Miscellaneous desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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.

July 22

Growing your own seaweed?

Has anyone ever heard of growing your own seaweed? Is it realistic? Is it possible? Does it have to use saltwater?--Dbjohn (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (and yes, yes, yes)- seaweed is also called macroalgae see : http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=macroalgae+growing+saltwater+aquarium&meta=

If you want to grow seaweed it will have to be salt water, however freshwater macroalgae exist as well.83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for biological questions try the science desk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people grow their own weed. But, why would someone grow their own seaweed?--Quest09 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they like getting blowjobs?83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..which has what to do with growing seaweed? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different kinds of seaweed. Which did you have in mind? I suggest you read our article on growing your own seaweed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To eat? Feed fish? Because they think it looks nice? Simply as a hobby? There are lots of possible reasonsNil Einne (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks: cotton, polyester, spandex

I have two choices: socks with 80% cotton, 17% polyester and 3% spandex or socks with 83% cotton, 16% polyester, 1% spandex. One of both is also cheaper, but which one is the best quality? (if it matter at all).--Quest09 (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is not strictly a function of materials. Why not buy one of each, wear them hard for a month, and see which you prefer? — Lomn 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but polyester is more durable isn´t it? I can´t buy just a pair, I have to buy 3 of them at least.--Quest09 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the long term the cotton will wear out first, leaving a net (literally) or polyester and spandex. The quantities of fibres make no difference, and the price is also relatively irrelevent. Nobody can tell from the info you gave which is better. You'll have to decide for yourself.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers are so close that they might be the same socks made by the same factory with different percentage estimates. Tempshill (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

use the touch test - personally I think there is so little in it that you are best served buying the cheaper and replacing more often - after the first wash all socks are basically equal. And given that some of the cheapest socks I have bought have been as good as the most expensive - I expect any price difference is due to mark up.83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parole

Why is Julio_González_(arsonist) eligible for parole, but Madoff not? Quest09 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bernard Madoff article states that parole was abolished under federal law in 1984. This article seems to be saying Gonzalez was tried under state law. Maybe that's it? (I don't know how American law works) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gonzalez was convicted of premeditated murder that does not involve special circumstances murder, arson and assault in state court. He was not tried by the federal government for any federal crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, although state law allows parole for most crimes, federal law does not. In a state court, it's possible to be sentenced to "30 years without parole", but if the sentence is "30 years", then parole is possible. Tempshill (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's of note that there are a lot of factors in granting parole. In these particular cases, what Gonzalez did, while horrible, was an act committed while extremely intoxicated on just one night. What Madoff did was premeditated, done soberly and conscientiously over the course of decades. When considering whom would be more likely to commit more crimes if ever released, I would personally be more suspicious of the career criminal (in this case, Madoff) than the one who acted under an act-of-passion. Gonzalez will not be eligible for parole until he is in his 60s, incidentally. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being eligible for parole under the law, and actually getting parole, are not the same thing. Charles Manson comes up for parole every so often, and it's like, Thanks for stopping by Charles, now back to your cell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP's question, it comes down to the Federal system in the U.S. The U.S. legal system is a two-tiered system; a national-level legal systems which handles violations of U.S. national law, and 50 individual state-level systems which operate independently from each other AND from the federal law. In many cases, the federal statutes are much stricter with regards to sentencing than comparable state-level statutes (as already noted vis-a-vis parole, but also on length of sentences). Another example which has been coming up alot is the comparison between Michael Vick's 23-month sentance for dog fighting violations vs. Donte Stallworth's 30-day sentence for vehicular manslaughter and DUI. The deal is, Vick broke a federal law and serves time based on the federal legal system's standards. Stallworth broke a State of Florida law and serves time based on Florida's legal system standards. Two independent systems, two different sets of standards. --Jayron32 05:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to think of it, perhaps, is that state crimes are considered to be crimes against the state, and federal crimes to be crimes against the United States. When someone says, "Don't make a federal case out of it," they're repeating the conventional wisdom that a federal offense is pretty severe. Here's an oddity from way back: When JFK was assassinated, it turned out there was a federal law against threatening the President, but there was actually no federal law against murdering him. Thus when Oswald was being held, initially for the Texas crime of murdering a police officer, he would also have been tried for the murder of JFK under Texas law, rather than federal law. It's interesting to speculate on whether Texas would have sent Oswald to the chair, but Ruby's one-man firing squad kind of pre-empted that. It's also interesting to speculate on what the feds would have done with Oswald, and whether they would have done a better job of protecting him while in custody. Anyway, the JFK killing prompted the Congress to enact a federal law against murdering the President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loading Fountain Pen with any Ink?

I purchased a Parker Sonnet the other day, but forgot to purchase ink. Can I use any old fountain pen ink with it? Or do "slightly more expensive" pens demand higher quality ink? Acceptable (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any pen-ink will be fine. I've got a nice Graf von Faber Castell pen and I use standard pen-ink with it and have had no problems from that. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Quink^TM ? You can use other inks, blood, whatever, not a problem.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No blood tends to clot and bung up the mechanism, also the attendant wooziness makes it difficult to write anything but a short note. meltBanana 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be subject to spoilage, and might carry pathogens. Googlemeister (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

meltBanana, that's a really ambiguous sentence you wrote there. What it seems to be saying is that there is "no blood" that would clot in a fountain pen, so no matter what sort of blood you might choose (human, cat, ...), it would all be ok to use. But what I think you're meaning is "No, blood tends to clot", or even "No. Blood tends to clot". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing in blood is usually done with a quill pen, not a fountain pen. If your life includes enough occasions of this level of seriousness to warrant having a whole pen full of blood, get some expired blood from a blood bank. Donated blood is mixed with anti-clotting agents, to keep it liquid long enough to transfuse.

Ink-jet printer ink will also work.- KoolerStill (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a blood-bank actually let you take expired blood? Vimescarrot (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it would make great fertilizer for plants

Which? Blood Blood meal or Quink ? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to topic: The first answer you've got was correct. The worst that could happen is that after not using it [the pen] on a regular bases would be dried ink build-up (mostly on and under the nib] and you would need to empty and clean it [I recommend distilled water even so clean tap water can do the job as well] which [the cleaning] you should to do anyways ones or twice a year.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian ink is full of shellac and will clog a fountain pen up,but I've used all sorts in my Sheaffer and Parker pens without problems.I don't think I'd risk gold or silver inks either....hotclaws 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can dissolve shellac with a solvent, maybe lighter fuel (liquid), don't quote me on that.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Office and The Office

Is the The Office (UK TV series) like UK office work? I personally associate it much more with office work in Germany, however, perhaps it's just me.--Quest09 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Much of the humour relied on the fact that the situations portrayed would be painfully familiar to British people, albeit exaggerated. That's why it had to be rewritten for the US market.--Shantavira|^{feed me}

It actually is pretty fine for the US situation as well. The US has its own particularities but the general dynamic between workers and managers is not terribly off, with maybe the exception of some of the particulars of their social outings. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty accurate I feel. You may be interesting in the US movie Office Space, very funny and may be more pertinent to US office conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garage door opener

My garage door opener suddenly stopped responding to the remote controls and to the wall button. It will still activate and cycle the door if I unplug it and plug it back in (that is, if the door is open, it'll shut it; and if the door is closed, it'll open it). It's an old Stanley unit and the company is no help. There's no manual (physical or online). Any ideas? Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you need to consult an electrician. Have you checked for loose connections? Otherwise my guess would be that the wall switch will need replacing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have suspected the wiring, too, but the remote controls failed simultaneously. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unplug/plug performance suggests some sort of reset action that comes after a power outage. Like you, I could not find a manual or even replacement remotes for the antiquated opener that came with my garage. I decided to replace the unit; you may not care to do that. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These symptoms implicate the cojntrol board, which is a circuit board inside the overhead unit. Specifically, only the portion of th econtrol board that starts the open or close cycle: the rest of the circuitry on the board is working properly. you can attempt to clean the board with a strong blower such as a leaf blower just in case a bit of dust has creates a short, but thisis a long shot. It is probably easier and cheaper to replace the unit than it would be to find s replacement control board. However, if you have no money and no common sense and plenty of free time, you may be able to design and implement an alternative control scheme. clearly, you could just put a normally-on push button inline with the AC power to replace the wall switch function. Warning: don't try any of this unless you understand electricity and you have disconnected the unit first. -Arch dude (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This surely won't solve the whole problem but as sometimes two different things go bad almost the same time (and believe me, it happened to me more than ones) you might want to check if the battery in your remote has a good contact/connection as the receiving clips that hold it in place. They could be worn out so that there is not enough tension. If so just try to carefully bend them a little towards the battery by taking it [the battery] out and using some needle pliers to do the job.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a kogatana exactly?

I can't find what a kogatana (小刀, also read as shōtō) exactly is. The Northern California Japanese Sword Club, founded by John M. Yumoto, says they are often called Kozuka blades (kogatana entry). Both kogatana and kozuka are mentioned on Japanese sword mountings. When searching the site for kogatana, the katana article tells me that the kodachi is also called a kogatana. But the kodachi article says no such thing. So, what is it? ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather from this site and Japanese sword mountings and my knowledge of kanji... Kozuka seems like it's the handle of a Kogatana, which is just a small knife residing in a scabbard or a wakizashi. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary says "small knife or short sword," which is what I would have expected from the kanji. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of a bale

How many pounds are there in a bale? Carol3544 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific unit of measure called the 'bale', or are you thinking of a bale of some material (cotton or hay, for example)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to a hay bale, there are several standard sizes that can be anywhere from about 50lbs up to over 2,000 lbs. A bale of cotton is more like 500 lbs after ginning. If I had to guess, I would put Christian Bale at 170 lbs or so. Googlemeister (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly more cotton than can be picked in a day. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huddie William Ledbetter: [1] Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.convertunits.com reckons that 720lb = 1 bale and several other web sites cite that Egyptian cotton is packed in 720lb bales. --TrogWoolley (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Rowlett's excellent site on units of measurement has:

bale (bl) [1]: a bundle of merchandise, usually pressed and bound in some way. The word "bale" has been used in many ways to describe standard packages of various commodities. For example, a bale of paper is traditionally equal to 10 reams. In agriculture, a bale of hay is generally a huge round bundle left in the field until needed; these bales can weigh up to 1500 pounds (700 kilograms). In U.S. garden shops, a bale of straw is typically 3 cubic feet (0.085 cubic meter).

bale (bl) [2]: a commercial unit of weight for shipments of cotton. In the United States, one bale of cotton, formerly equal to 500 pounds (226.80 kg), is now equal to 480 pounds (217.72 kg). The British used the Egyptian bale, formerly equal to 750 pounds (340.19 kg) but now equal to 720 pounds (326.59 kg). Other countries use a variety of cotton bale weights.

--Anon, 01:00 UTC, July 23, 2009.

Googlemeister, you have apparently not seen Christian Bale in The Machinist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.214.92 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tote that barge / Lift that bale. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couples sharing expenses

What is the most common way between partners that don't earn the same? Each puts a % of their salary or one partner has to live under its level?--Quest09 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on what kind of partnership you are talking about? Is it a business partnership? Romantic relationship? Something else? Googlemeister (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "couples" implies the romantic variety of relationship. But let the original questioner clarify. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a couple considers their finances part of an overall household. So it's not that one is living "under its level" if their funds contribute to the household. You don't do your finances as a couple as if you were two single people who just happen to live together. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that money is not the only thing of value that is brought into a relationship. The "traditional" setup of a breadwinner financially supporting a homemaker does not mean that the homemaker is living "above their level". Indeed some studies have concluded that the value of the cooking/cleaning/childcare/administrative services which a homemaker provides can equal or exceed the value of the money which the breadwinner brings in. I haven't done a survey, but I'd guess that a large number of couples (especially "traditional" ones) function on a communal property type system - that is, it's not "your money" or "my expenses", but "our money" and "our expenses". -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also, incidentally, how the law usually treats married income, if I am not mistaken. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're committed enough, just treat all income as "our income". Just with every other form of trust in a couple's relationship, both parties should have trust in the other as to how the money will be spent and how the bills will get paid. Dismas|^(talk) 00:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question was what approach is most common. Statistics, people, statistics! There must be surveys or studies on this out there. (No, I don't know of any myself.) --Anonymous, 01:03 UTC, July 23, 2009.

Oh - it's all too easy. My wife an I have settled in on a simple, easy to understand rule: I earn the money - she spends it. :-( SteveBaker (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you heard about the guy whose credit cards were stolen? He didn't report it, because the thief was spending less than the wife had been. [Audio] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of inserting the rimshot as requested. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cohabiting couples have a stronger tendency to keep their finances separate, if both are earning; some may have a joint fund for certain household expenses.There usually won't be differences in "living level" in terms of food, heating etc but may be differences in spending on clothing, going out etc. Married couples tend more to pool income, that is where, who by and on whom it is spent is separated from who earned it (even if only the husband earns). The wife's income is more likely to be not pooled if it is a small percentage of the total (but she may be the major spender of the pool or main income). In higher income families, the higher the woman's share of the total income, the higher the likelihood of her controlling the whole pool. Generally all members get equal benefits regardless of percentage contributed. This is from numerous studies in various countries, summarised here - KoolerStill (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partners' economic arrangements are strongly influenced by their separate statuses when they meet. One may have a study loan to repay, another may have a house mortgage to repay... Since these are contractual obligations to 3rd parties the couple will have to decide whether to share the repayments or not. If on meeting one is much wealthier than the other, the former is very likely to seek protection of their fortune by means of a prenuptual agreement, or at least take a dominant röle in spending decisions, while the latter would be wise to encourage gifts of diamonds. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My wife and I slipped into joint account banking gradually. When we lived together before getting married, we started off splitting the bills 50/50 - but after a few months - we me earning twice what she did, I decided to rearrange the bills so that we both had the same "disposable" income - which meant I was paying most of the bills - but we both had the same amount of money to spend on whatever. When we got married, in a fit of "now we're together"-ness we decided to just have a joint bank account and put earnings from both of us into it and pay bills and everything else out of it. THAT was a big mistake. The problems are subtle - but things like being unable to feel good about buying your partner an expensive gift because in reality she's paying for half of it. Never feeling like you can spontaneously treat yourself to something nice because she's paying half. I really wish we'd stuck with splitting the bills so that we both had the same disposable income...but somehow now we're where we are, it's a pain to change back. SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that this is OR, but many of my friends who have gotten married or are in long-term cohabiting relationships have both separate accounts and a joint account. The joint account (into which each partner pays a fixed sum every month) is for things which are joint (house mortgage/rent, domestic bills, food), anything else is done separately. Of course, the definition of "joint" is up for debate... — QuantumEleven 11:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No legal advice, but depending on local laws separate accounts can become a pain when one partner passes without a will. In extreme cases governments have been known to run off with part or all of the money. Check carefully.71.236.26.74 (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When my marriage ended (amicably), some months went by before we bothered separating our bank accounts, whereupon we both said, "I thought I was ripping you off!" —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]