Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Which is the smallest metropolitan area, town, village, hamlet and/or city absolutely with a LRT that also operates on the street. It might operate in the air, underground, in the water, but at least, it has to operate in the street.68.148.164.166 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This question is open to interpretation. First, if the LRT connects two or more towns, do you count only the largest (because the system "belongs to" that town) or the smallest (because you mean the question literally)? [I'll assume you count the largest.] Does it make a difference if the towns do not touch each other? [Irrelevant under my assumption.] And second, does it count as "in the street" if the tracks are in a semi-isolated median or similar setup? [I think it counts.] Finally, are you counting only actual public transit operations where the cars run at regular intervals all day and stop frequently for people to get on and off, or do museum railways count, where they might run once an hour and only on summer Sundays, and only allow trips over the full route?
Of the 30 or so cities I've been to that have public transit streetcars, I think the smallest are Bern and Innsbruck. (Blackpool and Heidelberg are not much larger.) According to http://www.citypopulation.de/, as of estimates at the start of 2007, Bern has 122,422 people while Innsbruck has 117,693. But for all I know there could be much smaller places (much better answers) in other countries. (Here are pictures showing streetcars in the streets of Bern, Innsbruck, and for good measure Heidelberg and Blackpool, if that layout counts.)
As to museum streetcars, Yakima had a population in the 2000 census of 112,816 according to the above web site (but 71,845 according to Wikipedia; I don't know why the discrepancy). Here's a photo of one of their streetcars. But again, perhaps there are much better answers elsewhere.
--Anonymous, 02:00 UTC, copyedited 02:23, May 7, 2008.
Rephrasing my questions:
Which is the smallest (population wise) metropolitan area, town, village, hamlet and/or city absolutely with a LRT that also operates on the street. It might operate in the air, underground, in the water, but at least, it has to operate in the street.
Which is the smallest (area wise) metropolitan area, town, village, hamlet and/or city absolutely with a LRT that also operates on the street. It might operate in the air, underground, in the water, but at least, it has to operate in the street.
Criteria:
If the LRT connects two or more towns, do you count only the largest (because the system "belongs to" that town) or the smallest (because you mean the question literally)?
For both questions: Count the combined total.
Does it make a difference if the towns do not touch each other?
For both questions: Count the towns as if they were one.
And second, does it count as "in the street" if the tracks are in a semi-isolated median or similar setup?
For both questions: It does not count.
For both questions: Finally, are you counting only actual public transit operations where the cars run at regular intervals all day and stop frequently for people to get on and off, or do museum railways count, where they might run once an hour and only on summer Sundays, and only allow trips over the full route?
For both questions: "...actual public transit operations where the cars run at regular intervals all day and stop frequently for people to get on and off..." = Counts
why is the flap of material covering the fly on men's pants located on the left side of the fly/zipper, rather than the right side?66.93.60.182 (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because right is for woman. Woman's bathroom are mostly on the right and woman's buttons on dress shirts on on the right.
Men are on the left side.
71.142.208.226 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]
There are numerous sources for the left/right button issue but I haven't seen one for the zipper. I would say it's most likely because most people are right handed, thus they can hold the material to the side with their left hand while working the zipper with their right. Are women's pants different? Dismas|(talk)04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's gotta be an article about this weighty issue around here somewhere. Can somebody find it (or if it isn't there, write it)? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, woman's clothing is on a different side then the men. The right side. Woman's buttons and zippers are on the right side.71.142.208.226 (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]
Wait, I'm not sure what "side" means. It's true that men and women's shirts button differently, but the flap of material on my pants-fly is on the left side of the zipper, and so is my husband's. We are both wearing gender-appropriate clothing. --Masamage♫05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think _ Right Handed swordsmen who wore their scabbard on their Left Hand Side so that they could more quickly reach over their midriff from Right to Left to unsheath their sword (the majority of men then and now being Right-Handed) ready for action. This was facilitated by the coat fronts being constructed in such a way as to allow easy access to the sword and scabbard (left front overlapping the right front and being fastened first with tapes, then hooks and eyes, and subsequently buttons and holes), and then continue that thinking to pants/trousers which were first constructed so that the whole front of the trouser was allowed to fall when released by the wearer (or his paramour), continuing to the button-fly (which side to place the buttons? Ahh, let us do it the same as on the gentleman's coat, and that will allow a Right-Handed Lover to more easily undo his Fly when making advances on his paramour - and then carry that thinking forward to the attachment (and undoing) of the Fly-Zipper. Easy when you know how.92.9.48.44 (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I once bought a shirt that was apparently made in China, and they either don't differentiate beween men's and women's shirts or got them mixed up, because it buttoned on the opposite side from a normal man's shirt. I found it almost impossible to button that way. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so with most men being right-handed, they use the right hand to unzip. now, mens underwear has a fly on the right side; do we now use our left hand to, ah, continue the process of reaching in there? are most men, thus, "right favoured," so to speak? seems like this is a 2 handed process and i just wonder how this all came about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsidemark (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may mean that the organization is independent and not under any religious authority. It's notable that the organization's mission statement says it is to help "all people in need." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard many times about being hit with the 'flat' of a sword, presumably a broadsword or similar - something that inflicts pain and may break ribs etc. without actually drawing blood. Does this actually happen? (Edit: Maybe this might be better in the historical section...) Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think anyone would want to hit or be hit with the flat of a broadsword. Have you seen their size ! Just to swing one takes a very strong, big man. To fight with one would take years of training. Other swords, yes, the side makes a good 'spanking' tool. Not used that way in battle, of course.86.216.249.168 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)dtm[reply]
There's probably (at least) two ways to look at the question: Has it ever happened, even by accident? Sure; all the time, I'd bet. In a sword fight people would probably be flailing and swinging however they could and to hell with proper form. All kinds of weird injuries could happen, etc. Now, would you do it on purpose? Probably not. In any kind of fair fight you wouldn't want the disadvantage of a very slow swing - not to mention the extremely irritated but mostly unharmed recipient now ready to "hew your head asunder", etc. In a training exercise, you probably wouldn't want to do it either - even if you do it correctly, you've probably maimed the guy, and if you slip a bit, you've, er, disarmed him with extreme prejudice. In training, you'd use a wooden sword, like a waster, which hurt well enough! Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blow to the head with sword hiltDid it ever happen - certainly, anytime a fighter thought it would give him an advantage. Hollywood has given us a rather incorrect view of swordplay. All that dainty waving of thin metal wands. In reality, swords were constantly redesigned to match the current theory of fighting. Some swords had basket hilts to use as brass knuckles, some had pointed pommels to use as hammers, some had crosspieces to use as ensnaring tools - while holding the blade of your own sword. During the days of armored knights, percussive hits - especially to the head - with large, heavy and possibly dull swords were important to close to grappling and stabbing range. (In later days an Englishman is recorded as lamenting the fact that young men fighting duels of honor are not kicking each other "in the cods" nearly as much since the Italian style of fencing came into vogue.) See also German school of fencing, swordmanship. Rmhermen (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the very beginning of The Once and Future King, being "bladed", or beat with the flat of the sword, is described as having been a humiliating punishment, but I have no idea if that was based on any sort of historic fact or not. --Prestidigitator (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sword i dont know, but apparently if you wish to kill someone with an axe, it is much easier, faster and less messy and quiet to do it with the flat side, that is, opposite to the blade, the thinest flat side86.18.34.51 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)zionist[reply]
Why do some people age quicker than others?Male and female? I know a guy who is 51 this year,and he looks like about 32? Not only by my opinion,but others as well.What is he doing that other are not? I have asked him,and he says he has lots of sex!
Fluter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many factors that affect aging, which are either environmental or genetic. One major environmental factor is exposure to sunlight, which ages the skin. Another is diet. Cosmetics and cosmetic surgey can also hide the evidence of aging. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering refinancing my home mortgage and I've got a couple general questions:
When we got our original mortgage, we got it through an independent "mortgage broker". This seemed to be advantageous because he could compare mortgages from different banks. Is there a disadvantage to this? That is, all else being equal, do you save money by applying to a number of individual banks on your own, rather than going through an independent broker?
Are you normally able to roll the refinancing costs into the new mortgage, or do you have to come up with the cash for this?
I currently have a fixed rate mortgage and I'm certain I'll move within five years. Does it make sense to consider getting an ARM?
Firstly, caveats: you should be as wary of financial advice from some random interneter as you would medical or legal advice! Also, I am not in the US and don't know the precise financial set up there, but I am only offering general comments, so they should still apply.
Mortage brokers make a living from brokering mortgages (obviously) and that income has to come from somewhere. Sometimes, they charge a flat fee for arranging a mortgage, sometimes it is worked into the cost at other points. Many are paid commissions from the mortgage lender, so the temptation may be to point you in the direction of the provider offering them the greater incentive. Others claim to be "independent" but are actually financed by a lender (or group of lenders). Thus, they don't always have all the possible options that exist. (However, occasionally they can offer a special deal that they've negotiated: but check it out before you accept their word it's "special"). Sometimes, the convenience of dealing with one person, in one appointment is worth the extra costs. If you are prepared to put in the foot work, you can check out the various lenders yourself, but it is best if you do a bit of reading up on the various types first. Also check out the financial section of one of the reputable newspapers: look at the ads (with a pinch of salt) but also check for the articles, tables and listings provided by the paper. These often compare some of the major products, from which you can pick out the likely providers. Mortgages lenders often have advisors: if you think a couple of banks/lenders look good, then talk to their advisors about the various products. Don't just walk in off the street and sign up for the one on their billboard out the front.
There are as many different products as lenders. Some will entice you with offers to delay the fees, or even pay them for you. Others ask you to front up with the cash for set-up and so forth first, but offer good rates. Calculate the cost of interest on the fees to decide if it's worth adding to your mortgage or paying cash. Also note: set up fees and other charges vary: check them all over carefully. A good rate might be cancelled out by large hidden "extra" costs, and penalty fees.
Many fixed rate mortgages are also on a fixed term, with heavy penalties if you opt out early. If you're just moving house, then some lenders will transfer the mortgage to the new house, so only admin costs apply, rather than penalty fees. Some mortgages aren't transferable. As well as standard variable rate mortgages, it is possible to get fully-flexible mortages, which allow you to pay back as much as you want (many regular mortages don't allow over-payment), and leave when you want, but the rates can be high. Low rates often come with a hefty promise to stay with the lender for many years. It's a bit of a balancing act.
Also, to add to the potential issues, there are also variations: in capital-repayment mortages, a percentage of your repayments goes towards reducing the actual loan; endowment-type mortages pay the interest, and that "repayment" proportion goes into a term-investment, which should equal the cost of the loan at the end of the term. Another possibility is to take out an interest-only mortgage (which is cheaper) and pay the extra money yourself into a good savings/investment plan (but make sure it's a good one).
So: read up what you can before talking to the advisors, so you know the right questions to ask, and have some idea of what would best suit you. Check out the above links (and links from those), the financial section of your paper, bank literature, and work out what it is you most want out of your mortgage. Hope this helps. Gwinva (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is overall much less crime in the US than SA, but in many major American cities, the crime stats start looking comparable. Atlanta has one of the highest rates but its affluent suburb, Buckhead, has the one of the lowest rates in the nation. In grim contrast, all classes in South Africa are highly victimized. Why is high crime in the US confined to only parts of high crime metro areas but spread everywhere in the metro areas of SA?
That is a good question. I don't have a well sourced answer, but personal experience of the two countries, and others, suggests to me that the USA is more typical and SA more atypical. Why is that? I think it is probably a consequence of the huge and historical difference between the wealthy and the poor in South Africa combined with the recent change in race politics.
I recall back in the days of Apartheid, SA was more like USA today. Shocking, I know, but true.. and here is why. The black folks were together (in townships in SA, and inner city ghettos in the US) and the white folks were together (in the 'burbs in both cases). Crime rates were high in SA back then, but the affluent upper-middle class "white" areas were relatively crime free. Why? Because the policing was very much focused on maintaining that: you could get up to pretty much anything you wanted in the townships and the police let you get on with it, but if it spilled over and caused a problem for the whites, then you would see brutal and rapid crackdowns. A similar system is in place in the US and this results in the disparities you note.
Since the end of Apartheid, the system has broken down and people have turned to private security for protection. There is growing lawlessness and the organized protection of the white suburbs is no longer as well organized. There are rich pickings there for those that are poor and with out prospects, irrespective of race. Previously the police only had to concern themselves with protecting whites, now they have to protect everyone and, so the crime has began to equalize. An additional factor is that a lot of the desperately poor African electorate were made extravagant promises by those who wanted their vote ("see the white's houses over there? When we are elected you can live in one of those"). Voter nativity was hardly surprising when you have never had the chance to vote before. And, when the promises were never realized and after years of "freedom" you find yourself in as hopeless a situation as before (or even worse), people begin to stop waiting and start taking.
In time, as "democracy" in SA matures, we will begin to see it swing back like we do in other democracies. Instead of race being the primary factor that differentiates between the high and low crime areas, it will be wealth. In practice that will make very little difference of course, except there will be some black faces in the 'burbs and a few poor white folks in the townships. Maybe thats an overly cynical explanation, but it seems on the money to me. Rockpocket02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can consumers in a 'local economy' purchase locally-produced beef, pork, milk, and eggs at a price that is favorable both to the local consumers and the local producers? In other words, is there any 'local' antidote for the 'globalization' of the food market? --Ckdavis (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are mixing several concepts for starters. Moving local products to local consumers without moving them to some headquarters first. Sure, there are many ways that is done. Look at Farmers' market for one example. There is also a chain of supermarkets in California that advertises using only local products where available. Whether the price is favorable to the local consumers is another concept. Unfortunately produce shipped around half the world can still comes out ahead on price even with all the costs of transportation and overheads added up. The globalization of the food market however also has other reasons. The food market has to some degree been "global" for a very long time. Just the part of the world that is accessible to us has grown with improved transport and Food preservation technologies. Things that aren't locally available or not in season have been transported from other places for ages. Just think of spices, for one example. If you look farther back the Egyptians transported food up and down the Nile. The grain trade was monopolized, but other products could be exchanged for grain. While there are many unfair aspects in global food trade, it's not all bad. It allows people to enjoy foods that are not available locally and removes seasonal limitations on things like fresh fruit. You might find that you have to do without a lot of foods if you only bought things that are locally available. Theoretically the global food trade could also alleviate the effects of failed harvests and natural disasters like droughts. In reality that doesn't seem to work because of uneven distribution of wealth. Even if farmers in most nations don't get fair prices for their products, if they didn't have that income they'd be a lot worse off. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please remove pornographic images from your site (eg: homosexual sex & fluffer)
Please remove the pornographic images that appear under particular searches such as "fluffer", "penis", and "sex". Children will be exposed to this destructive material if you fail to protect them.
Thank you. 96.237.188.142 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. This refers to a campaign by Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues of the Concerned Women for America, a Biblically principled organization, who has been [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 fulminating] at sexually explicit images on Wikipedia. The Christian Newswire has picked up the story & is running with it. Anticipate more such posts on this matter :(
And the answer, in general, is no. If you have specific objections to specific images, argue your case on the talk page associated with the image. If you want a a wikipedia sanitized according to your particular belief system, you need to fork this one and implement it yourself, or else enter into discussion with the community to see if we'd care to be sanitized. I think you'll find the answer is "no". --Tagishsimon(talk)22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A real professional outfit, they can't even get our web address correct: "... parents around the world may want to make every effort to keep their kids away from Wikipedia.com" Rockpocket00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first time I hear the word "fluffer". However, it sounds like an interesting profession. I could employ my seductive knowlegde to arouse female stars and still get paid for doing so. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had I know that that existed as was a teen, I would also know how to answer the question 'so, what do you want to do professionally when you grow up?'217.168.3.246 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read our policy on censorship. In short, "offensive" is subjective. What is wrong and disgusting to you is not wrong and disgusting to others. If you look up something dirty, what do you think you are going to see? Mattbuck has it right; if you want a "family-safe" encyclopedia, Conservapedia is the way to go. Just watch out for the ridiculous cabal-ism over there. Instead, you can just read a regular encyclopedia. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've some issue with the images, you could block upload.wikimedia.org on your internal network / on your PC. Or, just don't surf here. There you go, no problem. No need to enforce your religious beliefs on others when you can easily avoid the material. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do enjoy the fact that "penis" is considered destructive. It is not our duty to protect other people's children by depriving the world of information. Protect your own children please. Mad031683 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has images that are sexually explicit in places where such images will help a reader learn more about the subject. Wikipedia also has images that are explicitly violent images in places where they will help a reader learn more about the subject. I am curious about why this organization is demanding the removal of non-prurient sexual images, but has no apparent objection to the depiction of, for example, the victims of violent crime, or of war. If you are concerned that your child may see material that would not be appropriate for a child, you should take the standard measures that many parents use- employ an internet filter to prevent your child's access to adult material, and keep the family computer in a public room, where you can see what your child is looking at online. A standard keyword filter should prevent your child from accessing such objective concepts as penis and vagina, although there is no way to stop your child from seeing at least one of those things in reality. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why does wikipedia has more than one picture of a penis? Why doesn't it have a drawing instead? BTW, are you sure that anyone is able to see a penis (exclusive) or in reality? Some woman perhaps don't look downunder.
I don't think we are going to persuade you that no one organization, not even Concerned Women for America, has the right to censor another organization's publications. And I know you're not going to persuade Wikipedia that its goals should be changed to be the same as CWA's goals. So we'll just have to disagree with one another. Wikipedia will continue trying to create a complete collection of information; sharing information makes us happy, so we will be happy. CWA will continue looking for things that offend them; being offended makes them happy, so they will be happy. We are now all happy. Hooray! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, if you think that a few pictures of male anatomy are what are going to be corrupting your children, you really need to take a look a little wider both on the internet and in the world around you. There are vices, charlatans, and demagogues on practically every street corner (metaphorically speaking, of course—from a more literal point of view, they are blasted on every media outlet). There are multiple wars going on. There are governments failing to provide the basic protection to their citizens from natural disasters. Rather than trying to keep things hidden away—which only makes them more exciting for kids and everyone else, as we all well know, having been kids—perhaps you should spend more time talking to your children about critical reasoning skills, about developing a deep understanding of what morality means (which is more than just memorizing rules), and thinking about how they are going to make it through the next century. The twentieth century was likely the bloodiest in human history. The twenty-first is not shaping up well itself. Pictures of genitalia have nothing to do with any of that. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's best that you deny your children the use of a computer at all; that way, there's no possibility they can surf the net and find such appalling images as actual human body parts. Why not send them off to find some good wholesome educational books in a library - but be sure to warn the librarian to put a lock on "Grey's Anatomy" or any other medical textbooks when they see your kids arriving. I'm sure they'd be only too happy to oblige; they must get such requests all the time; they're there to serve, as we are. In fact, they probably employ staff on kiddie-watch to ensure kids are denied the basic information about how their bodies actually work, as of course they should be. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason why Wikipedia has a Bad image list. For very explicit (and a certain times induces vomiting) images that are placed on articles related to sexual organs, behavior (even medical conditions and certain historical pics depicting inhuman behavior). Those images are used FOR SHOWING THE RELATED INFO to accompany the text in the article. The Bad Image List works like Non-Free content, but the former has more restrictions than the latter.
To make this short, Wikipedia can't delete "explicit" pics. Go to Conservapedia for that kind of uh... unexplicit stuff. And if you can't avoid it, guide them well (tell them what is right and what is wrong) and don't be too overprotecive. Someday, they'll have more responsibilities than you or your parents. Even if we hate that kind of "art", it's also a part of life. You can force people not to smoke cigarettes but you can't force them to destroy their porn stash, especially when it is FOR PRIVATE USE. And what you consider as "porn" here is just to show what it is. Don't deny them the right to know. -iaNLOPEZ1115 ·TaLKBaCK ·Vandalize it02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some companies - like software companies - have offices?
There's no substitute for talking to people in real life. Besides, it means they can easily run a development server or something, explain concepts properly - it is incredibly hard to communicate complex ideas just using text. Sometimes you just need a pen and paper. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone who works at a software development company writes software. There are also people in marketing, accounting, management, sales, etc. That said, it isn't always a good idea for someone to write code from home all the time. While I do it a lot for my job, I do have to spend so many hours a week there for conferences, meetings, evaluations, testing in the like. Some things just can't be simulated over the internet. CelarnorTalk to me23:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some servers can be rebooted remotely, and some servers can also be virtual.
I still don't see why paying rent (a huge cost) is an advantage. Linux and Wikipedia were both created without offices around the world. => it's possible to create quality without offices. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linux and Wikipedia are non-commercial projects where people don't have to trust each other. If you are buying or selling something you will want to be able to assess people and decide if they are trustable or not. Other emotions are also relevant here. Do you really want to cooperate with someone that you don't know?
A second point is protecting information. In the case of Linux or Wikipedia there is still a difference. In both cases there is no intention of protecting the copyright of the project. If you want to fill a patent in the other hand you will want to keep things secret. In a large team with 50 or more people working online you will not be able to protect trade secrets efficently. Mr.K.(talk)08:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a question of logistics as it is one of social dynamics, for starters. First of all, while some people can easily work from home, many others cannot. Or, to put it bluntly: how do you know people are actually working instead of goofing off? Some people don't work well without at least some degree of supervision, even if it is only implied.
But that's just a part of the thing, because there are many benefits to actually physically working with other people. Having co-workers you like makes you motivated. Being able to grab lunch with the nice guy from marketing (Ha ha! I joke! There are no nice guys in marketing!) is going to make your work day a little more fun, and that can help a lot, especially in times of stress. It's also very useful to be able to brainstorm with a group of people easily, especially in work that has a strong creative element. Yes, programs like Skype and instant messaging applications can be very helpful, but they are not an easy substitute for face-to-face communication, especially in the long run and when multiple people are involved. It can work, but it's difficult and requires a lot from the participants.
And, of course, if you're meeting clients, you're going to want to have an office. Not just because it creates an image of professionalism and dependability -- although that probably doesn't hurt -- but because it allows you to easily present your key people, processes and practices to people who will give you money to do what you do, if they think you can do it properly.
In any case, using Linux and Wikipedia as evidence that offices aren't necessary or useful is a little disingenuous, because for every successful project like that, there are a hundred -- or a thousand -- projects that never take off or that crash and burn somewhere during the process. Also, Linux, for example, was created by Linus Torvalds when he was studying, as a hobby. He was motivated and got it done, and it really took off, but it's not as if his project was unique -- there were thousands of other geeks doing similar things, they just never completed their projects. Torvalds wasn't exceptional because he had the ability or because he had the idea, but because he actually had the drive to complete the project. (As much as Linux is ever complete, but anyway.) And these days, to my knowledge, Torvalds works in an office.
Also, a lot of people want to work in an office, because it creates a clear divide between work time and personal time. For the most part, I've been working from home for many years now (I do a lot of freelance work), and while being able to sit around the house in my underwear has obvious benefits, it's not necessarily that great in the long run: I'm always at work, pretty much. There's no real way of telling when I can relax and when I'm supposed to be working. There are obvious benefits to putting on my coat and going home, and knowing that when I'm home, I can kick back and not worry about work, because I'm off the clock, period. Most of the time, I don't have that, unless I make a lot of effort to segregate my work activities from other activities, and that's not as easy as you might think, at least not for me -- and, judging by the discussions I've had with people in similar arrangements, for most people. Sure, if I want to stop working and go watch a couple of episodes of Futurama in the middle of the day, I can do that, and that's very nice, but it's definitely a mixed blessing. I don't really mind working from home, I should stress, but the idea that it's easier or even an optimal arrangement is kind of misguided. So when I work with clients who require my daily presence in an office, I like that -- even if it means I have to put my pants on in the morning. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think a mix-up of office and virtual work is the perfect combination. People don't want to be tied to a specific place - be it your home or office. Virtual communication is still not so perfect and sometimes you have to draw a complex structure on a whiteboard to better visualize it. Testing software remotely can also be difficult. As a tester you are supposed to test in several machines and most people only have one at home. GoingOnTracks (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia foundation does have an office, and I'd be a little surprised if any of the major Linux distros didn't, even though they don't have to keep track of most of their contributors in the same way paying employers do. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any company has some sort of registered office. It is legally binding, in the US at least. Further advantages are saving in license cost of software, ebooks and other digital media. Privacy of the employee towards friends and family (not anyone has a spare room at home). Guarantee that no children, dog or the like will be crying, barking or the like in the background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any idea when, or if, the Beatles catalogue will be availible on iTunes? I have every CD except Magical Mystery Tour, and I wanted a few songs. Maybe I should just get Limewire. Thanks!
Grango242 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-one outside the relevant parties seems to know. Every so often some source claims it is about to happen imminently (the most recent being last month but this was quashed by Sony, who owns some of the publishing rights with Michael Jackson. Presumably they would know.) Nevertheless, a "A high-level music industry source" is still claiming a deal will be done this year [2] and Mr McCartney himself is "pretty sure" you'll see it in 2008. [3]Rockpocket01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_107v.jpg)
