Miscellaneous desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

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.

December 3

embed phile

Hello I am creating a new page and would like to add a photo. I am working in the sandbox and am ready to post the article.

Thank you.

Jim Ruch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjimmy123 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UPLOAD. And just a bit of advice, questions about how to edit Wikipedia generally go to the Help Desk. Dismas|^(talk) 05:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National lead (Pb) abatement program?

Hello, has there ever been or is there now a federal lead abatement program in the United States? Thanks76.218.104.120 (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you will find something at the EPA site or maybe someone more knowledgeable will answer You better. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the closest place with a bidet to Manhattan, Kansas?

My BioBidet BBC-250's water pressure knob stopped responding and thanks to their generous warranty department, a new replacement is shipping as we speak.

I don't know if I wish to wait for that long though; they decided to ship it by UPS Ground (though overnighting it would've been ideal.)

Until it arrives, what is the closest place to Manhattan that has a bidet or bidet-seat? That'll do a BIG favor for germaphobes anywhere. Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there many people from Manhattan, Kansas placing weird questions here or is it just one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.70.171 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP is germaphobe, how could he think about using a random bidet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.70.171 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it has a "nozzle self-cleaning" function, then I'll feel a lot more at-ease. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HUMINT

Articles posted on above subject discuss all most all the factors related, but I didn't found any thing related to the rewards what agents getting for spying ( of course mortice factors"SMICE" discussed) and then what rewards case officers get for recruiting a agent? can you give me answers for this two questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.133.124 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most agents historically have done it for money. The amount of money has historically varied depending on the circumstances. A handful have done it for ideology. I don't think case officers get specific rewards other than eventual promotions if the intelligence pans out, but I don't know this for a fact. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrich Ames received $4.6 million, but is an exception. Geoffrey Prime received only £8000. On her retirement, Melita Norwood received a £20/month pension from the KGB (ref), but I don't know if she ever actually saw the money (and specifically says she was an ideological spy). So were the Cambridge Five and the US atomic spies (Fuchs, Gold, Greenglass, and the Rosenbergs). After his defection, Kim Philby got 500 roubles/month (I don't know how much that is in 1963 money, but evidently not much) and a little party apartment; given his lofty status before his defection, that's a major diminution in the quality of his life. Paying spies is a bit of a minefield. For the mercenaries, if you pay them too much they might decide they've made enough, and quit while they're ahead and haven't been caught. Or they live beyond their means and get caught as a result. But pay the mercenary spy too little and he takes umbrage ("I give you the designs of a nuclear bomb that cost a billion dollars to develop, and you pay me a thousand dollars in exchange!!"). Apparently the KGB flipflopped about whether it was wise to offer to pay ideological agents - paying them a modest amount could make them feel like they were "on payroll; part of the team" - but it could also tarnish their loftily-moral self-image and make them feel like you considered them a mercenary or hireling (not the paragon they felt themselves to be). On-topic tale: in its early World War I years, MI-5 had trouble extracting the money from the Treasury to buy a car, despite having been very successful in turning German agents in the UK. So they had their agents (now really operated by MI-5 officers) ask the German Naval Intelligence Service for money (which the "agents" said they'd use to recruit others or suborn sailors or dockyard workers). The Germans happily obliged and cabled money. The Treasury heard about this and tried pretty hard to get MI-5 to give them the money instead, but MI-5 prevailed and bought the car, on the Germans' dime. (ref: Christopher Andrew's The Defence of the Realm, which has a lot of info about the general area of your question). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The missing thing in this assessment, which I generally agree with, is that it considers only the major spy cases, and particular the national security spies. But the most prominent spying during the Cold War was probably industrial espionage. The Stasi ran huge networks in Western Germany and Europe in order to offset their own R&D deficiencies. They were a huge success and they made spying a quite routine operation. It was money that did it, in all cases, mixed with occasional honorary medals, luxury items, and things like that. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble, in general, with a paid spy is that no amount of money can buy his loyalty. And simply by spying for you he's shown himself to be a sleekit and tricksy fellow. So when he feels counter-intelligence breathing down his neck, there's every reason to believe he'll double over to them, taking both your money and theirs and feeding you what they want. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than ideology or money, there's also blackmail. Say you're a drug gang like the Zetas and you want to smuggle product into the US. You learn that a given border agent has a gambling problem, and has run up a debt. Using an acquaintance of his that works for you, you pay off the debt; he's not going to get his legs broken, so he's grateful. The acquaintance then asks him for a very little favour - maybe just to know when the shifts change, or when the drug dog is off duty. He's reluctant, but he feels obligated, so he tells the guy. You record the exchange. Then you continue to corrupt him; but crucially if he pushes back, you can threaten him - he has to continue to cooperate, or you'll make sure the details of his first transgression get into the hands of the border agency. If he's weak he'll fold; strictly speaking he's now your mercenary, but he's operating under your compulsion too, and you quickly proceed to fully corrupt him so he has no exit strategy. Even though you own him for free now, you probably keep paying him, to keep him somewhat content (cash is something drug gangs and intelligence agencies usually have no shortage of). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how common is this? I suspect not very common. There are a lot of opportunities for this to turn on you. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to know, really. British intelligence says it doesn't do the "black arts" things like honeytraps and blackmail; the KGB did and it seems the Mossad does too, who knows what the others do. I'm confident cash-rich narcotraffickers try to corrupt and blackmail anyone they can. Certainly any agent can turn on you, or be a double all along, and the more you think about that, the deeper into James Jesus Angleton's "wilderness of mirrors" you go. At least the narcotraffickers have a reliable means of measuring long-term success - the volumes of product and cash they successfully trans-ship. Everyone else is in a vortex of suspicion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect narcotraffickers succeed more on intimidation than blackmail. I suspect blackmail in general is probably over-emphasized, except in the sense that once one does become a spy, there is always the threat of exposure. But I don't see it as a great way to indoctrinate someone into the spy profession; friendship, money, and ideology promote a far less adversarial relationship. But I'm not a spy (though I have known a few spooks over the years). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luggage: converting from liters to kilos

If a suitcase has a capacity of x liters, how many kilos of clothes can you put inside it? (don't come telling me that 1 liter is 1 kg, since I am not filling the suitcase with water, it's clothes). 88.8.70.171 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the density of the clothes.--WaltCip (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That would depend very much on how tightly you are packing the clothes. If "clothes" means "unfolded winter coats", it will probably weigh much less than if it is, say, shrink-wrapped T-Shirts. In my last trip, I had approximately enough clothes to last for two weeks, and a set of sheets, a pair of flip-flops, and probably some other assorted items crammed into a suitcase that I very roughly estimate as 20 by 30 by 8 inches (5.1 dm × 7.6 dm × 2.0 dm), or 4,800 cubic inches (79 L) (2.8 cu ft). It weighed in only a little shy of the 50 pounds (23 kg) limit. That gives an average of 290 grams (10 oz) per 1 litre (0.035 cu ft). This is very general however, as there are so many variables in the equation. If you pack the clothes tighter, you will fit more. If you just throw them in the suitcase, you'll fit a lot less. Also, I have no measuring tools with me, so this is subject to my estimation skills as well. Falconus^{p t c} 00:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my student days I remember that if I crammed my 60l backpack full with (mainly) clothes it would come to pretty exactly 15Kg. That gives 250g/l (I suspect this is less than the previous poster, since the weight of mt empty backpack would be less than the weight of an empty suitcase). 109.148.238.255 (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the weight of carry-on baggage checked?

I have never seen that in the US or Europe. Is it done at all? (provided your carry-on baggage is within the allowed size. 88.8.70.171 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had mine weighed in Toronto and in Fort Lauderdale. The Air Canada guidelines cover both dimensions and weight. Bielle (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On some small planes (like this one) they weigh you as well and tell you where to sit in the plane. Mikenorton (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On planes of the size of the Britten-Norman Islander, it can be quite important from a safety standpoint to ensure that the luggage is within the proper weight range. If there are a few nuts who decide to carry onboard 120 pounds (54 kg) carry-ons (okay, extreme example) onto a Boeing 747, it probably won't make a difference (well, I say that, but I'd imagine that wouldn't be good rattling around in the overhead, if it fit). On a much smaller aircraft, that could easily put it overweight if the flight crew is not being attentive. I fly a smaller aircraft yet, and have on occasion flown it to within a few pounds of the maximum gross weight of 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg), with an included fudge-factor, in case I missed something. Had one of my passengers decided to throw even an unpermitted 20lb bag into the back that I had overlooked, I would have taken off [slightly] overweight, which is something to be avoided (a few pounds over in reality won't cause a problem, but it's called a weight limit for a reason). So, on a large aircraft, generally it's an issue of "where can I put this junk" rather than safety (they probably should still check it, ~~but I don't think they often fly those aircraft anywhere near the weight limit~~), but on a small aircraft the weight of the luggage (and passengers) really does pose a serious concern, and must be checked and figured into the calculations (both for the absolute weight and the weight distribution, as Mikenorton has said, for balance considerations). Falconus^{p t c} 00:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe Falconus is right that space is a key consideration hence the restrictions on dimensions and number of bags, my impression is the hand luggage restriction is also about safety. Not in a 'are you going to compromise safety because the plane is overweight because of too much heavy hand luggage' POV but to avoid injuries to flight attendants and passengers when assisting people lift their hand luggage or when lifting it to get access to their own hand luggage. [1] It's also likely to reduce the injuries suffered if the hand luggage falls on a passenger (although even 7kg is still going to be fairly heavy) which of course is probably less likely anyway if the hand luggage isn't extremely heavy.

There may be an additional consideration, in that the overhead bins have a weight limit, I believe often 32kg [2]. If someone has a 15kg piece of hand luggage you're already half way to the limit, if 2 people you're nearly at the limit. And if these aren't above the common dimension restrictions, I think you can often fit 3 pieces so you're likely to breach the limits. While it's still possible to have several small pieces of hand luggage that are at the limit of 7kg and breach the overhead bin limit, my guess is this is significantly less likely. (Even if the limits aren't often enforced, if they are sufficiently advertised you probably convince enough people to reduce problems.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, they do. Try to fly from any of the Ryanair only airports and beware if you've got an ounce over 10kg with you. 109.148.238.255 (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the original question, I cannot remember the last time that my carry-on luggage was weighed on a commercial airliner; that being said, there was an issue once years ago on a somewhat small aircraft in a foreign country where a member of our party had too much luggage, and didn't understand that it was a safety issue ("can I just pay extra?"). The pilots worked it out so that all the luggage could come with us, but they weren't pleased (and I do wonder exactly what "working it out" entailed in reality). Falconus^{p t c} 01:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've ever had my hand luggage weighed after check-in although I believe I've seen it happen to others before, both in size and weight (in Kuala Lumpur and Auckland airports they often have these metal frames with scales below to check both) with non budget airlines. However I think I have had it happen before when you are above to the common 20 kg limit for check in luggage, particularly the unofficial 25 kg limit that many non budget airlines seem to allow before they try to charge for excess baggage, the staff may check your hand luggage while checking in. It may also influence whether they'll let you on without excess charges. If you're at the airport with someone who isn't travelling, you could leave your hand luggage with them and only take a small bag while checking in to try to con them, but seems risky to me.

The bigger problem is that the checking may happen, after you've gone through security. So particularly for international flights, even if you someone went to the airport with you, you now can't just give stuff to them to take back if you're over the limit. According to what I've read and heard the policy is normally to force you to check it in if they find it over the limit. Although I presume if you want to throw stuff away they'll allow it. I can imagine they may charge for checking it in particularly, if you're already close to or slightly above the limit, which sounds like it may be one of the OPs concerns. And as anyone with experience knows, the price for excess checked in baggage is usually very high. Of course this could delay the flight which other then annoying your fellow passengers isn't good for the airline so it's possible if it isn't too seriously over the limit (e.g. if it's just 10 kg and the limit is 7 kg) you may get a talking to but be allowed on with it.

On the other hand, I have seen economy passengers with several pieces per passenger which is clearly over the common limit of 1 (plus camera, laptop etc) without anyone making a fuss. Personally though even if it's rare it's a problem, it seems it may be a bit risky to me to try to push the limits on hand lugage much. Particularly if you're planning to travel with stuff you either don't really need or could tranport in the mail or some other way that's likely cheaper then excess luggage charges.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have flown countless times in the last 4 decades or so, and have never had carryon luggage weighed, even on small planes. On those rare occasions when I had checked luggage, not only was it weighed, but one time I was charged a small fee because it was a few pounds over the standard weight limit. I expect that if my checked luggage was actually my sample case in my job as a concrete salesman, they might have balked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, you are not a platinum salesman! Dbfirs 12:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I had enough platinum that the flight crew questioned whether it was within the weight limit, I'd not be too terribly upset about it ;-). Falconus^{p t c} 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

... if you had a strong arm, you could carry that amount in the palm of your hand and even the lowest limit mentioned would be worth over a quarter of a million dollars! (Gold is doing marginally better just at present in terms of value per unit volume.) Dbfirs 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flying recently with Icelandair my carry-on bag was weighed (both directions, flying transatlantic). The check-in staff said that it was because Icelandair is fairly unusual among airlines (especially in the discount market) in allowing two checked bags up to 23 kg/50 lbs each, free of charge for economy class passengers. Consequently, they have to be fairly strict about their carry-on weight limit (just 6 kg/13 lbs) per passenger, though I've found they're still quite tolerant of the usual handbags, coats, and camera bags on top of that limit (these items aren't counted within the 6 kg, and I've never had them weighed). Generalizing from this experience, I wouldn't be surprised if any airline with a particularly restrictive carry-on bag weight limit would tend to weigh larger carry-on luggage as a matter of course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen both in Europe. My own carry on was weighed once at check-in - it was OK. On another occasion, one person at the gate looked at it (the very same bag) and immediately concluded it was too big and demanded it went in the hold. They would not be dissuaded with pleas of "it has never been a problem before, why don't you weigh/measure it" - no weighing or measuring, just "it's too big". And perhaps 99.99% of the other occasions there has been no measuring or weighing. I've also seen other passengers asked to stick their carry on bag in the measuring frame at the gate. Astronaut (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]