Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 26

Fishfight

Which would win in a fight: a cat or a fish the size of a cat?

Depends - if it was fought on land, the cat wins. If in water, probably the fish. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Walking catfish are about 30 cm long, can breathe air, and can travel overland. They have a sting. When they first turned up as in invasive species in Florida there were anecdotal reports of them defeating cats in fights, but I could not find anything online reporting such an event. Edison (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In ROTC, the cat would win, in athletics, the fish would win. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dog dental cleaning?

Recently we got a new dog in the Crypticfirefly household. (A two year old mutt from the shelter that looks like he has some beagle in him. Cute as heck. But I digress.)

When we took him to the vet, we were told that we should sign the dog up for a dental plan to have the dog's teeth cleaned just like what is done when a human goes to the dentist. I don't mind the expense if it is something the dog needs, but they will have to knock him out with anesthesia to do it. That sounds dangerous and potentially traumatic to me. Is this a typical practice? And for those who have had this done for their dogs, how did the dog take it? Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We never take our dogs to the vet specifically for that - but if the dog needs anaesthesia for any other reason - we have them do whatever dental work is necessary. Dogs that are fed the right stuff SHOULDN'T need it. I don't think it's traumatic for the dog - a quick jab - then they wake up with cleaner teeth. I do believe it's potentially risky though - there is no such thing as 100% safe anaesthetic. SteveBaker (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. My mother has a dog that she's particularly crazy about. It's an 11-year-old mixture of german shepard dog and caucasian shepard dog. In recent years they take him occassionally to the vet just to have his teeth cleaned, and he's not getting any inappropriate food. It still is strange to me, because it seems dogs had taken care of their teeth without vets for the last few thousand years, why should they start now? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not suggesting you do it, it's worth bearing in mind that 1) Most domestic pets including dogs live far longer then their wild relatives did 2) The food you feed them now is likely to be quite a bit different from what they ate in the wild, or even 200 years ago (although this doesn't definitely mean it may make the problem worse in fact it could reduce the problem) 3) It's likely animals in the wild do in fact suffer from teeth problems and in some instances it contributes to their death Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Descaling and cleaning isn't needed if dogs have things to gnaw on - bones are good. That's the natural thing and it's worked well for both of our dogs. On the rare occasions they've been to the vet for something else, he's pronounced their teeth as "perfect". When you compare the lives of wild dogs (Wolves live around 10 years in the wild) to pets - it's easy to assume that old dogs will have bad teeth just like old humans do - because they've outlived their natural lives by maybe 5 years. But remember when a dog is 15 years old and about ready to head out to "doggie heaven", his teeth are the same age as a human at age maybe 20 (dogs lose their 'baby teeth' very early). People can EASILY live to the age of 20 without needing any dental treatment at all - especially if their diet is good. Dog teeth are pretty much made of the same stuff as human teeth - why wouldn't they last just as long? Dogs don't (ok - "shouldn't") have nasty stuff like sugar and acidic sodas in their diet. What the vet does is to "clean and de-scale" the dog's teeth - but that's what gnawing does - scraping the teeth against a chunk of bone scrapes the gunk off of them quite naturally. You can even buy synthetic bones that are designed specifically to clean your dog's teeth. SteveBaker (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a side question. Do you reckon humans would benefit from some similar gnawing Fribbler (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We have pretty different teeth than dogs do. And we can brush our own teeth. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose brushing fulfils that role. Fribbler (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

General anesthesia is indeed routine for dental cleanings in dogs and cats. It's similar to your routine cleanings at the dentist, but dogs and cats aren't very good at the "open wide" thing and would be likely to bite the vet due to discomfort. That would obviously be bad for the vet, and also bad for the dog if there's pointy tools in his mouth. Wild animals don't "take care" of their teeth. They just die before the teeth give them problems, or die because the teeth give them problems. If you've ever had a bad toothache, I don't see why you would wish that on your dog. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that there are also a number of specialty products that can help your dog's dental hygiene. Our dog loves the treats marketed under the name "Greenies" which accomplish the knawing bit in a safer way than actual bones (can't splinter), are not filling the way a bone is, and have stuff in them to make the dog's breath smell less doggy. But I think I'm in the same boat as SteveBaker here—I don't recall ever needing to knock the dog out to brush her teeth by itself, but occasionally when other things are being done they do that as well. But it might vary from vet to vet, dog to dog. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin invades US airspace?

In Sarah Palin's first unscripted interview she talked about Putin rearing his head and sending planes into Alaskan airspace. Has this ever happened? Has it happened in the last decade? Has it happened in her tenure as governor? I assumed that I would have heard of such an encroachment when it happened, but did I miss it? Plasticup ^T/C 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This has something on Russian bombers at times coming closer to Alaskan airspace than they used to, although it doesn't look like they actually flew into Alaskan airspace. A google search shows a number of these incidents happening in the last few years in various places. I don't know that this is really that big a deal, though. I think this used to happen all the time during the Cold War. AlexiusHoratius 03:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that the Governor of Alaska directed the air force response to Russian plane approaching U.S. air space, or that she was even informed at the time it was happening. Edison (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Late flash:[1] Palin "received briefings" about Russian plane approaches to U.S. air space. No info yet on whether it was via hotline or if it was via an email on her Yahoo account after the fact. Edison (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah? She would know ya know - she can see Russia from her house. hydnjo talk 03:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, those articles are about Russian planes which stayed in Russian airspace, just near American airspace. From the way she said "incursions into US airspace" I thought that she meant the planes entered US airspace. Like, incursions and stuff. My mistake. Plasticup ^T/C 04:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I watched in horror as Blair convinced people that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and I think he even believed it himself. They thought Saddam had missiles ready to launch on Britain within the hour. You can see how paranoid the Russians can become about something like the missile tracking in Poland - and they actually have been invaded. It just doesn't seem possible to convince people using logic, you say something like how do you rate the chances he has WMDs?, and then you check the sites various people say have them and find nothing - that should reduce the chance you say he has them. Not so - they just say oh he must be even more crafty and deceitful than we thought. Dmcq (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we must assume that Russia still has WMDs, as well as missiles and airplanes to deliver them. Edison (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope there aren't too many people who now think Russia is invading America like in Britain they though Saddam had missiles ready to launch on them. Just combine that with the number of American rapture nutters who think they should help God with his great task by ending the world. Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in Britain (some MPs and newspaper proprietors excepted) actually believed Blair and Bush when they claimed that Iraq had such capabilities. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

People had no reason not to believe it. In fact, there was very strong evidence that Iraq had WMDs, since the US had given them to it! I'm sure there were polls done at the time which would tell us for sure, but I expect plenty of people believed what they were told. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is a poll from a month after the invasion saying 58% of people though we were right to invade. That doesn't necessarily mean they believed there were WMDs, they could have supported the war for other reasons, but it's still an interesting statistic. --Tango (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A good number of Americans think that they did find WMDs in Iraq. There was some poll awhile back that asked people that and found that a huge number of people who got their information exclusively from Fox News were under this delusion among others (e.g. cooperation between Osama and Saddam, etc.). Anyway, I don't think anyone thinks Russia is going to invade the US anytime soon. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

John Howard sent Australian troops to Iraq. Questioned at the time about WMDs, he said that there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had WMDs, and that an invasion of Iraq could not have been justified without such evidence. In that interview, he specifically said that regime change per se would have been insufficient justification to go in, and he would never have sent the troops in on that basis alone. After the WMD evidence proved to be non-existent, and he even publicly acknowledged they were never there to begin with, that didn't phase him one little bit. Now, according to him, it was still the right decision, and would have been even if WMDs were never a factor. Go figure. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, he's a politician. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not any longer. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from those Americans that think Russia has already invaded the US - namely the state of Georgia. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I think that might be an improvement. ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

job opportunity for technical cum management student

i have done Masters of Computer Application and currently working for a multinational IT company. simultaneouly i am pursuing MBA in correspondence. so please suggest me what type of jobs i can go for utilizing my both the skills.125.17.25.8 (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cum management? Plasticup ^T/C 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Technical and management student is perhaps a more felicitous formulation. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe "cum" is Latin for "with" and is perfectly correct in that context. --Tango (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine several instances where the phrase technical cum management is perfectly correct, but so far as I know, ILM doesn't do any of the effects for porn movies. Matt Deres (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How about technical writing. Great need for Manuals to be easy-to-follow, and most are not. Money in it OK.86.209.155.170 (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)DT

If I were you, I'd try to seek out Tech companies that are in the process of registering for an IPO. If the concept is strong enough that it both needs and justifies a ton of capital for expansion, chances are it would be a good move to get in on the ground floor. I would do some google searches for "IPO watching"-type websites (there aren't a lot of IPOs going on right now because of financial conditions; this just means that any that you do happen to find in the tech sector must be particularly good!) and once you find a couple, harass their HR departments.NByz (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you'd want to use your MBA and Comp. Sci. skills to assess how good the idea is... NByz (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Technical writing is certainly one possibility - but if you prefer creative writing, you could take a shot at the computer games business - we're always on the lookout for someone who can put together a decent plot, have characters that are deep and believable - yet also be someone with the computer skills necessary to interact with the art, design and software disciplines. SteveBaker (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How to guide in Spanish

Does anybody know some how-to web-site (like about.com) in Spanish? Mr.K. (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you speak Spanish, you could ask at the Spanish reference desk. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

BOOKS

Hi everybody, Has anybody read the book, Diaries of doing time until the ICE MEN cometh? I understand Eugene o"neil had a similar book called Ice man. Fluter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is definately an Eugene O'Neill play called The Iceman Cometh. I don't really know what you're talking about, however. Redsolidarch (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsolidarch (talk • contribs)

Lakeland Open

Does anyone know about the Lakeland Open - it is trying to be deleted and I wish it could be saved. Redsolidarch (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsolidarch (talk • contribs)

The article in its present form is very sparse and includes no references. A search on Google comes up with a website (poorly designed) for the club but there is no mention there of an open golf tournament. IMO, unless the article is masively improved in the next couple of days it would be correct to delete it. If you care about the article, why not add (referenced) facts - such details of the club (EG where it is, when it was founded etc) and more particularly of the Open tournament (Eg when it is, what standard it is, who has won it each year). Should this all happen then it may be savable, but in that case it should probably be moved to a page with a fuller name than "Lakeland Open". -- SGBailey (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The second Stone Rat.

A while ago, I was informed that there was a Stone Rat to be found in Queens Park, Brighton. Intrigued, I looked it up on the internet, and found this reference to it here. Sure enough, there was the Stone Rat!

Now my friend informs me that there is a second stone rat in Queens Park. Is this true, or is he making it up? Bradley10 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've lived in Brighton for over ten years, and had never noticed that before! I have asked the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Brighton if they can shed any light on this. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Duncan - I was hoping that I would spot the stone rat of my own sharp eyedness, but had to resort to the internet to find him. Bradley10 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't have time for a week or so (visiting family) but when I get back to Brighton I will go and have a look for myself. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When we've all had fun bumping into each other in Queens Park in search of the second stone rat, we could head for Chichester Cathedral to spot the wooden mice. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of this item of dishware?

ok this is possibly a silly question with an obvious answer, but I'm wondering what the name is for those big, usually silver coloured, plate cover things stereotypically associated with high cuisine. Here's a stylised representation of one: [2] (it's the thing on top of the plate in his right hand). --Krsont (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

They call it a "Silver Dome Plate Cover" here, and a Silverware Service Dinner Plate Cover here... Bradley10 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I guess there isn't a specific word for it then other than just "plate cover". Kind of irritating but I'll get over it ;) --Krsont (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We actually just had this question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008_September_19#food_cover_name.3F. The names which were fronted were "dome plate", "Dome cover", "Domed serving tray" and "Cloche". -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow that's a weird coincidence. "Cloche" was more what I was looking for, some specific terminology like that. Although possibly it's only called that in French I guess? "domed serving tray" and the like is just too dull though ;) --Krsont (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Share prices and stock exchange etc.

Hey. Sorry, I'm a complete newbie to economics and don't understand many, if any thoroughly, of it's key concepts. We've all heard in the news that share prices in the banking sector are dropping. This led me to think, and I'm sorry for the amateur question because I'm sure it has a simple answer, who lowers and raises prices of stock? Wouldn't it save a whole load of problems to not lower prices of stock? Sorry again for the dumb question.

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When people report stock prices, they report the price the stock last traded at. A trade happens when a buyer and a seller agree on a price. If buyers aren't willing to buy at the current price, sellers will have to agree to sell at a lower price if they want to sell and the price will go down (and similarly the other way around). There is no central body setting the prices, they are determined by buyers and sellers (there are market makers that play a role in the whole thing by acting as intermediaries between buyers and sellers and they will set prices, but they have to set the prices at levels were people are willing to trade, so they don't have much choice in the matter). --Tango (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Makes sense :) Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You can make a loose analogy with used cars. Cars don't have an intrinsic value; they're worth what someone will pay for them. The value of a car is affected by its age, the number of miles on the odometer, possibly the reputation of the make (like Honda) or the model (like Civic). The original Ford Mustang was not, mechanically, a very good car -- its price as a used car has a lot to do with the value that Baby Boomers see in it. And people can overreact to outside events -- e.g., they'll sell their nearly-new SUV at a huge loss so they can buy a more energy-efficient hybrid, even though between the loss on the SUV and the premium they have to pay for the hybrid, they won't actually break even before 2050. Markets tend to be efficient over the long term; in the short term, it's all a crapshoot. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Or to use a reasonably classic stock market quote - in the short-term the stock market is a voting machine, in the long term it is a weighing machine. ny156uk (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And something else that is important to understand is that for every person who sells, there is another buying. So that qualifies the word "sell-off" a little bit in the sense that apparently there are people on the opposite side of trade who are "buying in" at that same price. If it would be really the case that everyone wants to sell and no one wants to buy the stock price would drop to zero; however before that happens there will at some point be a price at which some buyers will bite, and it will not go down to zero. Bokkeveltkamp (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Playing music in your car

Are there any restrictions on the volume at which you can play music in your car or the content of such music in the UK? --3uler (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this Police to seize cars playing loud music answer your question? I hate such people and feel like throwing stones at the cars. Dmcq (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's not very charitable, is it, Dmcq. A better plan is to wait till the driver's out of his car and a good safe distance away; explain to him that what you're about to do is merely a comment on his behaviour and not on him personally; that you love him unconditionally no matter what he does; and then napalm the car. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Stones? How primitive. Why don't you use something modern, such as noise-seeking cruise missiles? --Carnildo (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

An idea would be to train pigeons as pilots to bomb them, with the advantage of course that no actual extra hardware would be required. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or if they're stupid enough to be playing from the radio, tune your FM transmitter to that same frequency and play something embarrassing/irritating... --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

At some point it would have to start counting as a "public performance" of the music - and that could get you in trouble in a variety of ways - starting from the need for you to pay for copyright licensing (like, for example, a radio station does) - and ending with laws limiting the volume of music at public concerts. But there are laws relating to preservation of law and order that would probably let them nail you just for being a pain in the neck. But I doubt there is a specific decibel level that would force you to cross those thresholds. SteveBaker (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He could just put a sticker on the car saying "I'm an idiot". Has the same effect as a loud radio.--Artjo (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Casino laws

i am wanting to go on holiday with my family my son who is 19 asked about goin in a casino so my question is what is the legal gambling age in madeira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.65.240 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the information on this site, casino gambling appears legal in mainland Portugal at 18. The only casino in Madeira appears to be Casino da Madeira in Funchal, part of a large new hotel and leisure complex. I can't find anything online to suggest their rules are any different, but much of the casino's own info is restricted or in Portuguese. The rules coverning this casino are here and contain the line "Noutros locais dos casinos que tenham acesso reservado a maiores de 18 anos poderão ser exploradas máquinas de jogo de fortuna ou azar e o Keno." I don't speak Portuguese, but this seems to imply that 18-year-olds and over are permitted to play. Perhaps a Portuguese speaker could confirm? Karenjc 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that strictly speaking it only says that you have to be 18 to be allowed to go into those areas, not necessarily that an 18-year-old is allowed to play. That an 18-year-old can play would seem like a reasonable, but not certain, inference. --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first ref definitely says that 18 is the "minimum gaming age", not the minimum entry age, so 18-year-olds must be permitted to gamble in Portugal itself. Whether there's any local ordinance in Madeira that overrides this I can't tell. Karenjc 18:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see our legal disclaimer GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are the bank failures all occurring at once?

Did anybody see this happening? A month before the failure of Lehman, did anyone predict that by the end of 2008, there would be record numbers of failures of this massive size? Lotsofissues (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that 2 towers fell in September 2001. The 7 years of bad luck is up, so 2 more pillars of the system had to go. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rhodes Greece - Muslim Occupation 1522-1912 - yet no Islamicisation??

I have just returned from Rhodes, the largest island in the Dodecanese in the south Ageian, which is a fascinating place. The Old Town is just amazing with its bastions, city walls, gates, and narrow winding streets tightly packed with squares, fountains, shops, restaurants, churches, mosques, a synagogue, palaces, hotels - oh, I could go on and on. But whilst there, I read many tourist guides telling of the many occupations by the Menoans, Phoenecians, Romans, Venetians, Knights of St. John, Turks (1522), Italians and Germans (1912), until finally, in 1948, Rhodes was returned to the republic of Greece. But no-one, not even the locals I met, could explain how it was that between 1522 and 1912, nearly 400 years, the islanders had succeeded in avoiding becoming converted to Islam whilst under the rule of the Ottoman Turks. Is anyone here able to explain that strange phenomenon please? Thanks. 92.20.209.156 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Religion in the Ottoman Empire - the Ottoman Empire was comparatively tolerant of Christianity. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And assuming the inhabitants were considered dhimmis, it was far more valuable to tax them as non-Muslims than force them to convert. Even the Middle East was never totally Islamicized. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A massive Population exchange between Greece and Turkey took place in 1923. So most Muslim residents of Rhodes would have been transferred out then, and new Greek-speaking people would have arrived. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But according to our article Rhodes, it was Italian at the time, and avoided much of the events of the population transfer. DuncanHill (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's simple politics. If a ppl truly wants to resist against an invader there nothing as good as a diffrent religion, and the conquered ppl will fiercly cling to their own. If you study history you will notice this trend again and again. Let me give you a couple of examples: Poland, was always strongly catholic because the Russians are Orthodox and Prussia was Protestant. The Irish are fierce catholics because the English are Anglican. The Greek are Orthodox and the Turks Muslim. The Copts who are Christian while the Arabs are Muslim. Please notice that this is a trend and not an infalible rule. Flamarande (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

September 27

Multiple banks

Are billionnaires and large corporations more likely than average people and smaller companies to have active accounts at more than one bank in the same country (e.g. to increase the number of ATMs they can use, or the number of people they can send transfers to, without fees)? NeonMerlin 01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In the UK anyone can use any ATM and there are no fees for interbank transfers, so those reasons certainly wouldn't apply (for individuals - companies are a another matter). Splitting your wealth between multiple banks usually means more of it is protected by the Bank of England, but that's only £35k per bank, so wouldn't really matter to a billionaire. Other countries may be different. Billionaires aren't likely to keep much of their money in a regular bank account, there are special types of accounts for the very rich with "Wealth Management" departments of investment banks and similar. --Tango (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When I went to Canada this summer, I was surprised to discover that the ATM network is split inot two, Visa and Mastercard, and you have to find the right machine. Is this Canadian (Vancouver) split common worldwide or is it an exception? I haven't knowingly encountered it anywhere in Europe. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction: the Canadian ATM network is run by Interac; it is a single unified network across the country; there are (to my knowledge) no ATMs that are not connected to the network. There are subnetworks (such as Cirrus) which not all machines are part of, though the Cirrus and PLUS links into Interac should guarantee use by just about anyone worldwide. Any debit card from any bank anywhere in Canada will work at any ATM (whether bank-branded or private) anywhere in Canada. For credit cards, you have to ensure that your account is set up to receive cash advances from ATMs, and sometimes there are machines you cannot access with your credit card. If your credit card is with a Canadian bank and you are set up for cash advances through ATMs, you can generally speaking use your debit card to obtain the cash. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You were doing fine until you said "subnetworks". Cirrus and Plus are worldwide ATM networks belonging respectively to the MasterCard and Visa organizations. Canadian ATMs, or typical ones anyway, are all on Interac (so Canadians can use them regardless of which they use) and also on at least one of Plus and Cirrus (so people from other countries can use them, if their bank is on the right network), sometimes both but not always. --Anonymous, 01:42 UTC, September 29, 2008.

From the point of view of a Canadian, PLUS and Cirrus are subnetworks of Interac; all machines have Interac while not all have access to PLUS and/or Cirrus. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if the Canadian is unaware that there are places outside Canada. --Anon, 05:32 UTC, October 1, 2008.

In the U.S., there seem to be many networks of ATMs -- you'll see machines with half a dozen or more logos on them. Usually if you're part of one of the networks, you can use the ATM without any extra charge. On the other hand, you can use virtually any ATM if you don't mind paying $2 to the bank it's in, and another $2 to your own bank, for the convenience. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I was trying to use a UK Mastercard credit card. Most machines let me go through the process and then spat the card out with "transaction cancelled". Eventually I discovered that the Bank of Montreal's machines would work. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious Use of Entheogens in the United States

In 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing a relatively new Brazilian religious movement to use a hallucinogenic tea as part of its religious ceremonies. Apparently the court ruled this way because the government hadn't proved any harm had been caused by the use of the hallucinogen. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737994.stm

More recently Johns Hopkins University completed a scientific study that showed that psilocybin, the active ingredient in psilocybe mushrooms, can induce geuine spiritual or religious experiences that have long lasting benefits to participants. See: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html

Doesn't this open the door legally for other religions to allow for the spiritual use of entheogens like psilobye mushrooms in the United States? 71.112.229.171 (talk)

I don't understand how you can call a religious experience that's clearly the result of a hallucinogenic drug fritzing with your brain: "genuine". The correct word under these circumstances would be "bogus". Then to call a religious experience (especially such a clearly false one) "beneficial" is another rather wild claim. However, to answer your question - it's likely that case-law would apply so it's possible that other non-harmful hallucinogens could be ruled legal. However, I'm pretty sure that the religion in question would first have to prove that the drug had been in use as a part of their religious rites for a significant amount of time. If no long-standing religions actually use these kinds of drugs, it doesn't necessarily open any doors whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve, while you may not be able to understand how people could consider things in this way, there are people who hold these views. There are people who consider experiences brought on by hallucinogens to be genuinely religious, and that the hallucinogens simple 'open a door', or 'unleash hidden capabilities', or whatever terminology they want to use. The word bogus is not necessarily the 'correct' word, although it may accurately reflect your own view, nor is the religious experience 'clearly false' no matter how obvious that viewpoint may seem to you. Religion is a broad umbrella and personal experience is very personal. (As to 'beneficial', there are those who hold the view that careful use of hallucinogens could be beneficial for some mental health problems, although the difficulty of ensuring a positive experience usually undermines this.) 79.66.84.84 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See Native American Church and Peyote. That door was already open. Corvus cornix_talk 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WHOLE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC DEBTS IN USA.

How are today the whole private debts and public debts in Usa? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.225.77 (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

private debt and public debt. --Tango (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,so private credit debts are 2.587 trillions $ and public debts 9.86 trillions $. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the money gone?

Central banks have recently sunk billions of dollars into propping up the finance industry, but problems still exist and the US government is discussing handing over a further $700 billion to hopefully stop a financial meltdown. Where is all this money going to? Astronaut (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposed bailout (i.e. the first $700 bn) has afaik not been approved by these guys yet. Here's a relevant article from this morning. To answer your question, see Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system (2008)#Components of the plan. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At least some of the billions of dollars lent out so far was in short term loans, so some of it has already been paid back. The reason central banks are having to lend out more money is because banks are choosing to leave most of their cash in their deposit accounts with the central bank rather than lending it to each other, so the total amount of cash in circulation is probably pretty much the same as it was before. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At the heart of the matter is the problem that house prices were very high - and banks had a lot of money to invest. They decided that they would lend more money to riskier people - with the loans backed by the value of the property used a collateral for the loan. Most of these loans were made on variable interest rate mortgages. When the interest rates on those risky loans started to climb, the borrowers defaulted - that caused a rash of foreclosures and that int turn dumped a lot of homes onto the market. Many people when evicted from their homes by the bank would trash the place before the left (I know, I just recently bought a foreclosed house from a bank - it's only three years old - yet it's a TOTAL wreck. Between the crappy condition of these houses and the large numbers of them on the market - and the rising interest rates making it harder for new buyers to get a loan to by them...property prices tanked. The banks could not get back much of their money from the original loan. Worse still, the banks frequently sold large batches of mortgages off onto secondary market lenders who didn't get good information about the reliability of these loans that they were taking on. Also, there are all of these other complicated financial products such as insurance that a lender would take out in the event of the borrower defaulting that would cover some of the loss. This progressive handing off of "junk" loans to more and more financial institutions spread that original terrible decision to lend money to someone who couldn't afford to repay it to many other companies besides the bank who originally offered the loan - and also diluted the ability of those companies to realise that the loan was "junk" in the first place.

Worse still, a normal insurance company has a legal obligation to have enough liquidity (cash) on hand to cover their losses in the event that they have to pay out on the policy. There are laws that state what percentage of their POTENTIAL losses they have to have in liquid assets. However, the companies who "insured" the mortgage loans (who ought now to be paying the banks for their losses) used a loophole in the law by which they didn't call this transaction "insurance" - they called it something like (IIRC) a "Bond Swap Instrument" - which amounts to the exact same thing as an insurance policy - but because of the loophole meant that they DIDN'T have to keep enough liquid assets around to cover their losses. Hence when the banks go to their "insurers" to claim their money according to the policy - they discover that their insurer just went bust and doesn't have the money to repay them.

You can see how a lack of regulation allowed the banks to lend money in ridiculous ways in the first place - using these "Bond Swap" things to cover their asses. But because the bond swap market wasn't regulated, those "insurance" policies weren't worth the paper they were printed on. So between incompetant bankers, dubious "insurers" and a lack of government oversight - we ended up in all of this trouble.

So now we have banks and other financial organisations who are getting defaulted on left, right and center. They can't sell the homes they now own because nobody is buying and the prices fell through the floor - and they can't claim on their "insurance" policies. Therefore, they have no money to lend out - which is a disaster for business. If you can't borrow money, you can't buy new machinery, you can't buy raw materials - all sorts of nasty things happen. Worse still, if money is too tight to lend to house-buyers, you get into the vicious circle where you aren't lending money to the very people who would be buying up those foreclosed properties - or allowing people to get out from under a difficult mortgage by selling their homes.

The $700,000,000,000 (I think it's important to see all of those zeroes!) that the government is probably going to spend will allow the government to buy all of that bad debt from the banks and other agencies - so that they no longer have "toxic loans" on their books and will be on a stronger financial footing. The government would then be the recipient of mortgage payments - which would go some way to paying down that $700bn - and the ultimate "owner" of a lot of foreclosed properties.

So if you wonder where that money "went" - it was originally payed to people who sold their houses to people who couldn't afford to buy them. It was these property sellers who made the money. Over the period we owned our home, it almost tripled in value over ten years. Had we sold it before the price crash, we'd have made about $350,000...which (if the person who bought the house had failed to repay their mortgage) would have been a part of the $700bn.

When people complain that "American Taxpayers" will be footing the bill for the $700bn, it's worth bearing in mind that the people who benefited from the housing price bubble were mostly "American Taxpayers". It's also worth mentioning that the government has already spent close to $100bn bailing out companies like Fanny May and Freddy Mack...so the true number will be $800bn. Also, there is no guarantee that this will be the end of it (to the contrary - I'd be very surprised if it was)...so expect it to end up costing over a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000 for those who like to see the zeroes!)

One other thing. When we get incomprehensibly large numbers like $700,000,000,000 - I think it's important to divide that number by the size of the population of the USA (300,000,000 people) - and realise that this amounts to over $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. That money ultimately must be repaid as taxes - so if you are a "middle-income" wage earner - you can probably look forward to paying perhaps $10,000 in additional taxes over the coming years to cover this debacle. Of course if you sold your home before the crash, you'll certainly have made way more than that due to the housing price bubble...and if you are buying a home right now (as I just did), you'll easily save way more than $10,000 because houses are so amazingly cheap right now. If you can afford to buy a house (and for chrissakes get a fixed rate mortgage and do the math before you sign up for a loan) - now is DEFINITELY the time!

SteveBaker (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Steve (we should create a new Wikipedia namespace - SteveBaker: and SteveBaker talk:) :). It's worth noting that (at least in my understanding) bad loans are bought at a discount, i.e. the shareholders of the institution take a hit, but they get their balance sheets cleared up, so that their capital ratios allow them to begin lending again. Put another way, a loan that is in default counts as zero-value, even if there is a chance you will get some of your money back in the long run. Essentially the government is offering to take on the risk and reward of taking the long-term view, as the existing institutions can't afford to do it. Another point is that the money is essentially staying in the US, and is being mostly used for the benefit of US citizens, i.e. everyone needs a place to live. A friend of mine got himself a nice little house back in the early 90's, bought from the Resolution Trust Corporation set up after the savings & loan collapses. Speaking of which, talk about not learning from the lessons of history!

What has mystified me about some of these foreclosures (leading up to this meltdown) though is that the houses are apparently left to rot, sitting empty. This mystifies me, you've repossessed a home, taken your write-down and ended up with a tangible asset (which you don't want, 'cause you're a loan company, not a landlord). But now you're letting that tangible asset become worthless - surely someone would want to rent the house? Even if you rent it at $20/month and a promise of upkeep, isn't that $20 more than letting it rot to nothing? Franamax (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they're not landlords, and the hassle of renting is not worth the return?? Also, once tenants are in, they're even harder to sell. What they want is for more cash in the system, so people can buy them; hence the bailout as Steve describes.

But Steve, the bankers weren't incompetent, they were greedy, which is quite different. (The greed is not really that of the fat cats at the top, either, but the shareholders, who demand increasing returns; and don't think the shareholders are merely big businessmen: they're frequently the individual, who wants a good return on their pension plan/health insurance scheme/term deposit/house value/stock portfolio.) The dodgy loans weren't passed on to unsuspecting holders: they knew what they were about. But the loans were parcelled up into groups, so the risk was shared: the idea being that if one in the package defaulted, the value of the others would compensate. Unfortunately, too many defaulted for the others to cover.

Another part of the problem is that in the US (to my understanding) to default on a house loan means you lose the house: effectively you walk away from it, and the loan is written off. In other countries, to default on a mortgage, you still owe the money to the bank. If the bank's sale of the house doesn't cover the outstanding debt, then they can sieze any other assets you hold, or insist you continue to pay. Fail that, and you're bankrupt. People have a disincentive to default: I know people who have taken a second job to meet the debt. In the US, is easier just to walk away. (But do correct me if I've mis-stated the case: my American knowledge is not high.) Gwinva (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That has to be the longest single ref desk answer I've ever seen... (I won't judge how good it was since it was a tl;dr for me!) --Tango (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, outstanding reply, Steve! Thanks! --Taraborn (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But I thought that if you defaulted on a mortgage in the US, you went to jail. Are all those defaulters in jail now? --Taraborn (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

USA MORTGAGES DEBTS AND GLOBAL DEBTS

How are Usa mortgages debts? How are the global private debts (credit cards+mortgages+lendings+etc.)?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what question is being asked here. You can read our mortgage article for information on how a mortgage represents a debt. Were you perhaps asking how large US and global debts are? Franamax (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know the the global value of mortgages(mortgages are debts) in Usa. I'd like also to know the whole global private debt in Usa...if it is possible... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This was answered a few questions above here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, i want know the whole private debt in Usa and the only debt in mortgages.Are you able to understand words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NOBODY is able to answer?

Vandalism

Removed as this doesn't seem related to Wikipedia and could be an unsafe image. OP, could you explain why you posted the link? Franamax (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay, vandalism is now reverted (removed was link to screenshot of vandalism). 89.146.68.20 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK sorry, I was just being cautious. You can bring that kind of incident up at the ANI noticeboard where it will get swift attention (especially since it looks like the Avril-Lavigne vandal). Another spot is the vandalism noticeboard. Thanks for spotting it!! Franamax (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The OP is the vandal. It's already been reported at AIV and ANI and WP:VPT and a few places at the Help desk and at Talk:Main_Page and heaven knows where. The ref desk was probably the last place left to get attention. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

NO U! Actually when I saw the Avril-Lavigne thing I thought it must be some hard vandalism, so I decided to screenshot it and place here. Then I looked at Talk:Main Page and realized that the problem is solved (though Computer article still not fixed). 89.146.68.20 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Knowing people and meetings

This week, after having gone to meet two women that I know of different organisations, separately, I came to think: It is possible for the same two people to belong to the same two different organisations, and not know they both belong to both organisations, until they both meet each other in real life at both organisations' meetings. This is only possible if at least one organisation uses aliases, instead of real names, for its members, because a person has only one real name. Has this ever happened? JIP | Talk 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --Sean 20:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, is it possible for two people to not know each other? Even if they have been in close proximity many times? Yeah, I think so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, but when I visited Bletchley Park the tour guide told the story of a man and woman who both worked there during the war and subsequently met and got married, and each only found out the other had worked there when they visited as tourists decades later and the wife corrected the tour guide during the tour. -- BenRG (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't quite the same thing either. Not the same thing at all, actually, but now that I've remembered it, I can't help sharing it. Billy James Hargis was a far right wing evangelist and anti-pornography campaigner who sermonised about the evils of illicit sex; but all along he had been having sex with members of his congregation - of both sexes. A woman revealed to her husband on their wedding night that she had already lost her virginity to Hargis, and then he admitted that he'd also had sex with Hargis. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So, let's see...

• Case 1: Susan and Veronica belong to the National Federation of Associations. They also belong to the National Association of Federations. So what? This is as unremarkable as their living in the same city, or even in the same apartment building, without knowing each other.
• Case 2: Carol Jones (of Alfred, Maine) belongs to the NFA and to the NAF. So does Carol Jones of Petaluma, California. They do not know each other. The organization itself may not "know" it has two members with the same name, because the names are in a database, and the database doesn't really find this sort of thing interesting. Most likely the organizations have some sort of member ID, one purpose of which is to separate all the Carol Joneses (and all the John Smiths). This is not particularly remarkable, either.

I did a little poking around in the 1891 Canadian census a while back -- 10% of all the names in Nova Scotia were "Macdonald (MacDonald, Mcdonald, McDonald)... and 10% of them were named "John." (Thank heavens my great-granduncle married a woman whose first name was "Murdena," not quite so common.) --- OtherDave (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What I was thinking about is that two people both contribute pseudonomously to the same organisation, where they do not normally see each other face-to-face. These two people get to know each other's personae in this organisation very well. When they finally go to a face-to-face meeting of that organisation, they discover they are husband and wife, or schoolmates or work colleagues, or something like that. Has this ever happened? JIP | Talk 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How about an adoptee finally finding his birth mother...working at the same store. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Job interview question

What is the best way to answer that standard job interview question about "what are your weaknesses"? Obviously you don't want to say that you don't have any, but if you own up to some weakness then that gives them a reason not to give you the job. --Bluegrouper (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate.

Well, seriously - this is such a dumb question. I don't know what interviewers expect to get out of it - but for sure it's not going to be useful information. A lot of times we ask this kind of thing just to get a rather silent/clammed-up candidate talking. I prefer to ask "What's the best thing you ever worked on?" - and if the answer is less than a solid minute of enthusiasm - come back with "Why?" - because you hope the candidate will be enthusiastic about that - and you can get into some kind of dialog.

In terms of what you should do before the interview - you need to make a list of these kinds of awful question and work out the answers in advance so you can just produce a canned answer that you're happy with. In the case of weaknesses - you don't want to say "None" - and you certainly don't want to list any weakness that would in any way cast your ability to do the job in a bad light. So you have to come up with an answer that's convincing - and preferably enough to raise a chuckle. Hence "Chocolate"...but keep a "deeper" answer in reserve in case they say "No - but seriously?"...so pick something that you don't think they'll care much about - "I have a hard time remembering names" (assuming you aren't working directly with customers) or "I dislike doing a lot of typing" (assuming the job doesn't entail doing a lot of typing).

You also need pre-canned answers to "Why should we employ you?", "What do you think you have to offer us?", "What are your career aspirations?", "Why did you leave your previous job?" - you need carefully pre-rehearsed answers for all of those. SteveBaker (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"I tend to be a perfectionist"; "I can't leave the office till the day's tasks are done"; "I have obsessive compulsive tendencies towards emptying my email inbox"; etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"I tend to put my work before my family"...yeah - maybe. But they've gotta be credible too. Those all sound a bit too rehearsed! SteveBaker (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No way, they see right through that bullshit. They know you are lying. Plasticup ^T/C 04:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider what it would mean if employers really thought that way: they wouldn't give the job to anyone, and they'd be the losers as well as all the applicants. Employers know that everyone has weaknesses, but they are looking for people:

who are aware enough of their weaknesses to not let them affect their job adversely,

who are prepared to take on a challenge and overcome their weaknesses,

who can turn their weaknesses into strengths,

who aren't either so forgetful or prone to lying that they'd say "I'm sure I must have some, but none seem to come to mind right now", and

who don't appear to model themselves after John McEnroe, who once said "My greatest strength is that I have no weaknesses".

So I'd suggest you tell them about some previous experience where you had a perceived weakness but you triumphed over it, and then identify some current weakness (not the absolutely worst one you can think of, but something non-trivial) and how you would manage it to a similar positive outcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Job interviews tend to be pretty quick and more about their gut-level impression of you rather than specific answers to questions like this. If they actually care about anything it'll be about whether you have a competency they require. This kind of question is to see how you deal with pressure, also a bit of an intelligence/preparation thing, are you smart enough to figure out an answer to a standard question? You can almost certainly get away with a little set piece about a weakness that you overcame in the past—a great one is being a bit of a loner who learned the value of teamwork. Darkspots (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all job interviews are quick. I once interviewed at Silicon Graphics - that was a solid 8 hours, they even grilled me over lunch. Just two weeks ago, I had two, 2-hour phone interviews followed by a 6 hour face-to-face with nVidia - and they wanted to fly me out to California for another long session before I decided to punt and take a job elsewhere. Of the half dozen companies I talked to in my last round of job hunting, I think pretty much all of the phone interviews went over an hour - and the face-to-face stuff was typically two to three hours. No - it's an over-simplification to say that interviews are usually pretty quick. It depends dramatically on the nature of the job. SteveBaker (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not very good at coming up with answers to bad interview questions"? Seriously, though, I'd go with something that you used to be bad at but have work on and improved at. "I'm bad at X but recently I've developed Y to overcome it." (Disclaimer: I'm a student and haven't actually had a successful job interview, so I'm just guessing really!)--Tango (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"I have trouble understanding why other employees are less (readded word eaten by text editor) willing to make personal sacrifices for the success of the company than I am." Edison (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed a word out somewhere there ("more willing" perhaps?), it doesn't make sense... --Tango (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It amuses me to think about just answering it honestly: "I only work on stuff that interests me, not stuff that matters to the company"; "I usually just pretend to work for months, and then knock something together in the last 2 weeks"; "I used to love programming, but now I'm just in it for the money"; "You'll mostly be paying me to answer questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk". --Sean 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"I spend increasing amounts of time calculating when I will have sufficient retirement savings to bid farewell to this simulacrum of hades." Edison (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NASA image font

I've looked at several images from NASA during the Apollo project (e.g. Image:Saturnsandlittlejoe2.gif), and most of them have text written in a round font I can't recognize, but that I guess is Futura. Does anybody know for sure what that font is? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I cropped the image and sent it get analyzed. WhattheFont came back with five possible matches of which I think these two are the closest. YMMV, I guess. I think RTF Dokument Cond SC (the second link) captures the distinctive "C" the closest. Matt Deres (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Futura is probably right. Remember that when fonts were typeset there were often lots of subtle variations between different sizes and variants. I disagree completely with those myfonts results—the A's, for example, look nothing like the NASA font, which is clearly some sort of Futura/Century Gothic type of font with a distinct angle joining the two legs. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on putting stuff into identifont, it's definitely some kind of Futura. --Random832 (contribs) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the one they gave you there is a worse match than the one right above it on the list. Check the B's, for example. Anyway—trust your eyes, not "match-the-font" algorithms, which are often quite wrong. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

September 28

What's going to happen to Bahrain?

Economy of Bahrain Our article says oil could run out in 2018. Since the economy is still predominately oil. Will the economy just drop dead one day in the next decade? Lotsofissues (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That article discusses that very issue: Economy of Bahrain#Diversification. --Tango (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the advantage of a Monarchy. You don't have to convince lots of silly people to do what is best for them - you just do it! Long-term plans never really work in a democracy. Plasticup ^T/C 05:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But if the person in charge is also "silly"... --86.158.29.112 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the atmosphere doesn't like oil, sea level rise could also be a problem within the next few hundred years (this is Bahrain at 10 metres sea level rise). ~AH1^(TCU) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Plasticup's idea of how a modern monarchy works may have been derived from reading The Wizard of Id. Bahrain is now a constitutional monarchy, with an elected legislature accountable to the people. It's also a democracy, although every democracy is unique in the way it does its business. The Prime Minister is a member of the Bahraini Royal Family rather than an elected representative, which I'm sure makes for interesting times. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

medieval art

Im searching for a picture , mosaic or i think painting of AVARICE HANGING SELF DESRUCTION with the words AVARICE KILLS SELF DESTRUCTION MAY YOUR HOME BE YOUR GALLOWS .I would very much appreciate any help .thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.0.85 (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a lecture delivered by Hannibal Lecter in the novel Hannibal—which contains the phrase "avarice, hanging, self-destruction" and the translation of a line from the Divine Comedy, "I made my own house be my gallows" (see the antepenultimate paragraph in the top post here)—with a work of visual art. I seriously doubt that there exists a medieval picture, mosaic, or painting such as you describe. Deor (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Inguinal ligament stretch

Does anyone out there know any good Inguinal ligament stretches? I tried googling it, but I didn't come up with much of anything besides how to identify inguinal hernias. Any and all help will be much appreciated. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Cigars

Since most, if not all, cigar smokers do not inhale the smoke into their lungs, does smoking cigars really have a psychoactive effect on the body? If the smokers do not inhale, how does their bodies absorb the psychoactive compounds in the tobacco? Acceptable (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicotine is quite readily absorbed through the mucous membranes of the mouth. The same is true for chewing tobacco. Though as with all addictions there will be a mental element. Fribbler (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are not addicted to nicotine and you either smoke a cigar (properly, without inhaling into the lungs) or chew tobacco, the kick from the drug can be quite intense. Darkspots (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You only have to look at the efficacy of Nicotine patches to see that these substances can be absorbed even through the skin. SteveBaker (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Surrogates

What exactly is the role/background of the term "surrogate" that I've heard used fairly often this election. Have I just missed it in previous elections or is it a new term? Is it worthy of a wikipedia article? 68.50.130.233 (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we assume that you mean the Presidential election in the U.S.? Dismas|^(talk) 09:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Political surrogates are people you have speaking on your behalf: Person A is seeking election and wants to "big himself up" but doesn't want to look arrogant, so Person B says what a great person Person A is. Alternatively Person B attacks Person C (the opponent), allowing Person A not to appear "negative", yet the attack stands. It seems to be a recently coined term, but I don't know how recent. Does it deserve an article? Maybe, unless we have something similar already. Fribbler (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

horse question

Which horse is the best horse? And why? Roggie123 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's like asking which colour is best. Define more accurately what you mean by 'best' and are you including all members of the equine race? In which case the zebra is the best if you are looking for stripiness. 86.4.187.55 (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But Champion the Wonder Horse was the best horse in black-and-white.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the use to which you want to put the horse. Smoked, steak or sausages? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I can think of more uses for a horse than that, but I wouldn't mention most of them here. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want a talking horse, then Mr Ed would be a candidate for best, although Narnia offers a few, too. Gwinva (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If the question is about horse-racing, the answer is tough. Horses are not routinely transported from country to country - so in general, there is no clear way to compare (say) Northern Dancer (who raced in the US and Canada) with (say) Arkle who was famous in Ireland. Also, the jockey has a lot to do with the result - and there is absolutely no way to race two horses with the same jockey riding both to find out. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Horse_breeding#How_breeds_develop has some information on the advantages of different breeds and the ways in which they are suited to different purposes. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

C'mon people, the answer is obvious! It's the horse that brings the beer! Franamax (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Factors in influencing our behaviour.

Which two main factors are said to be intrumental in influencing our behaviour? any help on this question would be much appriciated. thankyou lynsey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylynz (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nature and nurture? If this is homework, I suggest you poke your nose into the article (and a few more). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hunger and Sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.200.156 (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Carrot and stick. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Greed and sex.86.197.16.51 (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)DT

Pinky and the Brain. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, Love and Death, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Death and Taxes, Sex and the City...OK, not the last one. Seriously, this is a dumb question - the answer has to be something to do with hormones. SteveBaker (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely death would rank up there as a major influence on behaviour. Birth must run a close second. Looking at the before-and-afters, they're both pretty influential. Franamax (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

World record marathon

You have a small feature that claims that the Ethiopean runner Gabreselassie has set a new world marathon record. I beleieve that this is not correct as no marathon course is exactly the same as any other. This is unlike say a 1500 metres or a 100 metres track. For such events times can be truly compared and thus a particular time can be a world record but for the marathon all that can be claimed is that it is the fastest. Without identical tracks true comparisons between events cannot be made and thus no world record can be claimed. I would not wish these comments of mine to be construed in any way as critical of this superb athlete. He is without doubt a phenominal athlete but his races cannot be meaningfully compared with say, Zatopec in Helsinki because the races, although over the same distance was not over an identical course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.0.41 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See Marathon#World records and world's best; it looks like the IAAF now recognizes world records for marathons. Deor (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You could apply the same argument to most sports. We had a recent discussion about how the design of swimming pools has contributed to the speed of the swimmers, so although they're competing over the same distance as they did 50 years ago, the "courses" are not "identical". Also, running shoes are better these days. And so on. If every minuscule variation in external conditions were taken into account, there'd never be any exact basis of comparison with previous record holders. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - wind speed, humidity, temperature, rain, shoe technology...all of these things are variables in almost all outdoor sporting events. The differences on a Marathon course are indeed much bigger than the differences between (say) 100 meter tracks - but almost every athlete has the chance to perform in events all around the world - so picking the "right" track to make your world record attempt on is just a part of the process. Gabreselassie shouldn't be penalised just because Zatopec did his run on a sub-optimal track. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Refueling Stations

I noticed in Los Angeles many of their buses are powered by CNG. But I don't see many CNG/alternative refueling stations around, why is that? Is it because there are many laws and restrictions or is the demand just not there yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.66.30 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

City busses (even diesel busses) don't refuel at regular gas stations - they have pumps at their base facility. Natural gas is stored in large liquified gas cylinders - which are usually above-ground but can be buried out of sight if space is limited. My father used to run a LPG (propane) refuelling station in the UK, he also converted standard gasoline vehicles to run on LPG. The tank at his station was above-ground, about 30' long and about 10' in diameter with a filling unit that looked a lot like a regular gas pump - except for the actual business end of the filler which had a complicated clamping gizmo on the end. This was about 20 years ago - and at that time there were no special laws relating to LPG refuelling in the UK - he had many individual customers as well as fleets of taxi's, ambulances, busses and other delivery vehicles. Most conversion kits leave the gasoline/diesel pathway intact and allow the vehicle to run on regular fuel at the flip of a switch - which has huge advantages when the infrastructure is not yet there. However, custom-built vehicles can get better mileage and performance than conversions - so the LA bus fleet are probably CNG-only. SteveBaker (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact Lenses

Besides scratching or ripping, (or breaking if they get dried up), can contacts ever diminish their ability to help your vision?

This is assuming that you wear them within the time you're supposed to (and switch pairs when it is time)

What I'm trying to say is that if someone doesn't put complete effort into their upkeep (like maybe they just simply take them out of the case, put them in, wash the case out a little, and then at night take them back out, put them in the case, fill it with solution and then shut it), will the quality of the contacts go down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.213.138 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of Wikipedia, I would like to refer you to your local eye doctor. Please see our medical disclaimer. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a request for medical advice, it's a request for information on how the contacts work. Don't be so zealous. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would never, ever wear contact lenses. The thought of the risk of a foreign object getting caught between my eye and my eyelid is too disgusting. I am happy with a visible external apparatus to correct my ever-worsening vision. JIP | Talk 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it that it is the sort of thing that one gets used to rather quickly. In any case I don't think this particular opinion of yours is anywhere close to an answer to the OP. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the cleaning of lenses is not so much because they'll lessen in their prescription or anything but because dirt on them can get into your eye very easily and cause infection, etc. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right 98..... a "protein residue" is deposited on the lenses quite quickly and this is a nasty source of infection. Any degradation in the ability of the lenses to correct a refractive error would take (in contact lens terms) a lifetime compared to the increased risk of conjunctivitis that is the main concern. Fribbler (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that they can fog up. Often going outside when it is very humid will cause my contacts to fog up. A few blinks can quickly fix this. The Reader who Writes (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wear monthly contact lenses. When I was short of cash and couldn't afford a new set I wore the same set for 5 months, in the end I got a slight infection in one eye. So I finally got some new ones. The infection wasn't that serious and cleared up with some eye drops, but it could have been much worse. I usually change my monthly lenses about every 6-8 weeks now, not an ideal situation but certainly cheaper than every month. 124.177.182.195 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Who will win the next US election?

Hi. Who do you think will win? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I say, unless something out of the ordinary happens, it's a 50-50 chance. You won't get any official answers (as there aren't any), rather only opinions, so I'm not sure this is the right place. CL — 17:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 08 Election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That YouTube video appears to be a load of crap; that blue screen looks like it was probably planted there by some hacker. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look up what The Onion is before being ridiculous about it. Hint: it's satire (as paying attention to any of the clip ought to reveal—newscasters talking about shadowy overlords? Come on now, wake up!). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. One of my favourite Onion clips. And for those interested, it does relate to a real controversy. Fribbler (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If it were held today, the latest polls say Obama would win. But it won't be held today so who knows. It will likely be close in any event, no matter what happens in the next few weeks. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More hanging chads to come perhaps?--Artjo (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Mccain will win. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. If he wins, he will win hopefully; but he may not win. That's also the case with Obama. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

?????? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: ??????: Mild critique on linguistic misuse of a term. "Hopefully" is an adverb. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely you're joking, and I don't mean you're joking in a sure manner. "Hopefully" is a sentence adverb. Please read Language Log, Steven Pinker, M. Stanley Whitley, etc. -- BenRG (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I know very well what you mean; and I'm sure Cookatoo's would agree that you shoudl stop calling people Shirley :-)As for the OP, is this some weird way to try to conduct a supposedly unbiased poll? If so, to throw a real bit of confusion into your poll, I think Harold Stassen will win.209.244.187.155 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope Mccain wins, and I think he will win, and he will win hopefully. :) GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The good news is, both candidates are supportive of actually attempting to cut greenhouse gas emmisions, which makes the world in general less doomed then otherwise with Bush. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut. You should know better than starting a discussion thread on the reference desk, AH. <Fribbler isn't angry, just dissapointed> Anyhoo, as for links and refs, the Bradley effect suggests extra luck for John "Bomb Iran or Spain" McCain. Fribbler (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment was less a comment on language than on GO-PCHS-NJROTC's injection of his/her personal political stance. The question ("who do you think will win") is probably not even appropriate for the ref desk, but what people hope is another question entirely, and this is definitely not the place for the expression of political hopes. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ray Fair's model favors Obama. You can see the specifics of his model here, although that page isn't up to date. Is this the first piece of empirical evidence in the whole discussion? Plasticup ^T/C 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics' electoral map has Obama/Biden in the lead. Intrade has Obama/Biden favored. FTPredict has Obama/Biden favored.--droptone (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Echoing some others above, tut tut AH. Insert your various WP:NOT's here, and for those reasons - this is not a RefDesk question. Franamax (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Latitude and longitude

What is located at 25.15 degrees latitude and 80.25 degrees longitude? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You can find links to maps at 25.15°N 80.25°E / 25.15; 80.25 25.15°N 80.25°W / 25.15; -80.25 25.15°S 80.25°E / -25.15; 80.25 25.15°S 80.25°W / -25.15; -80.25. --Random832 (contribs) 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, (25.15,80.25) is located in a field somewhere in northern India near "Sarwai". (25.15,-80.25) is just off the coast of Key Largo...the other two are in the middle of the ocean. So I guess the field in India is what we're looking for...it doesn't seem particularly notable though. SteveBaker (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how exact it has to be, or if you could have made a typo but (25.85,-80.25) would indicate Miami. Could that be what you are looking for? --Lgriot (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

September 29

unknown flowering vine

I have a vine that I bought a while ago, well actually they were beans. They were about an inch long and pink. I planted the "beans' this year and it grew into a vine with leaves about the size of a dogwood tree leaf, then they started blooming. The flowers have no smell and they look like wild sweet pea flowers but they are bigger.It is not a wild sweet pea. But no one knows anything about it and no one has found it in any kind of book or on the net. Can anyone tell me anything I`d greatly appreciate it. I`m dumbfuzzeled about it. They are really pretty. The color of the flower islight purple. or lilac colored Thank you Brenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.82 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you could put up a picture of the flowers and the leaves. --Lgriot (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I survive in prison?

Let's just say that I've done things that I'm.....ashamed of. Im not sure if they're gonna segregate me or not. Regardless, the guards wont be too happy with me. Im lookin at 5-20. Help.I'm Scared (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Go to WikiHow, input "prison". Most of what I've seen is that you keep to yourself, you do NOT get into ANY debts at all, you show NO emotions at all, do NOT do anything that will show as being "weak", such as crying, and you do NOT become what is called a "Prison Bitch". What that means is that you mind your own business, you don't indebt yourself to anyone, and I mean anyone at all. Hide all emotional weaknesses, since your emotions will betray you. A "Prison Bitch" is someone who is raped while he/she is in prison by another inmate, a guard. You see/witness something going on, you do not tell the guards, anyone at all about it. Walk off and if questioned, say that you have not seen anything at all, and you'll be telling the truth. Keep your mouth SHUT. If I seem harsh, I do apologise. I have, while dealing with paranormal matters, had to deal with law enforcement. (Example:"Police Officer sees UFO", and the cops discuss criminal cases as well, while I deal with the cop who allegedly saw a UFO.)You'll also have to watch out for gangs of all kinds and inmates who will mess you up by making things up that could get you sent to "the Hole". More can be found online. One other thing, another inmate who offers to "show you the ropes" may trick you into becomming his/her "bitch", and may even sell you out to be raped over and over for a pack of smokes, drugs, other favors. One good tip: Get a Bible and get really religious, pending what your situation is while in prison. WikiHow says that other inmates respect those who are religious, and religion will help turn your life around. Also follow all rules in prison, i.e. become a well behaved prisoner, so that you will get out sooner on parole, and don't (polite)foul up your parole either. If your crime is a felony, you will NOT be allowed any:

• Weapons of any type
• Alcoholic beverages
• Drugs (The illegal kind.)

and you will not be allowed to vote either. There are other restrictions as well. Observe them.

IF you are a child molester, a sex offender, you will have to be segregated from "the general population" and when you get out, you'll have to register AS a sex offender in each and every state, town, etc. Be advised that certain occupations/ jobs will also be barred to you as well, such as banking.

Have you been convicted yet? Powerzilla (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, do NOT do ANY drugs while in prison either. Not only will the drugs be the problem, they can also cause other problems. and you don't need them, those other problems as well. Messing with dope there will also get you raped, even killed in prison. Powerzilla (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I said that IF you are a sex offender, you will need to stay out of the "general population" is that the convicts have a set of rules all their own, and , usually, cop killers, convicted terrorists (Eco-terrorists and other terrorists), sex offenders, child molesters are at the bottom of the totem pole and subject to abuse by the other convicts and even by staff, which includes the guards. Also watch some "prison movies" such as Brubaker, Papillon and some prison documentaries, such as those featured on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, such as The Big House. Also, on here, you may read about really famous prisons on Wikipedia, which got that way by being really famous "hell holes", especially Attica, Angola, "Sing-Sing" prison, Folsom Prison. Also, as earlier stated, watch out for the Prison gangs as well. These are set up based on race. You do not want any part of that at all if you can help it. Also, when you are using the phone in prison, make sure no one sees you dialing your friends, family, your lawyer on the phone. Some prisoners love to hassle other people, and you thought telemarketers are bad. Also watch what you say in prison, on the phone or not, the place is Bugged, so that the staff can fight crimes that take place in prison by monitoring ex-crime bosses, that sort of thing. Powerzilla (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe everything you see in movies - they are intended to be entertaining, not informative. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The intent of a prison movie in this context is to show the audience what prison looks like and to deter people from committing crimes. Powerzilla (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You should see the HBO series Oz. It depicts life in what looks like a Supermax prison. That is the place in which the most dangerous of convicts are found, such as Noriega , former dictator and drug boss of Panama and the Unabomber, and that is where Tony Alamo may be heading as well. Powerzilla (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind: almost all of the previous advice relates to U.S. prisons. Other countries' penal systems are better or worse depending on where you're talking about but much of the advice here wouldn't apply. —D. Monack ^talk 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah?! How much? As stated, I had to deal with law enforcement. Powerzilla (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to disparage Powerzilla but I think "I have, while dealing with paranormal matters, had to deal with law enforcement" is not exactly the best testimony for reliability. That and all of his knowledge of prison activities seems to be based primarily on movies. I'm not claiming to know too much to the contrary other than I think the advice from Office Space that you have to beat someone up on the first day is probably an exaggeration.

Instead, you might be interested to know that there are a number of prisoner and prisoner-family web forums out there (like http://www.prisontalk.com/) that can give you advice from people who have actually been in prison for non-paranormal-related reasons. Needless to say, it isn't terribly positive news, but better to get it from them than from us. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Powerzilla meant 'paralegal reasons', he was working as a paralegal. Anyway, within the US there are many types of prisons - boot camps, high-security, low-security and many levels of risk, depending on the state, on how the prison is managed and the types of criminals you find there. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Derren Brown Question

I've recently become fascinated by Derren Brown and have watched a lot of videos about him on YouTube. I usually can tell, to some extent, how he does his-for the lack of a better word-tricks, but there's one video in particular that leaves me puzzled; this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_oUDev1rME Does anybody know how that one is done? Tuesday42 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

When someone says something in their head their mouth will move slightly as if mouthing the words, with a lot of practise you can recognise enough letters to work it out. (At least, that's how I believe it's done, I certainly can't do it myself!) --Tango (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember whether this particular trick is addressed in Brown's book Tricks of the Mind without going back and rereading it, but it certainly has a chapter on "Unconscious Communication", discussing how we give nonverbal or subvocal clues that can be read by an experienced person. It's a fascinating (and rather spooky) read. Karenjc 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a million ways to do this - firstly, you could just guess. One time in a hundred maybe you'd get it right - so you erase the other 99 videos and put this one on YouTube. Next, you could simply offer the girls $1,000 each to tell you in advance. Third, you could just hire people to say what you want them to. Fourth you could find a friend who knows them. Magicians are NOT required to play fair! SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is well worth reading this (http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_Brown_Article.html) for starters. Derren is first and foremost a magician. He lies and tells half-truths to create a show that is extremely entertaining but - like all magic - would be dull as dishwater if you knew just how mundane the actual 'magic' part is. http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_FAQ.html is also useful. I agree with the article in that what Derren does is damaging because most people accept that magic is trickery and a con, but people believe he is doing something more because of the scientific basis of psychological study he claims to be utilising. ny156uk (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Real ID Act: Status?

What is it and has it been made into law yet? Been hearing rumors about it, none any good. Powerzilla (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you see REAL ID Act? Plasticup ^T/C 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is yellow the most intense color?

The color yellow is the easiest to see, enhances concentration, and even makes people angry(?!), according to [this]. What is inherent in this slice of the electromagnetic spectrum that has such striking effects on our nervous systems?Sunburned Baby (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My speculation is because that's the most intense color coming from the sun. The sun's peak radiation in the visible range is between 500-600 nm wavelength. See this picture: [3]. This falls in the green-yellow color range (see the diagram and accompanying chart in Visible spectrum article), which is probably why that chartrusy green-yellow color seems so bright in the sunlight, it is reflecting most efficiently the sun's brightest radiation. Likewise, and probably related, is that our eye's particular biochemistry is "tuned" to this color range (it is most sensitive to it) since THAT is the color that is strongest in sunlight. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The easiest to see part I guessed the sun also. Even the concentration part (daytime you're awake). But, anger? Who ever said "Ah crap, here comes the goddamn sun again!"?... Well, maybe someone with a hangover.--Sunburned Baby (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because? Some people like that answer. I always thought that red was the most striking color, the evolutionary reason being that it is the color of blood. Plasticup ^T/C 04:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yould think it should be green wouldnt you? [4]--GreenSpigot (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That is just the physical sensitivity though. There is a psychological response too. Plasticup ^T/C 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We have three color sensors in our eyes, red, green and blue. Of these, the green sensor is by far the most sensitive, followed by red - with blue being kinda pathetic. The brightest color of all is white because it stimulates all three sensors. Second is yellow because it stimulates the two most sensitive sensors (red & green), followed by cyan (green and blue), then green (green alone), then magenta (red and blue), red (red alone) and finally blue - which is the darkest color other than black (which stimulates no sensors at all). Obviously, this is an oversimplification - but it gets the ordering of brightnesses right. SteveBaker (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested :-)

Back in 2007 I asked saw someone asking about the legality and requirements and possibility of registering a business name etc.

I didn't really take much of it in [and I don't think he did either] because it [sounded like it] was a bit of a half-hearted idea. Now, I'm back also interested in to it. So can somebody please clarify for me: I can register the business and get an ABN under age, but to actually run the company, I'm gonna need someone over age? This is hypothetical of course, and I am not asking for specific legal advice, just information on what the regulations are. Deon555 (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice. --Random832 (contribs) 04:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow you're helpful! I didn't ask for legal advice. I've rephrased the question to suit people like you. Deon555 (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask people like those who answer the phone at 1300 55 81 81. That's going by the thread you've listed above, and links therein. Franamax (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And in case that seems like another unhelpful answer, it's actually intended to be helpful. When you find a government page listing a direct contact phone number - call it and ask your questions. It may seem easier to post to Internet forums, but sooner or later you will have to find out for sure. You might also want to talk to a bank, 'cause you'll need an account. Again, use the phone book and ask someone who can give you a specific answer. Franamax (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You may want to bear in mind that in many cases, simply registering a business name is not going to be enough to allow you to access something restricted to businesses. And it'll be even worse with your age. For example, if you're thinking of dealing with a supplier, bear in mind many suppliers have minimum purchase requirements. And in many countries including I suspect Australia, companies are probably entitled to reject you out of hand if they don't feel you are a serious business or worth their time even if they don't explicitly specify what conditions you have to meet (provided they aren't discriminating against you illegally of course). In any case, anything which requires a business is likely to also need you (or the director) to sign a contract, which you can't do since your underage. Also bear in mind that different laws will govern anything done under the business (whatever the Australian equivalent of the consumer guarantees act may not cover any goods or services that are delivered or sold to a business) and there will likely be a whole bunch of legal requirements (like tax) to deal with. All in all, I think you'll find opening up a business isn't as simply as it may sound and is probably not worth it unless you want to do something rather significant with the business Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't track any down, but I have read about school-age Australian entrepreneurs who've become astoundingly rich. It probably happens more than most people are ever aware of, because it might tend to be based on "invisible" services such as software design etc. But as for the legalities and technicalities, it'd really be best to consult a business adviser. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Like many areas, it seems that Victoria has the usual network of free/low-cost advice centres for small business: [5]. That might be a good start. Franamax (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that per Victorian Consolidated Legislation, Business Names Act 1962, s. 7 (Registration of business names) (2): "If any applicant is a minor he shall be so described in the application."[6] Franamax (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Stamps with odd denominations

Whilst sorting through my stamp collection,I noticed some US stamps with rather odd denominations- 6.3c or 7.2c. How practically can you have a stamp for .3 of a cent when the cent is the smallest coin available and what would be the point of having stamps for such an unusual amount? Lemon martini (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer but I've always found it rather odd that the US has stamps worth 41 cents. Most countries don't bother with such small difference. You might have a 40 cent stamp or perhaps a 45 or 5 cent stamp but 1 cent, not so much, at least in everyday use. Some US states did have coins for under 1 cent according to Mill (currency) but the obvious other possibility is that when you buy them in bulk e.g. lots of 10 you pay 63 cents or 72 cents. Or that you only pay 6 cents or 7 cents for one depending on the rounding policies of the post shop Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of the Transportation coils and the unusual prices are because of special postage rates/discounts for bulk mailers. Also lots of countries have a large collection of definitive stamps of strange values see for instance list of Machin stamps for the British set, although few have the strange fractional values of this US set. meltBanana 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason the US has 41 cent stamps (no longer - now there are 42 cent stamps of course) is because mailing a letter under one ounce first class cost exactly 41 cents between May 2007 and May 2008. Does your country not have stamps for the exact price of common rates? --Random832 (contribs) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, many countries set their definitive rates using a simpler system. Why 41/42 cents? Just set it at something simpler like 40 cents or 45 cents Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at the definative series of NZ [7] or Malaysia [8] [9], Switzerland [10], [11], Australia [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], Germany [17]. Even Australia which seems to have a lot of values doesn't get as complicated as the US 1/2 cent or 41/42 cent systems. The only ones I came across that seem to come close are France [18] and perhaps the UK which you mentioned (although IIRC whenever I've received mail from the UK it doesn't tend to have such complicated values, perhaps the 1 p stamps are there for historic reasons rather then serving any real purpose in everyday life?). I mean if it were 11 cents perhaps I would understand but when it reaches the level of 41 cents, it's starting to make things unnecessarily complicated IMHO. Even Hong Kong [19] ([20]) while given the low value of the HK dollar the 10 cent stamp (the smallest) may seem a rather tiny value) they don't seem to be as complicated as the US and given the very low price of postage in HK I would say them having a 10 cent stamp isn't as strange as the US 1/2 cent or 41/42 cent system. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the question of why have a 41¢ postage rate, the answer is a preference that, as inflation raises the rate, there should be relatively frequent smaller increases rather than less frequent increases from one round number to the next. Beside, most things sold in North America are not priced in round numbers, both because of psychological pricing and because most things have sales tax added to the quoted price and most merchants don't set their prices so that the result of this will be a round number. (Let's not debate why these things are true; but they are.) So there's no pressure for stamp prices to be round numbers when nothing else is anyway. --Anonymous, 17:20 UTC, September 29, 2008.

The alternative (which I have also started seeing in the US) is to label stamps with what they do - not what they cost. Hence a 1st class letter stamp in the UK has "1st class" written on it without a price. You buy those stamps for whatever the postage rate is - and the stamp is still good even if the price goes up. It would make sense to do that with parcel postage stamps. eg have a 10ounce stamp instead of a 90 cent stamp (or whatever it is)...but I don't know of countries that have gone that far. In times of rapidly increasing prices, saving the cost of redesigning and recirculating new stamps whenever the postal rates go up ought to be well worth the effort.SteveBaker (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea in theory, but there's also the pressure on the philatelic authorities for all sorts of commemorative stamps these days, and they have to schedule such releases well in advance, and cannot possibly accommodate all the suggestions, requests etc that they receive. This is a matter of great interest to a lot of people, as evidenced by many of our biographical articles having such sentences as "José Antonio Gonzalez was the first Paraguayan xylophone player to be commemorated on a postage stamp". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the fractional denominations are for a specific type of bulk mail, where no one ever buys a single stamp. —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Most stamps are probably not purchased as single stamps, but as sets of stamps, e.g. in a roll of 100 stamps. So in all likelihood a postal customer would never have purchased a single 6.3c stamp, but rather purchased a roll of them for $6.30, or perhaps a package of ten for $0.63. If a customer needed to purchase a single stamp by itself, they would either have paid 7c for the privilege (even today, the post office is fine with you overpaying), or added 6.3c to their tab, for payment later when the fractional cents add up to an integer. Modern bulk-rate fractional cent rates are usually metered rather than stamped, so the fractional cents are simply deducted from your credit - you may be left with an odd 0.7c in the machine, but you'll simply apply that toward your next mailing. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding sales taxes in Europe

Considering that Europe is the home of so many low-cost airlines, where can you fly to buy a tax free laptop? Gibraltar? Melilla? Dubai? Tanger?Mr.K. (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you not have to declare your purchase and pay the relevant tax on your return?--Artjo (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you almost definitely will. There may be some duty free allowance, but it's unlikely to be enough to cover a laptop and you will likely have to be away for a certain period before you're even given an allowance Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The duty-free allowance is 180 euro (145 GBP) for "miscellaneous gifts". That's not going to be a very good laptop. Anyway, the cheapest non-EU destinations to fly to are probably Croatia and Turkey. Fribbler (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Gibraltar and Melilla are tax-free aren't them? And no, I don't have to declare a used laptop. I am not planning to bring it over in the box.Mr.K. (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You may have a conundrum. Keep the documentation and you have a warranty but also the possibility of being caught (which could cost a lot more than the tax). Dispose of the documentation and you will probably be safe but have no warranty! -- Q Chris (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, no VAT there. But that doesn't mean things are cheaper. The savings are generally absorbed by the shops. You don't pay VAT on privately traded second hand items anyway, so why add a costly trip into it? Fribbler (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't buy a used laptop. If I buy a new one and use it before I come back, I am coming back with a used one, right? The documentation can be send by mail. You all just want to spoil my fun. It would cost me only 50 pound to Gibraltar and back. Mr.K. (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of hassle that will more than likely save you nothing or cost you. To quote from this travel tips thread : So, if you go to Gibraltar expecting to get a bargain and if what your buying isn't Tobacco or Spirits, you will probably discover that you are not getting a bargain at all. Fribbler (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if you're going to somewhere like the US or Hong Kong, you'll probably find the item is cheaper to buy there. If you're going to Gibraltar, not so much... Note also that while laptops are one of the few items with decent international warranties, the warranty terms might still vary and you're also likely not entitled to any protection under UK (or whever you live) law if they screw you around beyond perhaps normal contract law (although even that is in doubt if you smuggled the laptop in). Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. Customs officials are not necessarily as dumb as you seem to think. If you have a brand spanking new laptop, without any scratches or signs of use, that was manufactured a 1 month ago, they may start to wonder where it came from and may ask you questions about where your purchased it from. Sure you could lie to them but then not only have you filed a false declaration, you've lied to a customs official. Not a good idea IMHO considering the risks involved. Note that an item usually has to have been in your possession for quite a long period before it is considered used and tax-exempt. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

From a quick look through[21] it appears that for the UK you need to have held/used the items for 6 months and you have had to be living outside the EC for 12 months before there is any chance for an exemption on tax Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall purchasing a rather nice Graf Von Faber Castell (spelling) pen as a gift and found it cheaper online at an international site. I think it was about £20 cheaper than in the uk. It arrive all well and fine but then about 3 months later so did an 'importation tax' bill from the government for about the same as my saving. Oh well. I would suggest that your best bet is to source this either A) second hand in the UK or B) sign-up for one of those mobile-phone contracts that offer one free. Get the phone and sell it on e-bay and between the money you get from that phone and the cost of the contract over the contract-term you will probably end up with a lap-top for cheaper than a brand-new laptop (though the effort involved is obviously quite a bit). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most countries will compensate for the VAT when you leave (e.g. at the airport). You're still stuck with a laptop with a foreign keyboard, though... Asav (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with the warranty. Most PC manufacturers are well aware of the existance of grey imports and therefore DO NOT offer a full worldwide warranty. The usual expectation is that it will be returned for service under warranty to the country where it was purchased. It is for this reason that I abandoned the idea of flying to New York for a couple of "meetings" and few days "sightseeing", and coming back with a new laptop ($2 = £1 made it a worthwhile consideration). If I had gone ahead, I would have said my employer issued me a new laptop only last week. Astronaut (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also remember that if you are challenged, the burden of proof will be on you to show that you had the laptop in the UK before you left, not on the customs official to show otherwise. If you can't produce a UK receipt, they'll tax you - and their estimate of the tax due may be greater than you would have paid if you'd declared it honestly. I'm aware of our legal disclaimer but this is more of an anecdote: an acquaintance tried this one a couple of years ago on a top-of-the-range camera from a non-EU country. When the "I've lost the receipt" bit failed he was presented with a large tax bill; when he claimed to have no money they confiscated the camera until he came up with the cash. All that hassle, plus an air fare, just to (fail to) save a measly few quid. Karenjc 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And a sharp customs officer might ask you to show him a file you created that's more than 4 days old, or check the warranty/support/help information on the laptop, or the country setting. If the savings are that great, other people will have already tried it. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In Ireland in recent years a weekend shopping trip to New York was a common way of stocking up on clothes, iPods, etc, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Recent economic events may have scuppered this tradition. Savings were due to Euro-dollar exchange rates, and lower prices generally in certain sectors, not just lower tax rates. News reports suggested customs officers were not active in enforcing the relevant tax-free limits. jnestorius^(talk) 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a ralser (listed as occupation)?

Occupation: Ralser

This was an occupation listed on a marriage license in 1912 in Wisconsin.

Can anyone help. Haven't found it in dictionaries or genealogy sites that address occupations.

98.141.96.111 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could it be a typo of "raiser", a farmer of crops: [22]? Fribbler (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or "wrestler"? Hopefully not rustler. Corvus cornix_talk 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or "rouster". This has been a surreal Google-search. "Rouster" got me pictures of roosters. "Ralsing" got me cattle-ralsing, dam-ralsing, fund-ralsing, awareness-ralsing. It seems as if your ancestor was at the forefront of internet misspelling. :) Franamax (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it, but keep in mind it may not be English. Especially pre-WWI, there was a large foreign-speaking population in the US (e.g. Germans, Norwegians, and Poles in Wisconsin), and in certain regions the day-to-day language was German, Norwegian, Polish, etc. rather than English. If your Ralser didn't speak English day-to-day, he might have put the foreign word down when asked his job, and the clerk didn't care/couldn't be bothered to translate to English. I'd suggest asking at the Language Desk to see if anyone has a thought. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

explanation

I know frustrations are on the rise with my edits but please note that my intent upon login is always to keep the flow of information fluid. It is NEVER my intent do harm, I am trying to follow procedure. Most recently, i clicked to ensure accuracy on some issue and a response came back telling me that the data or article was not part of wikipedia and asked for deletion. Right then I realized that everything is part of wikipedia, it's just not owned by it. I just wish that that BIG RED lock wasn't just staring at me. I do not work for Wikipedia and i am starting to realize that only those who work for W..... should update files Please advise from this point on as to when I am asked to help, should I? --Ptw007 (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your comment? The only article edits I see by you are signing your name and similar test edits, which are inappropriate. However, the number of active editors who are employees of Wikipedia is vanishingly small. Virtually all edits are made by volunteers. — Lomn 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the vast majority of employees of the WMF aren't active editors from my experience Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Vast majority"? What is the number we can use to quantify the "vast majority" of WMF employees? Three? Corvus cornix_talk 19:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says... 15! Franamax (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

mouth

what is the name of the piece of skin/flesh that runs from your lip through to the middle of your two front teeth. There is another on the bottom in the same place, in front of your teeth, behind your lip. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Frenulum. Fribbler (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

fire drill

Why are we quiet during a fire drill???????

Nick (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)nicholassayshi

Because if people start yelling it induces panic, which is not what you want during a fire or a fire drill. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would make it harder for people the hear instructions. It's important that people do what they're told during an emergency. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you have a bunch of seniors (i.e. 12th graders NOT Silver Seniors), then people dont yell. We are half asleep. obviously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholassayshi (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a funny thing, but a bunch of half-asleep twelfth-graders in a classroom suddenly become very wide awake when the fire bell sounds. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Ballerand

Does anybody have any information about this person? Or (his association with) Dorrington Associates? Is his biography verifiable? I seems kind of... Well, have a look at the talk page. Asav (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not one source is anything other than bollocks. Looks like a good Hoax catch, Asav Actually some of the sources mention him. I will investigate further. Fribbler (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well colour me surprised! After looking at the sources (some of which were broken/outdated, throwing me off at first) t seems that pretty much all the claims that are backed up by in-line citations check out. Fribbler (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ref. Desk vs. Real Ref. Desks

Shouldn't our ref. desk be more strict regarding the acceptance of some kind of questions? As I understand, it should only be a virtual ref. desk, comparable to the ref. desk of a library. However, we find any kind of question here, like: "My girlfriend don't let me perform anal sex on her, what should I do?" or "Who is going to win a fight between a bear and a bull?" or "If someone forces a prostitute into sex, is that rape or shoplifting?" 80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This question would be more appropriate in the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate questions are routinely removed from the reference desk, or ignored with a note that they don't fall within the scope of the reference desk. This question, in fact, does not fall within the scope of the reference desk, which answers factual questions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but it is a valid question regarding policy. Where should it be posted ?86.219.34.25 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)DT

Where Nil said. Algebraist 16:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Ref Desk's main purpose is to help people find the answers to factual questions in the manner of a library ref desk, however it is also a place where a group of people with varied wide and varied knowledge and a lot of experience finding and working things out gather and many of us are more than happy to answer the stranger questions when we have a spare five minutes, so what harm does it do? Anyway, that last question sounds like a valid ref desk question to me (although one with an obvious answer - if you change it slightly and throw in the extra detail that the person has handed over the cash and had it accepted and then the prostitute changes their mind then it's a more interesting question and touches on the definition of consent, contracts, offer and acceptance, etc.). --Tango (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll soon find out!

"An Aachen man who failed to reach orgasm during his €30 ($44) session with a prostitute has accused her of unfairly taking his money ..."

Source --Sean 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, by the way, the answers to these questions are: (1)Offer to let her perform anal sex on you first. (2) The bear. (3) Rape. You're welcome. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most people who've worked on a reference desk have had equally odd questions from people person-to-person. The anonymity given by the internet expands it into sexual possibilities a bit more, but that's about it. Steewi (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing for someone with the ID of 80.58.205.37 to have such strong opinions about "our" reference desk and how "we" should respond to questions. Is there a pay raise in the works? An improved retirement plan? Reserved parking for best-response-to-a-former-hall-monitor? --- OtherDave (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cruise Ship Prepaid Gratuities

I feel certain this question will have been asked before but I cannot recall having seen it. We are thinking of cruising the Panama Canal next year and are considering various quotes from Travel Agents and on the Web. All of them bar none include the element of prepaid gratuities amounting to about 10% of the total cost of the cruise for 2 persons. I am not a skinflint and do tip regularly for good service that has been delivered and received, but if I had to pay a 10% tip on ENTERING a restaurant without having sampled the food or judged the service, I should be disinclined to enter at all. Questions - are these prepaid gratuities obligatory and can I choose not to pay them in advance but pay them on board as I see fit, and how assured can I be that these "tips" are not used by the operators to make up otherwise low wages? I appreciate from earlier cruises that most waiters, barstaff and room staff are from low paid countries in Indonesia and it might be said that the "low wages" aboard a cruise ship would exceed what would be available in the employees' countries of origin, but I will not be paying a cruise charge concomitant with that reasoning. Anyway, any info. forthcoming would be appreciated. Thanks. BTW, we are British and consider 10% of a restaurant bill a fair tip for good service. 92.21.54.128 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are known to be the "non-advance tipper" it could work to your advantage, as the servers give you great service in hope of getting a tip doled out to them from time to time Or you could become invisible, with no server noticing that you want a drink refill, since they might figure you to be a tightwad. 10 % is a lousy tip in a restaurant, by the way. Edison (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

10% is low in the USA. This side of the water 10% is ten percent more than we're used to. Fribbler (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So what you're used to, roughly, is 9.1% ? Just checking. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Prepaid gratuities? Specified by the service provider? What's the world coming to? That removes any and all meaning from the word "gratuity" and is a contradiction in terms. What guarantee do you have that the "gratuity" will be going to the employee/s who actually serve you, rather than the owners? I'm with you, questioner, I'd be very disinclined to use the service to begin with. I'm from Australia, which is much more like the UK in terms of not having socially mandatory tipping, although it's still a very common practice - but it's done on an entirely voluntary basis, normally in recognition of service that is actually above-average, or if the diner happens to be in a really good mood that night, or they get a wink from the cute waiter/tress, or on special occasions like a group celebrating a birthday etc. There are some people here who feel it's rude not to tip no matter what, but they're in the minority. The US seems to have institutionalised tipping to the point that it's considered very poor form to tip even less than about 15%, let alone not at all - even if the service happens to be lousy and the food rotten. I understand that it's become less about quality of service and more about supplementing the poor wages of staff, who actually need this extra money to survive, because the owners have abrogated their responsiblity to pay their staff a reasonable living wage and have transferred the responsibility to the customers. Although most customers see this for what it is, and know they're playing into the owners' hands, they still come to the party because it's also become a social imperative and there are severe social punishments if one does not tip, or does not tip enough - including the friends you're dining with removing you from their Christmas card lists and never talking to you again; and/or getting nasty looks and/or nasty language from the service providers, or even being told never to come back there because you're an arsehole and you won't be welcome. Which, as I say, removes all notions of free, individual, and voluntary from the word "gratuity". But on the other hand, if you're committed to going on the cruise, and this is going to be the way it is no matter whom you go with, then I'd say just reframe it as a tax and pay it as you would any other unavoidable rip-off tax in a third- or fourth-world country. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding a service charge to a bill (which I guess is what this is, just with the added feature of the bill being paid in advance which makes it all the more outrageous) is fairly common in some parts of the word (it's universal in Singapore and mandated by law apparently - if you complain about service you may be able to get them to discount your meal so that the end result is that you haven't paid the charge, but they can't actually remove the charge - it's crazy!). It's becoming more and more common in the UK too - my system for dealing with it is that if I don't think the service was worth a tip of that size I ask for it to be removed and they get nothing, had they not added it to the bill they would have got a tip, just a small one. Their loss! --Tango (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The service personnel on the ship might have been burned in the past by people who "forget" to tip, or who think the workers should live on their wages, or who manage to find the service in some way inadequate, or who come from countries where tips are around 10% even in a restaurant. Edison (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "even in a restaurant"? Do you consider 10% high or low? Would you expect it to be more or less in places other than a restaurant? I come from a country where tips are for exceptional service, 10% would be considered high, people DO live on their wages, and any automatic addition of a tip to any bill puts peoples backs up so much that, like Tango, they are more likely to strike it off (or refuse to come back). ("Why should I reward anyone for doing their job properly: it's what they get paid to do, after all. Next you'll be expecting me to tip the bus driver or my doctor. What cheek!" etc.) Gwinva (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But, getting back to the OP's question, what is the point of adding 10% to the cost of the cruise? If it's to supplement poor wages, then why not pay the staff properly, and set the cruise fare 10% higher? It seems a bit bizarre to me. If tips are to reward service, then impersonal payment at source seems pointless, for it's not a reward, or a gesture of thanks. If tips are to bribe staff to attend to your needs above anyone else's, then it's even more pointless, since the staff aren't tipped directly. There is the possibility that the company circulates the names of those who have crossed out the gratuity charge, of course, so are the guests then going to be treated to bad service as punishment? If that's the case, its blackmail. Unless, of course, the expectation is that you'll tip individuals once on board, in which case this is a simple 10% surcharge, which makes the cruise look cheaper than it is. Gwinva (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't read like a rant: I just don't understand it. Why should some people's wages need to be supplemented by tips? I can see the attraction of cash tips: that can go in the back pocket, and never get declared for tax purposes; but pre-paid "service charges" and those built automatically into the bill go through official accounting measures, and can hardly be hidden from the taxman. Although, if they're not official "wages", then perhaps the employer can escape some employer contributions and levies? (And thus it's just a tax fiddle?) Gwinva (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. servers get starvation wages, and a 15% tip is average. 10% is quite insulting. I give 20% for good service. In other countries, the base wage may be higher, so there a 10% tip might be appropriate. I only know that I try to not stiff the waitstaff. In the U.S, waiters barkeeps etc are assessed taxes on the assumed tips. Do not assume they are adequately paid without tips and that tips go "in the back pocket" without taxation for a riotous luxury lifestyle. Edison (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't assuming that; I was just wondering why staff were paid starvation wages, and need to subsist on tips, when the restaurant could charge 15% more for the meals, and pay their staff properly. Same money going round, same taxes being paid, but there's not the "food bill/service bill" and "wages/tip" components. Gwinva (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Why does it become the customer's responsibility to pay the waiters' wages or any part thereof? That's the employer's responsibility. The customer's financial relationship is with the restaurant, not with any individual staff member. If they wish to tip someone, fine. If not, also fine. Are there not "fair labour" laws in the US? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some points: it is always the customer's responsibility to pay wages - that's how wages get paid; to Gwinva and why couldn't the restaurant charge 15% more for the meals - well, that's exactly what the OP is asking about, the cruise line is building in an explicit 10% charge, so what's the diff, total cost is total cost; and as far as discretionary tipping, I use a standard (in Canada) of 15% before taxes then toss in the extra buck or two to be a 20% hero however, if the service is bad, that's a discount to me through lower tip, if the food is bad, I either tell the server to ask the cook for their tip ('cause I'm leaving zero) or I ask why they're charging me anything for the crappy food I just got, and if both service and food are bad, I ask for the manager. Don't be afraid to speak up when things are sub-par (and don't be a dick, don't expect your drinks in 30 seconds when the place is packed, don't expect gourmet quality at Bert's Beanery) - but if you've been dealt a low hand, say so, you will discover the magic words of hospitality: "comp it". Franamax (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously if there are no customers, or if the customers don't pay for the services/goods they buy, the staff won't get paid and the business will fold. So there's an indirect relationship between the money the customers pay the business and the money the business pays its staff. But the whole societally-driven mandatory tipping thing makes it a direct relationship between customers and staff. But only in certain situations. Do customers at McDonalds, for example, feel the need to add 15% to the bill? Americans are pretty smart, generally speaking, but I just don't understand how they ever let themselves get drawn into this system that seems to apply only in restaurants. And once a business starts demanding gratuities up-front, as I said above, who knows where the money goes? Do the staff ever get any of it, or does the employer pocket the lot? Tipping is in essence a cash transaction that in most cases is never recorded anywhere and no tax is ever paid (I know there are some exceptions to this). Once it becomes hard coded into the system, the whole spirit of the exercise is lost. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The nice thing about discretionary tipping is that it adds an element of variable payment and an incentive for the server to perform. Tightwads can take a 15% discount, they can trade the $ for lousy service next time they come in. Nice customers and good servers get appropriate rewards. If people think the tip is mandatory regardless of service quality - well Americans needed the firm hand of George W to steer them safely through the last 8 years, right - if they'll buy that line, what harm is there paying the extra 15%?

I agree that built-in gratuities don't usually work. Try a restaurant near the Rialto where there is an automatic 10%, versus one a little farther off the path where the Venetians go - no contest. In the case of a cruise ship though, that guy down in the laundry room busting his hump all night deserves a tip just as much as the nice lady putting the sheets on the bed. How does that get resolved? And the built-in charge relieves customers of the worry of "geez, should I have tipped her? Did I tip him enough?" and they can just enjoy the cruise.

As I've said below, best to just think of it as part of the total price and a gain-sharing arrangement. If someone goes extra-above-and-beyond, tip 'em anyway. Franamax (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Franamax. "That guy down in the laundry room busting his hump all night deserves a tip just as much as the nice lady putting the sheets on the bed". OK, you're face to face with the sheet lady but you never see the laundry guy. That aside, why is there an assumption that the laundry guy isn't paid well enough for the work he does, and it's therefore up to the travellers to see that he doesn't starve? I ask the same question about waiters in restaurants. If there's a structural problem in people being paid too low by their employers, there are things that can be done to at least try to correct it. This is an issue between the staff, the employers, the unions, and the government regulatory authorities or whoever determines minimum wages and what's a far day's pay for a fair day's work. Without wanting to seem callous, it's not the customers' responsibility to fix it in any particular case; and they certainly shouldn't be perpetuating the problem by doing it on a nation-wide scale, thus becoming part of the problem itself. I know none of this will change anything; but the essence of my position is that if you wish to tip someone, whether it's for excellent service or whatever personal reasons, that's fine. But if you're doing it because you feel you "should", or "if we don't all help these poor underpaid guys out, there'll be no chicken in the pot for them and their families tonight", that's not fine. That is no solution to such a problem, if problem there is perceived to be. It just entrenches the problem. Americans apparently write to their congressmen every day of the week about issues of concern to them. Why don't they write in their millions about this issue, rather than trying to fix it themselves and becoming drawn into a massive web of manipulation, blackmail and deceit, in which the only winners are the owners? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the US, tips form a part of the salary of certain types of service people, including waiters. You can argue about whether this is a good system, but it is the system. When you tip a waiter you're not "correcting for underpayment," you're paying part of the waiter's salary directly to the waiter, and part indirectly via the cost of the food. When visiting the US, please tip 15-20% in restaurants unless you intend to punish your waiter for bad service. -- BenRG (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the best reframes I've seen in a long time. Should I tip 15-20% at McDonalds? If not, why not? If this is a salary, it's the only form of salary I've ever heard of that's not legally enforceable, is paid by someone other than the employer, and can vary or be entirely withheld on the whim of the payer without the payee having any recourse. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "salary" was the wrong word—I probably meant "income"—and I think "tip"/"gratuity" is probably a bad way of referring to money left on the table in the U.S. system, since it implies it's an optional extra and really it isn't. Word choice aside, the reality of the matter is that money left on the table for waiters by their customers is a significant percentage of the money they take home at the end of the day, in the United States. You don't tip at McDonalds, where there are no waiters and you bus your own tray. This system doesn't apply to the people behind the counter or to people who wipe down the tables. Why? It just doesn't. You have to memorize it the way you memorize American English vocabulary. Culture is based on tradition, not on logic, and this has been a part of American culture for a long time (though I gather you're just now learning about it). That's not a defense of it—and honestly I think we'd be better off without it—but your horror at the very idea is irrational and inappropriate. There are parallels here to the recent thread where you corrected a supposed misuse of the word "hopefully" (which in fact was perfectly okay, at least in my dialect). Some people, once they realize that the "ungrammatical" and "illogical" arguments aren't going to work in that debate, try to argue that it's confusing to use the word "hopefully" in two different ways. Whether or not that's true (I don't think it is), it's not the reason they want to drop "hopefully" as a sentence modifier. It simply irritates them, at a pre-logical level, and the logical arguments are just desperate attempts to convince other people who unaccountably refuse to be irritated by it. You need to first of all stop being irritated by this aspect of American culture before you can even think rationally about its economic ramifications. At any rate I didn't respond to defend American tipping, I responded out of a fear that foreigners might think it's okay to not tip when they visit the US. Probably the system should be changed, but until it is, for heaven's sake give these poor people their money. Your bold act of rebellion against the oppressive system will not be understood, and the people you want to help will appreciate it least of all. -- BenRG (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to take this offline, I think. See you over at your talk page. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The excuse, in some UK restaurant chains at least, appears to be that the taxman assumes waiting staff receive a certain level of gratuity income anyway, so it's simpler for tax purposes to formalise the arrangement and account for all gratuities on paper. What they don't tell you is that this then allows them to record the tips as a regular component of staff income, thus permitting them to pay staff below the legal minimum wage and top up to the minimum with these formal, taxable gratuities. There's only one way to deal with this kind of cynical penny-pinching - don't eat there again, and explain politely as you leave why you won't be back. Since these exploitative policies ensure you'll be served by a tired, sour-faced individual with no financial incentive to make your eating experience pleasant, and who will probably have been replaced next time you visit, chances are you won't want to anyway. Karenjc 09:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't their something in the news about a month ago about them not being able to do that any more? Tips now don't (or soon won't) count towards minimum wage. --Tango (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As the OP here, I am truly grateful for all the above responses and can see there appears to be a difference of opinion on the amount (if any) tip between here in the UK and on the other side of the pond. As to Edison's and Franamax's responses, without appearing to be rude to them, I fear they have missed the point here, which was why I should have to pay any gratuities in advance. The questions of how much and if any simply do not arise. I am not happy to be being charged up front. Do I go to a football match and throw 10% of the admission price on to the pitch for the players to divi. up before they play an abyssmal game? Do I go to the theatre and throw 10% of the (usually extortionate) ticket price on to the stage before the curtain goes up? Clearly no. When I worked as a senior administrator in the supreme courts, did any criminal just convicted, or any judge grateful for his papers and books being delivered to him timeously during the trial, or any overpaid lawyer grateful for being directed to the correct court or judge's chambers, or any policeman grateful for a quiet place to sit and have a smoke and a cuppa, ever come to me afterwards and say, "Thanks, and there's a tip of 10% of your salary for your assistance", Clearly no, and I would never have accepted one. If I ever thought my lifestyle could not have been supported without the input of tips, I would have sought a better paying job elsewhere. And if everyone else in that unfortunate position did likewise, the ship owners, restauranters, and other employers would raise wages to decent levels. And tipping, as in Japan, would become an insulting gesture. But back to the other half of my question, not yet answered. Can I refuse to pay the advance gratuities charge and pay any real and deserved tips on board instead? Thanks 92.21.71.121 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and they can refuse to let you travel on their ship. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can call the cruise line and ask for that arrangement. They will explain to you how many unseen hands are involved in making your cruise experience a great one. If they want your business, they'll give you a 10% discount and distribute tips as usual. (Though they might make you wear an orange vest that says "Hasn't tipped anyone yet") One possible reason they would have this 10% arrangement is that when the ship is full, the crew's pay goes up, if it's not, crew and line share the pain.

You're best to think of it as just part of the cost of the cruise, like taxes and fuel surcharges. Nothing is stopping you from handing out additional tips if you get especially good service. Franamax (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

September 30

North Pole

What is the time on the North Pole? 82.32.51.147 (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The same as on the south pole. Edison (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In some reference frames, at least. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously question of the week. See here for some more answers. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's crunch time! There's less than 90 days until Christmas and those toys aren't going to make themselves!! --LarryMac | Talk 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

@Edison: I don't believe that the time in both poles is the same. I would rather say they have 12 hours difference. Mr.K. (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the time when you are standing next to either pole, just walk around the pole and select any time of day you want within a 24 hour range. The time next to the pole can be any time, depending on the longitude you select. The time directly on top of the pole is undefined. "Undefined" at the North Pole is like "Undefined" at the South Pole, not 12 hours different. Two points 180 degrees apart in longitude and at any latitude from pole to equator would be 12 hours apart. Edison (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See North Pole#Time and South Pole#Time. jnestorius^(talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another job interview question

Thanks for all the helpful replies to my question on job interviews. I had the interview yesterday, they didn't ask me that question in the end but they did ask me another one which knocked me sideways a bit: "Describe a situation in your working life where you have had to overcome your stereotyped views of women" (I'm male). Now I'm not going to tell you what I said, but in general (allowing of course for the fact that everyone's experiences are different) what would you say was the correct approach to take with that question? --Bluegrouper (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would have thrown me too. It sounds like they're working on the assumption that every male automatically has stereotyped views of women. I'd have been very tempted to say "I don't believe I've ever had such stereotypes", but I guess I would have bitten my tongue first. There's no one correct answer to this, but I probably would have explained how I've always treated women with dignity, respect and equality, and helped others overcome their stereotypes by giving them an example to follow. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a wild question, for sure. I guess I personally would describe how I was able to overcome the fact that my sisters are architect, doctor, and doctor, and realize that all the rest of the women are dirty sluts. Or possibly comment that if you've already decided that I have stereotyped views, maybe I'm not the best candidate for the position, since I obviously don't fit your expectations. A long time ago, I got the question "what makes you better than all the other candidates?" and I just wanted to say "Isn't it your job to figure that out? I haven't talked to the other candidates, maybe one of them is perfect".

Do tell what your response was (and eventually whether you got the job). I would take great offense to that question. Small wonder I'm self-employed. :) Franamax (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you were subject to the dreaded behavioral interview technique. I say "dreaded" for personal historical reasons, but actually I think if I were in a position to hire somebody I'd prefer to use something like that than the stereotypical "where do you see yourself in five years?" The important thing to know about that type of question is that it should give the candidate some idea of what situations might come up in the job. And remember that you're interviewing them, too! I might have tried to come up with something like "I think that my parents raised me to recognize that gender makes no difference in a person's abilities. Is such stereotyping something that I'd likely run into at this company?" --LarryMac | Talk 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly be pretty offended by that question. That's like "When did you stop beating your wife?" - merely answering the question is an admission that you are a terrible person. Many interviewers forget that an interview is a two-way street. It's just as easy for them to screw up and put off an otherwise promising candidate as it is for the candidate to screw up and not get the job. My response would probably have been "I'm sorry - I think I must have misheard the question"! I guess an honest answer is the only way forwards - so either describe such a thing if it ever happened to you - or tell them that you don't have a stereotypical view. SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how much you need the job. Unless I was truly desperate for work (and that's with the assumption that this won't be a good job since you'll be working with the kind of people that ask questions like that), I would make very clear that I was offended by the implication and would refuse to answer the question. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was trained to do "structured interviews" with job applicants. If a job involved, say, dealing with angry customers, the applicant might be asked if he has had job experience dealing with angry customers, what methods he used to handle it, and how successful the result was. This could be numerically scored to allow comparison of different applicants. Other issues might be supervising union personnel, disciplinary issues, working with people of other ethnicity, responding to unethical or dishonest behavior by coworkers, or working alongside grumpy coworkers. If the applicant claimed such a situation never came up, they got a low score for the interview. Saying that the situation in question had come up (with details) that they came up with a strategy to deal with it (again with details) and that their efforts were successful (based on their account at least) got them a high score and indicated a good fir fot he particular job. Again, the question set differed depending on the analysis of the particular job. Edison (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the week I first started working for a computer game company. My desk was right next to the entrance to a conference room - where job interviews were sometimes carried out. One day that week, I was told that interviews were going on in there that day and that we were not to discuss confidential company business within earshot of the door. So I'm sitting quietly, working hard - a guy in a suit & tie (must be an interviewee) and one of our management types (shorts, T-shirt and sandals) disappear into the room - I can distantly hear some of the usual interview questions and answers - and I kinda zone out and concentrate on my work. After maybe half an hour - I hear the interviewee start shouting: "YOU BASTARD - HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK I'D DO THIS...THIS IS F**KING WRONG! SO F**KING WRONG!!" and all sorts of other rants and obscenities. He's AMAZINGLY angry...I mean, he's totally lost it. A few minutes later - the interview is over and the candidate and the manager leave the conference room and disappear towards the front door. I think little more of it until later in the day, pretty much the exact same thing happens with a different candidate. I'm wondering just how hard this interviewer is on these poor guys to push them that far over the edge! My interview a few weeks earlier had gone fairly normally - but I had a different guy interviewing me. Was this some kind of bizarre "stress test" to make the candidates "snap" and see what happened? It was only on the third occasion that I realised they were interviewing people to do recordings for the in-game audio and they were in fact rehearsing from a script that was given to them in the interview! <sigh> SteveBaker (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable people with accounts on wikipedia

Are there any famous people who have an account here on Wikipedia? I know one - Arthur Rubin - but are there any others? February 15, 2009 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by famous but the answer is probably a lot. See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles which is very likely incomplete Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd think most famous people would probably not want to tell the world who they are online to avoid stalkers and such. JessicaThunderbolt 11:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few I've run across have accounts but aren't active. Their talk pages fill with fancruft fairly quickly. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also Category:Notable Wikipedians, although if you're anything like me you may struggle with that definition of "notable" as it applies to most of the people in that category. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since notability is the criteria for having and article about the person, those two lists ought to be basically identical. SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time someone asked this, the only person I recognised was User talk:RichardDawkins. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He's pretty typical though - you look at his Talk: page and there are lots of fans there saying how nice his books are - and a couple of people asking reasonable questions and being answered by other people who are NOT Richard Dawkins. Not one post from the man himself. If we examine his "User contributions" tag we see:

• Five edits in October'07 to the article about himself (It's dubious to change the article about yourself - WP:COI, etc.)
• One edit to List of human evolution fossils to change a single word 'España' to 'Spain'.
• One edit (just a few days ago) to Mermaid where (unsurprisingly) he deleted the sentence "Although considered to be fictional there have been several sightings proved to be accurate which has led many to believe that mermaids are in fact real."

That's IT - seven edits over two years with an account. Not exactly an active Wikipedian! SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I missed the bit where the OP asked for an "active wikipedian" - sincere apologies. Btw, he did edit his talk page (to defend the edits to the article on him). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Back in June I wrote an article on the conductor Myer Fredman, and I noticed there was a user of that name so I checked and it was the same person. As a courtesy, I left him a message on his talk page to let him know he now existed. He's never responded to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And we have a user named GOD, although he goes to the trouble of explaining he's not actually the omniponent deity of the same name. His talk page seems exclusively devoted to fruitless attempts to have him change his username. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And he only edited for less than a month over three years ago. I think these days he might well be blocked as an offensive username... --Tango (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because I recognise quite a few. E.g. John Romero, Phil Zimmermann, Joi Ito, Diana Zuckerman, Nigel Short, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, III (okay maybe I don't recognise him specifically but he does have a famous grandfather), Jeff V. Merkey, Mitch Kapor, Xeni Jardin, Charles Ingram, Patrick M. Byrne... And more I probably missed. Admitedly some of these I probably know largely from wikipedia and most of them are probably not active, some may not even be real but as Zaid pointed out, the OP just asked for famous people with an account, not famous active wikipedians Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Lamo = User:Adrian Lamo -- assuming the User is telling the truth about his identity. Youth in Asia (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster is a baronet; does that count as famous? —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Loren Coleman count? He is a Bigfoot researcher. See his Talk page. It shows a account that he has on here. Powerzilla (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the best example of active notable Wikipedian is: Jimbo Wales, userpage: Jimmy.Mr.K. (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We should never "out" the real life identities of Wikipedia editors who seek anonymity. If they select a username stating their real and notable name and "out" themselves intentionally, it seems fair to note the fact. Per the talk page Talk:Rachel Marsden Rachel Marsden , political columnist and television commentator, has edited Wikipedia as User:RachelMarsden. Bev Harris is well known for publicizing the security weaknesses of Black Box Voting, and we have User:Bev Harris who may be that person per her statement at User talk:64.202.138.2. Michael Klonsky was national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s and is now a Professor of education, and reportedly edits Wikipedia as User:Granpamike per an OTRS posting discussed at Talk:Michael Klonsky. Many users are not really the famous persons their usernames might suggest. Edison (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I ran across a user page for Derek Charke a while ago. At least I assume so since his username contains the name, and he edited the page. . . . Not exactly a household name, but he’s somewhat notable in academic modern music circles. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Company

Remember that company Gametraders that I talked about a while back? [23] Well, their description on the Nintendo 64 ([24]) is poorly written, which is most apparent from the last sentence of the main description. It looks like it was written by someone whose favourite games are those games. None of those five games are even in the true top 5 most popular N64 games! Do you think I should ask them to change that? February 15, 2009 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No - you shouldn't ask them to change it. You should just change it yourself (see WP:SOFIXIT)...UNLESS: (a) You have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) or (b) you can't back up your claims with proper references (see WP:REF). But this question really belongs on the Wikipedia Help Desk. SteveBaker (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean should they ask Gametraders to change the Nintendo description on their own site. In which case, sure, drop them an email and tell them what you would like to see changed (maybe even write a description yourself) and why. I don't know whether they will respond, but you can always try. Fribbler (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Coffee at work in the US

Living in Sweden, Europe, I watch numerous american movies and TV series. Every now and again, employees go to some coffeehouse and return with paper mugs with coffee. I just wonder, is it uncommon in the US to have a pentry at work, with a coffee machine, a fridge and a microwave oven, so people can make their own coffee exactly to their taste? --Lova Falk (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very common in the U.S. to have coffee available in offices, almost always for free for employees. It tends to be of low quality, or at least perceived to be of low quality. Darkspots (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You might find this article about the standard of living in Norway compared with the U.S. to be interesting, in terms of American takeout coffee habits. Darkspots (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well - firstly, beware of movies & TV. Product placement is a very big deal these days - so behavior on-screen does not have to represent what real people do. If your favorite TV star goes out for coffee at Starbucks - then that's better than a 30 second advert for Starbucks. Even if it's not specifically Starbucks, (perhaps because they need to set a scene in the coffee shop or something) they may still be paying the TV company to push the concept of leaving work to grab a coffee.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, it's very variable. In the last two places I've worked, we have had a fully equipped kitchen. Where I am now, we have an Italian coffee maker that looks like something you'd find under the hood of a Lamborghini...and is nearly as scary to 'drive' - and probably more expensive to service! We also have microwaves (2), a toaster oven, a dish washer, and a large commercial refigerator/freezer. There are usually three or four flavors of coffee to choose between and they switch those around periodically for variety. There are also lots of tall jars filled with snacks and candy. There is a coke machine too. Some people would be surprised to find that they stock the fridge with beer - and we have "Happy Hour" a couple of times a week. Sometimes we order Pizza for lunch. It's all 100% free. This is not that unusual in my line of business (I make video game software) where employees are occasionally expected to work long hours without overtime pay. Also, we're not "on the clock" and if we were to go out for coffee for half an hour - that would cost the company a lot more than the cost of stocking the kitchen.

However, in the place before last, we had a break room with sink and microwave. There was a minimally functional filter coffee machine and really nasty coffee to go into it. The coke machine charged 70 cents for a 16oz can...which is a total ripoff. Several people did indeed get together to take it in turns to make a run to Starbucks twice a day.

What I've never seen in the US is a coffee vending machine - that was fairly common in the UK. When I last worked there, most of my co-workers brought their own filter-coffee machines to work and set them up in their offices. That would probably violate fire safety laws here in Texas.

So "it depends" is about the most that can be said.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The coke machine charged 70 cents for a 16oz can... Is it really true that everything's bigger in Texas? You can only get coke in a 12oz can in my part of the world. 16oz aluminum cans are for Bud and maybe Coors Lite beer, but never soda. Darkspots (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised at the 16 oz. can as well. But back to the original question. A couple jobs ago, the place I worked had a sort of common area amongst the cubicles where one of the engineers had set up a coffee maker. The company supplied the coffee (name brand, Folger's I think) and this engineer would make it every morning. It was free. In the little kitchenette that we had, there was a microwave, sink, and a refrigerator. There were also two vending machines for soda and snacks. The break room out on the factory floor had a coffee vending machine along with your usual assortment of snack and soda machines. Dismas|^(talk) 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers! Good to know you can get coffee at work. Very interesting article also even though I would also like to see a comparison between those who have the lowest incomes in US and in Norway, or Sweden. My guess is that poor people in the US live in much worse conditions than poor people over here. And then there is the wise but impossible remark: "beware of movies & TV". My estimate is that in average one hour every single day I watch a US movie or TV. How could my perception of the US not be influenced?? --Lova Falk (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to the OP -- my friends here in the U.S. tire of hearing me talk about my week in Paris, and one of the things that struck me: I was not in a particularly touristy area, and wandered a lot around the neighborhood. In the entire week, I never saw a person with a take-out cup of coffee (like the ubiquitous Starbuck's cup, or the Greek-key-bordered cup that seems mandatory in New York cop shows). How you get coffee in this country varies widely. There are any number of coffee services that supply no-name packs of coffee (along with sugar and usually that crumbled wallboard compound labeled "creamer") meant for use in an office's commercial drip coffee maker. It's a running gag in many offices whether there's enough coffee (or sludge) left in the bottom of the pot so you don't have to make a fresh one. I have seen the machines that dispense one cardboard cup of coffee, with various buttons for powdered "cream," sugar, and so on -- more often in factories than in offices, but in either case generally undrinkable. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC), whose coffee is getting cold.

I have never ever in my life walked on the street with a take-out cup of coffee. --Lova Falk (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a difference, not a virtue -- much like the amusement I felt when reading that Mercedes-Benz engineers couldn't believe that some Americans considered the number of cupholders in a car. I've gotten coffee to go many times; I was interested to see first-hand that nobody did, at least in the 5th arrondissement. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't lived, Lova Falk.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(I don't drink coffee.) I read "the Greek-key-bordered [coffee] cup that seems mandatory in New York cop shows" as something they brought from the station and filled from a Thermos bottle. —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just cop shows. Agent Gibbs (Mark Harmon) on NCIS seems to drink about 5 super-size coffees every episode (OK, he's a sort of cop). It might explain his super-demanding nature. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Greek-key cup is a fixture at the hundreds of little delis in Manhattan. I'm sure that in real life, lots of people have their own ceramic cup that they fill from the office coffee maker (Brun, Mr. Coffee, whatever), but these iconic paper cups are as ubiquitous as loud people on cell phones. (The link, the first hit I found for "new york deli coffee," is for a ceramic replica of the cup that the blogger claims has more than 180 million paper replicas per year... kind of like the ceramic Starbuck's grande mug I have myself.) As for consumption, my S.O. used to work with a guy who began his day with two Starbuck's ventes -- in other words, 40 ounces of coffee. --- OtherDave (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the Greek-key paper cup in my mental image is mostly brown. —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Credit Crunch/Toxic Debt/Financial Black Holes - Solution?

This may sound naive coming from one who knows nothing about high-finance (hey, does that qualify me to become a master-of-the universe?). But, seriously, I seem to recall that whenever some 3rd World country is unable to service (pay back) it's international loans, and begins to default on the interest accruing on them, the International Monetary Fund or The World Bank always come running to the rescue and always manage to eradicate the original debt in order to allow the defaulting country to continue to exist in the international trading environment without slipping into the control of some gun totin' despot. So that being the case for a 3rd world economy, why can't the same rules apply for the rest of the world (USA, UK, France, Germany, Iceland etc., etc.) when times get tough - like now ???92.21.71.121 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, becuase the United States funded most of it, and is now such a large debtor nation it would be impractical for others to forgive the debt without the whole global economic system crashing down. Although, if one takes the extreme view of some who posit a totally cashless society, that could be the final solution - just wipe out everyone's debt and start over with a totally global system. Although that could lead to what Christians term the Mark of the Beast, wherein allegiance must be made to a global ruler (which is really [[ruled by satan, with nobody allowed to buy or sel without it. (Edit - can't believe there's no article on cashless society - I'd start one, but the idea has been out there for so longthere must be a reason - vandalism or something - that there must be a reason why there isn't.) 209.244.30.221 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can tell that article name has no history attached to it at all. Nothing has ever been there. Probably you should do some searching around with alternate names to make sure there's isn't indeed an article that's just called something else--but otherwise, as long as you've got some good sources to put together, you should feel free to start one. --Masamage ♫ 20:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There will be plenty of child articles of cashless society, but I too would encourage you to put a start together, if you're so inclined. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried, nbut when i submitted, the screen went blank - it was so little I think I'll just let someone else - though I had a couple decent cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.221 (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's when the government can't pay its debts - at the moment I don't believe any government is in serious financial difficulties, it's private banks with the problems. If the government of a major economy starts defaulting on its debts then a) we're all in big trouble (a lot of the maths that governs the financial world is based on the assumption that US Treasury Bonds and similar from other major nations are "risk free" - if that assumption proves incorrect, everything would break down and we could well end up with a barter economy) and b) the WMF or World Bank may well step in if they can afford to do so - the numbers involved may well be out of their reach, though. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to Dislike the USA

What are some of the popular European (or nations) reasons why they do not like the USA? I am looking anything specific or broad or blatantly prejudiced.... thanks! --Anilmanohar (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk is not a forum, please stop adding to this thread

We all have guns and are eager to use them. --Masamage ♫ 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Years of ugly ugly ugly US foreign policy - Chile, Vietnam, Iraq & many many other countries. Given your foreign policy, the degree of arrogance on the part of your leaders & ignorance on the part of your population. Stuff like that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally all of the high values of the USA that Europeans might actually agree with or value go out the window when it's not in US interest. Democracy? Not if you are interested in being Communist. Self-determination? Not if it is in our interest that you are ruled by another. Free trade? Not if it hurts our farmers. International law? Not if the US feels threatened. And so on. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use the reference desk to post diatribes or start arguments. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you secifically mean the USA, it's people, or both? 92.21.71.121 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Both. --Anilmanohar (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When abroad and working with European-looking colleagues, the incessant ranting about Baseball/American Football/US Politics/US TV shows, as if we knew anything about them. How would you lot like it if we went on incessantly about Football/Rugby/Gordon Brown/Eastenders?!? It doesn't happen, does it? We Brits have the common decency to try to find some common ground when we work together with you lot abroad.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of geographic knowledge. It's partly a stereotype and partly true. Earlier this year I had the great privilege of meeting a large number of Americans, and while most of them weren't nearly as dim or arrogant as the media often makes Americans out to be--in fact, most of them were very smart, polite, and culturally aware (then again, it was a high-end academic university event, so I don't know how representative of the general American population it was), in many cases, their knowledge of basic Canadian geography was woeful--and the event took place IN Canada, and had to do with international politics. And I do mean BASIC geography--one girl not only didn't know where Alberta was, she'd never even heard of it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Canadian who doesn't know what you're talking about if you say, for instance, "Ohio."

Again, I think this perception of Americans may be more of a stereotype than truth, propagated largely by the media (such as Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans) and the fact that nobody ever comes back from the US saying "I met this normal, intelligent American," but we always bring back the stories about the hilariously clueless ones, but you asked why the US is disliked, not why they're dislikeable. And that's a big one, at least in Canada. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As an ugly American, I find this "Lack of geographic knowledge" embarrassingly true sometimes, but also a distortion of the truth due to others' fascination with the U.S. Here's a test for Canadians: can you locate the state of Guerrero on a map? Do you even know what country it is in? So, the fact you can locate Ohio may reflect your fascination with the U.S., whereas some (most?) Americans' inability to locate Alberta may be an egalitarian inability to memorize the states of all the countries in N. America, much less the world. --Scray (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I'd say that off the top of my head I could locate about half a third of the Mexican states. I wonder how many Canadians could do as well? Very randomly, once, as a tourist in British Columbia, I helped an immigrant answer geography questions for a Canadian-citizenship review test. I knew the three Maritime Provinces, IIRC. I can't imagine she had any idea I was an American. Darkspots (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC) correction added after I glanced at a map of Mexico.

Keep in mind, the US border Mexico, Canada doesn't. A person would generally be expected to know more about countries that border theirs than countries that don't. --Tango (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can't name any of the states in Greenland. :-D --Scray (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, I (American) can only name one or two Mexican states but would not be able to point them out on a map. Although, I know a bit more about Canadian geography. This comes, I feel, from the fact that I live so close to Canada. So by saying that as an American I should know just as much about Canada as I do about Mexico, just because the U.S. borders both countries, is not a good rule of thumb. It also depends on where within the States that the particular American lives. Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not buying it, Tango. There are only three countries on the continent! Canada and Mexico are important trading partners, and because of NAFTA, goods can ship between the two countries by rail or truck without transshipment. I'd hazard a guess that the average Canadian knows as much about Mexican geography as the average resident of a U.S. state that doesn't border Mexico, that is to say basically zero. Canadians know a lot about the geography of the U.S. because America is extremely culturally and economically important to them. What Canadians are angry about is that Americans have the same order of magnitude of knowledge about Canada that Canadians do about Mexico, and that's because Canada is roughly as important to America as Mexico is to Canada, if you follow me. The anger is understandable but not rational. Darkspots (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said that. I said an an American should, on average, know more about Mexico than a Canadian knows about Mexico. I never said anything about knowing the same amount about different bordering countries. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's this "should" business that I don't buy. What I'm saying is, borrowing Scray's argument, is that Canadians should know a fair amount about Mexico, quite a bit more than they do, in general. And Americans should know more about Canada than they do. I hazard a guess that there are also people who think British people should know more about France, as much as, say, the Belgians do. What all this ignores is that most people don't seek out knowledge about things that aren't in their direct interest to learn. Belgians need to know more about France than British people do, let's just say; I bet they watch a lot of French TV, whereas British people produce a lot of really watchable TV on their own. This "should" about what Americans know ignores reality, and I argue that the anger that comes from it kinda ignores reality, too. Darkspots (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a Brit, I have my own theories as to why America can be disliked. Now, in general, I'd say that we like America, but there are certain things we dislike. First off, I think we see in you what we really don't want to become - a nation built on corruption and lies. Your politicians are almost without exception crooked, and there is so much sleaze it's unbelievable. You appear obsessed with inconsequential details about your politicians that you neglect to mention their policies. You are overly-patriotic - do you really need a flag every 100 yards to remind you what country you're in? - and also very blinkered in the view that america is number one which means that the bad things about america will never change.

But still, we do like America in a way, and maybe it's not that we don't like america or americans, it's just that we see what's bad while you don't. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a few reasons - some valid, some not so; a coupla main ones i can think of are...
- dodgy foreign policy (as mentioned previously and pretty self-explanatary)
- jealousy - we like to do it to our own in New Zealand a bit - its called Tall poppy syndrome - knock-down whomever is on top
- barbara streisand
Boomshanka (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be hatred based on guilt for the imbalance of large number of Americans killed fighting for the liberation of France and Europe and defense of UK in WW1 and WW2, versus small number of European deaths fighting to liberate America from some foreign occupation (By the way thanks, France for assistance in the American Revolution). Edison (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Geographical ignorance is often cited. But I wonder if one slip necessarily means utter ignorance of all things. The US did get to the Moon, after all, and no other country has, so they're hardly a race of dumb-arses. We Australians are amused when we're confused with Austria, complimented on how well we speak English for a non-English speaking people, or asked about kangaroos hopping down the main streets of our capital cities (Canberra excepted; it's true, I've seen them, although it's not an every-day occurrence). The tendency is to think "Yeah, well he's an American, what would he know". But ask an Australian where their own territories Christmas Island or the Cocos Islands are, and they'll probably point northish, whereas they're north-west of most places in Australia, and due west from Darwin. I myself am constantly surprised to find the Philippines to the north of Western Australia on maps. I got it into my head at a young age that they're to the north-east of Queensland, and seemingly nothing will shake that core belief. We criticise American speech patterns, but ask most Australians to pronounce a word of more than 2 syllables and they just go to pieces, and also take an inordinate pride in such incapacity. A lot of Aussies say how much they hate American TV shows, products, cultural influences and manners, while chomping on their KFC or McDonalds, watching Ugly Beddy, and talking on their "cell" - yes, all at the same time. I think a part of the syndrome is Americans' openness about the things they don't know, which makes them appear to be more ignorant than other people. Other people will often pretend to have knowledge they don't have or obfuscate to avoid or change the question - but they still don't know. And you've only got to watch "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" to see how profoundly, embarrassingly, shockingly ignorant some Australians are (but, shamefully, they get handsomely rewarded for this). Watch "The Einstein Factor" and you'll got the completely opposite picture, but the people who criticise American ignorance have probably never even heard of this program because they refuse to watch the ABC on principle; the principle that "it's boring". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah... Edison has reminded me of what it is that annoys me about Americans... their belief that they single handedly defeated Germany and Japan in WWII at great cost to themselves, when in fact the number of american casualties was a small proportion of the total allied casualities. Astronaut (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Try to actually read what I wrote, and not what you expected. I noted the imbalance between Americans who died to liberate Europe when the Germans twice marched in and took over in the 20th century, and the small number of Europeans who died liberating America when some foreign power occupied our cities and abused our citizens. Maybe we have just been lucky not to need much help in that way. Or maybe it was the ineptitude of European politicians and armed forces. (And by the way , thanks to Pulaski, Von Steuben, deGrasse , Lafayette, and Kosciusko for their assistance in the American Revolution. Many persons, institutions, streets and towns were named after them). Edison (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We named our highest mountain after Kosciuszko, but misspelled it for over 150 years. Ask an average Aussie who this Kosciuszko guy was, and you'll get a blank stare. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The world wars are ancient history to most people now and I don't suppose many people know or care how many died from whatever country. Personally I'd give the Russians most of the credit for defeating Hitler - I'm not too keen on the Russian state but I really don't think that is due to any guilt trip. I'm not too keen on the US as a government either but at least it's better than Russia or China. And from all three as from anywhere else there are jerks and rednecks and there are people who are fun and there are people who are very nice. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While Astronaut may have misinterpreted what Edison wrote I think Astronaut and Dmcq make good points. I think a lot of Europeans don't agree with the idea that seems common in America that the US saved Europe in one or both world wars nor that they should be forever grateful for it and not criticise America or it's foreign policy when they disagree with it. I think many would agree that the US was a big help, but many would also feel that, for example in WW2, Germany screwed itself when it decided to fight the war on two fronts and couldn't take the UK and that it's definitely not certain Europe would have fallen were it not for the US as seems to be common in the US. And regardless of how important the US's contribution was, many would feel that it doesn't mean Europe should be a good little boy and just go along with everything and anything America says. While I'm sure many Americans don't have this view, definitely you hear it a lot whenever anyone criticised the US someone comes along and talks about the US saving Europe and/or the world and you really hear an American challeging this view so it overides whatever anyone else in America believes. Plus there is the little stuff like the stupid Freedom Fries nonsense. This is the sort of stuff people expect from Asian, African and Islamic countries who are still growing up in the world and establishing their place and have a population and politicians that can be somewhat immature at times not from a vibrant developed democracy which is the only superpower in the world. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who would have won if X had been different is a game played mainly by alternate-history SF types. Yes, U.S. casualties were proportionately lower than some other combatants -- as a percentage of population, more Canadians died in World War II. (Many Americans have no idea Canade entered the war two years before the U.S.) On the other hand, as a vast nation virtually unscathed by direct attack, other than the sucker punch of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. truly was, as Roosevelt said, the arsenal of democracy. At one point, even though the tonnage of ships sunk by Germany was still on the rise, the tonnage of ships launched was rising even faster -- meaning the Kriegsmarine couldn't keep up. One joke in Britain was that the only thing keeping the island from sinking under the weight of all the materiel were the barrage balloons.

Wars don't get won only by arsenals, though -- and Americans in particular forget the impact that the Soviet Union had on the war (or the impact that hundreds of thousands of Dodge trucks had on the Red Army).

The isolationist strain in U.S. history makes it easy for Americans to think of the World Wars as other people's problems -- those outmoded Europeans and their nationalism, so different from America's being the shining city on the hill. Occasionally, we in the States realize that we're not the only people around, and not even the smartest. Usually, though, we get over that. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in the US (I'm British) - and I like almost every individual American I meet - you are truly nice, friendly people living in an amazing chunk of the planet. But in large quantities, somehow it all falls apart. Between religion and politics, Americans make some of the worst decisions I've seen anywhere in the world. From the perspective of someone living here in Texas, meeting well intentioned individuals, it's easy to see the good side - but from the perspective of people who only see the actions of an entire nation - there is precious little good to say.

The argument that X defeated Y in support of Z and therefore there should be undying, eternal gratitude to X on behalf of Z and lingering animosity for Y on behalf of both X and Z is anachronistic. After a couple of generations - it's history. My parents were pretty grateful to the Americans for helping out against Germany - but it's not an important point to me anymore, I'm 54 years old and I have a default position of tending to give America the benefit of the doubt and a lingering concern about the rise of Germany and Japan - I don't hate Japanese and Germans at all - but I feel like I have to be somehow careful about discussing the war with them ("Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once - but I think I got away with it!"). My son finds that whole thing somewhere between puzzling and laughable. Sooner or later this ancient stuff has to be forgotten. Black people in America have to stop fretting about slavery because the evil bastards who did that to their ancestors are LONG dead. The Brits have pretty much forgiven the French for that whole Napoleon thing - and the Zulu tribesmen of Africa have pretty much forgiven the Brits for their rampant imperialism. But it cuts both ways just as evil in the past must be forgotten - good things that happened also fade from memory. Americans have to stop relying on the exploits of previous generations to maintain respect in the world and they must make new reasons for the world to like them.

If you are an American between (say) 20 and 40 years old - ask yourself what YOUR generation has done to make Europeans like you? Things like the land-mine treaty and the Kyoto accord, not paying your dues to the United Nations, torturing people in Guantanmo, imprisoning such an insanely large proportion of your population, maintaining the barbarous death penalty, attempting to build a new "Berlin wall" between Mexico and the US rather than solving the illegal immigration problem at it's heart, allowing christian religious fundamentalists to rise up and dominate in so many areas of American culture, breaking the ABM treaty with Russia, failing to take a stand in Georgia, attacking Iraq, failing to work with Pakistan effectively, failing to deal with N.Korea's nuclear weapons research before it was too late and probably doing the same for Iran - failing to do anything about Global Warming (except to disbelieve it) - and now screwing up the financial markets and failing to pass a bill to fix it because someone insulted someone else in a speech at the last moment! (Oh - and making a really terrible knock-off of "The Office" - that's probably the most serious thing...except maybe rap music...oh - and the two sequels to "The Matrix" and the odd numbered "StarTrek" movies.)

It's really quite hard to come up with things that ARE worthy of respect that the US has done within the living memory of most people around the world. There is precious little for the modern world to thank America for - I assure you.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point - I mean, most scifi comes from Canada now. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Europe is populous and prosperous, with modern industries. It should be able to defend itself against forseeable threats as well as the US could defend it. They doubtless learned from the events in the summer of 1940 that either good diplomacy or good military preparedness are needed. In WW2 British soldiers complained that US soldiers in the UK were "overpaid, oversexed, and worst of all over here""The Strand, 1944]. But List of United States military bases shows the US forces are still stationed, presumably paid for by U.S. taxpayers, at four bases in the UK, and numerous bases in other European countries. If they are there to defend Europe, perhaps they should come home and let Europe defend itself. If they are there to support US operations in the Middle East, perhaps that should be handled by the European former colonial rulers of those countries, or European countries who are at least several thousand miles closer to the problem. But then Europeans might hate Americans for being isolationist. Edison (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Large swathes of the populations of the countries which allow the US to set up military bases in them would agree with you, but who wants to piss the US (collective, not individuals) off militarily? 130.88.52.36 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Typical US thing going on about how everyone else should also spend insane amounts of money on the means to kill people. I guess its 'When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. Dmcq (talk)

My comment was actually directed toward the U.S spending less to defend Europe.Europe should make its own decisions about military preparedness. Lower defense spending in Europe as a percentage of GDP allows money for health care, education, rail transportation, and industrial modernization that the U.S. lags behind in. In the 1920's and 1930's the UK, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway and other European countries not allied with the Germans similarly deferred military expenditures, with predictable results. The failing U.S. economy and domestic needs may result in cuts in the U.S. military budget, depending on the results of the fall election. Base closings in the U.S. are unpopular in the states affected. Closing of U.S. bases in Europe and other countries would be quite popular with the U.S. taxpayers, apart from the geopolitical wisdom of such retrenchment from the "Project for the New American Century." Edison (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Baker has really hit the nail on the head. Generally the individuals are fine generous people, but en-masse a pain in the butt.--Artjo (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall this "slam fest" [25] is worthy of any catty U.S. junior high school clique. Edison (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have already made manifest your opinion that America is far superior to the rest of the world. It is an opinion to which I take great exception.

Such statements as "If they are there to support US operations in the Middle East, perhaps that should be handled by the European former colonial rulers of those countries, or European countries who are at least several thousand miles closer to the problem" pretty much answer the OP's question in a nutshell.

Furthermore, talking about "some foreign power [that] occupied [y]our cities and abused [y]our citizens" is disingenuous in the extreme, if you are referring to the American War of Independence. Unless you are Cherokee, Sioux etc, you, as an American citizen, are descended from colonists and/or immigrants. The United States has, to the best of my knowledge, never been "occupied" by "a foreign power". It is a former colony that seceded - a quite different state of affairs. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points: I have freely criticized many misguided U.S. policies at the Ref Desk. Nowhere did I claim the U.S. "is far superior to the rest of the world." Straw man, much? I agree that the U.S. has only been occupied in limited areas for short periods since the Revolution. Quite a bit of U.S. territory was occupied by British forces during the War of 1812. Large parts of Maine were occupied from September 1814 to April 1815. Fort Mackinac, in Michigan, captured by the British in 1812, was held for three years [26] , and Fort Bowyer captured by the British in 1815 at Mobile, Alabama and held for 1 day. I agree that my Native American ancestors were badly treated. I believe that the European powers should provide for their own defense, and should be wary of extending NATO membership, as some European politicians want, to former Soviet block nations so remote that no effective opposition could be presented to Russian incursions in those countries short of threats of nuclear strikes. Edison (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is one helluva conversation, and I'd like to throw another facet into the discussion. (I'm in Minnesota, where "many are cold but few are frozen", btw.) Let's focus just on the ignorance question, and narrow it to geography.

I'd bet that most high-school kids in California couldn't put the east-coast states (or the original 13 colonies, for that matter) into the correct north-to-south order if their lives depended on it. Why? It's a damn big country, Los Angeles to New York is a five-hour-plus flight, and lots of stuff happens.

On the other hand, Germany for instance is about the size of one of our medium-sized states -- Oregon, when I was learning it, probably larger now. Britian is even smaller. I'm sure tracking what's going on in all of England isn't much more difficult than tracking what's going on in Iowa.

There's darn few places in Europe from which you can travel in a (hypothetical) straight line for, say 500mi/800km, and still be in the same country. Alternatively, if you're interested in everything that's happening within a 400-mile radius of yourself, that going to cover parts of multiple countries on the continent, and an equivalent number of states here, depending on where you are east-west. Board a plane in Paris and fly five hours in a straight line, where are you? Nowhere near France, that's for sure.

Both my and my wife's companies have international offices, and when "they" visit "here" for the first time, one of the first reactions is always "Wow, it's so big." Same reaction from our European branches of the family: we took a one-week driving trip with our Danish cousins a couple of years back. Showed them the route on a map when we got back: "is that -all- we saw?"

Now, all of this doesn't justify any of our behaviours, but it might explain part of why some of them exist, and give us another branch for the discussion! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While the UK may have a very small land area, it's population is over 20 times that of Iowa. The US is very big, but large swaths of it are pretty empty. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your point, DaHorsesMouth, how does it gel with the fact that Canadians and Australians, whose countries are comparable in size to the US, know far more about both their own countries and about the rest of the world, than Americans seem to on both scores? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a deplorable ignorance history and geography in many countries,[27] , [28] [29] , not just the U.S.[30]. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (Santayana, 1905). Edison (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Jack: My hypothesis is just that, a thought that crossed my mind about three hours ago. I think it's a factor, that when added to others exacerbates the situation. I still think that the general concept of an "interest horizon" probably has some underlying truth to it; but do I have refdesk-quality facts to back it up? Uhh, no... --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The wreckless mouths of the Democrat Party would likely make anybody hate us. Indeed, they're always creating disaster. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The RefDesks are not a discussion forum. I've collapsed this thread. Please don't add more to it. Franamax (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Index update for Category:Lists of neighborhoods in U.S. cities

Friends,

This is more in the way of a suggestion/request. The Wikipedia index page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities is very useful, so far as it goes. However, along with it needing to be cleaned up itself ("Neighborhoods in San Francisco," for example, is alphabetized under "N"), literally dozens of cities with Wikipedia pages listing neighborhoods in their cities are not cited in this overall index page - including some fairly major ones (Atlanta and Pittsburgh come to mind).

If anyone could take the time to make this page more comprehensive - or even suggest how I could do it (though someone who knows what they're doing would be a lot faster), I'd be most grateful. There's no interpretation or factual research or adjucation needed here - it's a simple, mechanical index with links.

Geov Parrish, Seattle (email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.191.122 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly, this is the reference desk - we answer difficult questions about life, the universe and everything - we don't deal with requests or comments about Wikipedia articles. May I suggest the Talk: page for that article - or perhaps the "Village Pump" discussion area. Secondly, this is Wikipedia - and almost all requests for changes are answered with WP:SOFIXIT - in other words, if you don't like it, change it! That's how this place works - you can just dive in and make the changes yourself! Thirdly: Category's are *NOT* intended to be anything other than an alphabetized list of article titles. If all of the other articles are things like "New York Neighborhoods" - but this one is "Neighborhoods of San Francisco" - then you should probably rename the article itself to match all of the others...you do that by going to the page in question and clicking on the "move" tab - although I vaguely recall that you might have to be logged in with a proper account name to do that. If, on the other hand, the article is named appropriately - but just happens to alphabetize unfortunately - then you can add something to the [[Category:XXXXX]] text (which is probably at the top or bottom of that article) to make it read [[Category:XXXX|YYYY]] that causes the article to appear in category XXXX with it's normal name - but alphabetized as if it was named YYYY. Hence, you could change [[Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities]] to read: [[Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities|San Francisco]] - so it'll appear under 'S' instead of 'N'. SteveBaker (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(after e/c) Hey, that anyone could be you - feel free to take a shot at it! You can see here how I fixed the sorting for San Francisco, and that line shows you exactly how to add an article into a category. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here, or maybe a better place would be on my talk page (so we don't clutter up this page). Franamax (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And here's an example where I did it for Atlanta. The rest are up to you buddy... :) Franamax (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can give a man a fish...or...

SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

give a fish a bike? just asking --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hide the fish inside the upholstery of his car? Or inside a wall of his house? Among the nastier of tricks to play... Franamax (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Nastia was a trick. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

October 1

Cheque encashment

How does cheque encashment work with crossed cheques? How does the cashing service get the money? (I'm particularly interested in the UK system if it varies.) --Tango (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean how do cheque payments work in general in the UK, then APACS is what you need to read (then follow the external links because that article is not as informative as I had hoped). Crossing a cheque is supposed to ensure that it is only paid into the recipient's bank account rather than being turned into cash.

If you mean a "cashing service", as in a non-bank company that pays out cash - minus a hefty fee - against a customer's cheque, I believe the cashing service is "selling" the customer some cash, and the cheque payment is handled like any other cheque payment for a product or service. Of course, the customer needs to provide a cheque guarantee card or sufficient ID to satisfy whatever rules the cashing service sets. The hefty fee the cashing service charges, goes to profit and probably fills in for any outstanding money owing if the cheque bounces and all legal (and illegal??) means to recover the money have been exhausted. Astronaut (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what I'm talking about. As I understand it, cheque encashment is where a cashing service provides cash in exchange for a cheque written by a 3rd party. It's used by people without bank accounts or if you need the cash straight away and can't wait for the cheque to clear. I would have thought that crossing a cheque (as is done in advance for pretty much all cheques are in the UK) would make that impossible, but apparently it isn't. --Tango (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of my previous answer A crossed cheque (needs better explanation in that redir) is deposit-only, so it technically cannot be exchanged at an encashment dealer. Like many other things though, the rule is observed in the breach. If everything works out OK, it's all good. If there was a problem, the cheque-writer would have recourse. In a recent Canadian case, a home-reno customer wrote the contractor a cheque then called his bank and stopped payment. The contractor cashed the cheque at an encashment service and vanished. The cash service was able to sue the cheque-writer under some weird bills-of-exchange law - but if he'd put the two crossed lines on the front of the cheque, he would have been successful in his defense. I imagine the same thing would apply in the UK, since we share common law. Franamax (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Was the cheque written out to the contractor (in name) or to the bearer/cash? Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was written to the contractor. But since it was uncrossed, the contractor was free to sell it on, and the liability to pay went with it. It sounded pretty unfair to me, but there was that obscure provision of the Bills of Exchange Act or something that meant if the customer wanted to restrict the cheque to bank-cashing only, he should have put two vertical lines on it. First I ever heard of a "crossed cheque" which apparently is utterly common in the UK. There's also the issue of the guy writing the contractor a cheque, presumably knowing he was going to immediately stop payment - that's skirting with fraud, if he had a problem, he should have just refused to pay. Franamax (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, as I understand it there are three (or more) types of crossed cheques although the precise meaning may vary depending on your jurisdiction. For example here in NZ, a crossed cheque without anything written [31] is payable to an account only but any account no matter who you write is supposed to receive it. In this case, I presume you will be liable to anyone who legally receives the cheque. In other words, if you you give it to someone who gives it to someone (e.g. a cheque encashment service), you'd probably be liable to the third party regardless of what dispute you have with the second party. (You agreed to pay money, the third party accepted that and agreement from the second party in good faith, the fact you no longer want to pay money to the second party is not the concern of the third party, that's between you and the second party.) Clearly if the cheque was stolen, things would be different and since it is paid to an account, it would hopefully be easier to track down the person who stole it. If a third party received the stolen cheque, you probably wouldn't be liable since the third party accepted a stolen cheque it's their responsibility although if you didn't cancel the cheque in time, you'd have to try and get your money back from the third party. Then there is a non negotiable crossed cheque. This cheque can only be paid to the person named unless the person named signs it over to another person. I suspect things would mostly be the same here if a third party accepts a cheque (you'd be liable) that was signed over to them by the second party. The primary difference would be that if it's stolen, the person who stole it can't bank it in nor can they transfer it to a third party. You'd be entitled to the money back from your bank if it were paid out. Then there is a non-transferable crossed cheque which in NZ is now the same thing as AC Payee only [32]. This can't be transferred to a third party so your bank should never pay the money out to a non-named party and if they do, you'd be entitled to get your money back. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

TBH, in the UK I'd never heard of a company accepting a third-party cheque like that. However, doing my research properly, I find that Cash Converters in the UK do provide a third-party cheque cashing service (see this link for info), but there's a lot of checking to be done - verify the cheque, show three forms of ID, sign the back of the cheque, and so on.

I just noticed they also offer loans against your car at a staggering 437% interest - yikes!! Astronaut (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Loans at ludicrous interest rates are associated with those sorts of businesses here in the US as well (note the lead photo advertising both). --Random832 (contribs) 21:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is "checque cheque encashment" anything like "check cashing?" Edison (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to "criticize" British spellings, it'd help if you bothered to type them correctly. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspelled an unfamiliar word. But I cannot find the criticism of which you complain. It was a reasonable question which led to a much needed explanation of a practice of drawing lines on checks which is unknown in the U.S. This is not a private chat room for people from one English speaking country, but an international encyclopedia, so sometimes clarifications are necessary and useful. Edison (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cheque encashment" sounds like the U.S.'s check cashing -- in the specific sense of check-cashing services that you find mainly in low-income neighborhoods, sometimes in the same place as the payday loan businesses. These are surrogates for banks. Middle-class people have bank accounts; a good chunk of the lower class doesn't, and some of them don't want one.

My brother once worked for an armored-car company and spend long days in one of their vehicles parked outside the office of the state employment commission. Essentially, he and his partner sat in the truck, cashing unemployment checks -- presumably for people who lacked a bank account.

I'm guessing that a "crossed check" is a check made out to A, signed by B, which A then endorses or "signs over" to C -- so C wants to cash a check made out to A. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossed cheques (checks) are a British weirdness.

• In the US, if I write a check to Joe, only Joe can cash it - unless he "endorses" it or "signs it over" to George by signing the check on the back somewhere. In fact, when you put a check into the bank, you have to endorse it over to them in order that they can turn it in to the bank it's written against.

• In the UK, THEORETICALLY, Joe can just give the cheque to George and George can just cash it without any special endorsement by Joe - UNLESS the person who wrote the cheque "crosses" it. This is done simply by drawing two large, parallel vertical or diagonal lines across the front of the cheque - to "cross" the lines with the amount and the recipient's name. A "crossed" cheque can only be cashed by the person it's made out to (Joe in this case)...there is no possible way for George to cash it instead. Joe can also take my (uncrossed) cheque and cross it himself so nobody but he can cash it - which is safer for him.

Now - clearly, you don't want cheques that are going through the mail to pay your electricity bill getting stolen and cashed by just anyone - which CAN happen with uncrossed cheques because they are essentially just like cash. So crossing your cheques is a VERY common and important thing to want to do. So common in fact that most banks issue pre-crossed cheques by default. My British Barclays Bank cheque book has two vertical lines printed across the front of every cheque - if I want "uncrossed cheques" I have to order them specially. So this whole "crossing" thing has rather passed into the history books. These days, pretty much all cheque books issued to individuals are "crossed" by default.

I vaguely recall that there was a time (I believe in Ireland) maybe 20 years ago(?) when the banks were on strike for a protracted period and people used uncrossed cheques just like cash. You'd be paid with an uncrossed cheque - you'd keep it and use it to pay some bill and get another uncrossed cheque as "change" - cheques got handed around all over the place and when the banks reopened, everything got sorted out.

Sadly, this doesn't help our OP. I have no clue how cheque-cashing services can do what they do - probably they have to make special arrangements to be treated like bank branches.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The proofs of id and address and the process for first-time users described here, for example, sound very similar to the process of opening an account at a high-street bank. So maybe the cheque cashing company in effect opens an account in your name, and makes you a cash loan of, say, 98% of the face value of the cheque, which leaves the account overdrawn. When the cheque clears they take 2% of the funds as commission and pay the rest into your account with them, which clears the overdraft. So, in effect, the cheque has been deposited in an account in your name - you just don't realise it. (I haven't found a source that actually describes how this works, so this is speculation !) Gandalf61 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd need to look under "Bills of Exchange". An uncrossed cheque (which is the norm in Canada) is a bill of exchange whose value is the face value. It can be exchanged for valuable consideration - if you write a cheque to me, I can endorse the back of it and sell it to someone else. A crossed cheque is different in that you restrict the value to be only vested in the payee, who can only exchange it with a bank. It is an old British concept, is part of Canadian law but not well known. It's probably in some US statute from 1720 or something too, but completely unheard of. Interesting cultural cross-overs in this thread... Franamax (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is some analogy in US law, if you have JSTOR access: [33]. Franamax (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My chequebook is not crossed (I'm in NZ) and I did not make a special request. Also the existance of different types of crossing that I mentioned above seems to hold (or at least once did) in quite a number of Commonwealth countries e.g. South Africa, Canada, Singapore, India, and of course the UK. Also see [34]. So in other words, before talking about crossed cheques, we really need to define what sort of crossed cheques we are talking about as they have different effects. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm primarily asking about the UK, and I believe almost all cheques in the UK are pre-crossed with "Account Payee" (at least, mine are!), so let's go with those. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Job

What are the easiest high paying jobs around? As in one that you use the least amount of effort for money gained. (Preferably those that don’t require a uni degree). cheers 203.202.144.223 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor. ...oops...sorry...was reading upside down. :-D --Scray (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Being a socialite and endorsing lots of things would probably do it. It's not a "job" that's easy to get into, though. Some other celebrity jobs would also qualify. Most other highly paid jobs require either very hard work or significant skill or talent. --Tango (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably no longer true, but some city traders supposedly don't have a degree and get a six-figure salary and similarly large bonuses. Astronaut (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) (edit)... come to think of it, that business is very cutthroat and I guess the work itself take a lot of effort. Astronaut (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TANSTAAFL my friend. If there was a perfect job that anyone could get, required minimal effort, needed no prior training or experience, and paid you enough to afford an affluent lifestyle, we'd all have it. People get paid because other people place a value on the services they provide. Unfortunately, providing no valuable service doesn't often get paid very much. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My friend works for a local counsel (in Australia) he gets paid $35 an hour to stand still holding a stop sign. On occasions he may have to turn that sign to the "slow" side to allow the infrequent traffic to move through. There has to similar jobs to this one??? 203.202.144.223 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A nice illustration that "hard" is subjective. Sounds perfectly dreadful. --Scray (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Standing still and holding a sign for hours on end does sound rather hard. Legs get sore, your mind wanders, you get bored easy. Plus, essentially your standing in the middle of the road; so if the 17 year old playing with her cell phone isn't paying attention, you become her new hood ornament. That kind of hazard sounds rather bad too. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Package subprime mortgages into collateralized securities and sell them to foreign investors! Oh wait, that's been done. Plasticup ^T/C 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Marry well!--Artjo (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

...and Divorce early.

Seriously - the law of supply and demand operates here. Economics 101: If a job is easy and well paid and requires no special skills or training - then large numbers of people will apply for it. The potential employer will realise that if he offered less pay - then there would still be plenty of applicants. Hence the pay falls to the point where either the legal "minimum wage" statute kicks in - or nobody will do the work for that little money. It follows that the only way to get a high paying job that's not difficult or physically taxing is to have a rare set of abilities. Unless you are biologically different (maybe an extra arm or something) - or were born a savant or a 'natural' baseball pitcher, concert pianist or something - you're pretty much forced into learning a skill set that is in demand - yet few others have. Of course when such niche jobs appear, and if the training is easy - then more people will rush to learn that skill and again the pay involved will settle down to "what the market can stand". So I don't think you'll find what you're looking for. In the end, your best bet is (yes, I know you've heard this before!): Work hard in school, go to college - learn a skill that you enjoy exercising - and you'll get a job that you'll enjoy doing. My job is interesting - challenging but not painfully so - and I'd probably pay them to let me do it if they didn't pay me! But to get there I needed a modicum of natural ability - a decent degree and a lot of years doing less interesting jobs to build up the experience I needed to get here. But I now have a fairly rare skill-set, honed to perfection - and I get well paid jobs that I love doing. But (as Jayron32 said) TANSTAAFL - it takes effort to get there. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That supply and demand control the price of labor is absolutely true—what happens though, is that the market only works efficiently for jobs in private enterprise that don't have to deal with strong unions. Your $35/hour road-crew buddy works for the government, and probably somebody knew somebody else to get him the gig, or he got lucky. If something changes, or he gets too comfortable and screws up (oversleeping too often most likely), he'll be out on the street with zero skills. Something to keep in mind when selecting careers—look for something that potentially leads somewhere else that you also want to be. Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Realtor (Estate Agent to my non-NorthAmerican friends)? A few months training is usually enough, and over here a single sale will net you many thousands of dollars. Unfortunately now may not be the best time to get into it...DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't they have pretty low salaries, though? If you don't get a decent number of sales, you get very little money. Getting lots of sales requires hard work. --Tango (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's a particularly good time to become a real estate agent in many Anglosphere developed countries... Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen jobs which were easy, high paying and for which there were no special qualifications such as education or special training. They were jobs in a privately owned factory occupied by sons of the owner, who were amiable enough but lazy and lacking in ambition. They could come in when they felt like it and do a little undemanding work, for very high rates of pay. In extreme cases, it is not even necessary to show up. Businesses and local government sometimes have similar jobs for family members of political leaders and their cronies. The only requirement for getting such a job would be to be related to or friends with the right people. Edison (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, prostitution. No need for a uni degree and well paid considering the amount of work you have to put in. Legal in some countries. Also horrendous, imho, but having fun while working was not part of the question. Lova Falk (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian has seemed to have discovered an easy, well-paying job. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Socialite was my answer right at the top, it's not an easy "career" to get into, though. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bed tester --132.216.22.163 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Going around to yard sales, buying a whole bunch of electronic crap and collectables for next to nothing, and then selling it all on eBay. I reccommend a BlackBerry or similar device so that you'll know what the market is before you buy, however. Wait a miunte, why am I telling you my secrets?! :) GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one that makes money, but isn't reccomendable because you can lose more money than you make, is doing illegal stuff (examples: stealing, scamming, selling drugs, blackmale, but don't actually do any of that, I'm just joking). Of course, I'll report you on the spot if you do it on the internet! :P GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In many countries, these aren't exactly easy jobs, particularly if you want to actually make money and not get rich... Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While you can make a lot of money buying things and selling them on ebay, I don't think you'll make much without working hard at it. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Moats for fire control

Are moats ever built solely or primarily to control wildfire? NeonMerlin 05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The principle of creating a firebreak in areas prone to wildfires is common. The idea is to create zones of unburnable areas to stop the spread of wildfires. The most common method is to use a controlled burn to pre-burn an area, thus when the wildfire comes through, it reaches an area whose fuel has already been consumed, and thus cannot spread. However, digging a wide ditch (which is essentially all a moat is) appear to be common as well. See the link above on firebreak... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean a water-filled moat, Google searching on the likely keyword combinations didn't turn up anything useful. There are several problems inherent in creating such a firebreak. First, where do you get the water to fill it? Wildfires are common at dry times of the year, when water is likely to be in short supply on the ground. The fires spread effectively because the forest is dry. Second, how do you keep the water in? All that dry, thirsty soil means that you'll be left with (at best) a slightly muddy ditch if you don't line your moat with something relatively waterproof. That's going to cost you. Third, you don't get that much extra effectiveness in stopping the fire by digging and filling a moat compared to the much faster process of simply clearing the ground ahead of the wildfire. (Width of non-flammable terrain is much more important than depth—wind will carry the fire easily across a narrow crevice, water-filled or not.) Fourth, it's difficult to bring heavy ditchdigging equipment up into the hills.

I can see a moat being used for cosmetic reasons to protect certain high-value, small-area features, but it's just not a worthwhile strategy for fighting a wildfire. In principle, a moat of moderate size and with proper waterproofing could also be used as a reservoir for a building's fire-suppression equipment, to encourage a wildfire to pass around the structure. I don't know of any examples off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't tried it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Little House on the Prairie (not the most academic of sources, but at least based on first-hand memories) has a homesteader ploughing a furrow around his house, then starting a small fire just outside the furrow, as protection against wildfire. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a basic firefighting technique, variously known as a backfire, backburn, or burnout. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love

The section Shakespeare_in_Love#Historical_accuracy says that the movie has several comic anachronisms, including a mug marked "A present from Stratford-on-Avon"; Shakespeare leaping into a ferry and saying "Follow that boat!"; Queen Elizabeth I remarking "Have a care with my name or you will wear it out". Can someone please explain to me why these are anachronisms. 192.8.211.11 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

With the first one, decorated mugs, plates etc for the tourist market did not become the fashion until - well, I don't know exactly, but I'd be surprised if it was any earlier than around the 1850s. Stratford didn't become a tourist attraction until the 19th century or later, and there would have been no mugs of that kind - or maybe no mugs at all - back in Shakespeare's day. "Follow that car" came into vogue after the arrival of, you guessed it, the motor car. It's a well-known movie cliche for someone hopping into a taxi and having the driver take him wherever the car he's following goes. I'm not saying nobody ever used that form of words in Shakespeare's day, but in the sense they were using it, it's a 20th century invention, and thus anachronistic to apply it to the 16th or the 17th. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Stoppard's well known for his affection for Shakespeare, and so the film's screenplay is in someways a loving, playful bouquet. Another anachronism has young Will consulting a person who's clearly a shrink, dressed in Elizabethan garb. Will's got writer's block, and gets a potion to help dispel it. People in the 1500s no doubt had mental illness, and sometimes talked with others about it, but the format is clearly a reference to our own time.

Again, Geoffrey Rush's character is based loosely on Philip Henslowe, whose "diaries" are an important source of information about the Elizabethan theater. In the film, handbills eventually appear with a Hollywood-like lead-in (Philip Henslowe presents a Rose Theater production, a King's Men play... sorry, couldn't find an image of the handbill). This is not how plays were promoted in the 1500s, though promoted they were. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Just as a note, the "talking method" of psychiatry—with an analyst and funny chair—did not originate until the very late 19th century.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"That's my name, don't wear it out" is most likely a pretty recent phrase (though I don't know for sure). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, we have very little on the history of commemorative items. However, from watching the Antiques Roadshow, I'm sure I remember seeing rare examples of plates commemorating events - usually coronations - from the late 17th century. Whether this trade was in existence in Shakespeare's time, and whether it extended to other items, I don't know. As I understand it, the Western practice of bringing back souvenirs from a trip really dates from the Grand Tour, so probably originated at a similar time. Warofdreams talk 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A subject well overdue for an article, methinks. Any takers? (Anyone who claims the Ref Desk doesn't earn its stripes in identifying gaps in our articles doesn't know what they're talking about.) -- JackofOz (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

An article on what, commemorative souvenirs? —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Devotional medals and pilgrim badges were probably common in the middle ages. Though few would probably say "a souvenir from Canterbury" or anything like that they would have an image of a saint which would identify where it was from and would probably be more effectively in those less literate times. Some small place like Stratford-on-Avon would not have any tourist or pilgrim trade at that time. meltBanana 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Tamfang, that sort of thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of commemorative items from Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's wedding, I don't know if there were any for the Queen's coronation or not. Perhaps the wedding was the first real commemorative period? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Robbing a bank

If someones robs a bank, hides the money, get caught and don't give the money back, may he keep the money? I am assuming that the law will not live you in jail indefinitely and you could have spent the money... Mr.K. (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll initially have been convicted for robbery. If on release you start spending the loot, you open yourself to new charges along the lines of handling stolen goods. So no, getting to the end of your robbery sentence does not mean you can enjoy the loot without further legal difficulties. This question is related to the concept of double jeopardy, but since the offences are distinct, I don't think that concept applies in this circumstance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy that explanation. That just begs the question: What happens if he goes to jail for robbery - comes out, spends some of the money - gets charged with handling stolen goods and does MORE jail time - THEN what happens when he comes out and tries to spend more of the money? He certainly can't be charged with handling the same stolen goods again - because that certainly would be double-jeopardy. So does he get to keep it after two jail terms? I don't think so - so I think this explanation is wrong.

Worse still - what if the Statute of Limitations kicks in when the person is in jail? Under those circumstances - he can't be charged with handling stolen goods when he comes out because that crime happened too long ago. So what happens then? That's why you need the "Proceeds of Crime" act. But even without that - the money still legally belongs to the person it was stolen from (or perhaps their insurance company) - the crime didn't somehow transfer the ownership to the criminal. Therefore if the robber does reveal that he has the loot after he's done his jail time - and even after the statute of limitations has run out - then he surely can't simply spend it, legally and openly. It hasn't somehow magically become "his money" - he has to give it back, right? The only question is under what law do you sue him to make him give it to you? You need the law because he may spend all of the loot on a fancy car or something - then you need to allow the person the money was stolen from to sieze (and sell) the car in order to reclaim at least a part of his losses. I believe that the "Proceeds of Crime" act is intended more to prevent the criminal from making a pile of money by selling his story to the press or making money from movie rights or something. SteveBaker (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your P1 is a misreading of double jeopardy. If he robs, is imprisoned and released, spends some loot, is done for handling, imprisoned and released again, and then spends some more, the set of facts changes and he could, would & should be had up for handling again. The Proceeds of Crime acts are, in my understanding, predicated very much more on recovering assets from criminals, than preventing enrichment from selling stories. And that act also removed the obligation to find the actual cash made/acquired by the crime, meaning that many more criminals can be subjected to the sanction. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

arrrghhh, no it doesn't beg the question. --LarryMac | Talk 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The English language is defined by how people use it. "begging the question" is used far more to refer to "requires the question to be asked" than the logical fallacy it used to mean, so the meaning of the phrase has change. Keep up or get out of the way! --Tango (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The formal sense of the term is a subset of the vernacular sense. —Tamfang (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tangentially to this tangent...I have never heard of "vernacular" being used as a synonym for "colloquial". Is that your meaning? reference.com says they are synonyms, so I guess it is correct. Plasticup ^T/C 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The statute of limitations would likely never come into play. Let's say I rob a bank and get put away for fifty years (i.e. for armed robbery, maybe I killed a guy during escape, etc.). I then get out, crack open the safe I've been keeping the loot in and start spending it. I'm now trafficking in stolen goods; the fifty years in the slammer had no bearing on the statute of limitations because the crime occurred after I got out of prison. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think SB has misunderstood the Proceeds of Crimee Act (which exists in many countries). While it's true such laws usually prevent a criminal from selling their story, they are also intended to prevent criminals from profiting from crimes in any fashion. Depending on the country/law, they may for example make it so someone found guilty of a serious crime has to prove their property was obtained legally (which is generally controversial for obvious reasons) or otherwise it will be seized. They aren't of course so much directed at bank robbers (although they would apply) but more at organised crime, drug offences and stuff like that Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In 1996 here in Ireland the "Proceeds of Crime Act" was passed allowing the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize assets believed to be obtained through criminal activity. You don't have to identify the loot itself. The UK passed a law of the same name and scope in 2002. There may be similar laws in other rcountries. Fribbler (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If money had been in storage for, say, 20 years, and you handed over a handfull of it to buy something, it would stand out to the cashier, in contrast to the newer bills other customers presented. It would be necessary to spend it only in small batches. If an attempt were made to deposit it in large amounts at a bank, it would really raise a red flag. It could be sold to a fence in exchange for new money, but the fence would pay an increasingly small fraction of face value as the money got older and trickier to spend. Most of hijacker D.B. Cooper's $200,000 in 20 dollar bills from 1971 was not recovered, but anyone trying to spend the bills now would stand out compared to those spending newer currency. Ironically someone found a portion of the Cooper payoff in 1980, and got to keep a portion of it as a reward. $300 of the money (face value) was auctioned for $37,000 to collectors. In that case, the serial numbers of the loot are on record. Edison (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You might find this story along those lines interesting. --Sean 14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about when patent numbers stopped showing on items

First time user, long time watcher.....:)

I want to know when patent numbers stopped being printed on items. As a child, I always saw patent dates printed, then patent numbers, then it seems it went to just "Pat'd", and then nothing. I have an item with a patent number, no date. It is probably from the 1960's, and I would like to know when numbers stopped appearing on items, or if there is a source for date checking patents by number.

Thanks! Jim Buckmeister2 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For looking up US patents, you can go to uspto.gov. Here's their patent number search and other patent searches. Patents from 1790 to 1975 are only available as TIFF images, and require a TIFF plug-in to view. But if you just want to know the date of the patent, that will be displayed without needing to install a TIFF plug-in. --Bavi H (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually a far easier way to look up US patents is Google Patents. No plug-ins required and they are full-text all the way back. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me RefDesk-ers, but where are our manners? We ought to be congratulating Jim on crossing the boundary from reading to writing! Welcome to the community, sir! Plasticup ^T/C 02:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome across the Rubicon. But I think Bucky was asking then manufacturers got out of the habit of stamping Patnet 4,234,567 on their products. I have no answer, but I would not want him/her disappointed by our inability to understand the intent of the question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we answered the point about "date checking patents by number", which I interpreted as asking about how you can tell the date of a given patent number (which is pretty easy—just plug it into Google Patents and it'll tell you when it was granted, which gives you a time window of when it was in effect). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question re legality of "looking at child porn"

In some jurisdictions even looking at child porn is illegal. How does this work for the police when searching a suspects computer? If they can't look at it how can they tell what it is and prostitute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.119.175 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Include a title with your question. Please make the title meaningful. A word or two that briefly tells us the subject of the question would be very helpful. Questions headed "Question" or "Query" give readers no idea what the question is about. Such titles should be avoided." Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What jurisdictions do you have in mind? Federal legislation in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. 2251, 2252) identifies four types of crime related to child pornography: production, trafficking, receipt, and possession. A law enforcement officer who, for example, locates the child pornography on someone's computer is no more breaking the law than she would be in taking possession of illegal drugs found in the desk drawer while executing an appropriate search warrant.

(I've taken the liberty of changing the title of this question.) --- OtherDave (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the Freudian Slip of the OP, replacing 'prosecute' with 'prostitute' :) He even supplied us with his IP..... :)--ChokinBako (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone searches for it via Google or other search engine, there may be a record of the search having been done from that IP address stored at the websearch host. The site viewed is likely to have a list of all IP addresses which visited the site and what they looked at. If it is saved to the hard drive, it would be very difficult to remove it. Merely deleting a file leaves it on the drive. If it is saved to a CD, nonvolatile thumbdrive or other storage media, that would be physical evidence. If someone clicks on a popup link or a link received via email, looks at an illegal image, and deletes it, the site viewed is stored in the viewing history for the browser on the user's computer, until that is cleared. The computer ref desk could probably advise as to whether clearing the history of sites viewed really removes it. We cannot provide legal advice as to whether merely looking at such images is prosecutable in the many legal systems of the world. Edison (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A cop who chases a speeding car is also speeding, but they're immune from prosecution because they're engaged in the act of apprehending offenders. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They can still get in trouble if they do it dangerously, though. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh of course. I was just making an analogy. A cop who's investigating a child porn racket may unavoidably view illegal images, that's OK. If they go the extra mile and collect their own private database of images, that's not OK, and they'll run the same risk as the offenders they're chasing. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons To Dislike The UK

After the above US-version, I would be interested to know what people who are not from the UK think. We Brits, personally, hate the place and our government, and our 'credit crunch', and housing crisis, and the rest I could write. But, foriegners do not experience it like we do. Anyone want to start?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk is not a forum, please stop adding to this thread

They don't ask original questions? :-) Well, the stereotypical Brit has this kind of class orientation thing that we Canucks find puzzling. Worried about who is more closely related to the ninth earl of Bumwick or whatever. In Canada, we know we're not a huge international power; what pull we have seems to stem from the idea that we're a bunch of nice guys and if we're scolding you, it must mean you're in the wrong, y'know? Brits seem to think they're still a significant power in the world, when that hasn't been the case in half a century. That's not really a dig at Brits, per se, but their government's foreign policy. Oh yeah, and that accent you hear on EastEnders just sounds completely put on and fake. To my ears, even the broadest Texan, Aussie, or Newfie accent at least sounds legitimate, but not those. I still like Brits though! Matt Deres (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

When did the reference desk become a forum? When did personal opinion pass for questions (or answers for that matter)? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We Americans just love the UK. Especially if it is the country our ancestors came to America from before that unpleasantness in the 1770's, and especially if we watch the great programs from the BBC and read novels by British authors. It is the only place I go for foreign vacations. Roger Miller said it best in his 1966 hit "England Swings [35]. Edison (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe certainly has something against us... ask him! --Tango (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I like most things about the UK, but the big exception for me is the utter shemozzle when it comes to Terminology of the British Isles. I know this now includes Ireland as well, but it used to be part of the UK. Is there any other nation on Earth that uses so many names in different contexts? There's no such person as the "Queen of England", but people regularly refer to her that way because saying it any other way is just too hard. There are countless debates here about whether a given notable person is British rather than English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. Can't they all just agree to be British first and whatever else second? That's the recognised demonym for the whole country and it's what's on their passports. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

<rant>Right, I ignored the previous "reasons to dislike the usa" soapbox. But I've got something on this one: 1) Who won the war Germany? Oh really, only 5% of German troops ever fought against a British soldier in world war II. So the answer is probably the Soviet Union. 2) We're all British! Sorry, says who? That "identity" was forged militarily, not by any love for a super national state. Thats one of the reasons we left. 3)....well not much else to be honest, well maybe the famine, Northern Ireland etc. but in general I like the UK. Great place to visit, very much similar to ourselves, and great craic....But anyway Jack, I don't think the people of the UK need to "accept" their Britishness. It was imposed and is voluntary, no? </rant> Fribbler (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, well it seems so far, that only the people who live in the United Kingdom Of Great Britain Northern Ireland actually don't like it or think it is so 'great'. This is why we all thrive to live abroad!!!--ChokinBako (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Except me. Republic of Ireland. By a few mile south. :-) Fribbler (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, Fribbler, but I am a scouser! The only reason we Brits can be proud about 'winning the war' is because we are the only European nation that Germany attacked and yet never had a single enemy boot on the ground, being an island nation with storms all over the English Channel helping to defend these isles, much like the kamikaze that saved the Japanese from Mongol attacks a thousand years earlier. In fact, no foreign boots have been on our soil since 1066. Not many nations can claim that.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is very soapboxy. But I'll bite. Germany never invaded the UK, other than the channel islands. Hey, we got a few stray German bombs too. So even my hometown was "attacked"; so the UK wasn't the only country "attacked" without boots on the ground. A thing that irks me about English nationalists (and yes, they are rarely Welsh or Scottish) is the idea that England seen the worst during the Blitz. I think it's insulting to Warsaw, Stalingrad, Dresden and the like. Germany was distracted by a war on many fronts. Don't pretend you won in a staring match. Not being invaded wasnt due to Stiff Upper Lip, rather luck. Damn, I'm exhausted by ranting....anyhoo this whole thing can be boiled down to yes, there are people who dislike the UK. Thank you :-) Fribbler (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, that nicely illustrates my point above about terminological confusion. The Channel Islands are part of the British Isles, and also part of the British Islands (different thing) - but they are NOT part of Great Britain, and they are NOT part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The question was about the UK. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But the "British Isles" debate is one I've only seen on WP. Anyone I know happily lives in the British Isles. I don't think that's the point of "Reasons to Dislike the UK".Fribbler (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd like to suggest removal of this thread. It will never lead to a conclusion, and provides a soapbox to, well, people like me, :-) and others. We should deal in facts. Fribbler (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Because when you go to an Indian restaurant in the UK, instead of smiling and saying, "Hello, what can I get you this evening," the waiter scowls and says disinterestedly, "Yes, please." And then when you ask for salad dressing he looks at you like you're from Mars and says "Salad ... dressing???" And if you try to strike up a conversation with the guy next to you at the bus stop he looks at you like you're a child molester. And when you go to a pub on a Saturday to watch college football on NASN the manager says he can't turn any of the TVs off rugby. And they invented The Mosquito. And the concentration camp. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd like to suggest removal of this thread. It will never lead to a conclusion, and provides a soapbox to, well, people like me, :-) and others. We should deal in facts. Fribbler (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I've refactored and collapsed it as a preliminary step. Franamax (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

kosher salt

I ate a pinch of kosher salt straight out of the box. Now my throat feels a little tight and I feel like I am going to vomit. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask a doctor? Technically, this is a medical question, I guess, but really, there's not a thing wrong with eating a bit of salt "straight up". You probably feel nauseous because of the strong taste; if it really made people sick, pretzels would be outlawed! On the other hand, there may be something wrong with ya that's completely unrelated to the salt at all, which is why you may want to get a Doc to look at you. Matt Deres (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Drink some water. And stop eating salt. Too much can destroy your kidneys.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been drinking water for hours and my throat still feels tight and I still can't shake that feeling that I'm about to throw up. What else should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See a doctor or call a nurse-advice line if you have one in your area. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you fear that the salt was significantly different from other salt because of the word "kosher", questioner, put your mind at rest. Kosher salt is in no way chemically any different from almost all other salt. Quote from our article: "Kosher salt gets its name not because it follows the guidelines for kosher foods as written in the Torah (nearly all salt is kosher, including ordinary table salt), but rather because of its use in making meats kosher". A coarser form is used for this purpose, rather than the finer form we normally use. So, there's certainly nothing about it chemically that's causing any problem. It would have to have been a really huge grain to scratch the lining of your throat. Maybe you caught a bug at around the same time, and the bug's causing the problem, not the salt. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See a doctor. Everyone, remember we can't give medical advice (and some of the answers above are crossing dangerously close to that line). Even if we think salt couldn't possibly cause anything wrong, that doesn't mean there couldn't be something wrong that's not caused by the salt. --Random832 (contribs) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, that person could have some kind of intolerance to salt that we don't know about, and it is for reasons such as this that we have the medical disclaimer. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Kosher salt is just salt; it's just ground more coarsely and doesn't have iodine added. You can't have an intolerance for kosher salt and not for "normal" salt. The only way it can harm you is by raising your sodium levels. If the OP feels sick, s/he should see a doctor, but the salt has nothing to do with it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Distinctive) Evil Women, fictional or real

I have been invited to a fancy dress partner and the rules are - go as someone/something evil. I'm fine (as a male) because there's loads of choice it seems, but it's much harder for my girlfriend. Any ideas beyond witches? Ideally it would something quite distinctive so once people are told who it is they can 'see' it (or better still can guess purely from the outfit). Any help/ideas would be brilliant, the more the better.ny156uk (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Depending on her looks (hair color and length) it might be easy to create a recognizable likeness of some female politician who is not liked by a portion of the American public. The views of those at the party might vary as to whether a particular woman was evil. Edison (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cruella de Vil? The step-mother in Disney's Snow White? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.103.130 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not make something really unexpectedly evil, like a bunny girl with a machine gun or a knife, or something really shocking like that? That would certainly turn some eyebrows. --ChokinBako (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's obvious to point out you do not take along a real machine gun or a knife or your evening might end up more shocking than you expected... Lemon martini (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Kerrigan if the crowd is into PC games.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Myra Hindley, if the boundaries of good taste are not a problem to you. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bella Abzug? Golda Meir? Betty Friedan? Blossom Rock? (I'm talking about looking evilish, not saying these ladies were evil). Oh, which reminds me - Morticia Addams or Lily Munster. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything with devil horns and a tail? Maybe that isn't "fancy dress" enough. Plasticup ^T/C 23:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My most hated villian from all of fiction, surpassing Iago, the Marquise de Merteuil, and Sigmund Ausfaller, is Nurse Ratched. I'm not sure how you'd dress up like her, though, other than just dressing as a nurse, which people might misunderstand. --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Bathory if you're into history mixed with pop culture.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the crowd, howabout just putting your hair up and wearing some glasses? ;-) (Oh, if only she were actually evil.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Eva Braun? Also Anne Coulter, who is I suppose more mean than evil. You could go Biblical and try Jezebel, Delilah, or Herodias. Cruella de Ville would be really really funny, too. I also like Maleficent, and Ursula would be funny. She could also go as a generic siren or harpy. My dad suggests any James Bone woman. Then there's Dolores Umbridge. --Masamage ♫ 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that that was a borderline-Freudian slip of the finger, and that Masamage actually meant James Bond's girls, and not James Bone's.... :D

On a more serious note, you can actually pull in a bunch of hits – real and fictional – by doing a Google search for list of evil women (movies) or some such. Many bloggers have made lists of their favourite evil ladies. AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains has a few female villians, though many have already been named above.

One more thought—could you be an evil couple? Adolf and Eva are a bit obvious, I suppose, but Bonnie and Clyde are a possibility. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What's so evil about poor Eva? Bad taste in men? (Now, Madam Ceauşescu is another story. Put her together with Nicolae and I think you've got something.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Joan Crawford, particularly in her title role in Mildred Pierce, or even as portrayed as she allegedly was in real life by Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest. A more evil bitch one could not find.

Oh, how remiss of me. I've just remembered Mrs Danvers as played by Dame Judith Anderson in Rebecca. (For those who don't know the movie, "Mrs. Danvers as conceived by Judith Anderson is widely considered one of the screen's most memorable and sexually ambiguous female villains".). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, I did mean James Bond. Ooooopsy-doodle.

Also, coming back to this, my favorite entry so far has been Nurse Rached. She could wear a name tag, even, because nurses often do. Entirely awesome. --Masamage ♫ 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dignitaries around the world born on August 31st

Who are the dignitaries born on August 31st who have created history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Click on August 31 and you'll have a very comprehensive list. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2

Geographic jigsaw

All this recent talk of geographic ignorance leads me to ask if there’s such a learning aid as this:

An online jigsaw where the pieces are in the shape of countries, major islands etc. There's probably be something like 300 pieces. The pieces are upsized/downsized so that the areas are all equal, and all the learner has to go on is their shape. The player has to move them around so that they fit together, and a piece immediately assumes its correct size when it's put in the correct spot on the screen.

Anyone know of anything like this? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. But the top hit for a google search of "geography quiz" leads to a very useful map website. Darkspots (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I had huge flashbacks when you brought this up. This has what you're looking for and more. However, you can't do the entire earth at once; you have to go by continent. Paragon¹²³²¹ 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a fun place for beginners. hydnjo talk 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, those are excellent. Exactly what I had in mind, only on a smaller scale. I went straight to Level 9 in Europe, and it was a lot harder than I expected. The US states weren't easy either (I had to cheat and use the borders.) Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The one Paragon mentioned is the one I always use. (Which is why, as was mentioned a few questions up, I CAN, in fact, find the state of Guerrero, as well as every other Mexican state. :) And many other obscure little places. I actually spend a lot of time on that site... I've been told I have way too much time on my hands...) I was excited when I saw this question, thinking, "Boy oh boy, Jack, have I got an answer for you!" And then I saw Paragon beat me to it... Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's StatetrisAPL (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, too. Tks, APL. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse contact for Obama supporting teacher

Does anyone know what school district Kathy Sawada (creator of the vid of brainwashed kids singin' 'bout Obama)? Furthermore, does anyone know how to contact them? A district website would be good to know about. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse? Please now—don't be hyperbolic. Anyway, she's at the Colburn School of Performing Arts. That took me a whole five seconds to find out via Google. And it really doesn't sound like she "brainwashed" them (their parents were involved)—nor does it sound like it was an official school activity, nor does it sound like there was any pressure to participate. (Judging by the self-description of their activities, anyway.) But hey, believe whatever the right wing blogs tell you to believe—they couldn't possibly be misreporting things for their own political agenda! Might as well fire off a few knee-jerk e-mails, right? Nothing like going bananas over nothing, eh? I mean, in the absence of not knowing for sure, why not just believe the anonymous internet commentators who believe that Obama is a "socialist" (but somehow have managed to avoid calling George W. Bush or John McCain that despite their desire to nationalize certain Wall Street institutions this week). They wouldn't lead you astray, no sir! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, is it soapbox week on the RefDesks? We aspire to provide factual answers here, not opinions. Asking questions about "brainwashed kids" does not invite a factual answer (all kids are brainwashed doncha'know - it's called growing up). Political questions and polemical responses are not needed here, so let's just close this thread now. Regards. Franamax (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the question is potentially a valid question if it wasn't phrased so poorly. Anyway you should be able to find any and all answers to the question at [36] so I don't see any further need to discussion of this matter Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GO-PCHS-NJROTC has already indicated his desire that McCain win the election, I doubt this question was anything more than political propaganda. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Headset to hear dictations

Which is the best headset to hear and transcribe dictations even though the audibility is less and can be vaguely understood, ofcourse, with reasonable cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

commercial ice cream tubs

my roommates and I really love ice cream. Where can we buy ice cream in huge tubs like they have at ice cream shops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.100.72 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You may well be able to order them through your favorite ice cream shop! Or at least they can tell you who their supplier is. --Masamage ♫ 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ice cream stores I know would be delighted to sell you tubs of ice cream, especially if you let them know in time to add them to their weekly order from their supplier. They might not want to sell their only tub of a flavor and have other ice cream fans be disappointed. Try to negotiate a low price, rather than paying some "by the pint" or even "by the cone" price. But if you pig out on the tub of ice cream, beware of Brain freeze. (not medical advice). Edison (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Geography/Social Studies Question

What do Baltimore, MD and St. Louis, MO have in common that no other U.S. cities have in common? Hint: has to do with location.--69.250.55.119 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Both cities have been located under the same baseball team? (The Baltimore Orioles were once the St. Louis Browns.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither city is part of any county. They are considered "independent cities", and are not counties unto themselves (like Honolulu, Hawaii), nor consolidated city-counties (like Jacksonville, Florida) but are considered outside of any county. Outside of the state of Virginia (which has dozens of these) this is a rare situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, both lie on Interstate 70 and U.S. Route 40. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So do Kansas City and Denver. CL — 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Both are (mostly) surrounded by eponymous counties that they aren't part of. St. Louis borders St. Louis County, Missouri (and Illinois); Baltimore borders Baltimore County, Maryland (and touches Anne Arundel County]]). In both cases, the cities were at one time part of the counties they are named for. —D. Monack ^talk 05:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

need list of what sells the most online...demographics,stats

would like to know where to find demographics or stats of what sells the most online thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanzebra (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pornography. Franamax (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Job

OK, easy, well-paid jobs don't exist. However, what about easy unpleasant well-paid jobs, like perhaps something in the line of truck driver in Iraq, or mining in the Australian desert or working in an oil field somewhere.

Please, don't suggest prostitution. Whether is it easy and mostly nor even well-paid. Mr.K. (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can combine easy and unpleasant. Standing around holding a contruction road sign then. In the oil patch, you'd want to be in the construction / maintenance end of things where there are large bits of time when you wait for a crane and do nothing at all. You could try safety crew in a chemical plant - it pays fairly well, and it's hardly ever unpleasant, except when you're running towards the spill when everyone else is running away. Otherwise you're back to the usual - prostitute, drug-dealer, tobacco-smuggler.

Equipment operator in the oil sands at Fort McMurray also springs to mind. That's well-paid. Franamax (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

With easy I meant easy to get with low-qualifications. Equipment operator in the oil sands seems to be a good example in this direction. BTW, I told you not suggest prostitution. In many parts of the world, it is not considered a job. Mr.K. (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on an oil rig pays damn well from what I hear and I'd call it pretty unplesant stuck on a metal rig for several months 88.211.96.3 (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand refuse collection pays comparatively well for what (unless you're the driver) seems a low-skilled job. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You had it yourself—working for a U.S. government contractor in Iraq or Afghanistan. You'll make more money if you have military or law-enforcement experience, but no matter what, they need a lot of guys. And if you're a U.S. citizen, the first seventy grand or so of your income is tax-free. Darkspots (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The logical follow-up question of the follow-up question is: so, where do I get these kind of jobs? Mr.K. (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have said Bechtel off the top of my head. When I was talking to someone about this a couple years ago, that was the company they mentioned repeatedly. So I googled right now and found this. Not very encouraging, that. If you're seriously looking for a job, email me and I'll ask my contact what the story is today. Darkspots (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is of course the classic job for the hard-up and untrained. Entry qualifications area minimal, all the training is paid for by the employer, the wages are OK, it gains relatively high respect, although it is (sometimes) unpleasant. I speak, of course, of joining the army. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear the guy who holds the construction sign gets paid up to $19 an hour, so that could qualify as easy, unpleasant, and well-paid. Useight (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you define 'easy' to be 'relatively unskilled', or 'no heavy lifting', or both? If you're willing to work in a desolate, miserable location for long hours and doing backbreaking labor, you can do quite well in mining. Get involved with something like Xstrata's Raglan mine project in northern Quebec: [37]. An acquaintance of mine did a bit of contract work up there. Apparently the miners are extremely well-paid, and have (IIRC) two weeks of time off between four-week stints at the mine. Downside is that there's nothing to do after work, and you're only a few degrees south of the Arctic Circle. (On the bright side, that means it's easy to save your cash....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, there's good money to be made in the housekeeping services that clean up after violent crimes. If you can cope with the psychological difficulty, scrubbing brain matter off of hotel room walls might qualify as 'easy work.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

e mail of naraynamurthy

what is the e mail adress of mr narayana murthy founder of infosys technologys?Ashokumar31 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC) a k jain

It is very unlikely that you would find the e-mail address of someone like Mr Murthy available to the public. If you wish to contact him, you can write him a letter (To: Mr Murthy, Infosys Technologies...), or use his company's contact form to get closer to your goal. — QuantumEleven 12:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At least one one in 10,000 people in India, that is, one hundred thousand Infosys employees, know his email id. Just curious, why you want that? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No spiders in damp buildings?

I am a chambermaid in a small hotel which has two wings - the North wing has damp walls but the South wing is ok. Every once in a while I have to remove cobwebs from the South wing but no cobwebs develop in the damp North wing. Is this s coincidence? Or can I assume that if I have spiders at home, my home is healthy? Thanks. 84.67.172.148 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there are spiders in derelict and condemned buildings, the idea that "spiders indicate a healthy home" is unfounded. — Lomn 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Spiders, as i understand it, like warm places, so perhaps that is a factor? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are no prey there so they didn't spin webs or perhaps there are jumping spiders there which don't spin webs.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yacht

I would like to purchase a yacht, but I dont know anything about them, so, is it possible to get one that will drive it self, eg if I want to sail from the South Africa to Florida, can I just punch in the relative info and ly back drinking beer with bikini clad woman while it steers itself, money is no problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean a yacht. Yeah, yachts can navigate by themselves to a point, but they would need a human to guide them into port. Plasticup ^T/C 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And how much would one cost, I need one big enough to live on and through parties, how much is the upkeep? Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have to ask how much they cost, then you cant afford one!--GreenSpigot (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You dont get rich by spending willy nilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While saying "a yacht will steer itself" is true to some extent, it's a bit like saying "a plane will fly itself" because it has an autopilot. You still need someone competent to be in charge. If you are rich enough to be buying a party yacht you may as well hire a skipper to look after the boat while you party. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

South Africa to Florida is thousands of miles, it would probably take weeks in a pleasure yacht, that's not a journey you want to take without someone that knows what they're doing. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Driving in a straight line might be simple enough for an autopilot, but doing things like avoiding weather, now, that's something I'd want a live, well trained human to do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Vaporware or Snake Oil

Can you name one item which you thought as Vaporware, or Snake Oil first when you heard of it, but truly it is not. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Our list of vaporware includes a (cited!) section on eventually-released products. Individual opinions, though, are generally outside the remit of the Reference Desk. — Lomn 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vaporware is not quite the same thing as snake oil. Vaporware is something that's promoted as if it existed - but does not. That doesn't mean it's impossible for it to exist - and it's very common for things that were once vaporware becoming "real". Snake oil is something that is actually being sold that simply doesn't work as advertised - and commonly cannot work as advertised. Duke Nukem Forever is still vaporware - Hydrogen fuel enhancement for car engines or Homeopathic 'medicine' is snake oil. It's perfectly possible that Duke will finally make it onto the store shelves - but even though hydrogen fuel enhancement kits and homeopathic medicines are EASILY available, they do not, cannot and will not ever work.

So...

• Vaporware that finally appeared to my surprise...the Playstation 3 maybe. I was pretty sure the difficulties they had with making the darned thing would kill it. The International Space Station - I didn't think that would ever get funded enough to get it even close to finished (although I still don't understand what it's for exactly!). I'm beginning to think that the ultimate vaporware (Duke Nukem Forever) may yet see the light of day - that would be be ultimate 'from the grave' revival.

• Snake oil that became "real"...that's tougher...Speech recognition software maybe. That stuff was just utterly useless when it first came out in the 1980's - it didn't work worth a damn, yet it was advertised and sold as "You can do dictation into your computer right now!"...they claimed 90% recognition rates...but they didn't get close to that and even if they had - having to correct one word in ten would get really frustrating amazingly quickly! I didn't think I'd ever see it work - yet today it's quite routine for computerized call centers to ask you to speak names, numbers and such like and it works reliably - over nasty phone lines, with any speaker and a wide range of accents and (amazingly) without you having to "train" it for each speaker. Dictation software is still a little flakey - but it's getting better and better.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Optimus Maximus keyboard was vaporware as it was first unveiled in 2005 as a concept but didn't actually get built until 2007 and is now only just being released into the wild in bulk. It was even listed in the Vaporware Awards due to the amount of um'ing and ah'ing over it's release date. Nanonic (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do non-standard airline call signs come from?

In communicating with air traffic control, most commercial airliners will use a Type C call sign which is the same as their name -- for example, United Airlines Flight 204 will be "United 204". However, a few carriers use other titles: British Airways goes by "Speedbird", ValuJet Airlines went by "Critter", and so on.

So here's my question -- why do some carriers end up with these different call signs? My initial idea was that they were used when the original name might be difficult or confusing in radio usage, but neither of the above examples seem to fit that (and an obvious potential confusion, using "Delta" for Delta Air Lines, refutes that -- the confusion being that "delta" also represents the letter D in the NATO phonetic alphabet, which is used in air traffic control operations).

Any ideas? Thanks for anyone taking the time to answer this; as a former administration here, I appreciate those who take time out of their day to try to help out people they've never met before. 70.122.36.93 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have articles on airline call signs (and call signs in general) and on "speedbird" in particular. According to that article, when call signs were introduced, the company simply picked it to represent their logo at the time. I suppose the process may have become more formal over time, but those old callsigns are still retained. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Earlier question regarding series of numbers correlated to number of strokes in roman equivalent

Hi,

Could you please help me find an earlier question and its answer regarding what the next number would be in series of numbers where the answer was to be found when converting the numbers into Roman numbers (i.e I, IV, X and so on) and then counting the strokes needed to write them?

I also have a similar question without answer. Can anyone find the logical continuation for 154967328?

Thank you for any help! ~Tigger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.188.214.165 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

0. Matt Deres (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous ref-desk thread you're referring to is the top one here. Deor (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

imimigration

Can an immigrant on a tourist visa legally work in the US if they own their own business —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.241.4 (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't answer this question because it asks for legal advice. Darkspots (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The questioner did not ask for legal advice; he asked what the law is. That's different. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to his question. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...let me rephrase. My friend says he has a tourist visa until 2012. Is that possible? D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.241.4 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the US State Department, the visa expiration date and the length of time you have permission to remain in the United States are very different terms. It appears that a visa lasting until 2012 is not unreasonable, however, as the FAQ discusses 5-year visas. — Lomn 20:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your friend should contact the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS--formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) for detailed, specific information about what he can or cannot do under his current visa. The InfoPass website (link) provides instructions (PDF) on how to contact USCIS by telephone (for routine inquiries) or to make an appointment for in-person discussion (for more detailed or complex quetions). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Women in combat roles in US military

Why are women not allowed to enter units intended for direct combat in the U.S military? RoyalOrleans 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because US law forbids it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant law is Women's Armed Services Integration Act, which allowed women into the regular army and determined in which roles they were allowed to serve. Darkspots (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My reading is that the questioner probably knows it's legally forbidden, but wants to know why it's legally forbidden. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good question - this is one of the last bastions of legalized sexism. The law was passed in 1948 - before that there were no women anywhere near the battlefront. The law reflects views of the 1940's - protecting "the weaker sex" and all that nonsense. It was a step in the right direction - but it's time to erase all differences and make women in the military fight just as the men must. SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the question misrepresents the way that jobs are assigned in the military. When you join the military, regardless of what all the recruitment videos and commercials tell you, you do what you are told. You don't get a job because you choose it, you get a job because someone with stars on their eppaulettes has decided they need to you do it. Its not that there are thousands of women seeking frontline combat jobs, and being actively prevented from getting those jobs by the law. They may or may not want those jobs, but that;s moot. The fact is, when you join the military, the people with a higher rank than you tell you what to do. You get assigned a job and you do it. Now, women are not assigned frontline combat positions, but thats not the same thing as saying they aren't allowed to choose to have them. If a woman got to choose what her job in the military was, she'd have MORE rights then anyone else... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In modern conflicts there is no front line, since the "war" is an occupation opposed by partisans (terrorists to some) who attack convoys and checkpoints. 61 American women have been killed by enemy action in Iraq as of July 17, 2008, probably more American service women than have been killed by enemy action (in compabet or in enemy attacks) in all previous wars. [38]. This does not include those dead from disease, accidents or other causes. Edison (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy conservation with natural gas in the home

I've read where energy can be conserved by turning the thermostat down to 60 (F) from 65 during the night. Is it really worth it? How about from 65 just to 62? Is it more cost effective to just keep it at 65? How much does one really save turning it down for only 7-8 hours at a time?

Also, does taking a shower use up a lot of energy becuase the water needs to be heated? If I cut down to 3 showers a week from 7, am I saving money? What about if I run a sishwasher while I shower, thus heating the water faster when I turn the shower on?

Of course, moving to Atlanta might just be better :-) Thanks.

Whenever you reduce the thermostat (assuming you're heating - not cooling!) you're saving energy - one degree - half a degree - every little helps. Shorter showers, cooler water - yep that'll help too. The issue is where you become so uncomfortable that life becomes miserable for the sake of a few dollars. I don't see how running the dishwasher while you shower helps though. Most (if not all) dishwashers run from the cold water feed and heat the water using the dishwasher's own internal heater as needed. That's not going to make any difference to your shower which is probably fed from your hot water tank. The best way to make a shower more efficient is to get one with a 'flash heater'. Those are quite popular in the UK - I havn't seen many of them in the US yet. Like the dishwasher - it's fed from the cold water feed and heats up the water as it comes out of the pipe! It heats exactly the amount of water you need - not a drop more. It also avoids leaving all of that hot water in the pipe between the hot tank and the shower head. SteveBaker (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GEOMETRY MAGAZINE QUESTION

Hello,Iam a reader of a magazine called Geometry Today,I have a question for you guys. It`s a contest and the prize is ove a million dollars so I need your help. This is it,I have to name the intersection of two planes PQS AND HGS. and there is a question involving a line that lies in a plane,and onee line that does not lie in the plane.I know it`s a bit much,but I really want the money I`ll even split it with you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.74.21 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, "a magazine called Geometry Today"? A million dollars? Really? hydnjo talk 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not Homework Tomorrow? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Brucelee

Was Brucelee's death natural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bruce Lee. Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly mysterious and controversial - but I don't think it was "natural" - the most common theory was that he somehow had a strange reaction to a muscle relaxant he was taking - but he'd has all sorts of seizures and other problems for several days before that and the interactions of various treatments and the recreational drugs he was known to have indulged in could easily have been to blame. SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

White cultural clubs

What North American universities, if any, have had white cultural clubs? What have such clubs done, and how successful have they been?