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.
Training bears or lions would take a large amount of manpower for the work gained. As far as hauling equipment, there are better choices when it comes to the ability to be trained and the amount that they can carry. Draft horses would be easier to train and you wouldn't have to worry about the horse eating your men. As far as attacking the enemy, bears are fairly slow when compared with dogs or lions. And again with lions, you'd have to concern yourself with making sure the lion didn't turn on you in the heat of battle.
Then there's the hogging (not hugging) of resources as you mention. Large predators such as the lion need a high protein diet which means meat. Meat is heavy, has to be kept pest free, and is expensive. Meanwhile, grains for horses is cheaper, less likely to spoil, and rather light on a mass per mass basis. Dismas|(talk)08:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's the difficulty of capturing large numbers of lions/bears. Users of war elephants tended to run out of beasts quite quickly, and I can't imagine it's much easier to catch a lion. Rearing them is not practical on long campaigns. I'm not sure if you would be successful setting your predators on the enemy: lions typically kill and eat when hungry but spend most of their time asleep and don't respond to orders, so you would probably have to keep them starved, dropping them in the middle of the enemy at the time of battle and running away very quickly to ensure they did not eat your soldiers. --Normansmithy (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Large predators are a pain in the ass to feed (sometimes literally!) and care for - all just so that at the moment of truth, they decide to up and die or run the wrong way or something. You might be interested in Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs by Adrienne Mayor. It's all about the use of biological and chemical weapons in antiquity. Think a bear on the battlefield is scary? Try getting knocked over the head with a clay ball filled with angry hornets. Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to bake it, just let it dry. I'm sure they would tunnel their way out eventually, but maybe you could toss it at the enemy before then. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe they used pre-fired pots and then just stuffed a cork or other stopper in the hole. That's going by my memory, though. Matt Deres (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider that bears or lions aren't that dangerous in a frontal assault on a well-armed enemy. 10 people with spears can easily dispatch a lion or bear that tries to attack them. So now all you've done is provide the enemy with fresh meat to eat. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore most large cats sleep most of the day and are typically only capable of running short bursts before running out of energy. Not to mention the problem whether their backs would actually be physically strong enough to carry a rider and usually his very heavy equipment. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP's question has been largely answered. I could summarize it as this: Predators are too unreliable. The basic problem is that you can explain a battle plan to the most simple-minded soldier, and he'll probably get it. You can't "explain" anything to an animal - it has to be trained in some Pavlovian way, because it doesn't really understand why it's being asked to do what you want it to do. With beasts of burden, the problem is much less. You feed them, and they're willing to haul stuff. They don't know why, but they go along with it. Soldiers may not understand all the higher-level ramifications of why they are in a war, but they know what to expect and how to defend against it. As StuRat suggests, the predators wouldn't have a clue, so they could easily be defeated. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the Philippines, I see. I don't know about where you might get it locally, but it's available from Amazon and other online booksellers. I highly recommend it. Some of the chemical and physical substances used in wars past are quite astonishing: catapulting a dish of red-hot sand onto the enemy so that the tiny grains would burn straight into their flesh, poisoned wells, poisoned wine, poisoned honey, booby-trapped clothes that self-ignited. Cringe-inducing, but fascinating. Matt Deres (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone tell me the names of all the soccer teams involved in the Vatican soccer championship?
The teams represent the different services working for the Vatican State.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinvillier (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Italian Wikipedia's article on Campionato di calcio della Città del Vaticano only lists the champions between 1973 and 1994, claiming that the championship ceased to exist after that year (meanwhile the Clericus Cup has become quite popular). This list, however, lists Cup winners for 2007-2009 as well, with the gap of ten years (1995-2006) marked as "unknown". (One German site I found stated the Cup was secret and not open for the public). Anyhow, the 9-10 teams (out of a total of 16 or 17, according to various sites) I was able to glean from these sites are: Astor Osservatore Romano and Tipografia Osservatore Romano, Fortitudo Governatorato, Malepeggio Edilizia, Hercules Biblioteca, Hermes Musei Vaticani, Virtus Vigilanza, Teleposte, Servizi Tecnici, Ariete APSA, Servizi Economici, and Dirseco. ---Sluzzelintalk18:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a very large dog the other day and I'd like to know what breed it was. It was almost, but not quite as tall as a Great Dane, and much more thickset. Its coat was mostly black with maybe some brown and white lower down, and slightly shaggy. This was not a smooth-haired dog. Any help much appreciated, thanks. --Richardrjtalk email13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an off shoot of a prev question I was reading several articles about military animals and came across a mention of Ceasars horse that had toes. ??? I would like to know more about this, any help would be appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caesar's "toed horse" story comes from Life of Julius Caesar by Suetonius ([2], paragraph LXI). He doesn't go into much detail, and bear in mind that Suetonius lived 150 years after Caesar, so whether it's true or not is anyone's guess. Apparently horses can be born with odd vestigal toes, but I don't know much about that. FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. [3] I have seen other pictures in books where the "toe" is more like a wart on the heel.If you look at the evolution of the horse ,you can see how the toes shrank back into the leg,forming the splint bones.Obviously,occasionally,like other polydactyl animals,oddities occur..hotclaws21:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is prostitution such a taboo?
Considering that money permeates every aspect of our life, and that we can pay a psychologist to listen to us, a cook to cook for us, a driver to drive us, and much else. Why do people often have such strong feelings regarding prostitution?--ProteanEd (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our History of prostitution and Prostitution articles are relevant. The former speculates that the hardening of attitudes against prostitution in 1500s Europe may have been related to a big syphilis outbreak. (This doesn't directly answer your question about the strength of the feelings, but it's a start.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Which explanation do you want for this? the religious one which starts from the position that out-of-wedlock sex is an evil? The feminist perspective which holds that it's a means of disempowering women (marriage limits women to having sex with one man, prostitution enables men to have sex with multiple women, the illegality of prostitution prevents women from taking control over their sexuality)? the sociological perspective which holds that promiscuity among women endangers paternal inheritance lines (mama's baby, papa's maybe...)? The 2nd generation Marxists (Engles & etc) had lengthy discussions about female sexuality, since it was a biologically determined form of production (both in terms of procreation and pleasure) that made for a troublesome gender-class distinction. --Ludwigs218:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could also posit, in a pre-condom age in particular, an epidemiological explanation. Such arguments were used extensively as parts of social hygiene programs. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far as I know, prostitution isn't actually legal in Vegas, but only in one Nevada county not far from the county Vegas is in. I gather the law in Vegas is not vigorously enforced, though. Part of the answer to the original question is that many societies tend to group women into "good" and "bad". This is hardly a new concept, as it's all over both the Old and the New Testament. I could elaborate, but the words written on that subject (the status of women in the world) already could fill a library or two, and retyping all that could take awhile. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Nevada prostitution is legal by county option in regulated brothels, except in counties with populations above 400,000, which leaves Vegas and Reno out. There is, or was, a usenet group posting reviews of them. There is also a very profitable taxi business hauling horny customers the hour drive to the next county. There are also a whole lot of pages under escort service [what a crap article] in the Vegas yellow pages. I suppose that visitors to Vegas usually bring money. PhGustaf (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Maybe the simplest answer for the OP is that societally speaking, prostitutes are generally considered to be lowlifes. I think his "taboo" premise is not quite correct. Prostitution is not exactly "taboo", it's more like lowering oneself about as far as possible. Hence the metaphor of artists "prostituting" themselves by placing money above their art. I'm not saying it isn't hypocritical. But it's the way the world seems to work. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think people have strong feelings about prostitution because subjects connected with sex and/or reproduction tend to evoke strong feelings in many people. Gabbe (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that's only part of it. The purpose of moral codes in general is to enforce some order in society. The theory would be that prostitution undermines the institution of marriage. Note I said that's the theory. In practice, I suspect a spouse would be a lot angrier about their spouse having a true affair than about visiting a hooker. But the spouse wouldn't likely be happy about it either way - unless it was permissible in that society. Wasn't there some deal about how one of the French presidents wife and mistress both showed up at his funeral (and, presumably, did not slug it out.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but then we're sliding into the question "Why are people against prostitution?" That may have been what the OP was really asking, but for that question I think the answer lies above. Gabbe (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, not everyone is against prostitution, or there wouldn't be any. I recall an economics teacher talking about the supply-and-demand argument as regards prostitution, and he said the trouble with that argument (which is kind of the one being posed by the OP) is that there can be a "moral cost", which is what I'm trying to say in my fumbling way. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back on about February 14th, there was a program on one of the cable channels, about the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Part of the rift between Al Capone and Bugsy Moran was that Moran was an Irish Catholic who had moral objections to prostitution. Capone supported prostitution. That's not the reason for the Massacre as such, but it's an interesting take on things, as Moran apparently considered prostitution to be more immoral than murder. Hard telling how either of them would feel about COYOTE, though. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are religious reasons for banning prostitution, but equally there are religious reasons for banning the lending of money at interest (the banking industry), and there's been a lot of religious debates about whether alcohol and gambling are evil. Therefore there are almost certainly social reasons behind the ban. The traditional Catholic opposition to sex (frequently glossed as misogyny) may be involved; but equally the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) disdain for worldly pleasures.
On the other hand, while prostitution has long been regarded as disreputable even when not illegal, there has been widespread acceptance of European/American men using prostitution as long as it was discreet: whether in Victorian times, in military/seafaring settings, among men working in frontier areas with few women (e.g. Wild West), or as already mentioned in Vegas. Therefore it may have been the case that preserving the impression that prostitution was sinful was more socially important than actually combatting prostitution. I doubt this is a question that can be answered here, though. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic church has never been opposed to sex. Quite the contrary; they encourage it, within marriage, where it's considered a sacrament; cynically speaking, "to maximize the number of Catholics". What they oppose is "recreational sex", outside of marriage. "Procreational sex", inside of marriage, is just fine. Which is at least in part the issue with extramarital sex and same-sex: The former violates the marriage rules, and the later by definition is recreational. So why was prostitution tolerated? Probably on the theory that an "affair" is adultery, whereas "paying for it" is just a business deal. Does this all seem rather hypocritical? Maybe, but that's another question. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sex is a Catholic sacrament? That's news. There's no mention of sex in Sacraments of the Catholic Church. There is mention of consummation, which presumably means one occasion - but once that's out of the way, I can't see that future couplings are part of the sacrament of marriage. The Church forbids most forms of contraception, which naturally leads to more babies being conceived. But that is not the same as saying sex is "encouraged". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main one is the spread of sexual diseases. The lack of a cure for syphilis explained Victorian prudery and no pre-marital sex. If cures for all veneral diseases were found, then prostitution would become OK. Perhaps that the reduction in rates of marriage is due to there being cures for veneral diseases, except AIDs, in modern times. As well as contraception. 89.243.43.75 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some modern secular societies brothels are treated as any other legitimate businesses - they pay council rates, are regulated by local laws, and are inspected by local authorities, much as restaurants are. Many of the workers are union members. To quote from the front page of the local paper: "Centralian Advocate, 23-03-2010, Ed: 1 -, Pg: 001, 597 words , NEWS ALICE Springs will have a new escort agency to cater for increased demand for sex services from the booming mining sector. And interstate investors are looking at establishing a "Shag Bus" service with a refurbished Winnebago travelling between "(Mr Murdoch wants some $ to see the rest. There were no photographs). The soon to close former agency in town contributed to many charitable organizations: [[5]] Weepy.Moyer (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Block Font Suggestions
Can anyone suggest to me a font with the least amount of curves? I'm looking for something very plain, kind of like the LCD numbers on a plain digital watch, with no curves in uppercase letters.
Or there are plenty of pixilated (OK, "aliased") fonts to be had (and not just in bitmap format!) ... Alto Mono, or the Commodore 64 font, or the Palm OS font, or the HaxrCorp fonts. Alternatively, there's a font called Toothpix, which isn't what you want but has no curves. 81.131.36.119 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During my almost annual trips to Finnish Lapland, I have noticed the copious, and rather irritating, amount of mosquitoes in the wilderness. I have also encountered flies, but they are less irritating, because they don't suck blood. Now my question is as follows: I have noticed that mosquitoes are pretty much a doddle to kill with one's bare hands. Simply wait for a mosquito to sit somewhere and slap your hand on it - instant kill. With a little practice you can kill mosquitoes in mid-flight. In contrast, flies are much, much more difficult to kill. You can pretty much forget about killing a fly with your bare hands, and even with a flyswatter, this is very difficult. Why is this so? JIP | Talk21:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think flies have amazingly fast eyesight and instincts and 'mechanics' which means they always see you coming, always dodge if they don't and are actually knocked away from being hit by even a small buffet of air in front of a projectile at them. Mosquitoes presumably haven't evolved to survive as a priority, maybe they reproduce more efficiently? 130.88.162.46 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most effective way to kill flies that I've found is to clap my hands just above them when they're resting, they normally take off straight into the closing hands. As to mosquitoes, they're generally rather stealthy, I suspect that humans are by a long way their most difficult targets, I doubt that anything else that they bite fights back with quite the same ferocity, so there's not been enough selection pressure to change their behaviour. Mikenorton (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Mikenorton says is a good way to kill flies if they're resting on something. They seem harder to smack in mid-air because they fly all over the place, seemingly at random, whereas mosquitoes are small and don't cover as much ground as quickly, plus they seem to "hover" a lot, so it's easier to zap them. Flies are good at flying, as Kvasir notes. This is why people hang flypaper, because eventually the fly is liable to land on it, and then he's cooked. I think Mikenorton is also right about evolutionary pressure, or the lack thereof. Flies and mosquitoes both are near the bottom of the food chain, and are consumed by birds and other critters in great numbers, so their genetics are primarily focused on prolific reproduction. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are also flying insects far easier to kill than mosquitos. Some beetles, like ladybugs/ladybirds, seem to just sit there and wait to be splattered. (Call me a softy, but I don't actually kill them, I cover them with a glass, then slide an index card under them, then take the glass with the index card top outside and release them. So, maybe being easy to catch saves their lives, in this case.) StuRat (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially if they come back inside. There's a fair chance you've taken the same bug outside several times. Maybe he just thinks it's a game. Where bugs in general are concerned, prolific breeding, probably more than intelligence or stealthiness, has been their genetic focus. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I do the same thing as Stu. Except I'd put the jar upside down in a sink and let the water suck the bug down its watery grave. --Kvasir (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it'd be a big flood before I need to catch (and dispose) waterbugs from within my house. Kidding aside, drown bugs are much cleaner than squashed bugs. --Kvasir (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One further thing that flies have to help them escape is the large sensory hairs they have on their bodies. Some of them detect the air movement caused by an approaching hand, which causes a jump and flight reflex. -- Flyguy649talk01:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the most creative... or original, apparently. There are something like 100 Flyguys registered now. Meh, I'm not going to bother changing! One of my coworkers loved that quote. I find they (edit:the flies) really love the dregs left in beer bottles! -- Flyguy649talk07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland is famous for 2 things, whiskey and golf courses. I get whiskey, they have lots of space to grow whatever is needed and lots of lochs and so on for pure water for it. And I know golf was invented in Scotland, but why is it still the home of it (it has the most golf courses per capita according to the article)? The reason I ask is that it rains there a huge amount of the time, something like over 200 days a year (according to an advert I saw while visiting Edinburgh once). Doesn't this kind of make it a poor location for golf, since rain would seem to stop play? Also, Scotland is massively cold, why hasn't golf taken off somewhere more suitable and overtaken Scotland as the heart of the sport?
As for the "per capita" part, keep in mind that the USA is a lot larger than Scotland, so the golf courses tend to be clustered. There are probably a lot more golf courses per capita in south Florida than in, say, the north slope of Alaska. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal and Ancient is based there. Now in its incarnation as the R&A, it is the authority on golf everywhere except the US and Mexico. It sets the rules, and if it sets the rules, it can dictate where the home of golf is I guess! --TammyMoet (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty rare to use the whisky / whiskey alternative spelling distinctively. To be sure, if you're discussing Scotch whisky or Bourbon whiskey in isolation, quite likely you use the spelling more associated with that style. But they aren't that different; both of them are whiskeys, or if you prefer whiskies, and you can discuss whiskeys in general and include Scotch, Bourbon, Irish, Canadian, and corn, using either spelling consistently across all of them. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. If I'm talking about whiskeys, I include Scotch; if I write about whiskies (which is unlikely as it's an unintuitive spelling for me) I would still include Bourbon. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contra the OP's contention that rain would stop play: I lived in St Andrews for several years (though, sadly, never took up golf) and know from personal observation that rain, unless heavy, does not stop play. In any case, St Andrews is on Scotland's east coast, and due to the prevailing westerly winds enjoys a degree of rain shadow from the higher western side of the country, which is markedly wetter (and where they also play golf in the rain, as in the second round of the Open Championship at Turnberry last year). Nor is it (or Scotland in general) "massively cold": a little colder than other parts of the (Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift-warmed) British Isles, yes, but not greatly so, and for much of the year it can be pleasantly mild. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it is a universally accepted fact that rain NEVER falls on a Scottish golf course. Instead, it falls where it can readily be diverted to the streams and lochs whence it is re-diverted to the many distilleries to become the legendary, "Angels' Breath". So you see, the 2 phenomena are indistinguishable and inseparable, dry golf courses and the 19th Hole to sample the diverted and reconstituted raindrops. Simple. 92.30.74.248 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original poster needs to check their facts. While it rains a lot in western Scotland, eastern Scotland (where St Andrews is) is considerably drier, with around 800mm and 150 days rain per year[7]. By way of comparison, Augusta, Georgia, one of the main venues of American golf and home of the Masters Tournament, gets 1100mm and 104 days rain per year[8]. They do play golf in much drier places like Dubai, but conditions there are not ideal for growing grass. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking more generally, people who live in places with what appears to be inclement weather often don't notice the, um, inclement-ness as much as someone not native born. If you live in a place where it rains every day, getting rained on is just not as big a deal as it is for someone from the Sahara. Matt Deres (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Scotland is the Home of Golf because that is where it was invented? So the question of whether it is still the home of golf doesn't arise. The game can't subsequently be invented anywhere else. I concur with other posters too that St Andrews is not desperately rainy. Ismith (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hansel and Gretel kids club
Resolved
I've seen mention of this on both The Bernie Mac Show andEverybody Hates Chris, where it's portrayed as a club for upper-class black kids and their parents. Is this a real club ? Do we have an article on it ? I'm particularly interested in why they would pick a name from German literature for their club. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention that name, I think I was mistaken in the case of The Bernie Mac Show, and that was the name used. However, I'm quite sure Everybody Hates Chris did, indeed, use the name "Hansel and Gretel". And, based on what Bugs found below, I'm wondering if there wasn't a similar organization with that name, perhaps a copy of "Jack and Jill" ? StuRat (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further searching turned up other references in papers to the Hansel and Gretel Club, Inc. Searching the New York Division of Corporations records turns up this record which suggests it was incorporated in 1960 and is still active (although it lists no address or agent). I wonder if this is something that petered out. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hansel and Gretel Club, Inc. was founded in the mid-to-late 1950s and was chartered May 2, 1960, according to the same New York state incorporation records already cited here. An October 22, 1966 article in The Afro-American Newspaper mentions Marguerite Easterling of the South Ozone Beach section of Queens (near JFK) as Membership Committee Chair and one of the founders of the organization. The article is important because it signaled the beginnings of a chapter of that group in Richmond, Virginia [10]. The organization was one of several smaller groups that patterned themselves after Jack and Jill of America, Inc. in that the membership consisted of families who conducted educational, cultural, civic, and recreational programs for the children of the parents who were members. Most of these groups were operated by the mothers of these families, but a couple of them included the fathers as participating, active members of the organization.
March 24
Cowboy?
I recently learned I may be working as a ranch hand/trail guide this summer, and I inconveniently got rid of -all- of my horse related gear last year, as I thought I had finished with horses. I had a traditional pair of leather "Indian" pants and moccasin boots, and they were the best clothes I had ever worn to deal with horses. Comfortable, practical, and durable. I can't for the life of me remember how I came across them. So, I come to you, WikiNation, to help me out. I need to find -legit- pants and boots; meaning not the cheap, stylish knockoffs. I need to be able to actually work in these, and work hard. The moccasin boots need to be above ankle height (preferably mid shin or just below knee), and the pants work-practical. Any websites, suggestions, or leads that you may have would be a great benefit. I life in western North Carolina, wear a size 15 US shoe (though size 14 US is comfortably snug), and have a pants size of 36 waist / 36 or 38 length. Thanks! Hubydane (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Huby - I was feeling a bit mischievous. Whenever I hear of someone with enormous feet like yours, I think of 3 things - they must be tall - they must be heavy - and..............like a Horse. Good luck with your search. 92.30.74.111 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're saying you only want leather pants (which seem very uncomfortable summer garb even in the higher parts of NC). If not, I can attest that Carhartt work pants are very tough and well made. I have a pair for my weekend livestock duties and when I pull them on I feel like Superman suiting up in the phonebooth. --Sean13:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying surds on the TI-84 plus
My understanding is that the TI-84 plus does not have an inbuilt function to display surds (someone correct me if I'm wrong!), is there a program I can download which can display surds on the TI-84 plus?--124.171.116.21 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The TI-84 does not have a single key to evaluate xy. However one can evaluate 10LOG(x)Xy or eLN(x)Xy which both give the same result. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
question about pumps
Is there anywhere that sells air pumps, for blowing things up with, that can be set to run at different speeds, in the way that fans sometimes can? 09:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.115.54 (talk)
Anywhere in an actual shop? I don't really like shopping online. (A shop in England if possible) 16:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.115.54 (talk)
I have a tiny air compressor used to inflate car tires (it runs off the cigarette lighter). You would find items like that in a car parts store. If you tell us what you want to inflate, we can customize our suggestions to fit your needs better. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources of cheap, small compressors - but our OP wants one that can be set up to run at different speeds. I can't think of a common use for such a thing - and indeed all of the small compressors I can think of run at a constant speed. SteveBaker (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know of some large compressors (20MW+) that has a constant speed motor, as variable speed motors are more expensive then similar constant speed ones. The good news is that even if you have a constant speed motor, you could change the speed it will fill things up if you attach a valve you can open and close varying amounts. I doubt they make small compressors that can do that, but you could modify it yourself if need be I suppose. Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was going to suggest a hand operated bicycle pump. That is variable speed, depending on your energy level. Might not be too fun to fill up an air mattress or a hot air balloon with one though. Googlemeister (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like they took A4, and scaled the short side to 8.5 inches (US Letter). My guess is it's "software acting funny" rather than a deliberate choice of paper size. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would have helped if you had given the link!
If you mean this document then this is no mistake. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/budget2010_complete.pdf.
8* 11.93 are the font and back covers -Adobe InDesign CS3 (also mentioned in the 'properties'), has this size option for this very purpose.
8.27*11.69 are the pages therein. Page size also given in properties.
The printer will actually use 'press sheet sizes' so that the sheets can be folded and stitched into a book. The larger cover sizes are used in case the layout page of the cover is larger than the finished cover, (i.e., so that the print finisher can cut off the bleed). In other words they don't print from the pdf.
Do please provide links to sources where ever possible. --Aspro (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
March 25
circle thingy in cars and dummies
I always see this in some cars and crash test dummies. The circle is divided into 4 parts, two quarters are gold/yellow while the others are black. What is it and what does it do?--121.54.2.188 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Center of mass location markers ? Or, more generally, they can be used to note the location and rotation of any data point, as during crash studies. They are made to be highly visible so that they can be spotted in crash videos, even with dust and debris flying around. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google agrees, calling them calibration or target stickers, saying they are used to provide motion reference points when reviewing the footage and thus helping with interpretation of severity of movement. Nanonic (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found it slightly perverse that they give crash test dummies actual facial features. there's no scientific reason for it, of course. very strange... --Ludwigs202:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more strange if they had globular heads without any suggestion of features, in my opinion. These things are not exactly life replicas. But I do see your point. Bus stop (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second bugs - surely the facial features being notably like an average face would help to show (warning: major guess going on) say the likelihood of say your nose being broke by debris etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to indicate that the entire face is considered as one area, although areas of the skull are each considered as separate areas from one another and separate from the face. Bus stop (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for dummies having facial features may not be scientific. A Competitor dummy provider may have started providing dummies with facial features with same quality and no extra cost. manya (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'd be more liable to accept the semi-scientific reasons if there was some reason to believe that the dummy faces mimicked the physical properties of human faces. but there's no suggestion of an attempt to replicate eyes, nose, teeth, or etc in a realistic way (I suspect that dummy's nose would do more damage to the dashboard than vice-versa). knowing scientists, it may be that the first crash test dummies were featureless ball-heads, and the researchers started tacking on pictures of ex-wives, bosses, academic rivals. scientists, I swear... like children with multi-million dollar toys... --Ludwigs209:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bust of Nefertiti - authenticity
I read in an article in a newspaper that the famous bust of queen Nefertiti housed in a Berlin museum would in fact be a sculpture made in 1912. The claim was made by Swiss art historian Henri Stierlin.
How can such a claim be substantiated and is there any research undergone to proove the authenticity of the bust?
Thanks to any help you can bring me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinvillier (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dingoes are just feral domestic dogs, so the two questions are the same. Strangely, our article doesn't say anything about whether African hunting dogs can interbreed with domestics. It seems unlikely to me, but I'll search around for a better answer. Matt Deres (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Our article on canid hybrids implies that they may be able to breed as they both have 78 chromosomes. Searches through Google books and scholar are not turning up anything definitive, but I still suspect that they likely cannot interbreed successfully. In cases like this, where the species is under a real threat of extinction, it's notable that no references provide information about the dangers from interbreeding with other canids. In fact inbreeding is a real problem at this point. If you or anyone else wishes to research further, please note that using the scientific name Lycaon pictus reduces the number of false hits on Google searches. Matt Deres (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the science desk would be better suited, but I think we've actually got a pretty decent answer here already. --Tango (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect not much as any carbon molocules the cigarette puts out would be carbon molecules that the tobacco plant previously removed from the atmosphere. Googlemeister (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how widely you consider the impacts. E.g. this link (http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/190/1/Tobaccos-environmental-impact.html) suggests that each year '600 million trees of forest are destroyed to provide wood to dry tobacco'. I suspect you're probably more interested in the impact of cigarette smoke on the environment (rather than the whole process) though, to which I couldn't find anything in my (admittedly short) search. ny156uk (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One cigarette doesn't weigh much more than a gram, so presumably wouldn't produce more than a gram of smoke. Averaging fifteen a day (claimed by this site) Okay, I spent a while Googling before finding this website, which claims 6 million tons of tobacco is smoked per year. This is at least something to start with, if you're just trying to find out the effect of the smoke that smoking produces. I'm not sure what to do with that number, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, smoking might even be good for the environment, if it kills off enough people to ease the environmental pressure caused by overpopulation. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not very useful, in the long term, if it doesn't get people before they reproduce. APL (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC) (Struck in view of Steve's math below.)[reply]
It does, however, kill off a lot of them before they can dip very heavily into Social Security. On the other hand, if all the previously uninsured smokers get health care now, that could negate the plusses. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil Adams, very briefly covered this. Cecil Says:"U.S. smokers produce about 5,500 tons of particles and 78,500 tons of carbon monoxide annually. That sounds like a lot, but it's roughly 0.1 percent of U.S. totals for those pollutants. The real environmental issue here, in my opinion? The 357 billion cigarette butts."APL (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To put things in some perspective, the Mount St. Helens article says "Over 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide were released into the atmosphere...it ejected more than 0.67 cubic miles (2.79 km3) of material." It would take a lot of cigarette smoking to approach those numbers. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. (You might be thinking of noted greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride, but as far as I know that is not produced by volcanoes.) APL (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking US statistics (because they are available): 440,000 people die from smoking each year - and on average, a smoker cuts their lifespan by 12 years. 22.8% of adults smoke and the population of the US is 300 million people, with a life expectancy rate of around 78 years. So if 22.8% of people are living an average of 12 years less than they otherwise would - then that's equivelant to 100% of people living an average of 2.7 years longer. So if there were no smoking in the USA, there would be about 2% more people living there than there are now. (If we assume that these people are predominantly dying after reproductive ages). The US currently produces 5,800 megatonnes of CO2 per year - and assuming this is more or less proportional to the size of the population, we can say that the 2% reduction in population due to smoking deaths is saving us about 12 megatonnes of CO2 per year. If APL's numbers are right, then smokers are producing 78 megatonneskilotons of CO2 per year. So overall, it looks like the planet would be slightly betterworse off if people stopped smoking...at least in the USA. I wouldwouldn't be surprised if that were true for the other two top CO2 producers though: China and India. Their per-capita production of CO2 is much lower - their smoking rates much higher - and their life expectancy is lower - so the numbers will be very different. SteveBaker (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I'm sorry - you're absolutely right. In that case - you smokers keep on doing what you're doing - by dying 12 years early (on average) you're helping to save the planet. Well done! SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can just see the tobacco industry running ads saying "Wikipedia declares smoking to be good for the environment !", followed by handing out smokes to grade school kids to "encourage them to each do their part for the planet". StuRat (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the oldest people that have lived on the planet chain smoked from an early age till death (China) only issue i see with early death is the other crap placed into the cigs to keep it alight or change the flavour, Compared with a whole range of other pollution issues it is completly unregisterable on scale of effect for global warmingChromagnum (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
business
If you have a successful business, but decide that you do not want to have it any more, for whatever reason, eg moral, religion, etc. Can you just stop operating? can you just close down for good? what happens to your staff? eg I runa brothel in amsterdam, then have a religious experience and decide to leave the next day to live in a monistary. can I just lock the doors and walk away? If not why not. and if so, what happens to your staff etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the sole owner of a business, it is your prerogative to "shut it down", however there may be legal ramifications for doing so; for example your employees may be due severance pay if you let them go; if your business has any debt, your creditors may be due money as well. As a proprietor of a business, you have certain Fiduciary responsibilities to your employees, clients, and creditors, and if you just up and shut down the business one day, with no advance warning or preparation to do so, you may be liable to recompense various people when you do so. You may be better off selling your business to another proprietor, as it leaves you with less liability. --Jayron3216:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this occurs in England, but over here when we decide to close down, we need to file a form with the authorities, pay your taxes and other dues (bills, etc.) and that's it. In most cases you can just stop operating and tell whatever authorities are in charge that you stopped, so they can suspend your health insurance or whatever. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, a business owner can close their doors at any time, without notice, to go live in a monastery. Legally the business must pay all of its employees what they are owed for work up to the time that the business closes. The business must also pay all money owed to its employees under any policy the business may have, including any accrued sick time and vacation time, if the business offers those things. There is no requirement to pay employees any severance, unless the company's policy says that it shall pay them severance. There is a form to send to the Secretary of State of each state in which the company does business. The business is still liable for any debts that it has incurred (like a loan from the bank, or paying off the balance of the business's credit cards), and for any contractually agreed-upon payments in the future (as in the case of the business having agreed to lease its place of business through next October). Banks, credit card companies, and landlords will be able to sue the company if these payments are not made; and they all require, in 98% of cases, a "personal guarantee" from the owners on such debts and guaranteed payments; so if the company seems to vaporize, these lenders will have a particularly easy time getting the business owner to pay. The business is also of course liable for paying all taxes incurred up to the date of closure. As for the equipment and furniture that the newly monked owner has left behind in his locked-up brothel, the contract with the landlord says that the landlord will dispose of it (which means he'll sell it for a profit) and the business has to pay for the costs of removing the furniture and equipment. Good luck in the monastery - Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This actually happened to me once. The brewery my husband worked for just decided to close. They sold the equipment, gave the staff a pay-off and locked the doors, having paid their debts. The proprietor was really stupid: he could have told us he wanted to quit and we would have bought the business off him, giving him more money than just selling the equipment did, because we would have bought the goodwill (which usually means the good name of the busines, customers etc.) as well as just the equipment. Basically, as long as you're solvent, pay off your obligations and you are a sole trader, you can just shut up shop and call it a day. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would have required a lack of arrogance on the owner's part. On the other hand, maybe he wasn't so good at running a business anyway. The OP's original question mentioned morals or religion, but the more likely explanations are either practical (losing money) or personal (wanting to retire). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised how being newly religious will cause some people to make drastic decisions (especially incredibly stupid ones, if they're naive enough to just blindly follow whatever their religious leaders tell them to do). 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia search box
What determines what the wikipedia search box to the left suggests? Is is recent page use? Is is graded on relevancy? As an experiment, I typed a single letter into the search box and recorded the top result. Many were fairly logical, but there were some odd ones. Here is the list.
Animal
Brazil
Canada
Departments of France --- ???
England
France
Germany
Hispanic (US Census) --- ???
India
Japan
Km^2 --- ????????
List of sovereign states
Marriage
Native American (US Census) ---???
Ontario
Poland
Quebec
Race and Ethnicity in the United States Census --- ???
It looks to be the most linked-to article beginning with each letter - compare the (outdated) list at Wikipedia:Most referenced articles. The ones which you have questioned are linked from widely used templates, or the census information included for pretty much everywhere in the U.S. The same trick works with numbers, symbols, etc. Warofdreamstalk15:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, history comes up before History of Pomerania. And History of Pomerania has 6679 links primarily it looks like Special:WhatLinksHere/History of Pomerania bot created (I presume) (User:Kotbot) articles on PolishPomeranian (or perhaps it's German and Polish)Polish places. History has 21384 and History of China (which is third) has 4021. So I don't know why history didn't come up first in your case, maybe a temporary bug, but in my case it's following what Warofdreams suggested. The same bot BTW is now involved in creating articles on Romanian places which probably explains why Romania is fourth for R. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the Command & Conquer Orca in the picture quite clearly has outboard turbofan engines, a real-life highly-manuverable aircraft with twisting nacelles would be more likely to have turboshaft engines mounted in the body connected to ducted fans via shafts, so there's less weight being slung around in the nacelles. The V-22 has its (turboprop) engines mounted outboard of the pivot, but it doesn't need to waggle them about in the way a fighter aircraft would. FiggyBee (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
March 26
Hairy
I am suffering from hair loss( may be crossing my first stage) and consulted a trichologist in a homeopathy clinic. He blasted a bomb saying that hair cannot be regrown by medicines and the dead roots are dead and cannot be opened!! He said that the hair loss can only be stopped but cannot be reverted.My hair is not so scanty that I need a major transplantation. Is it possible to have a transplantation in some areas on scalp especially on sides of my forehead?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy is pseudo-science - it's complete and utter bullshit. Can we really trust the diagnosis of someone who is dishonest enough to promote this junk-science? No, we can't. So ignore this so-called trichologist and seek out a proper diagnosis. SteveBaker (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly not true in all cases. (Drugs like Minoxidil or Finasteride have been shown to regrow hair for some people.) But only a real doctor could tell you about your specific case. You will not find a real doctor in a homeopathy clinic, you'd have just as much luck getting your palm read. A homeopathic placebo might make you think your cold is cured, but it will not regrow your hair. (In fact, It sounds like the quack was trying to prepare you for his eventual failure to solve your problem!) APL (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elton John is known to have had hair transplantation treatment in the early 1990s. Bear in mind though, he was a successful and very wealthy entertainer who could afford the expensive treatment. I'm not that rich, so I would probably choose to shave my head or at least keep the hair very short. Astronaut (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that I am suffering from pattern balding and he said that regrowth is possible for alopecia totalis and not for male pattern balding. And Homeopathy is not bullshit dude!! It takes a lot of time but is effective and the clinic I go (I live in India) is famous throughout our country!! It is not definitely not a Pseudo Science!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever. The answer to your question is that your doctor is giving you false information. Both the drugs I mentioned above have been proven effective at treating male pattern baldness. Not 100% effective, mind you, But if you talk to a practitioner of a modern scientific medicine he'll be able to tell you what your best bet is. APL (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - but homeopathy most certainly is pseudo-science. But let's examine why that is - so you don't just have to take my word for it:
According to Wiktionary, the word "pseudoscience" means: "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.".
Homeopathy certainly claims to be science - Google for the phrase "The science of homeopathy" and you'll find 1.9 million links - the first gazillion of which are books, magazines and adverts put out by homeopathists.
There is literally zero scientific evidence behind homeopathy. This is hard to prove because you can't look up the lack of something. But homeopathic "cure" suppliers do not rigorously test their products and measure their efficacy - they do not have a solid explanation for how they might work - there are ZERO successful scientific trials of homeopathic treatments that have been independently verified and reported in peer-reviewed journals. Our article on Homeopathy has links to dozens of papers where homeopathy has been tested under the scientific method and failed. In proper science, if some medical treatment repeatedly fails to produce positive results when double-blind tested against a placebo, it is abandoned. Homeopathicists continue to peddle their little bottles of plain water despite the mountain of evidence that it doesn't work. Ergo they are NOT "following the scientific method".
So, homeopathy claims to be a science and does not follow the scientific method (and indeed rejects the results of the scientific method. With the dictionary definition of pseudoscience and these two notable facts about homeopathy, a reasoning person should have no choice but to accept the statement "Homeopathy is pseudoscience". There is no arguing that point.
I strongly suggest you read the third and fourth paragraph of the introduction to Homeopathy - noting the LARGE number of supporting references for the statement: "The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery,[25][26][27][28][29] and a "cruel deception".[30]" - those references are all from well-established scientific sources.
Furthermore - it is irrelevant whether it's "famous throughout our country!!" - fame does not equate to truth (please don't make me back up that statement!).
The truth is that homeopathic remedies are nothing more than plain water. They only work (if at all) by the placebo effect and the people selling the stuff are laughing all the way to the bank as they sell you tiny bottles of plain water for between a hundred and a thousand times what they cost to produce...when you support those people - you're supporting criminals who are dragging you and your fellow believers back into the dark ages - you are being a gullible consumer of fraudulant product. SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy seems to call itself a "science" in the same spirit that Marxism called itself a "science"—it is a system of answers. This is however a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what "science" really ought to mean—real science is a way of asking questions! Homeopathy (and Marxism) utterly fail to ask questions in a way that produces reliable answers. They may occasionally be useful, or provide meaningful inspiration... but they aren't scientific at all. I think with homeopathy the amount of b.s. vastly outweighs any insights it has provided. It is extremely telling that all homeopathic remedies I have seen always advertise that there are absolutely no negative side effects whatsoever... anything that actually has the power to effect major changes in your body should have side effects in a number of people, especially if taken in larger doses. If it doesn't—it's just water. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could quibble with that last part. For example, if you're suffering from a vitamin deficiency, then supplying the adequate amount of the missing vitamin could effect major changes in your body, and isn't likely to have appreciable negative side-effects. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bottle of vitamin E, which is pretty safe stuff, has a long disclaimer of potential conditions in which you should consult a doctor before taking it. Presumably this is because there have been some real or theorized side-effects, presumably because the vitamin does take some biological action on you. I'm just saying, the big signs that homeopathic medicines have on them proclaiming to have no possible ill side effects is a big sign off the front that they are probably not real medicines! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be the effects from an overdose. Drinking huge quantities of water would also have harmful effects. And even normal dosages "may cause more frequent urination". But, I agree, in general, that more helpful drugs also are potentially more harmful. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point tho innit? The only effects from overdose of homeopathy remedies are those from excess consumption of water. There are no other potential (non entirely psychological) effects because they are literally just water Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, of course, priests have believed in the power of holy water for thousands of years. (Whether that's the power to heal or just to line their pockets, will be left to the reader to decide.) StuRat (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulu
I saw him on a commercial for TV sets (Sharp). At the end, in a close up he looks into the camera and enphasizes the words "Oh My!". I am supposing that this is a catch phrase of his, that has some origin. Is it from Star Trek, some other performance of his, or am I just imagining a past relavance of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llort I. Kcos (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you google it, it does seem to be a catchphrase of his. A pretty lame one, but beyond Kirk and Spock, the dialogue on the old shows often wasn't especially memorable except for its triteness, "The warp engines'll never hold, sirrr!" That kind of thing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you try googling for this along with "Star Trek", you see the same question popping up, and it seems more to do with his Howard Stern connection than anything. I would think if it were Trek-originated, the Trekkers would be all over it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing a project on Banking and need informationon "holding of funds". I am told that banks sometimes "earmark" or "keep aside" funds in a customer account. I want to know 1. when it is done 2. how it is done in the systems 3. what happens if the hold is of no use? 4. Internationally do practices differ in this area? 5. Does the law regulate these procedures? 6. Is interest paid to customers on such funds held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugmiyer (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the money belongs to that account holder, or is legally deposited or transfered into the account, the bank won't put other money into it. Do you have a source on this? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a person calls ahead and notifies the bank he will be withdrawing a particularly large amount of cash, perhaps they will arrange to have extra cash available at that branch, if that's what you mean. StuRat (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banks do keep funds 'held' in customer accounts. About a year ago, I paid a big insurance check into my checking account and we were not allowed to access those funds for a couple of weeks (eeek!) while they did "money laundering checks" or some such bullshit. I strongly suspect that they use any excuse they can to earn from your money by preventing you rushing off and spending it. After all, how much effort does it take to note that the check came from a major insurance company? Sadly, I don't know enough about the practice in general to answer our OP's questions adequately. SteveBaker (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holding it for a short period of time has more to do with verifying that the check is valid, hence why Nigerian scams work. As the length of the hold increases, I'd increase the suspicion that they are holding it to earn interest on the monies.--droptone (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, Thanks for all the responses.I will be more specific in my question.
The money belongs to the account holder no doubt on that. When can the bank "hold on" to this money. When will they not allow the customer to use his funds? Is it legal? Will the customer still earn interest on the funds held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugmiyer (talk • contribs) 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usual reason that a bank has 'frozen' all the accounts a customer's may have is because it has received a court judgement ( for debt, money laundering etc.). Exact details (interest freeze etc.,) depends on which country/ small-print / etc.,. Then there are ad hoc decrees. Example: The Bretton Woods Resolution VI of the 1940's prevented refugees that fled from Nazi Germany from accessing any bank accounts they held (but fortunately for the fleeing Nazis at the end of the war fascist Spain just took a very long time to get round to implementing it).--Aspro (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also, as mentioned above, for the short period of time (a few days) that it takes to verify that a deposited cheque is valid, that money cannot be withdrawn. Yes, this is legal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the US (and, I suspect, elsewhere), banks can suspend all transactions for a period (30 days for checking accounts, and 90 days for savings, I believe) to prevent a "run on the bank". I would think this would require approval from the various regulatory agencies. This is sometimes euphemistically called a bank holiday, a term which has other meanings, as well. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all are talking about a couple of different things here. The OP is referring to a hold (a noun, note) applied to newly-deposited funds. Such funds are credited to the customer's account, and do earn interest from the date of deposit -- because the great majority of such deposits are of course completely legitimate.
This is spelled out in the bank agreement, usually under the heading of "Availability of Funds". Get a copy from your local bank and see what they have to say. [edit: For your project, go get one of these from a smaller, neighborhood bank, and one from a large, regional or national bank, and compare them!]
The hold varies depending on the media that is presented. Personal checks are subject to the greatest ("longest") hold; cashier's checks less so; and electronic transfers to a smaller (but not always zero-day) hold. The only "new monies" that are not subject to holds (in the personal banking system) are wire transfers from one bank to another -- because the sending bank guarantees the funds to the receiving bank (which is why there is almost always a fee for this service).
It is legal, and it has a practical value to both the bank and the banking system. Recent legislation has shortened the maximum hold that banks may place on new funds. At the same time, holds have popped up where there were none before, not only due to the increasing prevalence of the previously mentioned Nigerian Bank scams, but also due to the downright paranoia imposed by the PATRIOT act and its Anti Money Laundering provisions. Witness: in the financial planning industry, any licensed staff (Registered Investment Advisors, stockbrokers, even licensed assistants) must (re)take their broker-dealer's AML course every single year as part of their continuing education requirement. Another: you want to stop by your broker's office and contribute some money to your retirement account? Don't take cash -- they can't legally accept it. You might be assisting terrorists and not even know it.
In my experience Spathiphyllum does not like direct sunlight on leaves (certainly not outside, and usually not even through the window). It needs a lot of bright diffuse light to bloom regularly, and some cultivars bloom more-or-less continuously; but direct sunlight may burn the leaves. On the other hand, Spathiphyllum (along with Aglaonema and Aspidistra) is among the most low-light-tolerant houseplants. Spathiphyllum won't bloom under low lights, but it can survive for years in a windowless office as long as it is properly watered. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indirect sunlight. It seems like the plant I had would bloom only when it got sufficient light. But you could practically drown it and it was happy (unlike with philodendrons, for example). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More Original Research, but my own experience with Spathiphyllum (bearing in mind that there are various species and cultivars, so your herbage may differ) is that they tolerate short spells of soil dryness well and the temporary stress may induce flowering, and they don't like very wet soil, so err on the dry side. An often overlooked factor is that they like a moist atmosphere (often not found in air-conditioned offices), so either mist the leaves every other day or stand the pot on a bed of wet pebbles. I kept one - actually 4 in one large pot - thriving through several office moves and retained them after our plant factory closed, but in my mother's centrally heated spare bedroom (where it went to live for space reasons) they got too dry and gradually died.
Re flowering: if kept healthy but regularly given a little stress to encourage flowering, and if the dead blooms and leaves are promptly removed, one plant can maintain blooms with, say, one developing, one well out and one in decline, for months on end if not indefinitely. Multiple individuals in one pot naturally multiplies the blooming potential. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
International ships in landlocked nations
I know this isn't technically a question, but I was just curious about the fact that two landlocked nations, Mongolia and Bolivia are in the top 25 of countries with foreign ships registered domestically (see: flag of convenience). If anyone had comments on this, that would be welcome.Feel free to delete this question if it's not up to standards--达伟 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking why there are foreign ships registered in Mongolia and Bolivia, the article on flags of convenience says that ships register this way to avoid various regulations or fees, so perhaps Mongolia and Bolivia have desirable fees and regulations? That's just a stab at it! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason their regulations are likely to be lax is that they don't have to worry about unseaworthy ships sinking and blocking their ports, ships leaking oil along their coast, diseased crew members spreading epidemics in their port cities, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would I go about sending a stamped, addressed envelope, I'm not sure I could fit one envelope into another of exactly the same size? And would people actually appreciate the effort, don't most businesses already have some system of paying for their mail beforehand, such that they don't need stamps and have to send their own envelopes?
Yes, fold the SAE so it fits inside the other envelope. Certainly, for many charities asking for SAEs helps keep costs to a minimum, and for businesses sending out application forms to potential recruits it can both keep costs down and weed out non-serious applicants. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, I believe the acronym is "SASE", for Self-Addressed, Stamped Envelope. This also keeps to Society of Automotive Engineers off their case. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And aren't aeronautical engineers the ones known for "pushing the envelope" ? :-)
This was once covered on "Miss Snark's" blog. (She's a literary agent, who deals with self-addressed-stamped-envelopes a lot.) If you're going to be sending a lot of these she recommends "Very very smart and savvy [readers] understand that biz envelopes come in two sizes: #9, and #10. You put a #9 inside the #10 for your SASE. You mail the #10." She goes on to say that neatly folding an envelope so that it fits in another envelope of the same size is also perfectly acceptable. APL (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of the SASE is to make it as easy as possible for your recipient to comply with whatever you're requesting, and to improve your chances of a reply. For example, if you write to a celebrity asking for an autograph, being thoughtful enough to give them an SASE might encourage them to respond. This is why, for another example, solicitations for subscriptions (and sometimes for renewals) come to you pre-stamped. Why? Because they want to encourage you to buy. Bills typically don't. Why? Because you're expected to pay, so no "enouragement" is needed. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborating slightly on APL's point above: The US's #9 envelope is not only small enough to fit inside a standard #10, but it's also big enough so it still holds a standard 8.5x11 page without refolding it. Thus, the "outbound" package (some form or document for the customer to sign, plus the #9 return envelope) is still fairly flat, doesn't have unnecessary bulges in it, and still feeds through a postage meter easily.
You're expected to file your taxes? Why is this worth mentioning? Are there other major world governments that are pleasantly surprised whenever a citizen decides to send them some money? APL (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filing a tax return is not the same as sending money. The Norwegian authorities send tax returns to their taxpayers who are not obliged to return any document at all if they tacitly agree with the information that has been collected. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's hit the second question, so I'll take a swing at that, too. In my business, "ease of customer response" is EVERYTHING. Every single document that goes out to a client, is accompanied by a postage-paid return envelope, either #9 as above or half-sheet for larger volumes. But, in either case, we ALWAYS run those envelopes through the meter.
Business reply mail does exist; in the US it requires preprinted envelopes, special layout and franking. It's relatively expensive per piece returned, however, and you need a permit, and there may be mininum volumes (not sure on that). It's practical where you don't know what the response rate will be, so mailing out 1000 pieces and getting 300 of them back can cheaper than prepaying first class postage on 1000 pieces in advance.
If you expect to get all your envelopes back, a stamped or metered SASE is easily the more cost-effective option.
Well, I spoke to it, more than once. The OP assumes that he could ask for something and that the recipient would gladly pay for the postage. That's only true if there's something in it for the recipient, that is if the recipient might make a sale. But you're trying to get the recipient to do something for you that's of no apparent tangible benefit to them, an SASE is a must. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A word of warning. International reply coupons do not really serve the same purpose as a SASE. A SASE is more than a way to save forty-some cents, a SASE is a labor-saving device. The recipient already has the return envelope, it's already addressed, and it's already stamped. All that's needed is to stuff it and drop it in the outgoing mail. International reply coupons don't do any of those things. Sure, they still save you a stamp, but they're not labor-saving at all. In fact, they're labor-wasting, because they need to be physically taken to the post office to be redeemed.
Miss Snark, the literary agent I quoted above, says that she treats queries that come with a IRC the same as all other queries that don't include a SASE. (ie: They mostly wind up in the trash.) Instead she recommends simply buying some stamps from the target nation over the web and making self-addressed-stamped-envelopes with them.
Perhaps it's unfair to foreigners, but it's hard to blame her. If I was expecting a SASE, and instead got a coupon for a free stamp, I'd be pretty irritated. APL (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The primary purpose of a SASE is to make life easy for the person you are sending it to. As Bugs says above, people are more likely to do what you want if you make it easy for them. The cost of a stamp is rarely significant (for a simple letter, which is all IRCs are for - if you could use them for packages, they would be more useful). --Tango (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They can if you have an appropriate contract with a courier service. A member of the public can't just walk into a post office and send a package that way. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in the UK
I'm a student studying in England but still nominally living at home in Scotland. There's a general election coming up, possibly on the 6th May, possibly not. I'm 18, and this is the first election that I'm eligible to vote in (and I think I'm already registered to vote). How should I arrange to vote? I'm finding the 'About My Vote' pages confusing.
1. Can I vote both at home and in my university's constituency? I imagine not, but just in case!
2. If I'm voting at home, then I'm likely to need a postal ballot (since I'll be away from home from mid-April to mid-August) - but what if there's a snap election called before I'm back down?
You can only vote in one constituency, even though as a student you can be registered both at home and in the constituency where you live while studying.
As for a postal vote - you apply for this from the council for the area where you are registered. Contact Electoral Services at the council to find out how to do this. As I recall, you can register for a postal vote in advance of an election being called, so the forms will be sent out on time. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the general malaise about British politics and corrupt British politicians at the present time (think second homes allowances; duck-houses; wisteria pruning; family employees as researchers etc.,foreign sponsored visits to the Maldives etc.,availability for £5000 per diem for post ministerial hire for "introductory fees" think taxi cab for hire; and subsidised food allowances even when Parliament isn't sitting), I am surprised to learn that an intelligent person such as the OP is even contemplating the democratic right to vote in the imminent British Parliamentary elections. Me? At 63, and having watched the recent disgraceful behaviour(s) of the current Members of Her Majesty's Houses of Parliament - I have no confidence in either party or House, and as such, I would urge the OP to exercise the strongest mandate possible which is NOT to vote at all. Go to the pub, I say, and watch the pathetic result on the TV the day after. You will not be able to tell the difference. 92.30.75.4 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a gesture that's more powerful than simply not voting - and that's to go though the process of voting but "spoil" your ballot by not voting for anyone - or writing "None of the Above" over it or something similar. This says "I'm not voting for any of these people - but I'm not apathetic or too lazy to vote". However, in the end all you're really doing is leaving the choice to people who are more fanatically enthusiastic about one party or the other than you are. In a sense, you are leaving the decision to the very people who you despise the most. Perhaps you should do what my sister's husband did and stand for office yourself - that is perhaps the ultimate statement of discontent - and if everyone is as upset as it sounds, you might stand a good chance to kick at least one of these people out of office. SteveBaker (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. If you don't vote, no one knows that you think somethings wrong. If you write in Mickey Mouse, of vote for the fascists, or whatever, people can at least see that you don't like the current state of things. Buddy431 (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Some of the lowest turnouts happen when people are mostly happy with their government - so failing to show up to vote could be interpreted as "I'm not voting because either candidate is fine with me." I like the US system of allowing "Write-in candidates" (WHAAOAA!) (I like the bit where the citizens of Picoazà, Ecuador elected a brand of foot powder as their Mayor). SteveBaker (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how often have you seen a western democracy which actually reported the number of spoiled ballots as part of regular news coverage? It's the sort of thing that only attracts any attention at all if it represents a substantial fraction of the total count. (Or if the spoiled ballots are part of a very close U.S. presidential race...but that's a decidedly pathological case, and it didn't involve deliberately spoiled ballots.) Spoiling your ballot is a symbolic gesure, sure — but pragmatically speaking it's also a very personal gesture that no one else is likely to notice or care about. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I lived in the UK - but I thought they reported that number when announcing the winners and losers of the election? SteveBaker (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true - but it's also true that no-one takes any notice of those figures (although they might if anyone significant campaigned for people to do that). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agent 92.30, they're not "Her Majesty's Houses of Parliament". It's "her" government, but the Parliament is not in any sense controlled by her, not even theoretically. Remember what happened to Charles I when he tried to exceed his authority? Monarchs ever since have been well-advised to let the Parliament do its own thing without any regal interference. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very good reason why everyone should vote in any election they are eligible to vote in, and that is because people died so you could vote, and not voting is disrespectful to their sacrifice. I agree with the sentiments above: spoil your ballot paper, vote Monster Raving Loony Party, leave it blank - but turn up and vote! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I received a somewhat mixed message from that, Tammy. Turning up but spoiling your ballot paper or leaving it blank is tantamount to staying at home, for all the good it does. Just turning up is not voting. You have to cast a valid and formal vote while you're there, for your turning up to have had any benefit, value or point. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As was said above, casting a spoiled vote still ensures your vote counts - at least in the UK as the number of spoilt papers has to be declared. Just staying at home sends the signal that you consent to whoever other people decide gets in: in a very real sense you are giving your power away. It's the political equivalent of the shoulder shrug and "whatever". Making the effort, registering your vote by spoiling a ballot paper sends the signal that you wanted to vote but nobody could persuade you of their merit. Having seen the political fallout from a 15% turnout (virtually nil) and comparing it with a high percentage of spoilt papers (lots of enquiries as to why this happened), I can see that spoilt papers definitely count. And of course, Jack, if you are under compulsion to vote as the Australian system, there is only one way to protest legitimately! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that people who don't vote and then complain about whatever the government does are pretty low in my opinion - they chose not to take part, so they don't get to complain about what the people who did take part decided. If you really cannot bring yourself to vote for any of the candidates then spoiling your ballot is a legitimate way of expressing discontent. If you disagree with the whole process then you need to start a revolution, not stay at home grumbling. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sub-thread started with a TammyMoet's dramatic assumption that martyrs who defend democracy do not endorse the freedom not to vote. DuncanHill you are not compelled as you claim to make your condemnatory statement. In a free society the human right to hold and express opinion neither starts nor finishes at a ballot. It is disingenuous to walk away from a mark you made on a paper while implying that anyone who seeks a different involvement with society is merely a grumbler or subversive. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no problem whatsoever with "subversives", and I haven't got a problem with grumblers so long as they do something about whatever is making them grumble. It's the grumblers who don't do anything about it I can't stand. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of whether spoilt votes are reported in the UK as mentioned by Steve Baker, yes they are. But they are not analysed to discover why the voters chose to deliberately spoil them. So that gesture is an empty one. Secondly, my vote in Central Scotland will be wasted whatever I choose to do. The reason? This area is a traditionally industrial one which has always returned a Labour MP since the working masses won the vote. And that is despite this area now having NO industrial base on which to justify that complacency. But the Labour candidate will be keeping his Westminster seat warm for many parliaments yet to come, safe in the knowledge that his eventual successor might just as well be a scarecrow wearing a Red rosette. The only effective vote in this system and this country is one which is located within a marginal seat and which can therefore result in a change of Member, Party or Government. So it doesn't matter what I choose to do with my vote on 6th May next. It will still be a wasted vote. 92.30.141.81 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Space saver spare wheel
I've just taken delivery of a brand new Kia Picanto which comes with a space saver spare wheel. The book in the glove box says Australian models have a normal size spare. Why do the UK ones have a skinny wheel, when there is clearly enough room in the boot well to accommodate a full size wheel? I was told it was an "EU regulation". (I think that this reason is probably in the same vain as those EU regulations, such as the one which banned straight bananas, and are regularly written about in the press here in Blighty). --TrogWoolley (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The boot well is large enough to handle the Australian requirements, otherwise you'd have to have a different car as well as a different tyre!
Plus, when the spare is on the car, you need a place to put the full-size flat, right?
But, the real reason is that the smaller spare costs less, and weighs less, so you'll get significantly better gas milage with the small one. (Or not...) DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your little car has a small "limited use" spare tire, also known as "spacesaver" or "compact" spare tire — in an attempt to reduce cost, lower the vehicle's weight, and/or to save on the space that would be needed for a full-size spare tire. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the EU's laws and regulations website and I couldn't find any requirement for a car's spare tire to be the temporary-type (a/k/a limited-service spare or "Mickey Mouse tire"). Of course, I didn't search every rule in the book, mind you. That said, any EU laws/regulations requiring a vehicle to have a certain minimum fuel efficiency may well have driven Kia to mandate the limited-service tire for deliveries in Europe in order to boost said efficiency. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more likely an Australian regulation requiring full spare tires. That is a justifiable law, the opposite isn't. Does anyone know if they have limited use spare tires in Australia? --Tango (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of the mini-spare tire or the law forbidding it ? If you mean the tire, then you Aussies have it right. I don't know how such an obviously dangerous tire as those ever got approval for road use in the US or elsewhere. I also question the environmental benefit. Any fuel savings must be tiny, then you add the wasted energy and material to make a "tire" which can't be used for more than a few miles. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fuel savings could be substantial since it is always in the car. If you total the fuel saved over the life of the vehicle, it will probably be a big number. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My car (not a Kia) has the same thing - a crap spacesaver and a note in the manual saying Australian versions have a full-size spare. I too imagined it was a specifically Australian regulation rather than EU regulation (especially since other cars I've had in the past have always had full-size spares). It works OK in my car so long as I don't have a huge journey ahead of me, and I don't have a large and heavy alloy wheel taking up a lot of space in the boot. Astronaut (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is complete hearsay, but I did hear that Australia has a law about spare tyres hence the AUS models always have full-size spares. The latest Subaru Impreza was launched in South Africa with a full-sized spare which severely compromised boot space, a fact mentioned by almost all the reviews; however most of them concluded that the lack of space was worth having a "proper" spare. The reason for these "marie biscuit" spare wheels is as explained above, to save the company money. It is of course an absolute pain to suddenly have to find space to store a spare wheel, for example the boot of a Honda S2000 isn't big enough in ANY dimension to store its 17" tyres! Another disadvantage is if you get a puncture on on a back road in the countryside far from any major city. Driving at 80km/h with a tiny tyre at one corner is no-one's idea of a good time. Zunaid19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
March 27
Santiago,Mn
How does a Norwegian community like Santiago,Mn get a Spanish name?
A lot of places in Minnesota that were later targets of Scandinavian immigration were first founded by native-born Americans of British descent or by German immigrants during the mid-19th century. During the same period, Chile was also a magnet for German immigration. This is speculation that would need to be confirmed by research, perhaps at the Sherburne County History Center, but the name might have come from German immigrants who had heard of their countrymen's successes in Chile's capital and hoped to achieve something similar in North America. Marco polo (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many place names in Minnesota are mangled versions of indigenous names - don't be surprised if Santiago isn't simply a Norwegian accent applied to a Lakota/Dakota/Sioux word. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy hour etiquette?
I'm not one who socializes with coworkers at drinking establishments after work. What is the "etiquette" for a social situation like that? Are there "unwritten rules" that people are generally expected to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.77.190 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go by all means and make sure your boss sees you there, but also make sure that he/she knows beforehand that you have a maiden aunt who is on her death bed and who dotes on you. That way, you will avoid the myriad problems that ALWAYS attend office parties. 92.30.75.4 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well by the sounds of it you won't be getting drunk, but no there aren't relly. Just talk normally as if you were talking to your coworkers elsewhere. You might get nervous and somehow conclude that the barman (or others in the bar) think you're an idiot but who cares what they think, you're paying the barman, and they almost certainly don't think that anyway. Sometimes more introverted people draw conclusions like that for very little reason. A quick goole search brings up this site that looks quite good.--92.251.201.60 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another tip ... don't discuss work or work-related topics. This is time out of the office, so treat it as such. If someone else brings up work stuff, consider it off-the-record, for the most part.
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you socialize with them after hours? It's actually a good thing to see that your co-workers have lives, too. These aren't machines you work with every day; they're people, just like you. You don't have to drink at all, but if you do, by all means do so sensibly. Remember the old adage "loose lips sink ships"? It could be paraphrased "alcohol-loosened lips can sink careers." --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doing X means you're Y
I've heard lots of people say things like "people who fold their arms are afraid of social interaction" and "people who call things gay are insecure about their own sexuality" and "girls play with their hair around people they fancy" and even "males think about sex every 7 seconds". Where do people get these weird ideas? I fold my arms a lot and I'm certainly not afraid of social interaction, and using gay as a synonym for stupid had been almost universal among my peers since I was in primary school (Yes even used by gay people). So have I got some terrific problems that I've never noticed and haven't so far impacted my life, or where did this crap come from?--92.251.201.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
This is all my opinion, no real research that would be up to Wikipedia's standard went behind this, but I am very timid around people, and I fold my arms a LOT, to the point that any close friends I may have with me will remind me to relax and look friendly. Maybe it's not just me. And no, not everyone who uses the word "gay" as a synonym for stupid (I really wish you'd stop that, though) is a closet homo, not even all actual homophobes are gay. However, if you keep up with political scandals, you'd notice that the most ardent homophobes are secretly gay themselves. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No the construction "politically homophobic" is unjustified. In politics Roy Ashburn was against gay rights. One may see that as cynical politics but to apply a psychological diagnosis homophobia that means fear of homosexuality makes no sense. Roy Ashburn visited a gay club so User 24.189.90.68 calls him an "ardent" homophobe which makes as little sense as an "ardent" claustrophobe. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know the literal meaning of homophobia is a fear of homosexuals, but generally that term is used against people who hate gays, and probably aren't "fearful" enough to go up to an openly gay person's face and call them names or do worse. And by "ardent", I also meant he was so outwardly homophobic, that he'd be willing to vote against gay rights to make good with the people he needed approval from, even if it meant putting himself down by doing so. The same way some preachers vilify homosexuality as an abominable sin, and then they're having same-sex affairs on the side. Rather than be indifferent, they'd prefer to be as outwardly homophobic as possible to deflect any suspicion that they might be gay themselves (although it's a tactic that is now failing miserably). So don't be surprised if Fred Phelps comes out (inadvertently or not) of the closet someday. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Body language experts say that folded arms shows a defensive posture with overtones of disagreement. I suppose that someone who habitually folds their arms when not disagreeing with people is therefore being defensive all the time - which could indicate a fear of social interaction. Personally, for me it usually means that the A/C is turned several degrees too low and I wore a short-sleeved T-shirt to work today...but then I'm a complete klutz when it comes to transmitting or receiving thoughts in the form of body language! SteveBaker (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a semi-pseudo-semi-science around reading body language for fun and profit. you'll see a lot of books on it, usually aimed at people who sell things, people trying to scoot up the corporate ladder, and people trying to score date more successfully. It has a real basis in clinical psychology (posture and physical behaviors are diagnostic tools used by therapists sometimes). outside of therapy, though, it's 95% placebo: if you believe you can 'read' someone's body language, you feel you have knowledge, which makes you feel more self-confident and in control, which makes it more likely that you are going to succeed at whatever it is you're doing. you get the same effect by using Affirmations ("I'm going to get that promotion"). --Ludwigs204:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think all those ideas, aside from the last one, are perfectly sound, and certainly not 'weird' by any stretch. Anyway you asked where people get these ideas. Has it occurred to you it might simply be recognizing the truth? Hence there is no source per se, just a recognition of human nature. I mean, sure you fold your arms and sure you have no qualms about being around people, but when you fold your arms methinks there is someone or something around you that you are not entirely keen on. Vranak (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Ludwig's affirmation won't work is that it's not written in the present tense, as if the goal has already been achieved ("I have been promoted to <name your job> and I am enjoying it immensely"). Affirmations work in the same way as visualising a goal, because they trick the mind into seeing the goal already achieved. But if you tell yourself over and over that the job will happen in the future, that's when it'll happen, and the future never comes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to stand or sit still, I fold my arms. It's just more comfortable. I am heterosexual and I often use the word gay to mean stupid, and I'm not homophobic either. And while I might think about sex every 7 seconds some of the time (:D), I certainly don't do it all the time. I have discovered to my own loss that the third satement certainly isn't true.--92.251.234.191 (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. Whenever I meet new people, I curl up into a fetal position in the corner, and people are forever trying to read something into it. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because homosexuals co-opted the term "gay" doesn't mean they own it. It used to mean something much broader - light, airy, effeminate, flamboyant, etc. Calling something "gay" doesn't necessarily mean it's "homosexual" - it could mean it's like the original version of "gay" - showy, perhaps; and perhaps lacking in substance. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term "gay" has had sexual connotations for centuries. Then and now it has other meanings, but even in the 1600s you couldn't describe someone as "gay" without someone in the back row snickering. In fact, it's connotation is probably cleaner now than then. APL (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "gay" had the predominate homosexual meaning until the mid-1960s. Otherwise we wouldn't have all the Christmas songs and the Flintstone's theme using it. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but in certain contexts you could use it to describe an unseemly obsession with pleasures of the flesh. That old-fashioned use of the word goes back centuries. I'm no linguist, and I'll admit that judging from TV and movies from the period this usage seems to have been obscure in, say, the forties and fifties, but I assume that it couldn't have died out completely because, like you say, a close variant of it came back in a big way in the 1960s. APL (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's why even for the first half of this century it was perfectly acceptable to say one's camping trip was a gay old time. And DuncanHill you don't have a clue who you're talking to so you can't make claims like that. You're being rather hypocritical.--92.251.225.200 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me who you are - instead of being the sort of coward who uses offensive language then pretends that others can't complain "because they don't know who they are". DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol APL I'm still stuck in the 20th century. And DuncanHill there is not one human being alive that does not say stuff like "why won't this damn printer work" and "crap". Many people I know and I often say things like "that film is so gay" when we mean bad. How is this any more offensive than saying "bad"? If you're the kind of person who's grip on reality is so tenous that you are mortally offended by a person's choice of phrase yet fail to be offended by the unimaginable amount of injustice, oppression and suffering that has permeated this world throughout history; someone who feels he can judge the worthiness of an entire group of people's lives based on two sentences written by one of the group, then you need urgent help. I will continue to use "gay" and other words as synonyms for bad as I've grown up using them.--92.251.136.245 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evolutionary psychology has a lot to answer for. And phrenology and associated ideas. The idea that you might be able to magically divine somebody's character (and perhaps predict their future) by looking at them is enormously tempting. Fiction from a hundred years ago was full of sorting people into types based on the shape of their jaw or the colour of their eyes or something; the second world war and popular disapproval of racism cured us of this, I think, but the appeal of divination lingers. 213.122.27.130 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Webcomic about the Sega Dreamcast
Anyone here knows a webcomic strip that had one character labeled "indie gamer" or something similar, he walked into the scene after being introduced and just said "The Dreamcast was highly underrated!" or something like that? It looked like Penny Arcade or Sinfest, but I don't think those were it. Thanks. --YukiMuonMadobeNite (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bit of a tough one... At least I think so... I saw a flag today, here in Vermont, that was hanging off someone's porch. It had four vertical stripes that made up the "background" of the flag. One color covered the left third, two colors were evenly divided between the middle third (making a line down the center of the flag), and the fourth color was on the right third. In the "foreground" of the flag was a ring of different colors. As the ring passed through one of the other color blocks, the ring itself changed to another color. I only had a quick glance but none or very few of the colors seemed to be the same as any of the other colors on the flag. Any ideas what the flag represented? Or do you think this was just a flag that someone found "pretty" and they hung it up? Dismas|(talk)03:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are several sites on the web that show the flags of all countries in the world - and none of them appear to have four vertical stripes. So we can narrow it down to "a pretty flag" or some kind of city, commercial company or club flag. You didn't mention the colors of the stripes - I guess that might help. SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had two thefts from my front garden in the last few months. Can anyone suggest a suitible exterior CCTV please? I would like it to be discrete, almost invisible, without big ugly cameras. I only want it to record still images that I can retrieve for the last twenty four hours or more, not real-time monitoring. Most importantly, I want it to run all by itself without requiring me to keep a computer running. It should run silently without needing any attention from me, except when I want to review and retrieve images. Thanks 84.13.201.209 (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save a lot of money by mounting a deliberately visible dummy camera. Here are suppliers one of whom offers a peculiar slogan "They are real dummies, don't be a dummy and buy one, crooks know the difference". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a real, exterior, standalone CCTV system would be more expensive than whatever is stolen from your garden. You could lower the cost by just using a remote web cam attached to your computer, but you vetoed that idea. A simple motion sensitive light might well frighten off the thieves, and is good for personal safety, as well. Also, is there a way to secure the items they steal ? Tools can be locked in a shed or garage, for instance, and garden gnomes can be put inside, looking out a window. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, they charge more for a fake camera than a real one. But, of course, a real one also needs wiring, a monitor, and a recording device to go along with it. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more difficult thing is not the cameras or the wiring, but having something that will save 24 hrs plus of still images. Something that does not make any noise and hence does not have a cooling fan, or use up much electricity. 89.243.43.75 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if it is "possible" to learn Dvorak without forgetting Qwerty? I'd like to give Dvorak a try, but I'm worried that I'll be unable to type in Qwerty any more (I currently type at ~120wpm at Qwerty). --Belchman (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(OR) I've learned to type both, but nowhere near 120 wpm on either. It usually takes about 20 minutes or so when I switch over for the memory to come back completely. Maybe if you switched more often, you could bring that time down. Buddy431 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About 50 wpm. I certainly prefer Dvorak (you aren't reaching down to the bottom row so much), but I don't know that I type any faster on it. Buddy431 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
March 28
Which Muslim based language??
I just had an e-mail attachment that illustrated how, in 20 years or so, because of the smaller European family size and the increasingly Muslim family size (in Europe), Western Europe was inevitably to become an Islamic region, given the declining Western population growth to about 1.6 children to 2 parents, as against the Muslim figure of about 8.1 per married couple. If that is true, and me being a realist rather than a reactionary, and further given that in the past (as an English citizen and speaker), I have chosen to learn Latin based languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian, (mainly for holiday purposes), how would Wikipedia advise me to quickly learn a Muslim based language such as Arabic. Forgive my ignorance but I am assuming that Arabic is the most widely spoken and readily understood language in the Muslim community. Thanks in anticipation. 92.30.0.204 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims speak many different languages. Many of them speak English. If you're taking the "can't lick 'em, so may as well join 'em" approach, probably your best bet would be to study Arabic, as that's the language of the Quran. Rosetta Stone (software) includes Arabic in its list. There's no substitute for "immersion", but if that's not practical, then some elementary course such as Rosetta Stone might be a good start. You should probably also track down a local mosque and ask them about it. Far as I know, Islam is every bit as eager to bring in new recruits as Christianity is, and I expect they could give you some good guidance. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There are no Muslim-based languages. Islam is not a language family or grouping. There are langauges whose speakers practice Islam, Arabic is the official language of Islam in much the same way that Latin used to be the official language of Christianity; however Classical Arabic is the "liturgical" language, being the language the Qu'ran is written in, however no one actually speaks that on a daily basis. Modern Standard Arabic is the lingua franca of the Arabic-speaking world. The largest (by population) Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, so the Indonesian language would be a good second choice, but there are not a lot of European Muslims who are coming from Indonesia. There are native European Muslims, for example Bosniaks, who speak the Bosnian language. The Farsi language is spoken widely in Iran and Afganistan, and it is an Indo-European language, so is closer related to English or French than it is to Arabic. To sum up, if you want to speak a language that will allow you to communicate with many Muslims, your options are probably, in order, Arabic, Indonesian, and Farsi.
As an aside, I wouldn't take emails like that to mean anything. Demographic changes happen so rapidly and unpredictably, alarmist and xenophobic analyses like that (Watch out! People unlike you will soon take over your country and you will soon be a minority!) are usually bullshit. I would pay it no mind. --Jayron3200:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several years ago, there was an article in either Time or Newsweek that opined that Europe would be largely Islamic within 50 years. That was based on the current growth rate, along with the decline of Christianity in Europe, while failing to take resistence into account. It reminds me of a story, I think written by Mark Twain, based on the rate of "shortening" of the Mississippi River over time. He projected backwards that the Mississippi must have been many thousands of miles long in ancient times. As you say, estimates based on current growth (or shrinkage) rates are not necessarily reliable predictors. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(another ec):First, that email attachment very likely is nonsense. Moreover, there is no such thing as "a Muslim-based language", or "the Muslim community". But if you want to learn a new language, that's certainly a good idea. Arabic is the language of the Qur’an, and is spoken in different dialects in much of Arabia and Northern Africa, and probably among Muslim minorities in France. Farsi is spoken by Muslims in Iran, Afghanistan and neighbouring regions. Urdu is probably the language spoken as a native language by the largest number of Muslims, and it's fairly widely spoken among Muslims in the UK. Turkish is spoken by around 80 million people, including many immigrants in Germany. And Indonesian has about 200 million speakers. Urdu and Farsi are Indo-European languages, so that might give you a leg up. Arabic is a semitic language and has a long literary tradition, so that's a plus. Turkish and Indonesian are written with Latin letters. Take your pick. As for learning them, there are various methods. If I remember correctly, Richard Francis Burton, who apparently spoke 29 languages, including Arabic, recommended going to the country and living with a local hooker for a month. Others recommend to live with a family that has small children for a while. More conventional are language classes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recall the email in question from a couple of years ago. I think it originated as an article on a far-right group's website. I have read an excellent rebuttal of it (maybe by the chap who write the Bad Science pieces for the Grauniad). I'll try to find it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've remembered where I heard about this before. It was on a BBC Radio 4 programme about statistics and their misuse - when I can remember the name I'll come back again! DuncanHill (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the proportion of muslims in the EU is 3.2% (16 million out of a total population of 500 million), and after a couple of generations the fertility rate among recent immigrants usually falls considerably (in fact the fertility rate is currently lower than 8.1 in every country in the world), it will be a long, long time before Islam could even possibly become a majority faith in the EU. It is only racist fuckwits, sorry... far-right islamaphobes who are stoking fears of a European Caliphate or Eurabia. You can safely ignore the email attachment. That said, learning Arabic wouldn't do you any harm. Astronaut (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it was a funny joke, but it was sort of based on the premise that the right-wing reactionaries are right, and that both regions would soon be overrun by outsiders who overwhelm the existing culture instead of integrating with it.APL (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some electric locomotives called Bo-Bo or Co-Co? And also, as most locomotives that are or were in service in the UK have numbers, where is all this information stored? Is there a database with all the numbers in it, or is it just something used to distinguish locomotives of the same class from each other whilst they are in service? I was looking through a book of British 60s electrics and diesels in the midland regions. Chevymontecarlo. 08:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start you off with links to Bo-Bo and Co-Co. They seem to relate somewhat to UIC classification of locomotive axle arrangements. I think loco numbers were issued by the owning company - presumably British Rail in the 1960s. Info on the 60s is probably now best stored in railway publications of one sort or another. Contemporary numbering will live with the rolling stock leasing companies. --Tagishsimon(talk)08:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a link to List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes - the numbers relate to the class of locomotive as well as a "serial number", so for example 27056 is a British Rail Class 27, and the 056 relates to its number within the class, the first being 27001. All the numbers of current locomotives, coaching stock, wagons, etc. are all organised by TOPS which also records train formations, timetables and a hundred and one other things. -=# Amos E Wolfetalk #=- 09:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the 9/11 Report yesterday (interesting stuff!), and there is some discussion about roof rescues weren't attempted on the World Trade Center towers (in the North Tower at least that would have been maybe the only way anyone above the crash site could have evacuated). There was a mention of radiation hazards on tops of the towers that I was just curious about in a factual way:
Doors leading to the roof were locked.There was no rooftop evacuation plan. The roofs of both the North Tower and the South Tower were sloped and cluttered surfaces with radiation hazards,making them impractical for helicopter landings and as staging areas for civilians. ... Even if the doors had not been locked,structural and radiation hazards made the rooftops unsuitable staging areas for a large number of civilians; and even if conditions permitted general helicopter evacuations—which was not the case—only several people could be lifted at a time.[16]
What were the radiation hazards mentioned? How much radiation are we talking about? (Of course, it seems like compared to the threat of the towers collapsing, a few rems would have been preferable, but that's neither here nor there.) (I am not a conspiracy theorist, mind you. I'm just curious what they're talking about!) (If it is somewhere else in the Report, I apologize... I looked through online with the "find" button, but didn't see anything obvious on my first pass. The paperback version that I am reading does not have an index.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World Trade Center says "The roof of 1 WTC contained a vast array of transmission antennas" for "almost all" of NYC's TV and a bunch of its broadcast FM stations. So when they say "radiation" I think they mean electromagnetic radiation not ionising radiation. Those signals would pose a major hazard for helicopters flying near them. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk14:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't all those have been turned off or had power cut by then ? I certainly did think that there should have been attempts made to rescue from the roof, and that the roof should have been designed for that. Similar to the Titanic, there just didn't seem to be provisions made to evacuate everyone quickly enough. There was always a possibility that certain stories of the buildings could become impassable and evacuation would need to go up as well as down, but they never implemented a plan for this. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just wild speculation, but perhaps whichever agencies had helicopters ready simply didn't know the status of the transmitters and what effect that would have on the helicopters. Like you say, there was no plan in place, and finding out this sort of technical information quickly in a crisis is probably not easy. APL (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things they emphasize in the Report is that the plane impacts seriously damaged the electronic infrastructure and that because of this the computer systems were really unreliable in the upper parts of the towers. This was responsible for a lot of problems—this is why the doors at the top were still locked even though the central control had sent a universal "unlock" signal, and why some of the intercom systems didn't work correctly, and why the radio relay system was unreliable (thus emergency personnel who got above a certain height in the tower lost their ability to communicate with people on the ground). So I'm not sure it is clear whether they could have turned the stuff off at the top at that point, even if they had sent a signal. It is not necessarily true that the power would have been automatically cut by the planes.
Incidentally... it is actually rather impressive how many people were evacuated. From the same chapter:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has provided a preliminary estimation that between 16,400 and 18,800 civilians were in the WTC complex as of 8:46 A.M. on September 11. At most 2,152 individuals died at the WTC complex who were not (1) fire or police first responders, (2) security or fire safety personnel of the WTC or individual companies, (3) volunteer civilians who ran to the WTC after the planes’ impact to help others, or (4) on the two planes that crashed into the Twin Towers.
That's actually a pretty effective evacuation, as far as they go. They got some 14,000-16,000 people (over 88% of those there) out of harm's way in a little over an hour and a half, even though it wasn't at all clear at first that the towers would likely collapse. A lot of the people who died were due to the immediate plane explosion itself, or because they were trapped in the upper floors and had no way below the damage (at least in the North Tower; in the South Tower they had some limited way through for some amount of the time, if I'm remembering right). I think the basic problem re: roof evacuation is that even under ideal conditions, getting 2,000 people out via helicopter would have been pretty much impossible in that amount of time, much less under the conditions they had there (where the heat from the fires itself was enough to make helicopter use extremely precarious). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be times when one or both roofs were clear enough for evacuation. In this pic of the impact on the 2nd tower, the roof of the first tower looks clear, for example: [17]. As you said, there wouldn't have been anywhere near 2000 people to make it to the roofs, but, even if there had been, if each chopper could pick up 5 people, and took 1 minute to do so, you could pick up 300 people per hour per tower. That's a significant number, but you'd need a few dozen choppers to do it. I'm sure there's that many in NYC, it's just a matter of having a plan to press them into service. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your hypothetical 1 minute-rescues implies that they're just going straight over to some other building and then back. A "few dozen" helicopters all within a 30 second flight of each other, hovering over a burning building (With all the unpredictable air currents that implies), and stuffed to capacity with survivors ... That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Especially if you're using pilots not trained for rescue work. APL (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd expect them to drop people off at the nearest safe roof. They would want to set up a traffic pattern, where choppers approach on one side, hover in a designated area, land, then leave in another direction. A "control area" could be set up on the roof of a nearby building (or from a chopper hovering above the rest), to avoid confusion. It certainly would be dangerous, but the alternative was that everyone on the roof died, wasn't it ? It was also obviously dangerous for first responders to enter the building, but the did that, didn't they ? StuRat (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the dogo argentino says "it is illegal to own Dogos Argentinos without specific exemption from a court per the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991". What does it take to get this exemption? Is it a matter of proving that you need one (e.g. for protection due to the type of work your involved in) or just proving that your capable of owning one and bringing it up properly so that it does not pose a threat to others or yourself? --212.120.247.225 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would start by asking at your local police station, but I suspect you will need a better excuse than "for protection..." and an explanation why you want that specific breed rather than a German Shepherd, for example. I also added relevant links to your question. Astronaut (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This official page explains the basics of the law, as does this one. It says an exemption will be given if the court is satisfied that the dog is not a danger to the public (however, that can only happen after you've been convicted of owning an unregistered banned dog and fined/imprisoned, as far as I can tell). You wanting a way to defend yourself would not be acceptable, just as it isn't an acceptable reason for carrying a knife. I don't believe there is any legal way of getting a banned dog (they are illegal to breed and sell), though. Exemptions are intended for people that had such dogs before the 1991 Act came into force, I think (and didn't register them and get them exempted before 30 November 1991). My advice would be to forget all about owning one. If you really want to, you'll need to talk to a lawyer - they will probably give you the same advice, though. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reference to the courts in section 1 of The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which is the section that makes it an offence to breed, sell, or (after the designated date) have a dog of one of the types designated. There are reference to the courts in section 4, which covers destruction and qualification orders. It therefore appears that, as Tango says, there are cases in which the courts may not order a dog to be destroyed, but there is no exemption to the offence. I shall edit the dogo argentino accordingly. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 1991 Act authorises the Secretary of State to create an exemption scheme. It was closed after 30 November 1991 and then reopened following the 1997 amendment. The links I gave explain it better than the Act - Acts of Parliament are really hard to interpret without being a politician or a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pitch-side advertising
This season, I've noticed a change in the pitch-side advertising at some Premier League games. Besides the usual advertising for the team sponsors, the stadium tours, etc. there are some adverts featuring asian language such as Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and Korean. For example, the 188BET adverts shown at Anfield, and the Kumiho tyres adverts at Old Trafford. Is there a reason for the appearence of asian languages in these adverts? Astronaut (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Television! the premier games are shown all over the middle and far east so it is advertising appealing to the world wide tv audience. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For evidence of the extent of this market (the Far East specifically), see the pre-season schedule of the Premier League sides and how many of them play a mini-tournament in Thailand or something and the fact that Everton's main sponsor is in fact Chang Beer. 91.85.128.205 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Premier League is extremely popular in Asia - if you take a quick look at www.manutd.com for example, you'll notice the front page has links to Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions of the site. I've been noticing adverts in Asian languages at quite a few grounds for a few years now. -- Arwel Parry(talk)22:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mixer bowl
Has anyone heard of a mixing bowl (most likely made of plastic) that has a hole cut in the center where you can place an electric hand mixer inside the hole and you beat what's inside without it splattering everywhere? Any idea who makes this? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyDrew68 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean one with a plastic top with such a hole in it ? It seems like that would interfere with the ability to mix the stuff that sticks to the sides of the bowl, and also to view how well mixed the results are, so I don't think a professional chef would use such a thing. You can just use the beater on low to avoid splashing. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the advantage of a hand mixer is that you can move it around and control it more precisely to mix what needs mixing and leave alone what is already sufficient mixed (especially important when whipping cream), and you seem to lose that advantage when putting a lid on, so you might as well go to an automatic mixer, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transport in WY
Hello guys! I looked for more articles and websites but I couldn't find answer to this: I'd like to travel from Denver, CO (or Cheyenne, WY) to Riverton, WY by public transportation (NOT by aircraft) but I didn't find schedules. Could you write me, is there so buslines? Later I'd like to explore Cheyenne, WY. Could you write me, is there public transportation system in Cheyenne, WY? If I good know, on the rail there's only fragile service... Thanks for the help and I'm sorry but my english knowledge is not the best... :) - Keldvi (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhound (bus) can get you to Casper from either Denver or Cheyenne, and the Wind River Transportation Authority (also bus) provides a shuttle between Casper and Riverton. Make sure you check the schedules and figure out a coordination plan, as it isn't like these things run once an hour. Here is a route map for bus transportation in Cheyenne itself. A couple of slight caveats: Greyhound is the 21st century American version of steerage, (it isn't terrible but BO is a frequent passenger), and although I've only passed through Cheyenne briefly, there probably isn't a huge amount of stuff to explore there - probably a few museums and the state capitol and that's it. This too isn't a horrible idea, just know that Cheyenne probably wouldn't be able to provide a week's worth of activities, probably more like a day or two. This site has some more information on stuff to do in Cheyenne. AlexiusHoratius22:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One reason is probably just so you can tell them apart (especially when they all look vaguely Japanese, no matter what nationality they allegedly are). StuRat (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
![[3]](http://img.tfd.com/vet/thumbs/gr312.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.noritake-itron.com/Softview/font5x7lcd.gif){kind=link}
![[11]](http://firstrung.co.uk/dbimgs/crash%20test%20dummy.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://retiary.org/idea/idea5/idea_5/911/wtc_911.JPG){kind=link}
![[18]](http://salestores.com/stores/images/images_747/KSM150PSBW.jpg){kind=link}