Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 4

VIntage Audio Equipment Value

I have a few vintage audio electronics I would like to sell, but i have really no idea about the value or where to sell this stuff. In particular i have a Technics SL-1950 Turntable, a Technics SL-PD867 5 Disc Changer, a Technics SA-GX350 Reciever, and a RCA SCT-520 Stereo Cassette Desk. All Those items work and are in good condition (besides usal scratches that happen over the year). Can anyone tell me where I could sell those items and how much they are approximately worth? I apprechiate any kind of help --Alosolo (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Search for the same items on eBay and Amazon. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

On eBay, right now:

• The turntable is on sale for $60 - but has gotten zero bids (someone else is optimistically asking $350 for it).
• The disk changer is up for prices ranging from $19 to $25 (with no bids) but one of them (which includes the remote and the manuals) has two bids at $75...I'm not sure why - but perhaps people value it having *ALL* of the stuff like manuals and remote.
• There are lots of the receivers for sale - prices are all over the place from maybe $60 and up - but I don't see any with bids on them.
• There are LOADS of these cassette decks for sale too - and even at $19, there are no bidders.

Things are only worth what they can be sold for - and from what I can see here, nobody is buying them at any reasonable price. That means that they are essentially worthless. If I were you, I'd put all four items into one eBay auction with a $50 reserve and see where you get...but I'm not optimistic. They'll cost considerably more to ship than they're worth. SteveBaker (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering the value/market, you might be better off trying to unload them on kijiji or similar local market. The buyer will be local, so you don't have to worry about shipping costs, and while the total audience is much smaller than eBay, there are still lots of folks who don't fancy using online auctions (or getting electronics through the mail). Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep - you could use Craigslist here in the USA. SteveBaker (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a vendor my parents use in New Jersey, Qwik Pack & Ship, who will receive an item from you, place it on sale for a 99c to $9.99 minimum bid on their ebay account, buyer pays shipping, and if it sells, they take a 28% commission. If it doesn't sell after a week you reclaim the item. No cost to you, no risk, you make 72% of the ebay sale price or you get the item back. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I chuckle at the idea of "vintage" CD and cassette players. My vintage audio includes an Edison disc player, and Edison cylinder player, a 1920's radio receiver, and a 1940's radio-phonograph. A 1970's turntable is among the newer stuff. Edison (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Vintage CD player, from clear back in the 1980s, yep. So, do you happen to have a 1950s-era Dictaphone, with those wide rubber belts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

American politician and his daughter

I was reminded of a rally where some American politician mentioned that his daughter was single but I can't remember who it was that said it. It was something along the lines of "Hey guys, she's a great catch" sort of comment. I want to say it was in the last four years but might have been a bit earlier than that. And I think it was at a celebration where the winner gets a chance to introduce his family to the public. It caused the usual sort of media kerfuffle that most political gaffes do. Does anyone remember this? It's not for anything important other than the fact that it's on the tip of my brain who it was but I just can't remember. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 10:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It was during the last presidential cycle. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you remember it but can't think of who it was either, eh? Dismas|^(talk) 17:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it came down to either Obama or Romney, my money would be on Romney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It was Scott Brown and she was quite attractive. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705359848/Scott-Browns-victory-comment-leaves-daughter-Ayla-Brown-blushing.html?pg=all

Thank you! I can rest easier now. Dismas|^(talk) 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So it's Ayla Brown then. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Affordable Care Act and trans benefits

Obamacare is introducing essential health benefits that include mental health coverage. Has there been any discussion on what this means for trans people? Gender dysphoria is covered by the DSM and modern treatment reccomends therapists, hormone replacement therapy and even surgeries. I would expect that mental health benefits would be expected to cover these treatments, but I haven't heard anything about it. I don't have a name (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that everything in the DSM will be covered. I have Asperger syndrome - which the latest version of the DSM recently reclassified as "Autism (spectrum)" - and I'm certainly not covered. There must be some kind of criteria for what's accepted and what isn't - but "being in the DSM" can't be it. SteveBaker (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I figured - the DSM thing was mainly pointing out that it is a recognized mental health issue, so in a reasonable world you would expect it to be covered by mental health insurance. The sources I've seen all use the same language to discuss the essential benefits, I don't know where to find a more in-depth explanation. I would guess that it would be codified in the law itself, but it also seems strange to legislate what conditions do and do not count as mental health when research is constantly changing our understanding. I don't have a name (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is that medical costs are high - and as a society, we can't afford to cover everything. So there comes a point at which you have to say that some condition has to be endured without free treatment. It's almost impossible to legislate for. Many conditions in the DSM (like mine) are "spectrum" conditions where some people have the condition in such a serious form that it's debilitating - and others have it so mildly that they are hardly even aware of it and are hardly inconvenienced by it at all. In a true spectrum condition (such as the new DSM definition of Autism) - you can't possibly draw a line in the sand and say "this person isn't ill enough to be covered and that person who is 0.01% worse off gets free treatment"...assuming you can even measure the extent of the problem with any kind of precision - which is essentially impossible for most psychological maladies. So laws are drawn up on relatively vague terms that politicians can understand and the administrators, doctors and case-workers are left to determine who gets treatment and who doesn't. It's not a particularly satisfying setup - but it's very hard to imagine anything that would work any better and yet still be affordable. SteveBaker (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dry sense of humor?

What does this expression mean? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

See dry humor. Basically, it's someone who likes jokes which are told and received without much outward emotional expression. -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article dry humor links to the Spanish article humor seco. Look on the leftmost side of the English article, find where it says Espaňol, and click there to go to the Spanish article. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It says that in English it is know as Deadpan Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are several terms for it. Deadpan specifically means the jokes are made by someone who doesn't smile or react to the jokes himself, with a blank expression; i.e., a dead pan. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's really "dry" as the opposite of "sweet" rather than "dry" as the opposite of "wet". Dry humor doesn't usually involve telling actual jokes. It's generally used in the context of someone who can come up with a sharp witticism in response to something that just happened - but it could also be used (for example) in the case of someone who creates really subtle practical jokes - or humor that takes a long time to emerge and be recognized. It's more generally accepted as being smarter - more intelligent. Someone like Winston Churchill would be noted for having an exceptionally dry sense of humor. When some woman complained that he was drunk, he replied "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." or "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." or "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.". SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I feel offended if someone tell me that I have a dry sense of humour? O_o? Someone did and I had no idea of what dry sense of humour meant so that's the reason I came here to ask. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 5

Help me find the US Federal Financial Aid's fine print.

I tried looking, and was under the impression that it would be a 5-10+-page sea of text, but have found no such pages so far. This would not only concern the federal student loans, but also the Pell and other federal grants (SEOG, et al.) from the US Department of Education.

If I can find and pore through the fine print of their forms of financial aid, I could find some clauses that may make a difference. But I just need to find the official fine print, which a simple Google search couldn't produce.

And why is this fine print so elusive anyway? Hopefully I can settle the issue for the last time. --2602:30A:2EE6:8600:4071:ECB9:F7C6:D053 (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone like to contribute to my talk page?

I recently posted a new topic on my talk page called Waiting for responses. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#Waiting_for_responses... I do not know exactly where else to turn. I hope I am not bothering anyone asking this question, but I do need help! Regards. Keeby101 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I also get fed up with the lack of responses to queries or suggestions I post on talk pages. I advise you to just be bold and make your changes. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your own talk page is for others to talk to you. So posting a question on your own talk page is talking to yourself. The place to find enthusiasts for a topic is a project page. So I suggest you ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology. But articles on sloths sound fine to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

He didn't post a question on his own talk page, he posted it at Talk:Sasanian Empire. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries or Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sasanian_Empire#Recommendations_to_Map_workshop_team ? Keeby101 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You could check which one is more active based on the recent comments on the talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone like to help reach a consensus on the Sasanian Empire talk page?

I am not spamming here. I should have gone here on regards to this topic in the first place. I hope this is the right place to ask this question. Recently I have posted a new topic on the Sasanian Empire talk page on regards to the map in the infobox. (I also posted on the talk pages of other users who visit the talk page of the article to try to get a response from them. Until I realized that I unwittingly was spamming. In all honesty I had no idea what I was doing and I was getting desperate. I went here having no where else to turn to.) :(

I made a request on the Map Workshop for the cartographers to make a new map of the Sasanian Empire in this format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chasaren.jpg. Further details about this topic are on the Sasanian Empire talk page. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sasanian_Empire#Recommendations_to_Map_workshop_team

Would anyone like to contribute to the topic? You can either agree or disagree with the recommendations that have been proposed. Regards. :) Keeby101 (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. Already been told what to do about this on the topic above.. :) Keeby101 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wages

There is a part time job, and it's 4 hours a week for 34 weeks a year. The salary is £13,500 (pro rata). The pro rata bit confuses me. I looked at our article on it, but I'm still not really sure. If I work for one year, is it:

£13500/(34weeks*4hours) = £99/hour

(£13500/52weeksayear*4hours)*(34weeks) = £65/hour

(£13500/52weeksayear*40usualworkingweek) = £6.5/hour  ?

Basically, I don't know if I would actually get 13,500 a year, or if that's calculated only if it were a normal working week or something. Thanks 143.210.206.217 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The last one is how I would interpret it, and also it is more likely for an unqualified job and just above to the UK minimum wage per hour for over 21s (£6.31). --Lgriot (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I only applied for the job because of the wonderfully high wage of £99 an hour, but then I realised later that maybe that's not how it works. Thanks again 143.210.206.217 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I make it to be £6.50 an hour, based on 40 hours x 50 weeks = £13,500.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "pro rata" is widely used in UK Local Government to make the salary sound much bigger than it really is. The quoted salary is what you would get if you worked full-time. At worst-case (based on a 40-hour week and 52.142857 weeks in a year) it is equivalent to only £6.47 (and a farthing) per hour. You would, however, by law, be entitled to "pro-rata" paid holiday (defined by contract with a legal minimum) which improves the rate per actual hour worked. Dbfirs 13:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

UK holiday entitlement is 5.6 weeks paid leave per year (up to 28 days if you work more than days a week), which includes any bank holidays (i.e. if you would normally be scheduled to work all bank holidays, but the office is shut, you get 21 days). As a rough estimate, it adds a bit over 10% to the hourly wage. MChesterMC (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the nature of the work make it seem likely that they'd be paying £99 or £65/hour? Those kinds of part time jobs would be something like a specialist consultant on a high-risk project requiring a ton of qualifications and skills and the short hours would imply brief consultations on difficult technical matters with someone else doing the actual grunt work. It's more common for those kinds of jobs to either be a fixed total contract amount - or to be paid by the hour without any specific number of hours assigned (although, perhaps with a minimum and maximum amount). But if this is a mid- to low-skilled job then the £6.50/hour interpretation seems much more reasonable. SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A week's work would bring in £26, less some tax (and maybe NI). It is a little above the adult minimum wage of £6.19/hour in the UK. Astronaut (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Tax would be payabale only if you had another better-paying job or declared income, and there would be no NI on such a low-paying part-time job. Our article on minimum wage has last year's figure. I'll update it to this year's £6.31. Dbfirs 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your answers! It's just a part time job at University. And £99/hour sounds like a lot, but I reasoned that maybe £13.5k is the minimum the University pays people, regardless of the job or working hours, as that's a basic amount someone could live off for a year. But you were all correct in that it is just the £6.50/hour, so I cancelled the interview. Thanks :) 86.17.119.120 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Centre for Aviation (CAPA) question

I'm a frequent visitor to the website of an aviation think-thank called Centre for Aviation or CAPA. One thing I've noticed is that the tone of several of their analyses seem to favor low-cost carriers, and that several analyses of theirs about LCCs seem to lean towards being positive while their analyses about legacy carriers tend to seem to sound neutral to negative (of course not all of their analyses are like that, but many of the analyses I've read seem to be like that). Knowing the current economic conditions, I'm aware that LCCs usually perform better financially than legacy carriers, but why does it seem, based on my readings of their analyses, that the site seems to write more favorably about LCCs than legacy carriers and even seems to support the former? 125.212.121.16 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to know what's in people's minds - and "bias" is often in the eyes of the beholder (as anyone who has edited controversial articles on Wikipedia will attest!). "Follow the Money" is a good mantra here. I would ask yourself who funds this think-tank. Is it perhaps funded by LCC's or some other special-interest group? (I don't know - but it's the first thing I'd ask when suspecting bias.) SteveBaker (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source

Working on an article and hit on this Bono has tinnitus, which has a reference http://members.fortunecity.com/nrbq1/tinnitus.html. I wanted to make sure that was a reliable source. Thanks. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 15:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not remotely!

I just tried your link and it doesn't work. "members.fortunecity.com" seems to be uncontactable (http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com confirms that). That may be a temporary situation - but we try to avoid linking to unreliable sites because that makes it hard for our readers to verify that we represented the information correctly. (FortuneCity switched from a free web hosting service to a paid hosting model - and also changed it's name to "Dotster" - it's very possible that the "nrbq1" site that you're referring to has "gone away" or moved to a new URL because of that.)

The WP:RS "Reliable Sources" guideline is the bible here - you should read it carefully. It says "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."...and something on a free hosting service like FortuneCity has to be regarded with deep suspicion.

You should probably contact the person who wrote that page where they got their information - perhaps you can track this back to it's source.

More importantly, you're describing a medical condition of a living person and Wikipedia is very strict about biographical articles about living persons. (See the WP:BLP guidlines). Saying things that might imply that Bono's hearing is imperfect and therefore his musical ability might be degraded could easily be construed as an attack on him. That would place Wikipedia (and yourself) in a dangerous legal situation if that information were not VERY carefully attributed. On that basis, I don't think you can mention this without extremely solid references - and preferably more than one of them. What you have here seems far, far too flimsy for that.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No Steve, I didn't add it, it's more like I wanted to remove it from the first time I saw it!. Read Tinnitis#Notable_individuals. I don't want to get into troubles. Please help! Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you should Be Bold - remove the entry immediately with a "SEE TALK PAGE!" edit summary - then on the talk page, explain that the only reference to this fact has "gone away" - and that without a valid reference, this entry was a clear breach of WP:BLP - so you removed it until a reliable source can be found. SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the entry... and in the edit summary I added unreliable source. I am going to add something at the talk page. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I was able to dig up the original article on "The Wayback Machine" - it's a long list of individuals whom it claims have tinnitus - but in most cases, it makes the claim without references - and has a generic "sources: websites, news, radio, newspapers, newsgroups, magazines, published interviews, alt.support.tinnitus, talk radio, ATA, tinnitus discussion forums, tinnitus support message board " statement - which pretty much amounts to "we heard this someplace - don't remember where"! So it's certainly not a good source. However, of Bono, it says "Bono - U2 lead singer, he even sings about it in his lyrics. Bono derived his name from a hearing aid store in his hometown of Dublin, Ireland which had a sign that read 'Bonavox Hearing Aids'."...and as backup says: "U2 - Staring At The Sun - ...There's an insect in your ear, if you scratch it won't disappear, its gonna itch and burn and sting, you wanna see what the scratching brings...waves that leave me out of reach, breaking on your back like a beach, will we ever live in peace? as those that can't do, often have to preach, to the ones, staring at the sun..."...but (a) this hardly constitutes a concise description of tinnitus, (b) it isn't clear that Bono wrote that lyric, (c) it's not clear that it was autobiographical in nature, and (d) tinnitus is frequently temporary in nature - and he might no longer have this condition.

There is always a risk with sites like that: It's perfectly possible that they got their information from the very Wikipedia article we're trying to find sources for - which means that there is a circular dependency and nobody has solid information! This could easily have been a fan of Bono's hearing those song lyrics and putting 2 and 2 together to make 5. That said, it's perfectly possible (perhaps even likely) that this is a true fact - but if we don't know for sure then (especially in the case of WP:BLP) we must err on the side of saying nothing.

So, yeah - not a good reference. SteveBaker (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I have just checked information for that song in the book U2 by U2 and Bono doesn't state that it is autobiog. I knew there was something wrong with that reference. Thank you very much Steve, I owe you another one! Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Opening hours for public toilets on the edge of Hyde Park

Are these public toilets on the edge of Hyde Park in London open 24 hours a day, and if not, what time do they close? I'm taking part in an overnight sponsored walk in a few weeks; there isn't a scheduled toilet stop for about 7 miles, but we do go right past this. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is a large event, the organisers might rent some Portaloos. Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this site (which is also available as a phone app) those particular toilets are open 10am to 6pm every day.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the park has some trees? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what's gone wrong with you, Bugs, expressing the Republican notion that government is your servant, rather than the Democrat notion that you are the government's. If there's a stream along the route I would guess common law allows one to squat in it. Although I also assume Brits pay taxes not to have to squat, and probably also pay taxes to defray the cost of their own arrest if they do so squat. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you mean "Are we prepared to pay a small pittance to ensure that streams running though our public parkland do not become open sewers?" then the answer is an emphatic "Yes" - because we have a long enough social memory to know what London was like before we had those laws! See Tragedy of the commons for some background in why these kinds of social policy are needed. SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not OK to pollute a watercourse in a Royal Park.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's statutory law, not common law. Common sense mandates that public urinals be made available where public urination is undesirable. People regularly dumping their chamberpots in the street is slightly different from peeing in the stream in extremis. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not acceptable in the Serpentine, or generally in Britain. You have to nip into a pub or hold it in till you get home. "Arrest the pest who pissed so pointedly in that public place, pleaded the peeved pedestrians." (Bard of Salford) Itsmejudith (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As I'm sure Medeis knows, the distinction between statutory law and common law in that way is a concept entirely invented for the astounding conspiracy theory often known as Freeman on the Land. I am delighted to see we have an article. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that, under English law, public urination constitutes the offence of "outraging public decency" at common law. See Charlie Gilmour. Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't have an article on Charlie Gilmour? Hmm. See this BBC article, then. Tevildo (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that one can be charged with indecency if one acts indecently would not preclude a defense that one hid oneself well to do as nature called after hours in a place to which one had right of access. Indeed, one might bring suit against the municipality for not providing one with facilities. It's entirely possible the magistrate's goal will be to bring in as much fine revenue as possible, rather than doing justice. That's apolitical fact, not a legal principle. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean "apolitical fact" or "a political fact"? These mean opposite things. Should I not be assuming a parallel construction here? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The second. I saw the error, but figured my meaning was obvious and not worth re-editing, what with my itchy finger. Not that I mind you asking. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, while I am at it, I once got an unjustified ticket for disorderly conduct. When I went to the court in Manhattan to contest it, there was an interesting procedure. The judge called you up, charged you with disorderly conduct, public indecency, public urination, or with possession of marijuana or an open container of liquor. If you pled guilty you were found guilty and charged $15. If you pled innocent you were found guilty and charged $50. The arresting officer in my case was a no-show, and I was denied the chance to plead not guilty. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

More of that curious American justice. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Hyde Park itself is not open 24 hours a day - "5:00 am until midnight" according to the Royal Parks website. Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A Wikipedian dies

How guys do you know when a Wikipedia has died? Like User:AaronSw. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, we don't. Someone may notify the community and those who have edited closely with them may also find out somehow. I those instances are rare. Editors come and go all the time; whether from death, disillusionment or distraction.Nanonic (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the answer Nanonic. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 20:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians.—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Depending on how you count them, there are about 90,000 "active" Wikipedians - about half of whom are on English Wikipedia. With a typical US/UK/Australia death rate - we'd expect between 5 and 10 deaths per thousand per year - so there are probably 250 to 500 deaths of English-language wikipedians each year. Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians lists just a handful for each year...which isn't even scratching the surface. There is a real problem around every online community in this regard. Who closes facebook accounts? Where do the rights to access Kindle books or iTunes songs go? YouTube videos? It will take a while for the world to come up with new approaches to this. SteveBaker (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Franamax passed away and was memorialized here, but not at the link Wavelength gave. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

He's there—penultimate entry for 2012. Deor (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A little quibble, Steve—those typical death rates likely include a high proportion of older people, whereas the Wikipedia population tends to be younger and more economically comfortable. So I would expect a lower death rate among Wikipedians. --BDD (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but there are other considerations - 85% of Wikipedians are men - and we live less long than women, increasing the death rate. We also have that factor of two difference between the death rates in various english-speaking countries so you'd also have to factor in the percentage of each age/sex in each country, for which we don't have data. I'd also bet we have more couch-potatoes and fewer health nuts than the national average. So it's a horribly complicated subject and basically, we just don't know. Accept that this as the back-of-envelope calculation it's intended to be. The point is that Wikipedians die (very roughly) every day. It's not by any means the rare occurance that some might suspect - and without doubt our memorial page only credits perhaps 1% of active editors who died. SteveBaker (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In AaronSw's case, his prosecution and suicide was also a very high-profile subject. If you're not familiar with him, here's our article: Aaron Swartz. I don't have a name (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article yesterday, and I tried to understand his actions. He was a great person. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually met him at a conference once - he was a fascinating guy. His one stupid mistake of hacking that machine meant that he was facing a 50 year prison term (which might as well be a life-sentence when you're in your 30's) and a million dollar fine...I think that in his situation, I'd have killed myself too. The judicial system's reaction to hacking is totally out of all proportion to the magnitude of the crime. A couple of years in jail without access to computers and a modest fine would be plenty to deter and punish people like this. SteveBaker (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Death and the Internet contains an interesting list of policies from different sites about how they deal with the death of a user. It says of Wikipedia: "Users who have made at least several hundred edits or are otherwise known for substantial contributions to Wikipedia can be noted at a central memorial page. Wikipedia user pages are ordinarily fully edit-protected after the user has died, to prevent vandalism." - but there is no indication of any way to know that it's happened. This is perfectly reasonable because people leave all the time - and generally just abandon their accounts. Wikipedia doesn't delete unused accounts - so they just accumulate. If someone dies, either a friend or relative needs to communicate this fact to the admins - or perhaps a frequent or notable contributor may be missed by other editors when they suddenly vanish without an explanation of some kind. In those situations, it's likely that someone here would send a personal email ("What's up? Haven't heard from you for a while? Is everything OK?") - and you'd hope that the survivors of the deceased person would be monitoring the email stream and handling such requests for information.

However, not all Wikipedians check the box to allow people to email them - and since everyone is encouraged to password-protect their accounts, it might be quite difficult for other family members to get access to their Wikipedia accounts or read that email - so even that isn't guaranteed.

Ideally, heavy Internet users should provide a means for family members to handle that - and perhaps to express their wishes for their accounts after their death. Sadly, I don't think many people have done that - and perhaps we should? SteveBaker (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I found out about Franamax after his sister told me. She knew we both edited Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Pictures of Swartz masked and unmasked, breaking into the MIT computer lab to steal millions of dollars worth of data are publicly available, as is discussion of his instability. Knowing people who have died (rather than killed themselves) for less, I don't think we need to be erecting yet another memorial. I agree the charges against him carried ridiculous penalties--no one in the blasphemous NSA or the congress will suffer for their much greater crimes. But one simply should not do the crime if not willing to serve the crime. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's all in the interpretation. That "mask" is quite clearly a white bicycle helmet! Was he hiding his face - or is this a still image clipped from a video where he was just in the act of removing his helmet? The fact that he was shown "unmasked" later in the same video suggests that he wasn't trying to hide his identity from the cameras. Did he break into that cabinet that "to steal millions of dollars worth of data" - or "to download JSTOR articles that can be freely downloaded by anyone with a JSTOR account" (eg any student at MIT or any of at the 100 Wikipedians - who were granted free JSTOR accounts)? I'm betting he just entered that (unlocked) server room to get a higher bandwidth hard-wired connection than he could from the public WiFi in the room next door where he had a perfect right to be! Hardly a masked thug breaking into a secure area to steal millions of dollars. Was it unwise? Yeah - definitely. But 35 years in jail, a $1M fine, confiscation of all of his computers, hounded into suicide? Hell no! When I was in college, the most you'd have gotten for doing something that would have been a stern talking to by the Dean of Computing. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to get in to this sensitive discussion too much, it's worth remembering that although the headline maximum penalty may have been widely touted by both sides of the case, as per our article and AFAIK it's never been disputed that no one in the case ever seriously suggested the maximum penalty as a possiblity (and from what I can tell, nor did informed independent commentators no matter who they supported). It isn't of course uncommon that the maximum possible penalty can be quite high compared to what may be resonable for a certain case since the law may be intended to cover a variety of circumstances (and the question of how to appropriately legislate whether with a broad law and a wide range of penalties or a series of narrower laws is I presume not always a simple one with obviously greater complexity to having more laws but greater risk of abuse or unfairness from having too much discretion and unclarity) although maximum penalties for many things seem very high in the US to me anyway.

According to our article, the penalty being consider in that case if it went to trial was a 7 year jail term which may still seem excessive to many but is quite different from 35 years. By comparison (4 or) 6 months was offered for a guilty plea. Such a wide disparity is controversial as our article mention as it seems to place high pressure on the defendant to plead guilty which they were reluctant to do apparently at least partially because they felt they didn't deserve to be labelled a felon or possibly face jail time (which is obviously their right).

While much criticism some of it likely deserved has been put on the hands of the prosecutors and those supporting the case, you also have to wonder whether the pressure from people on the other side to 'fight an unjust law/case' etc didn't help given the magnitude (fair or not) of what they were facing and perhaps the difficulties that created reconciling their world view with that of the converse.

As for Wnt's point below, it's worth remembering that for every cause célèbre, there's often probably 10 or even 100 more that few people have ever heard of but involve losely similar circumstances simply without the high publicity. Which can be good since as suggested it may not have been good for the person's mental state in this case and in some cases the publicity may make a prosecutor or whoever wanting to use it as an example or unwilling to compromise. Or can be bad e.g. if there really was a $1 million fine here which I don't think was ever proposed, it seems he could have gotten a fair amount of help with it, and someone without the publicity would be much more on their own; and in some cases it may also mean there is less help offered and recognition of the unresonableness or unfairness or the case. Either way the main point is just because it's the only one you're aware of doesn't mean it's unique (thats one reason to aim for fair laws and a good system).

Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that attitude is outdated. We see all too often that people are randomly picked out for these huge and unjustifiable prosecutions (Justin Carter, for example). There is no real moral or even that much of an operational difference between that kind of a law and the kind that is enforced by other governments against people like Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh. In these days, everything from law to war has entered the supersymmetric state of terrorism. When we look at editorials like the American politicans and newspapers calling for the death of Assad or Snowden, we realize how mainstream terrorism really is, and how irrelevant anything else has become to the political process. Where it gets interesting, however, is that occasionally an angry protest from government reminds us that terrorism can be non-violent, indeed legal, yet still be just as effective, and indeed, just as deadly. Wnt (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A thousand years from now there are people interested in digital archeology who are reading this very thread. They can easily see when each of us here made their final contribution. If you accept eternalism, then these people in the future are as real as we are today. So, from their perspective we are long dead and burried, but from our perspective they have yet to be born. Both perspectives are equally real, there doesn't exist a "real absolute now" that points out which perspective is real and which is not. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 6

HVAC Acronym

It was my impression HVAC actually stood for Heating Ventilating And Cooling when cooling was first used to make buildings more comfortable in the summer months by cooling the air within the building.

That definition does make more sense when you think of what is actually happening to the air within a building.

I do understand that many people think HVAC stands for Heating, Ventilation (or Ventilating) and Air Conditioning, meaning they get cooling when "HVAC" is used, but actually all together or any one category of the three (Heating, Ventilating & Cooling) will "Condition" the air.

I also remember back in the 50's people came to understand "Air Conditioning" means the place had cool air where they could go to in order to escape the heat of the summer.

Is there any way to determine if the initial intent of HVAC was really to mean Heating Ventilating And Cooling??

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StormyNormie (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Home Depot, at least, routinely uses HVAC to mean Heating Venting And Cooling.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been playing around with the Google Ngram Viewer. (I was hoping to show a nice signal where one phrase takes off at about the same time HVAC does, and the others sort of slide in later.) Though the case-sensitive search complicates things, it's pretty consistent in that "Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning" is the only one that shows up (starting in the 1940s or so), and variants with "cooling" and "ventilating" don't even register ("Ngrams not found"). At least in the books Google is basing its work over, it looks like "Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning" is the most common phrase. That meshes with the conventional rules for acronyms/initialisms, where you omit little words like "and", unless you need to torture it into something. That said, "HVAC" itself has spikes starting in the 1930s, though, so I'm not sure if that's some other meaning of HVAC, or if there's a coverage issue in the ngram viewer. - Another, similar way to approach the issue is to look at things like newspapers and magazines from the time when the acronym HVAC was first being used. As people would be unfamiliar with it, they'd likely accompany it with a definition. For example the New York Times has it's full back archives availible and searchable. Searching for HVAC gives the earliest as a 1979 article defining it as "heating, ventilating and air conditioning". You might have better luck getting earlier references by searching in trade journals or similar. -- 71.35.99.22 (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In the building design and construction business (in which I work) it's "Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning." Air conditioning is a broader category that includes cooling and the measures that deal with humidity control in both heating and cooling modes, and it's impossible to properly address cooling without manipulating humidity. I can probably scare up a print reference from at least the 1980s at my office. Air conditioning is concerned with both latent heat (which involves temperature and relative humidity), and sensible heat, which is temperature alone. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Economics of human migration

One of the issues in tomorrow's general election in Australia, is the number of people who try to enter Australia illegally. The way this has been covered in the UK has included interviews with a few migrants and their stories are pretty much the same: the economic or security situation in their home country, or their belonging to a persecuted group leads to their decision to leave; they scrape together tens of thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers; a lengthy journey on a leaky and overloaded boat; and with no guarantee of success when they arrive in Australian waters. Contrast that to my trip to Australia a few years ago: apply for a tourist visa; pay a bit over a thousand dollars for a return flight; arrive safely at an airport after a some hours of flying. Why do migrants pay so much for such a risky journey when it is remarkably safe and easy to enter Australia as a tourist, and once safely in Australia they could simply disappear? Astronaut (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the saddest issue about tomorrow's election is that the politicians have pandered to the racists so well that they have convinced too many people, including the editor above, that arriving on Australia's shores and seeking asylum is illegal. It's NOT! it's amazing what a campaign of vilification can achieve. Another misconception fed by the manipulative politicians is that desperate refugees have the kinds of choices described above. This is a complex and controversial topic over which many people, obviously including our editor above, have been misled. Not sure it's a safe one to have here. And I truly don't know where to begin answering the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you are wrong there HiLo. Australian politicians have not convinced me of anything. Their (proposed) policy of shipping them off to PNG or holding them indefinitely on some desert island, is inhumane and pretty damn abhorrant to me. But I'm not asking about the politics of Australia - it could be any developed country, but Australia is currently in the news. I'm simply curious about the choices the already poor migrants make to get into Australia. Why would a migrant not have the choice I describe? For example, if they can find $16,000 to pay a people smuggler (like the guy interviewed on the BBC this morning), would it not be easier to find $2,000 and be sure of getting their feet on Australian soil? Paying so much leaves him owing a large sum to family, friends, loan sharks or whoever, some of whom might not be too friendly if they don't get their money back. Or am I missing some other issue here? Astronaut (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Astronaut, someone has convinced you that these people have done something illegal. They haven't. That's a lie promulgated by politicians and shock jocks pandering to racists. While your question is based on a lie, it's very difficult to answer, HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. No one has convinced me that these people have done anything illegal and I'm getting a little upset by the possible suggestion that I'm some kind of closet racist. They have a legitimate right to claim asylum. However, my question is not about politics or legality and is not based on a lie. According to the news reports I have seen, migrants pay a huge amount to criminals for unsafe passage to their destination, while I believe there is a far cheaper and far safer route available. If the cheaper and safer option of flying is not available to them, then could someone explain why it is not available, because that is never explained in the news reports? Astronaut (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the fuck did you say "...people who try to enter Australia illegally"? If it's not racism, it's ignorance. I can't stand people who ply this bigoted bullshit. Wikipedia should not tolerate it! HiLo48 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This thread needs to end right now: Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA before you write another word. SteveBaker (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I assumed good faith! I twice politely explained to Astronaut that he was wrong to use the word "illegal" to describe these people. He persisted. That's NOT good faith. That's stubbornly using Wikipedia to continue vilify and promote racism in the face of better information. THAT'S the problem here. Wikipedia MUST NOT be used in this way. Ignoring another's editor's polite and good faith advice disqualified Astronaut from further assumptions of good faith and protection from personal attacks. HE was personally attacking asylum seekers right from the start. I had to do something to stop that. And it worked. Wikipedia must never become a tool for racial vilification. I was protecting Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The other thing I take great exception to is Astronaut's "it is remarkably safe and easy to enter Australia as a tourist, and once safely in Australia they could simply disappear". He calls the refugees "illegals" (they're clearly not), but in the same breath he's advocating people overstay their visas, which is the real illegality here. This is actually a massive problem that gets proportionately next to zero coverage in the media. There are far more people in Australia who shouldn't be, than those who try to get here as refugees in boats. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this editor, who SteveBaker wants us to show good faith to, is, in the face of repeated advice to stop it, persistently describing a legal act as illegal, and promoting something else that is illegal. No longer a candidate for a presumption of good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, HiLo. For one thing, Astronaut used the word illegal exactly once. That may have been just carelessness, or he might have seen reports that described the asylum-seekers' behavior as "illegal". The question of legality is completely tangential to his question anyway, nor do I see how it matters much (but of course I have a low opinion of law, or at least positive law, in general). The actual question was about why they would go to so much expense and risk, when he thought he saw an easier way.

As far as advocacy, I don't see that. He wants to know why they don't do it. Where did he say they should do it? Nowhere. --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In his initial post he proposed that those wanting to live in a country could use a tourist visa to enter the country, then simply "disappear", thereby breaching the terms of their visa. THAT'S illegal. And I don't care how few times he used "illegal" in his post. He wouldn't retract it, and tried to defend his position. So long as that word is there, Wikipedia is vilifying asylum seekers. It's an extremely offensive post. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not "vilifying" unless you think that illegal==bad, which is a fairly silly thing to think. Speculating, he might have been willing to revisit what he'd said about "illegal" if you hadn't acted like a guy who just got the chip knocked off his shoulder in a bar. --Trovatore (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just silly. The reason the word "illegal" is used by those publicly opposing the arrival of boat people IS to vilify them. I won't apologise for my wording. I began politely. This is an important issue for Wikipedia and the world. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That may be the reason some Aussie politicians are using the word. You have no warrant to assume that's the reason Astronaut used it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's obfuscation. It's simply incorrect to call it illegal. Those attempting to vilify asylum seekers use that word. It shouldn't be used here, no matter what the intent. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. It may well be factually incorrect to call it illegal (don't know; don't care enough to bother finding out). But no matter how wicked your compatriots might be in using the word, it doesn't reflect on Astronaut unless he had the same intent. --Trovatore (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason they don't fly to Australia is they cannot get a visa. The airlines will not fly someone to Australia without a suitable visa or passport. The airlines have to return them back where they cam from if they make a mistake and the person cannot enter the country. The attempted illegal immigrant cannot get a visa because so many in the same sort of situation have illegally entered Australia or failed to leave. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In a bit more detail, and maybe more careful language: Different countries have different visa agreements with each other. For most citizens of first-world countries, it is easy to get visa to most other countries, or there may even be visa waiver programs or treaties like the Schengen Agreement in force that make travel without visa possible. For citizens of less developed countries, getting a visum is a lot harder - they may need to post a bond, demonstrate a valid reason for travel and sufficient funds, and/or name a sponsor (or sponsoring organization) to ensure that they return home. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may quibble - "visa" is short for charta visa, "document that has been looked at", and is therefore singular. The plural would be chartae visae. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

False friends - I knew that the English version is visa/visas, but in Germany we use visum/visa, and I naturally assumed our version was righter ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating, thanks for the correction. I would have thought the plural of German "Visum" would be "*Visüme", but obviously not. This is now rather off-topic, unfortunately. Tevildo (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The world will end! The alternative "Germanic" plural in Germany is "Visen", but at least in my experience, "Visa" is more common. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Visa (document)#Visa refusal. The nationality is a big factor when the risk of not returning is evaluated. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Countries who's citizens have no particular need to emigrate to Australia have no problem whatever in getting short-term holiday visas...or perhaps even entering the country without a visa at all. But citizens of countries where people are desperate to escape to the fabled land of milk and honey where the streets are paved with gold do not have that privilege. It's quite clearly not racism. If you're a British citizen, then you can travel to Australia no matter your religion, sexual identity or skin color - while a white, anglo-saxon protestant with a chinese passport cannot. It's not racism it's country-of-origin-ism. It's just a matter of simple numerics. I'm sure there are British people and Americans who go to Australia on a tourist visa and never leave - but the numbers are small enough to be tolerated and are probably balanced by the number of Australians who illegally go in the other direction. But when huge numbers of people are likely to abuse the tourist visa system, something has to be done. Now, you might well argue that borders should be open and people should be able to come and go as they wish - and there is something to be said for that - but it's not how the world works.

When countries are suddenly hit by such influxes - the consequences can be severe. I recall when Idi Amin abruptly expelled 80,000 Pakistani people from Uganda - most of them had valid British passports and 30,000 of them arrived (perfectly legally) in Britain over a period of just a few months. The chaos that ensued was not pretty and it took years for the situation to sort itself out and for the immigrants to settle into the rhythm of British life. Actually, the final result has not been a bad thing - we have more cultural diversity and it can be argued that the country is better as a result. But controlling and slowing that sudden wave of immigrants would have been much better.

So it's not unreasonable for countries to need to control the flow of people across their borders so that they can manage human migrations in a way that is not unduly detrimental to their own society. SteveBaker (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the situation in Australia. The numbers involved are far too small to matter. What's happening there is purely political. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's been mentioned above, but even if you do manage to get a visa (which to be clear is probably the biggest hurdles) this is no guarantee you are going to be allowed in once arriving. Officials can and do cancel your visa and turn you away upon arrival if they believe you are going to violate the terms of your visa, as anyone who's ever watched Border Security must well know (or probably any of these sort of shows, most of what we're talking about here is hardly unique to Australia). Oh and another thing, you actually need some sort of recognised travel document generally a passport to even get a visa, something many of the people involved may not have (even if they have some sort of refugee recognition document, the ability to travel on it is likely to be limited). So no travelling to Australia as a tourist for some refugee in Indonesia isn't anything like what you may have experienced as a clearly legitamate British touristBriton. Of course there are also plenty of people who pay for fake passports, for an Australian visa etc etc. And while I'd prefer not to enter into the controversy, if you think that no border agents and embassy officials consider race amongst the many other things they will openly admit to considering like country of origin, travel history, availability of funds/economic conditions, whether you have a job and stuff back home to go back to, your behaviour and replies to questions (like your reasons for visiting, what you intend to do) etc etc I would suggest you have an unrealistic understanding of human nature. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no "sudden influx" of asylum seekers to Australia. The TOTAL numbers involved are around 45,000 over 12 years or so. Australia's ANNUAL formal immigration intake is four times that number. It's those pandering to the racists and the ignorant in society who try to make them think that it's massive and that it's a problem. Nearly 140,000 Vietnamese boat people came to Australia in the 1970s and 80s. The current rate of arrivals is a minuscule trickle. This is far more a nasty political game than an immigration issue. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what that has to do with my response. I didn't say anything about a sudden influx of asylum seekers or comment in numbers or the effects of immigration in any way. Did you intend to respond to SteveBaker again instead? Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To go back to the semantics of the original question and the debate that arose from it, there is a big difference between unauthorised arrival and illegal entry. It's not against the law to arrive without documents and request asylum, nor to reach a country on valid documents and then do so. The illegality arises when you cross the border without going through the proper procedures, ie by avoiding immigration control altogether or by trying to get through with false papers or on a false premise. It's this action that may then be used to criminalise you, or deny your asylum request, or both. This UK document offers some plausible reasons why people might be unable or unwilling to obtain visas and passports to allow them to travel to seek refuge, and why they may be deterred from requesting asylum immediately on reaching the country on false documents, even though UK immigration rules require would-be asylum seekers to do so as soon as possible, ie at the port of entry. Note that this government document states that "The case of Norman established that a person who sought entry as a visitor when his true intention was to claim asylum was an illegal entrant. Had the IO on arrival known that asylum was intended, then he would not have granted entry as a visitor", suggesting that going down the tourist visa route with the intention of requesting asylum once you get your feet on UK soil may also harm your chances of a favourable result. - Karenjc 17:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all let me apologise for any offence caused to HiLO48 and JackofOz. I was really taken aback by the accusations of racism and tried twice to say that wasn't the case and that my question wasn't about the issue HiLo48 tried to make it into. Unlike Australian politicians, I had no intention to vilify asylum seekers, or anyone else who seeks to enter Australia, legally or illegally. The whole premise of my question was based on the rather naive assumption that the tourist visa application process would be as simple for everyone else as it was for me. My thought here was that a valid visa is just a mechanism to have an airline transport you to your destination, and once safely on the ground you can enter the country and disappear (at risk of later arrest and deportation), or apply for asylum (at risk of being refused entry and deported immediately). Thanks to the discussion about visas and the link provided by PrimeHunter, I have now learned the process isn't as equal as I had assumed; though I imagine that many of those obstacles could be removed with some of the money that might otherwise be given to the people smugglers (eg. showing money in a bank account, buying a return ticket, arranging a hotel stay, etc.) Thanks to the links provided by Karenjc, I can see that not everyone has a good understanding of the process of applying for asylum. Astronaut (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Font used in this image

I am trying to find the name of this font but I can't. File:U2.svg. I've instaled inkscape but I cannot find it. Does anyone know? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you deleted this question? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly just an unresolved edit conflict or a glitch in the database - looking at the history, nobody seems to have explicitly deleted it. Anyways, if you look at the image page, it says "U2 logo, created with Clarendon Light typeface", which is described at Clarendon (typeface). Does that answer your question? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, Miss B. I had a very weird edit conflict when replying to the last question, and it appears that my reply may have overwritten your question when I resubmitted my answer. I'm not sure why it happened, but I'm glad you figured it out and repaired it. - Karenjc 17:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry Karen :D. And yes, that answer my question Stephan. Thank you very much. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 7

How much shine should shoes have for business formal?

In a North American business formal setting, when one is wearing a suit with black leather dress shoes, how shiny should the shoes be ideally? Should they be military parade boots mirror shiny? Or is that too obnoxious? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the shoes could be too shiny. Just don't blind anyone. --BDD (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you want people to pay attention to you or your shoes? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

When I worked in an office in London, I always shone shined my shoes. It's surprising how many people don't bother at all, but I used to get lots of favourable comments. So I suppose it depends whether you want to blend in with the crowd, or make it look as though you've made an effort. Alansplodge (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally I just mostly don't pay attention to shoes, period. Am I the exception?

On another note — "shone", really? This is more language-desky, but I would never use shone as the past tense of transitive shine, but only intransitive. The Sun shone brightly as I shined my shoes. Is this a pondial difference? --Trovatore (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm from the UK and I would also say "the sun shone" and "I shined my shoes", but "I shone my shoes" sounds more unusual than wrong to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, normally shined for shoes. The OED says: "To cause to shine, put a polish on; orig. U.S. (inflected shined) to black (boots)". Wiktionary, in its entry shine has a separate etymology for the shoeshine sense, allowing only "shined" and not "shone". I agree with the comments above that it sounds more unusual than wrong to say "I shone my shoes", though I might ask "did they have built-in flashlights?" Dbfirs 11:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My shoes were shined, and then they shone. I lighted the candle, and then it was lit. The batter flied out, as the ball flew out to the leftfielder who then caught it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa! Now corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, (coming from an industry where "formal business attire" means finding a T-shirt with a slightly less offensive slogan to wear under your hawaiian shirt with your shorts and sandals) I'm horrified that anyone still cares about this crap! Do any branches of business still judge a person's worth by the shine on their shoes? Out here in the 21st century, whatever that industry is, I want nothing to do with it! SteveBaker (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to post something similar. If you tried to make my fellow scientists where anything formal, you'd have a riot on your hands! Why would you need to wear a suit etc in an office? I just don't get the point! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

'I polished up that handle so carefully, that now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy'. Making an effort with appearances was important when H.M.S. Pinafore was written and it is still important nowadays if you want to get to the top in business. Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's rather absurd to assign control over the most powerful military force in the whole world based on how well someone did a minor cleaning task. You would think there would be other, more relevant, criteria that might be employed. - I'm reminded of Allan Sherman's version of "When I Was A Lad" [2], which, after regailing us with the narrator's efforts and successes in rising through the business world, concludes "So I thank old Yale, and I thank the Lord ... and I also thank my father who was chairman of the board." -- 71.35.99.22 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nepotism can help. But the argument about having your suit or uniform in polished perfection is that it indicates a keen sense of attention to detail, which is certainly a useful skill in the military as well as in business. It reminds me of Crash criticizing Nuke for having moldy shower clogs. "Look classy, be classy. Then once you get to the majors, you can go back to moldy shower clogs and they'll say you're 'colorful'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Predict your co-workers' behaviour, and don't exceed it. Adjust your behaviour on the following day according to your observations on the first. Repeat. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's also a good idea to silently gauge that situation during the interview process, to be better prepared for the first day on the job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

First impressions are always important (so the saying goes) particularly for a job interview. If you were the only person with highly polished shoes it may make you more memorable. If the interviewer happened to be ex-military, then you may make a very good impression with them. Slightly off-topic, if you are going for an interview, try to find out the interviewers name if possible. You can learn a lot of possibly useful background info. about them by Googling or from sites like LinkedIn. --220 of ^Borg 06:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Cites: "Shoes as a source of first impressions". Journal of Research in Personality (pdf-228 Kb), Volume 46, Issue 4, August 2012, Pages 423–430, (the 'brightness' of the shoes was judged on a 1-7 scale, see Table 3.), & "The First Impression". Psychology Today, May 14, 2004. --220 of ^Borg 07:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Corrected - 220 of ^Borg 07:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, they should not be military parade boots shine. High gloss shoes are totally inappropriate as business attire. Just wear clean polished classical black shoes. OsmanRF34 (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Formula for computing the Compound Annual Rate of Return (CAROR) of an investment

What will be the CAROR for an investor who commits to a regular $1000 per month for a period of ten years and one month later sells his entire investment and ends up with (12 X 10 x $1000) $120,000.? (Forget inflation) In this case he "breaks even" - he invested $120,000 and got back $120,000. But what happens to this same investor who sells his investment one month later and gets back $180,000 - this is 50% more than he invested. He made 50%. But what was his CAROR? What if he got back $240,000? He made 100% on his $120,000 investment. But what was his CAROR? Obviously, the first $1000 has been working for 121 months while his last $1000 was only invested for one month.

The reason for this request is to help me be able to better understand the potential value of an investor who makes such an investment and ends up with a certain specific amount of money. It is my assumption "anyone" choosing to invest using a regular investment in an ETF or mutual fund replication the SP500 (for an example) would end up with a certain CAROR. No one an accurately project the future. But what I'd like to "get" is (perhaps) the average of the past 15 years of rolling 120 month periods of time of the SP500. But is there a formula to get this I know there is for a set dollar amount invested at one time - but i am unaware of any formula which takes into consideration periodic but specific monthly investments over a period of time.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TalFletcher (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not simple to get the rate of return since it involves a polynomial equation of degree n where n is the number of time periods (n=120 in your example). What I would do is use the formula

$FV=P(1+i)^{120}+P(1+i)^{119}+\dots +P(1+i)^{2}+P(1+i)^{1}$

where FV is the final value, P is the payment made each month, and i is the rate of return per month. The formula says that the first payment grows at the rate (1+i) for 120 months, the second payment grows at the same rate for 119 months, etc. I would suggest plugging the right side of this equation into a spreadsheet for each of various values of i until the value of the right side is close to equal to the true value FV on the left side. This i is the monthly rate of return; to get the annual rate of return r, use $(1+r)=(1+i)^{12}.$

See Mortgage calculator#Monthly payment formula and Compound interest#Monthly amortized loan or mortgage payments for the related (or reverse) problem of paying a debt down to zero with monthly payments. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

September 8

Van Gogh

So I was reading Lust for Life and Irving Stone clearly mentions that Vincent cut off his right ear. But later on when I checked pictures, it looks like his left ear (corroborated by other websites and documentaries). It seems to me that the paintings show the right ear, but since it was painted from a mirror image, it's actually his left ear that had been maimed. Can anyone confirm this? 202.65.133.122 (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The self-portrait of a bandage on his ear clearly shows it as the left ear. There's no indication in the article that it was his right ear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about the book, not the Wikipedia article, Bugs. Could Stone have made a mistake? 202.65.133.122 (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If the sources say it was his left ear, then the book's author made a mistake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion, but self portraits are usually mirror images. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source that Van Gogh painted from a mirror image in this case, then that would be worth a look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Painted from a mirror as opposed to what, an image on his cell phone? It's so much a standard method what we'd need is a source saying he didn't. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know whether the artist was right-handed or otherwise. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, you seem to be talking with forked tongue. First you support the left ear version, then you say any source that says it was the left ear is wrong. Please explain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's what he was saying. He first says that it was the left ear. He then says that if sources say it was the left ear, the book's author made a mistake. The book's author (based on the question asked to start this section) would be Irving Stone, who said it was the right ear. --Onorem (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, your write. Well, any source that says he cut off his ear is wrong too; it was his earlobe plus perhaps a little more. Calling that "his ear" is like saying "Ouch, I stubbed my leg" when it's only your toe that's smarting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedway

Hi Was reading an article about Cyril Roger, wondered if he was still alive as he was a friend of my mother and fathers, back in the 50,s Regards Peter Griffiths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.7.103 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article indicates that he was alive in 2011, and I've found nothing to indicate has passed away since. This article was apparently put online in May 2013, and does not mention him as having died. You might get further confirmation by contacting the National Speedway Museum (contact form at bottom of linked page). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

DMCA takedown of a rare work question

This came up to my mid the other day. Take this scenario: Work A (say, a book or article) was uploaded online, and the publisher finds out, so the download link was taken down. However, the work was actually relatively rare, out of print, and remaining copies, if any, cannot be located or are difficult to find. I'm not promoting or advocating piracy, but I was wondering: has such a case ever happened? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The "fair use" defense against copyright prosecution may allow such works (or at least parts of them) to be copied for certain special purposes - but not necessarily. There have been plenty of cases where authors wanted their work destroyed utterly for one reason or another. For example, George Lucas said of the notoriously bad Star Wars Holiday Special "If I had the time and a sledgehammer, I would track down every copy of that show and smash it.". If no legally purchased or licensed copy exists (as is believed to be the case with the holiday special), copyright law allows the copyright owner to do just that to remove every last remaining illegal copy. There is no legal right for anyone to keep a work in existence that is being destroyed by time through increasing rarity or anything else. Of course copyright does eventually expire - at which point copies can certainly be made to preserve the work. SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no legal right for anyone to keep a work in existence that is being destroyed by time through increasing rarity or anything else - this varies by jurisdiction, but most copyright laws provide for certain users (usually libraries) to make and maintain copies of works for preservation purposes when they are otherwise commercially unobtainable - this is statutorily provided for, and not a matter of fair use. In the US, this is 17 USC 108; similar provisions exist elsewhere. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

At the university I went to the library had a 'blue room' where they kept banned books and other items and you needed a good reason to get permission to access them. They kept all sorts of rubbish so if the illegal work has any sort of merit at all I'm sure a place like that would be happy to keep it till the copyright ran out. Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

September 9

What is Wilfred in the Wilfred_(Australian_TV_series)?

Is he a hallucination, a magic being, a product of the subconscious mind or his nature isn't explained at all? OsmanRF34 (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,just make a simple question.

If a cat mouth smell like a poison breath will it infectious to human like me? im just did it but im scare i might...get infectious really require answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.74.173.22 (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia can't give medical advice for good reasons as explained on WP:MEDICAL. We advise you consult a doctor or other medical professional if you are concerned. 86.163.125.91 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)