizenship, however is of the UK. (And has been since Scotland and England formed the United Kingdom.)86.219.165.70 (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The EU maps myth has been going around for years. You can check their maps out yourself, at http://ec.europa.eu/publications/maps/index_en.htm. As you will see, many have very little detail and just mark the outline of the UK. More detailed maps show the regions of England, but also mark England (although not very clearly). You can find out more about the regions of England in our article on them; they are not European creations, and were instead created by the British government to standardise the regions used by their various departments. They bear a striking similarity with the civil defence regions created around the start of World War II. Warofdreams talk 11:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When you apply for a passport, you have to state your nationality. Whether you consider yourself English, Scottish or Welsh, the passport will come back with "British citizen". Astronaut (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what the OP said already. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though the OP doesn't say so, I read into the question that if they were to put "Scottish" or "Welsh" then that is what would appear on the passport and that the rules were somehow different if you were to put "English". I don't think the rules are different. Astronaut (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The rules are indeed the same for Scotland and Wales. However, since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, people born in Northern Ireland, who are automatically UK (that is, "British") citizens, are also entitled to Irish citizenship. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here between nationality and citizenship. I consider my nationality to be English, but am a citizen of the U.K. Also now of the E.U. And, to add further confusion, in most cases nowadays official forms ask for ethnic details as well! But - bottom line - the citizenship is of the U.K.86.219.165.70 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way... The sovereign state is that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When someone wants to deal the English or Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish on an international level, you deal with the government of the UK. However, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is composed of 4 different "nations" or "countries" that are United as one single Kingdom. The 4 Home Nations as they are called are England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which internally operate semi-autonomously, and are historically different countries, but which compose a single sovereign state known as the UK. Many countries operate whereby the nation = the sovereign state, but the two are not always synonymous. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of two different "countries", the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. As far as dealing with the outside world, they work like one sovereign state, but internally they operate even more independently than does the UK. --Jayron32 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Jayron32: It is true that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland operate "semi-autonomously", to different extents, but England does not - there is some regional administration, but essentially England's administration is an integral part of the UK administration - not surprising in the sense that England has some 84% of the total UK population. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not true. The Regions of England, which the British government chooses to use for administrative purposes, have been around in various forms and used in various ways, for various different reasons, since about the 500s. That the current, penultimate, and antepenultimate administrations chose to continue using them, including now as constituencies, is nothing remarkable.

As regards your other assertions - England hasn't been a Sovereign state providing citizenship for hundreds of years, and when you next put a Britanica disc into your computer, unless you're using a particularly odd disc there's no 'may' about it, it will allow you to use it in English. --Saalstin (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indopedia?

is this a wikimedia foundation project? When did it take off? Why does it have "Ads by Google" at the bottom of every page? I always thought .org sites were non-profit or run by donations.Read the third sentence → trademark?. I am planning to start a article on www.indopedia.org.Any information would be forthcoming.ADI4094 09:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indopedia is not a Wikimedia Foundation project. We are not aware when it took off. It probably has ads by Google to make money. Traditionally .org sites were non-profit, but the distinction between .com, .net, and .org has been muddied, if not completely dissolved, over the years. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi#indopedia.org, Indopedia was launched in December 2004. Although the information on that page is now quite old, it appears to be substantially correct. Warofdreams talk 10:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no vetting process when someone purchases a domain name. So anyone can set up a .org. Dismas|^(talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is not substantially correct at all—they've taken the Wikipedia About page and replaced a bunch of references to Wikipedia with Indopedia. It's a fork/mirror for cash, that's all. One of many. Hooray for open source encyclopedias, helping ad-mongers everywhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Our mirrors and forks page is substantially correct, not the pages on Indopedia. As you say, there have been many mirrors of Wikipedia, and a few forks, but none have seen long-term success, and I really doubt that anyone has made significant money from them. Warofdreams talk 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, we were referring to different pages. Okie-dokie. As for money—I wouldn't know. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they have jurisdiction?

Hey, Say in the UK, someone directly outside their work, school or other organisation they were to say they didn't like the work/school/etc., would the work/school/whatever be able to legally fire/expell/ban that person or would that be going against freedom of speech laws. Thanks. ت ت ت ت 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a freedom to protest in the UK. Don't surprised if the police try to "move you on" - especially if you are on school/work/private property or are blocking the highway/footpath. As for whether you will be fired/expelled/banned, you should ask a lawyer since the ref desk cannot give legal advice. Astronaut (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent UK case of someone saying uncomplimentary things on Facebook about their employer, for which they were sacked. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In my state in the US, you can get canned for whatever the employer wants (with some exceptions for stuff like discrimination etc...), So they could toss you for rooting for the wrong football team if they wanted. Hopefully, the UK is a bit more civilized. Googlemeister (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In Britain the right of free speech applies. But not to the extent of libel - i.e. you can express an honest opinion, but not lie. So a student saying he did not like school or a teacher may well be called in to explain the comment but could not legally be expelled for expressing a view. That said, people are sacked (etc.) for expressing a view, they then have to take recourse through a Tribunal - probably claiming wrongful dismissal.86.219.165.70 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One quibble with the above: In Britain, "libel" does not have to be a lie. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I strike my claim because our article English defamation law notes that my claim is only true in one very narrow case (if you defame a political candidate with a truthful claim, but you didn't know at the time it was truthful). Anyway, this is beside the point of the OP's question, and I'll close this sad post by pointing to the article Freedom of speech by country, particularly the "European Union" and "United Kingdom" sections. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One more quibble: LIBEL is only written defamation. SLANDER is spoken defamation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless the spoken defamation is recorded, when it becomes libel (in the UK). Warofdreams talk 10:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A reason can sometimes be given for a sacking which is not the real reason. This sometimes allows employers or schools to punish speech. Some transgression which would normally be overlooked could be cited as "cause." Employee: Made a mistake filling out a timesheet? Came in late a couple of times? Took sick days? Turned in work which was not perfect? Some customer/coworker complained about an off-color joke? Took home some things from the supply cabinet? The recession creating a need to "rightsize" a company, resulting in job elimination? Students: Some little hint of plagiarism on an assignment? Drylab the lab report when the data were too far off? 2 students with the same unlikely mistakes on an exam or take-home quiz? Violate any petty rule? Edison (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if you do or say something to "damage the image" of your employer, including anything from breaking a law to badmouthing them (whether you're on duty or not), they could be within thier legal rights to administer "disciplinary action" -- particularly if they have a written policy to that effect.63.146.74.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Too many folks think "freedom of speech" means the right to say anything, anytime, anywhere. That ain't it. It's the right to stand up to the government for a "redress of grievances". If you go and badmouth your employer, the libertarian view would be that you're "biting the hand that feeds you", and that there's nothing stopping you from finding work elsewhere if you don't like it there - or possibly from working to improve the situation from within, if you decide to stay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of speech laws usually stop governments from taking action to stop you saying something, they don't apply to private employers. There have been plenty of cases in the UK of schools and employers taking action against pupils/employees for things they did outside of school/work. I don't know the legal details, but it must be legal in some cases. --Tango (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, freedom of speech is not simply about talking back to the government, at least as the U.S. courts have interpreted it. Advertising, blasphemy and even erotic dancing have some degree of protection under the First Amendment, even though they don't necessarily have anything to do with the government. Secondly, some states do protect employees against workplace retaliation for engaging in political activity off-hours. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to protest outside their own workplace, then they do risk losing their job. There is some statutory protection in the UK for picketing, and in that case I believe that non-union officials are required to limit their protests to their own workplace. There are numerous hurdles in order for a protest to be consider a picket, partly addressed at [7]. Warofdreams talk 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Survivable fall?

I don't know whether this is a science, mathematics, miscellaneous, or perhaps entertainment for the sheer comedy value, so I'll ask here. Suppose you were to fall from a great height (say 300 m or 1000 ft) holding a large, flat sheet of a rigid material. Assuming you are able to keep the sheet horizontal, how large would the sheet have to be to reduce your velocity such that the fall is survivable? By survivable, I mean that you would be able to recover from your injuries - I don't necessarily mean without injury but nor do I mean surviving the rest of your life connected to machines.

This is inspired by a real life incident when I leant against the windows of the Stratosphere Tower, Las Vegas, and a person behind me let out a loud gasp! I then wondered what would happen if the window was to come away from the frame, resulting in me and the window falling to the ground. Of course, you would never be able to maintain a grip on the window, and it seems obvious it would tumble in the air, but let's ignore those issues for now. Astronaut (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of a true story - not an urban myth - where a man in a skyscraper ran up against a window to prove they were safe......and fell out and died. 92.24.115.153 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, falls from above 30 feet are much more likely to be fatal then falls of 20 feet, so perhaps a good place to start would be to determine how fast someone hits the ground from a 20 foot fall. Then we need to induce drag so that the terminal velocity is equal to that speed. If we assume that the material does not greatly change the density of the system (human + drag object), then it can be simplified to V,t=90*d^(-1/2) Unfortunately, I am not sure how to assign a d value.

If my math is correct then the speed an object would hit (without wind resistance) from 20 feet is 7.9 m/s I will assume that drag at those speeds for a human is fairly small and results in an actual speed of 7.5 m/s. Googlemeister (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mythbusters took this one on, and found that it is indeed impossible to make this work. Even if you could hold onto the metal all the way down (which doesn't seem likely), it wouldn't slow you down enough. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is our description of that episode. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had to use the more complicated version where things do not get simplified to d, and resulted in a required area of 10.7 m^2 for an 80 kg human (ignoring the weight of the flat plate). This seems pretty large, and if true, it would not do to ignore the weight of the sheet of that size unless it is something like a real parachute. Googlemeister (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's no real height limit, given the proper circumstances. People have (rarely, I admit) survived falls from aircraft without parachutes. Once you hit terminal velocity (and that takes less than 1,000 feet as I recall), there's no upper limit to how much further you could fall with the same expected survival rate. — Lomn 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this appear as a risible plot device in a Dan Brown novel? --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One which recently had a movie. Oh, and for the record, basejumping with a large sheet of plywood is not likely to have favorable results. Googlemeister (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was preparing a different reply, but got sidetracked by the very interesting terminal velocity article :-) That article provides all the necessary formulae and now seems much easier to understand than when I first read it. The Drag coefficient article provides a figure of 1.28 for a flat sheet perpendicular to the flow. The Barometric formula article suggests the air density near the Earth's surface is 1.225 kg/m³. In terms of a survivable velocity, many people survive being hit by a car travelling at 13 m/s (~30 mph), so let's use that as our desired terminal velocity. Also assume a total system mass of 100 kg (either a little guy with a heavy sheet or a big guy with a lighter sheet). Plugging all that into:

$A={\frac {2mg}{\rho V_{t}^{2}C_{d}}}$

...yields an area of ~7.5 m² - too large to get your arms around, but strangely doesn't seem big enough! Anyway, it's just a thought experiment, and full of so many unreasonable assumptions that I certainly won't be basejumping (with or without plywood). Astronaut (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call, I read the line for a 2D flat plate, not 3D. Googlemeister (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to survive during a fall but the end of the fall can be uncomfortable. Here is Otto Lilienthal gliding down elegantly. Ski jumpers routinely survive landing at their terminal velocity which is limited only by their body profile and two thin skis (but they are thankful to land on a slope so they don't have to stop immediately). Another unconfirmed method of retarding velocity. If you seek comedy, jump from the Stratosphere Tower and show everyone that you have guts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GSM Services

what do you mean by GSM service??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.246.112 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See GSM — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Glow in the dark

i saw my friend wearing a band in his wrist. when i asked him about it , he said it glows in dark??? is it radium which makes it glow in dark or something else ???

Far more likely is a non-radioactive form of luminescence. I'd guess it's some form of photoluminescence like a phosphor compound. — Lomn 14:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Radium is no longer used for such purposes. Sometimes tritium still is. But it's probably just a phosphor—the yellowish/green bits are exposed to the light, and will then glow (weakly) in the dark. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tritium is rarely used because of its very high cost. Some other common glow materials are zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate. Googlemeister (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

These tritium-illuminated exit signs are about twice the cost of regular exit signs, but don't require batteries or electricity. The price margin doesn't seem prohibitive. --Sean 16:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They must use absolutely tiny amounts of it then since tritium costs are on the order of $10,000,00+ per kg. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they use on the order of 1-10 curies of tritium. I believe tritium is something like 10,000 curies per gram, so that's not a lot of tritium—maybe 100-1000 micrograms per sign. Which isn't that expensive. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Googlemeister is probably aware of this, but a note that the phosphorescence of (just) zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate is significantly different than the glow-in-the dark obtained with tritium and radium. Zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate aren't energy sources - they won't glow unless "charged" first, most commonly by exposure to light. You see this most commonly in glow-in-the-dark toys for children. After turning off the light, they glow, but that glow slowly fades until there's nothing left in the morning. Turn the light back on for a while and they are "recharged", ready to glow for a few more hours. Things like radium watches didn't need to be "charged" externally, and didn't fade if kept in the dark for a long time. They produced their own energy via radioactive decay (radioluminescence). But even then, it wasn't the radium that glowed, the radium merely served as an energy source to charge the zinc sulfide that was included in the luminescent paint. Recently there has been a number of products which work with electroluminescence, where it is an electric current which "charges" the phosphor (again, usually something like doped zinc sulfide), and induces it to glow. -- 128.104.49.12 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Glowstick type chemoluminescent wristbands are very common, and generate light for a few hours from a chemical reaction, without radioactivity , batteries, or the ned to "charge" them by exposure to intense light. Numerous online sellers offer glow in the dark silicone wristbands, but do not say what makes them glow. Edison (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do USB Cords require a UL listing?

Do USB Cords require a UL listing? Are there any U.S. regulations requiring USB Cords to have a UL Listing?

EMM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.160.55 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. UL listing means a product has been independently tested against the safety standards of Underwriters Laboratories. UL listing of a product is not required by law but can be demanded by some local authorities and insurance companies. AFAIK there is no safety issue concerning USB cords for which a UL test is relevant. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

January 6

When the smile doesn't reach all the way to the eyes

A common phrase in fiction to indicate insincerity is "Her (or his) smile didn't reach all the way to the eyes." Is there an image available online, photo or painting, which illustrates this? Maybe in some manual for salesmen, actors or politicians showing the same person smiling "genuinely" and in the false way described. Is this insincere smile different from the grimace exposing maximum teeth used by models in ads for dentists who use bleach, braces or tooth veneers to "make your smile perfect?" In a Google Book Search, there was a precursor in 1914 "Kingdon's lips continued to smile, but into his blue eyes crept a hard look.." ("Rex Kingdon in the North Woods," by Gordon Braddock, page 60). A closer version of the phrase turned up in fiction from the late 1930's: "Keep your chin up, "he said and tried to smile. It didn't reach his eyes, however.." (Danger in the Dark, Mignon Good, 1937, p 233) It was quite the present cliche by 1947: "Rush smiled but the smile didn't reach his eyes," ("The fall guy," by Joe Barry, 1947, page 7). It continues in excruciatingly common use today. I counted 136 occurrences for 2008 alone. What exactly is lacking in the eyes or the rest of the face? Or is it just a phrase they love to write, without having a clear idea of what they mean? Edison (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Edison (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some smiles. But this smile (thankfully not illustrated) is a cut above the rest. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The eyes are not open as wide in the "sincere" smile illustration. Is that the much cliched difference? Edison (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A recent ref desk page discussed the question of a "simper", which is kind of like what Thomas is suggesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the "contempt smile" is a good name for that smile. Imagine one catty high school girl saying to the other, "oh, I'm so glad to hear you're dating my ex-boyfriend," wearing a contemptuous, fake (mean) smile. A smile with a clenched jaw is kind of how I imagine it works. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes used to have such a smile. It was a very quick, though strong, upturn of the corners of the mouth with his lips closed. In his case it was his "I am superior" smile. That "smile that doesn't reach the eyes" is a literal expression. Smiles that are insincere or pasted on for reasons not associated with pleasure/joy/friendship involve mostly the lower half of the face. (There are grimaces that involve the eyes, certainly, but either they are wide, wide open as in surprise/shock or tight closed as in pain.) It is very difficult for anyone to control consciously the tiny muscles around the eyes that cause them to crinkle gently in a way that follows naturally in a "real" smile. So, if the eyes are not "involved" in the way we normally associate with a smile, then the smile lacks warmth. If you are interested in seeing what the eyes do tell you, personally, here's a test that might be useful to you. Bielle (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Brett seemed to have a brief rictus rather than a disarming and natural smile. The "test" results in "Page not found." I am so amused that my mouth is smiling, but my eyes are not. {On other occasions, my eyes smile, but my mouth is noncommital). Edison (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping for some screen shots from Batman Begins where he puts his insincere grin to good use, but here's Cillian Murphy's "smile that doesn't reach the eyes grin" and a more authentic one. Matt Deres (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a recent TV ad, maybe for an appliance, in which twin girls give their mother and exceptionally faky smile, between frowns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Mona Lisa's smile usually described as "enigmatic", at least in part due to her eyes? --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet Connection error.

Hi I am new here.... I have one doubt regarding network. I can connect a remote PC through ssh using a public ip. and the gateway of that machine is second next to the ip address. But when I try to ping or links to any sites, its not working. What could be wrong? any idea?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajumurali (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Cinemax and Imax

I was looking up the places where they're airing Avatar in Kolkata, and I found the newspaper using "Cinemax" and "Imax" to describe two multiplexes in Mani Square. As far as I know, there's only one plex there :AerenR IMAX.... Can anyone tell what the difference is between these two?? 117.194.226.110 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Cinemax website appears to explain this - the multiplex is in the Mani Square mall; it has several screens operated by the Cinemax chain, and one Imax screen which seems to be operated seperately. Warofdreams talk 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

does eyebrows color always match pubic hair color? Or can they be different (not talking about artificial coloring btw)

­ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)