Miscellaneous desk
< December 25	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

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 26

SRI LANKAN STAMPS

Where can I find the list of Sri lankan stamps issued form 1857 todate? Thank you.175.157.255.16 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the Scott catalogue. You can often buy past years' volumes cheaply. I see you are in Sri Lanka; possibly there are local catalogues which are more easily obtainable. Ask at a major post office which has a philatelic window.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your IP address that you are actually in Sri Lanka. I don't know of any specific South Asian stamp catalogue publishers, but for the former British Empire area, the most detailed catalogues are published by Stanley Gibbons - nowadays in the interests of economy they split their catalogue into many sections, and you would be interested in the "Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma and Sri Lanka" section. The most recent (2nd) edition was published in 2010 and is currently being advertised on their website at £12.57 plus postage to Sri Lanka for something weighing nearly 500g. (If the link doesn't work directly, scan down the page - this volume usually appears on the second page). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grilling vs Roasting

What is the difference between grilling and roasting? --PlanetEditor (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both cooking methods are similar; not much difference. Diff is: Grilling is mostly used for thinner cuts (i.e. chicken quarters, chops) Roasting takes place at a slower rate without the meat being being burnt on the outside or raw in the middle, so we can use it for thicker cuts. Then there are other similar methods that use dry heat too, such as broiling. Hope this helps. See also: Roasting vs. Grilling Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some difference in the UK: Grilling is rapidly cooking something under a direct source of heat (usually in a grill compartment of the cooker which is separate from the oven); the term has also spread to barbecuing food over hot coals/charcoal. Roasting is slowly cooking something in an oven with a more surrounding source of heat, often with the help of fats or oils to help keep in moisture. So, in this image (a typical gas powered cooker in the UK) your sausages, toast, and tomatoes are grilled for breakfast using the eye-level grill; the meat and potatoes of your Sunday roast are roasted in the oven with the glass door. Astronaut (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird laws

I was reading an old book of mine regarding weird laws... And I came across many RIDICULOUS ones like, in Australia, all bars are required to stable, water and feed the horses of their patrons, in Florida, if an elephant was tied to a parking meter, you would have to pay the parking fee, and in Alaska, one would be fined if he/she looked at a moose from a plane(?!) (Are these true?) Why do they come up with these kind of laws... Are the lawmakers trying to be funny on purpose? Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought any good book like that would tell you the original purpose of any such laws or how they are quoted out of context. They all sound to me like things which could be seen as correct and right in some way or at some time. For instance should you allow hunters to use aerial support? Dmcq (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine didn't, sadly. Just loads of weird facts. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there are certainly some surprising laws in various places (usually because their original context has vanished), there are far fewer than is often claimed by articles and books. See Dumb laws for more discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The parking space is none the less occupied by the elephant, just like it would be by any other SUV-sized vehicle. :) The Aussie law sounds logical enough, for the rural areas at a time (think Nevil Shute's Aussie books) when there were few jeeps or utility vehicles, and given that the bar might also be the only place in town to eat, the sole renter of rooms, etc. My guess is that this probably settled an actual problem. Customer pays either way in the long run, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To directly answer the question of "Why", those laws/ordinances are often passed because some situation existed, possibly just once, and now no longer exists. For instance, maybe the circus coming to town was an annual event and the performers would ride the elephants into town to drum up business or just go to the local pub. Either way, they had to put the elephants somewhere once they got off of them. So the local politician's way of discouraging this was to pass some sort of parking law. Sure, it sound ridiculous now but at the time, they thought it was the most logical solution.

Also, the law or ordinance might have only been passed in one small town but the authors of the books can make things more impressive by saying "In <this country> it was illegal to..." Well, yes, in one specific place in that country but not for the entire country. Dismas|^(talk) 14:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or it may be a dumb interpretation of a law (or a verdict) that says that you pay parking fees for large domestic animals (e.g. horses). This is then interpreted in the silliest way possible to make the book an amusing read. 08:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers... But some are far to ridiculous to have a context, I think... In Nebraska, you can't sell "donut holes"?? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its ridiculous because its out of context. 203.112.82.129 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this scenarios are just derived from Laws that was passed, for example, the law for paying parking fee for an elephant is not intended for elephants, its just that elephants occupies parking space and parking space has fees. no source though. 203.112.82.128 (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the donut holes example, there may be some law that doesn't allow offal to be sold to people. The hole is offal of a sort, and therefore can't be sold. Dismas|^(talk) 15:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find Dunkin' donut holes awful, personally, but offal?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some laws aren't stupid at all, they just seem so when misrepresented by their critics. That "can't look at a moose out of a plane window" law, for example. The actual law is probably that you can't use plane to spot moose for hunting purposes, since that would allow hunters to decimate the moose population. Nobody is going to lock you up for just looking.

Another law I heard about is that Wisconsin requires that apple pie always be served with a slice of cheddar cheese on top. Sounds mighty strange, but, considering that Wisconsin is a major dairy state, you can see such a law to encourage cheese sales.

Then, of course, there are many obsolete laws, which made perfect sense at the time, but which make little sense today. Many of those laws deal with horses. StuRat (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However such a cheese law never existed. The closest was requiring the serving of cheese and butter with any meal in restaurants [1]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there are many of these strange laws. I won't list all of them out. Just explain this last two:

In Kentucky, you must take a bath at least once a year
In Topeka, Kansas, it is illegal to install a bathtub

Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that googling Topeka Kansas bathtub gives you a whole lot of companies in Topeka selling bathtubs, that law is probably as made up as the one about cheese and apple pie. Either that, or the people selling bathtubs have the worst business sense ever. Sjö (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that such lists would simply go away; if it helps, you can just consider them straight fiction. Some of these are obsolete laws (of which many will be blue laws, but not all). Anything dealing with animals is usually tied to this. For example, in 1900 you might want a law to stop folks from hitching their horses to mail boxes. However, some people use mules or other animals so you pass a law prohibiting the attachment of any animal to a mail box. Therefore it's technically true, but entirely misleading, to say that there's a law against hitching alligators to FedEx depots or some such. Matt Deres (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, you're safe in assuming any claimed "dumb law" or "weird law" is fiction unless explicitly proven otherwise; it's indicative to study this UK report. It lists 38, of which only 7 are definitely in force; one of these is a railway byelaw and three more are from the same 1839 police regulations. Eleven more are noted as "not quite", which usually indicates there has been a simplification or deliberate cherrypicking for humourous effect - for example, a claimed law against "leaving baggage unattended" turns out to be a legal requirement not to abandon things in the road. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These days, a law against leaving baggage unattended wouldn't surprise me, given the tendency of terrorist groups to leave bombs in them. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why "these days"? It's been going on for decades. Just as I don't think there've been bins in train stations since before I was born. 86.129.14.69 (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've all been warned for years not to leave baggage unattended in airports, yes. But I think StuRat's suggesting it might actually be illegal in some places, which I don't think is the case generally. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the bag belongs to the one who put the dynamite in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that they need to evacuate the area and call in the bomb squad whenever they find an unattended bag, it's easy to see why they might make it illegal to leave them there. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's exactly the premise of this 2004 item.[2] That's from the UK. In the US, any such law would almost certainly have to come from the federal level, since most commercial airports are regulated by the feds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it was legal, terrorists might find they could more easily bring a city to standstill by leaving thousands of unattended bags around than with actual bombs. Not so if they get locked up after the first one. StuRat (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some goofy laws are sneaky cartel-protection acts. —Tamfang (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

drivers licence in Missouri in the 1980s

What were the requirements for getting a drivers licence for a teenager in Missouri in the mid 1980's. My son and I disagree on the procedure. We both cannot remember. I think he had to get a permit that lasted for several months before he actually took his driving test on his 16th birthday. He thinks he did not have to have a permit, but just practiced driving with me on the side roads and then took his tests for his licence at age 16. We are both just curious... and frustrated with our lack of memory! If you could help with this questions it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.3.233 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know specifically, but, in general, requirements for new drivers in the US include:

1) Proof of age and identity, typically a birth certificate. Minimum age varies by state and date, but 16 is typical. Younger drivers are sometimes given a learners permit, with restrictions on when they can drive, and a requirement that they be accompanied by a licensed driver when they do.

2) Passing some type of driving test and/or having completed a driver's training course.

3) Passing a vision test is usually required.

4) Proof of insurance is typically required to register a vehicle, but not for a drivers license. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in the 1980's in Missouri, which is what the question was? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is just my recollection (no source citation) of the situation in Missouri in the mid-1960s, when I got my license there. At the age of 151⁄2, one could get a "learner's permit", which allowed one to drive on public roadways as long as one was accompanied by a licensed driver; but there was no requirement to do so. Anyone who could pass the written and driving tests and was 16 years of age or older would get a license, even if he or she had never had a learner's permit. I'm sure a number of people were able to pass the tests by having practiced on private property, or by having practiced (technically illegally) on roads in out-of-the-way places without getting caught. On the other hand, one had to have a learner's permit to complete a school's Driver's Ed class, I think, since some of the instruction involved driving on public roads, with the instructor riding shotgun. Deor (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received my drivers license in Missouri in the 80's. At the time I got my license there was a written test and a driving test. You had to pass both to get a drivers license. However you also had the option to only take and pass the written test first, which would get you a learners permit. You could then come back at a later date and take the driving test to get your license. 63.87.170.174 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above anecdote, the original poster describes a graduated driver licensing scheme (requiring a learner's permit before a full-rights license). This is a comparatively recent phenomenon, and Missouri did not implement one until 2001. Thus, in the 1980s, it would have been permissible for a 16-year-old to get a full license with no prior experience. — Lomn 14:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stonehenge

for some reason the pattern of stones seems to make me think of a cavity resonater "as in microwaves" could there be any possible explanation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.174.67 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pareidolia —Tamfang (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]