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.
Which countries around the world have the superstition around Friday the 13th? The article mentions some countries, such as the US, UK and Netherlands. I'd be interested to know if it has a foothold in Africa, Asia, South America... --Richardrjtalk email09:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at this letter - it was posted with an unrelated question over on the computing desk (someone wanted to know what font it was written in, of all things!). It's the letter used by King Edward of Britain, abdicating the throne. A resignation letter, if you like - but from one of the most important jobs in the world at the time.
I'm struck by how...um...scruffy it is...for such an earth-shattering document. Just a regular sheet of headed notepaper with nothing more than a crest on the top - typewritten and signed. I'm surprised it's not on some kind of fancy parchment, hand written in gorgeous calligraphy with a big wax seal and ribbons and such. Was it done in some terrible hurry - or in a place where such niceities would have been unavailable?
Secondly - if you actually read it - he goes to some pains to explain that he's not only resigning his own claim to the throne - but also that of all his descendents - in perpetuity! That's not very nice! Did he even have the right to do that? (Well, evidently so because at the moment he signed it, he was the king - but it seems wrong to me). I recall that he abdicated 'in favor of his brother' - but did that cut someone else out of a shot at the throne? Weren't they just the teensiest bit upset about that?
Edward didn't have the right to abdicate for himself, let alone for his descendents. The succession to the British crown is controlled by the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1707, and can only be altered by further act of parliament. The Statute of Westminster 1931 extended this requirement to a requirement that the act be passed by all commonwealth parliaments. Thus from a legal point of view that letter was just Edward's request that the UK parliament pass His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 (and other parliaments pass similar acts). I assume this is why the letter is worded as a declaration of determination and desire rather than as an executive order.
(e/c)Nope, he didn't "cut someone else out of a shot at the throne"...his younger brother Albert (George VI) was the next in line to the throne. References to his brother were probably to end any rumours that the Duke of York (Prince Albert) should be skipped due to incompatability (he had a stammer). The letter is indeed rather "scruffy" however bear in mind that the entire Instrument of Abdication (the "letter") was not legally binding. Edward remained the monarch until he gave his royal assent to the Declaration of Abdication act of 1936. The Instrument of Abdication is really only hot air but you have to remember abdication has no precedent in the United Kingdom. Another thing that sticks in my mind is the fact that the younger brothers also signed. This also indicated their acceptance of Albert assuming the throne.
Also, the document was signed at Fort Belvedere and not Buckingham Palace (Interesting side note: The calligraphers at Buckingham have been made redundant as of the year 2000! Knighthoods are now printed!). Edward's descendants had to be excluded or they could have (at some later point) claimed to be the rightful monarchs... As you rightly said, Edward couldn't resign his descendants claim to the throne by merely by signing the Instrument of Abdication. Parliament included this condition in section three of the Abdication Act (see here). Hope that helped, ;) --Cameron*13:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that the younger brothers "indicated their acceptance of Albert assuming the throne" by signing the Instrument, as the question of the immediate succession is not mentioned in it. According to the text of the Instrument they are merely signing as witnesses. In general I suppose the main reason for excluding his own descendants from future succession is to prevent the possibility of someone turning later to claim the throne, say on the death of George VI. After all, Edward was (presumably) still perfectly capable of producing offspring in the future, even if not through Wallis. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By law, if Edward was disqualified, then Albert was king whether he and his brothers liked it or not. If the brothers agreed to exclude Albert as well as Edward, then the letter would presumably say so. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(back to the first, scruffiness, question) - I don't think anyone is proud of this kind of instrument, so they just get the job done in a workmanlike fashion and move along. Compared with Nixon's resignation letter, Eddie's letter is positively gushing. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that back in the 1930s there were no word processors or printers. All they had for private use were typewriters, and relatively rudimentary ones compared with the typewriters that were available up to the 1980s, and there usually wasn't any choice of fonts. You got what was built into the machine. I've seen many old typewritten documents of very great historical moment that wouldn't be acceptable from the most junior office clerk today, but they probably wouldn't have given it a second thought back then because that's what all typewritten documents looked like. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays, if an important document looked like that we might well infer that it was drawn up in an emergency. Hm. I wonder what the Act of Parliament looks like. —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the question of abdication as an unprecedented event in England/Britain... it wasn't really. Both Edward II and Richard II abdicated, though in each case it was under considerable coersion. Edward II was essentially driven out of office by Parliament and his Mother, in favor of Edward III... it was probably a good move as they replaced one of the worst Kings in English history with one of the best. And Richard II was of course defeated by Henry Bolingbroke and imprisoned in the tower of London. In both cases however, each king officially tendered his resignation to Parliament, who merely "accepted" it. Of course, this was a legal fiction, since Parliament in both cases essentially threw the king out on his ass; however in the 14th and 15th century, Parliament had no authority to do so, so it had to look like it was the King's decision.
How interesting that 400 years later, it legally had to go the other way, since by then King Edward had no legal power to abdicate, and he had to wait for Parliament's formal action to remove him from office.
Also as an intersting aside, one cannot legally resign from the House of Commons either, but one can be offered and accept a *beep* job that disqualifies one from keeping their seat. The British can be so weird when it comes to this stuff... --Jayron32.talk.contribs21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first two were deemed to have abdicated, but it happened against their will. Edward VIII was the only one who voluntarily abdicated. (The British would also insist on saying "... disqualifies one from keeping one's seat", another "weird" example where a pronoun can't be used to refer to the entity first named, which is what pronouns are for.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"One" is a pronoun in this usage. It's the American style where a different pronoun is used for subsequent references (and apparently Australian too) that's surprising if you think about it. --Anonymous, 01:08 UTC (edited 20:08), March 14, 2009.
I wouldn't accept that it's usual Australian style to say " one ... his". I'm sure you'll find examples of it, just as you'll find examples of many things that are not sanctioned by style manuals. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were saying that "one...one's" was only British and seemed unnatural to you as an Australian. --Anon, 03:20 UTC, March 15, 2009.
No, not at all. I was just giving the British the credit for this construction, but it extends all the way to the antipodes. That is, when it's used at all in Australia, which is not very common these days. It has an air of toffee-nosedness about it that most Aussies find repugnant. It's far more common to hear people at every level of society talking about the impersonal "you" than about "one". A politician who wanted to increase his/her standing in the community would be well advised never to use this type of "one", whether associated with "one's" or not. John Howard was known to use it occasionally; and Philip Ruddock used it a lot when he was in power, but every one of his utterances is so unnervingly, bureaucratically, bone-crunchingly, brain-witheringly correct to the zth degree of pernickitiness that I've often wondered if he's actually a human being. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we're being picky about grammar, I think you'll find it's "ones", not "one's". Possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes. I agree with Anonymous, "one ... ones" makes far more sense than "one ... their" - "one" really is a pronoun. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That actually reads as if you're agreeing with me, Tango. (I wasn't being picky, btw, just adding to the list of things the British do in a way that some people consider "weird".) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the exclusion of an apostrophe from "one's" seems to be a hypercorrection. Fowler has many examples of "one ... one's", and they all have apostrophes. Yet another example of a weird exception to the general rules. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just because "one" can be either a noun or a pronoun and inflects the same way in either...um...case. "If one has two spellings to choose from, and the first one's acceptance is greater than the second one's, one's choice should usually be the first one." --Anonymous, 03:27 UTC, March 15, 2009.
Hmmmm - interesting stuff! Thanks everyone! I was pretty sure he didn't have any actual 'descendants' - which is why I was so surprised at that clause in the letter. But I guess it makes sense to be perfectly clear about it in order to avoid future grief if any "royal bastards" (in the nicer sense of the phrase) popped up in the future. I was also surprised that he'd have the right to deny heirs their "rightful" place on the throne - but if parliament decides all that stuff anyway - it probably doesn't matter. As for Nixon...wow...terse! "I quit. -- Dick" SteveBaker (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastards (in the nicer sense of the phrase) are excluded anyway. Again, he didn't have the right to exclude his hypothetical descendants any more than to exclude himself; he asked Parliament to send him a bill to change the law to such effect, and Parliament, seeing that to deny such a request would probably not be in anyone's interest, did. —Tamfang (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The descendants clause raises an amusing possibility: if a (hypothetical) descendant of the duke of Windsor should someday marry an heir to the throne, would the issue of that marriage be disqualified? Now imagine that this happens a thousand years from now, when nearly everyone is descended from him ... This problem (and perhaps others that I haven't imagined) could be sidestepped if the legislation were to adopt a legal fiction that Edward was younger than his brothers. —Tamfang (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her Majesty's reduced circumstances
Have any recent British monarchs publicly discussed their opinions on not having any of the power they would have had in earlier times? --Sean13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't really been any "recent monarchs": there is the current one, Her Maj, and the previous chappie, who died almost 60 years ago, when the world was a different place. If you mean the former, ask for her by name or title; if you mean the latter, he was Emperor of India and King of Ireland (!!!) and a lot has changed since then. But British monarchs have been having their powers curtailed since that nasty King John upset the barons, and they had to have a picnic on the Thames to sort it all out. If they got too uppity, they ran the risk of losing their heads. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous chappie wasn't even claiming the Crown of France which his ancestors had claimed, so his circumstances had expanded in one part of the world, and retracted in other parts. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, while concepts such as Absolutism took hold on the continent, especially in France, through most of the 1600's and 1700's, it never really got much traction in England. While guys like Louis XIV were busy establishing the idea that the King's power and reach was boundless, they were busing in England trying to prove that the could get along fine without a monarch at all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These days I'm pretty sure the Queen would be convention-bound not to discuss an issue like that, and Liz (we're on first name terms) is pretty damn strict on protocol and public service. Considering that her role is largely ceremonial (and unelected/accountable) the Royal Family is supposed to keep firmly away from politics. Might be useful to see Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Role_in_government. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
prepaid (anonymous) credit card II
How can it be possible that in some country repeatedly assaulted by terrorism (UK, US or whatever), is it still possible to have anonymous funds? Isn't it a huge security flaw? --Mr.K.(talk)16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, but remember that you still need to have bought the prepaid card in the first place. To make the card really useful, the potential terrorist would need to have a substantial fund on the card which would need to have come from somewhere. Also, since prepaid cards are usually aimed at people who have difficulty getting credit and usually have an upper limit, trying to buy a prepaid card with £10,000 on it is bound to bring unwelcome attention. Astronaut (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above - plus what arms dealer would have card processing set up in order to accept money - they will deal in cash and cash only... Gazhiley (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the issue would be the mass purchase of potentially problematic things—those items that fall somewhere between the labels of dangerous and safe, like nitrate fertilizers. But presumably things like that should be just themselves tracked. --140.247.250.160 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a higher security risk than cash, because someone can buy this card to transfer money from the UK to whatever country making a bogus purchase of whatever. And the terrorists don't have to have 10,000 on one card, they can split it into several. Anonymous banking is a security risk, higher than cash, since it is easier to move money through a card than moving cash itself. It is also easier to save money since the terrorists don't need the card physically, they just need the card number. So even if some get caught, another terrorists of the same organization could use the funds --Mr.K.(talk)11:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the movies they use diamonds when they don't want to carry large amounts of cash. That works pretty well, I'd think. --Tango (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please help..ANYBODY
How and where do i find the information about the people who fled Burma (now Myanmar), to be precise Rangoon the capital during the aerial raids in the second world war, as i did try everywhere to find some information about my Grand parents during that time...Anyone?please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Herman but did they have any kind of attendence or counting system of the people registered and where they were deported by the occupying british army.???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have that the wrong way around. Burma was a British colony that was captured and occupied by the Japanese. The British recaptured it only near the end of the war. Our articles on Operation Dracula, Burma Campaign and Japanese conquest of Burma do not discuss bombing of the city. The Yangon article simply says『Yangon was under Japanese occupation (1942–45), and incurred heavy damage during World War II.』Most of this damage appears to have been from when the British burnt the city port and oil terminal when they retreated from the Japanese attack. The city was retaken from the Japanese by the British forces without much fighting. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that Rangoon faced an heavy bombing campaign like many German or Japanese cities. There was a Japanese air raid directed at the dockyards during their attack which killed 2000 civilians, many of whom had come out to watch it[1], there is a mention of a Allied air raid on the docks on 8th November 1943 which destroyed an important pagoda and an Allied air attack on Japanese positions south of the city during the British recapture which accidently killed some of their own paratroopers. This link gives a personal history and mentions some refugees from Burma who fled the Japanese. [This link mentions the flood of refugees who fled the Japanese attack, leaving the city mainly empty when they arrived. Certainly not an orderly process. Were your grandparents Burmese or Europeans or Chinese or Japanese? Would they have fled the city to the Japanese side (Japanese during the British recapture or some Burmese during the Japanese capture) or to the British side (Europeans, some Chinese? and some Burmese during the Japanese capture - many of whom would have tried to get to India) Some Chinese troops retreated to India and later tried to get back to China with high casualty rates. Rmhermen (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." - Benjamin Franklin
I've no idea if it was correct in Benjamin's time but is it now? AFAIK in today's society you get absolutely nothing even if theoretically you knew absolutely everything. It's all a bureaucratic process that holds formality over reality. Am I correct or not? Is the quote applicable or not? 94.196.142.45 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several things. "in today's society you get absolutely nothing..." is obviously an extreme statement designed to elicit a response. If you know how to do something useful you are clearly going to earn more money (on average) than someone who doesn't. The people who make huge amounts of money doing things that are not useful are fewer than you might think. For every dumb pop star earning big bucks there are millions of musicians earning a pittance. I also suspect that Franklin wasn't thinking entirely in monetary terms. The benefits of education and knowledge can't only be measured in dollars and cents. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there have been studies into things like quality of life as it relates to a variety of factors. Take Tal Ben-Shahar's Happiness studies at Harvard. It turns out that if you look at material wealth; things like money and posessions, there's a plateau of the effect of money on happiness and personal sense of well-being. It turns out that money can only buy happiness until you reach a level of comfort where you have all of your basic needs met; the poor are less happy than the middle class. However, additional money has no effect on your happiness beyond the basic needs; thus the rich are no more happy than the middle class. However, there ARE positive correlations between education level and happiness, though on a secondary effect. this page on Happiness and Education notes that while education in-and-of-itself does not directly correlate to increased happiness, insofar as Education provides access to other things, such as increased access to meaningful work, and increased access to meaningful social relationships, then education IS important to gaining access to those things that DO make us happy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we just look at income correlation with education level, those with the most education do, indeed, make the most money. You'd have to get up to people who are lifetime students and never actually get a job to find a level of education which no longer correlates with a higher income. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The best part of having enough money is not needing to worry about not having enough money." Wish I knew if somebody famous actually said that; it may be from nothing more than one of those silly-quote-a-day calendars. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Franklin may have been 100% right in his time - but these days, simple straight-line knowledge - the ability to pull facts out of your head on command - simply isn't enough. Back in his time, it was still possible for a well-educated man to know pretty much all of science and technology. That was a valuable skill because amassing that much information in a library was a costly business. Now, things have undergone a total reversal. Almost all of human knowledge is about three mouse clicks away and it's available to pretty much everyone - what gets you into the big money is the expertise to FIND the things you need - to JUDGE the good stuff from the bad and to APPLY that knowledge in a practical manner. In the context of his time, you could probably use the word 'education' interchangeably with 'knowledge' - so we may be permitted a small adjustment to "An investment in education always pays the best interest" - then I agree with him. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the better ref-desk respondants will tell you - almost all questions can be answered with information that's three mouse clicks away (well - approximately). If you read the rest of my comment, I went on to say that: ...what gets you into the big money is the expertise to FIND the things you need - to JUDGE the good stuff from the bad.... Our questioners VERY often simply lack the rather special 'search' skills to find the information. It's there - it's three mouse clicks away - but unless you know which terms to search on and how to quickly skip the junk and zero in on the good stuff - you're screwed. There can be a huge difference in which precise words you type into Google or the Wikipedia search box. OP's very often tell us that they searched for ages without turning anything useful up - where we find it immediately - it's a skill that can be gained through practice - but I know of no way to teach it. SteveBaker (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently got a resume that said, as a bullet point under skills : "Knows where to find documentation on the following techniques " and then a whole long list of basic items like 'Quicksort' and 'Linked Lists'. I laughed. Instead we hired someone who had an cool-looking demo.APL (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said : "It's all a bureaucratic process that holds formality over reality"
Someone from your IP range has complainedasked about this a couple of times recently. If you're not able to find a job because of your lack of qualifications, you're going to have to do something to prove how awesome you are. Preferably by getting involved in some major project with a high level of complexity.
You can't just assume that people will magically know that you possess all this knowledge. How would employers tell you apart from the zillions of people who don't know what they're doing, but claim to anyway? I imagine it was very much the same in Franklin's time. I'm sure if Franklin was hiring an assistant you couldn't just go up to him and say "Hi. I'm applying for the assistant Job. I have lots of knowledge." And then expect Franklin to say "Knowledge? That's just what I'm looking for! You're hired!" APL (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering, does anyone know who the first Scottish Prime Minister of the UK was? I assume it can't be Gordon Brown, but can't think of anyone else... How about other PMs born outside England? Have their been any born outside the British Isles? TastyCakes (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I've found one site that seems to think it was Belgium, but there's no citation to back it up, and the URL is blacklisted so I can't give the link. It may be a confusion with his death, which did occur in Belgium. Worth a bit more delving. Karenjc20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One may suspect all one likes. The Peerage doesn't even mention his birth place, which suggests it wasn't recorded on his birth certificate, and we may never know now. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I was getting at was that The Peerage doesn't give his date of birth (8 May 1820), just "1820". So, wherever his birth was recorded, and whatever details may have been recorded there, they haven't yet been accepted as fact by The Peerage, other than the year. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LDS Church database indicates the 4th Duke was born in Hardwick, Derby. That is probably Hardwick Hall. Records from the same source indicate all his siblings were also born in Hardwick, Derby. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found nothing on the Internet to deny the 4th Duke was born in Derby. There should be letters written by the 3rd Duke or the Duchess about the birth, but nothing appears to have published. He was the heir presumptive to an enormous fortune (heir in fact as his elder brother died as a child). There should also be some description of the family circumstances in the newspapers of the day (this was many years before The Times). Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know the shape of Biblical bread. Was it flat, as in a pancake? Was it shaped into loaves as we make them today? I am teaching a lesson on Jesus feeding the 5000 this Sunday to young children and would like to know what it looked like. I have a recipe (without yeast) and it says to roll out. I assumed like a pie crust. Thank you for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.96.100 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it would be flat was because the bread was 'unleavened' - un-risen - no yeast making the little bubbles that make the bread light and fluffy. Our article Flatbread explains that the bread of ancient eqypt would have been up to a centimeter or two thick. Something like a pita bread or a naan. SteveBaker (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt some bread during the course of the couple of thousand years that may reasonably be referred to as 'Biblical' was unleavened; but according to the passover story, it would appear that bread was normally leavened many centuries before Jesus. It doesn't say anything about its shape though. --ColinFine (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am making little buttons and selling them at school for $0.75 for a fundraising project. However, if I use pictures online, ex:Mickey Mouse, as the design on the buttons, does that violate the copyright law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.79.170 (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not allowed to give legal advice...but this says that the copyright on Mickey almost expired in 2004, until the Copyright Term Extension Act (nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act", according to our article) was passed, extending the protection two more decades. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether Mickey is copyrighted (he is) or trademarked (he is), but whether this particular use is a case of trademark infringement. Though we can't give legal advice, this sounds like a case of definite infringement — it is hard to see how this would be fair use even if the sales are going to a worthy cause. Sorry. A better idea would be to use images from Wikimedia Commons—most of them are under free licenses and are meant to be distributed. There are lots of cool pictures on it. Who wouldn't want a button with snail anatomy on it? Or an angry little bird? Or some fat little pigs! (These examples just taken from the of the day page.) You could have some cool, very random buttons—a lot more hip than boring old Mickey! (Technically some of this photos are licensed in ways that would make it hard to fully replicate their licensing terms in the form of a little button—which is a good argument in my mind for licensing things as "public domain"—but unlike the case with Mickey I think these are much more in the spirit of the law if not the exact letter of it. And they are also way cool.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually OK to use a copyrighted image for a school project, but if you're selling the images, then it's probably a violation. Not trying to give legal advice, though. ~AH1(TCU)20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the daycare centers in question were for-profit businesses, not some place run by the local church or something. APL (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer will also depend on your location. What jurisdiction are you in? Fair dealing provisions in Australia, for example, roughly, but not always exactly, mirrors US laws on fair use, so the answer could well be different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bentley vs. RR: Chauffeur?
I recall reading somewhere that either Bentley or Rolls-Royce is known as the "Driver's Car" where the car was designed to be driven by the owner rather than the owner be chauffeured around. Does anyone know whether Bentleys are known as the driver's car or RR's? Acceptable (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page (fifth paragraph after the boldface opening paragraph), as well as some others, seems to indicate that Bentleys are the ones that are so distinguished, although other Web pages—Google for "driver's car" +Bentley +chauffeur—indicate that some Bentleys are considered more "driver's cars" than others. Deor (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For much of the life of the Bentley company, they were simply 'coachbuilders' - they took Rolls Royces and built their own bodywork. Hence for much of the life of the company - there was really only cosmetic differences between the two car ranges. I believe that the distinguishing feature for many years was that the Bentley designs offered more emphasis on front-seat comfort - so probably this label once belonged to them. However, both companies are very different these days - and I doubt that either of them gets that title. But lots of cars have been given the monkier "the Driver's car" - certainly I've heard that said of the classic Mini - which is about as far as it is possible to get from a Bentley or a Roller! SteveBaker (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bentley was considered the 'driver's car' due to its racing heritage, Rolls Royce was always considered to be chauffered. Having a driver for a Bentley is a definite etiquette 'no-no'.
Catchment area is an area, usually referring to the earth's surface, where a particular phenomena applies. Examples include a "valley" which is the catchemnt area for rainfall; A district defined by one or more local governemnts saying which school students will attend. Storage capacity refers to how big something is - perhaps a memory card in GB or a water tank in litres. Merits and demerits are either a list of the good and bad points of a thing or are good and bad scores awarded to a person for types of behaviour or for project results. This is a rambling answer since the question didn't make sense to me as a whole. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this may be an inappropriate place to ask this, and i should explain that i'm at work with a pc that stops virtually the whole web but for some reason likes wikipedia, my question is this:
the page for john byng states he was the fourth son of george byng.
the page for george byng states that john washis third son.
which is correct?
and what's wrong witth my mind that i notice such things??--Monomath (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The only source I can find at the moment is the ODNB, which states that John (the executed admiral, George may have had other sons called John) was the fifth surviving son of George (the first viscount Torrington, there were certainly other George Byngs), out of eleven. This sort of confusion often stems from different ways of dealing with perinatal death: some sources only count children who reach adulthood, some only children that last a year or two, some others count stillbirths and I've seen one that counts known miscarriages. I'll need to find a better source to know if that's what's happening here though. Algebraist11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing wrong with your mind. Wikipedia needs people like you to notice inconsistencies like this, so they can be corrected. This is a collaborative project run by volunteers, who work on whatever it pleases them to work on, and whenever they choose to do so. Consequently, no two articles will ever have the same set of people who've worked on them, although there may be overlaps. Consequently, it's possible for a fact about a person to be gleaned from one source for one article, and from a different source for a different article, and the sources may differ. Were it not for keed minds like yours that notice such inconsistencies, we wouldn't be able to maintain the high standards of quality to which we aspire. So thank you, Monomath. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In such a case, there's a template, {{contradict-other}}, that you can put in one of the articles, with a link to an explanation of the problem you've written on the article's talk page. Deor (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally - you can simply leave a note on the talk: pages of both articles. The 'contradict-other' template is better because it informs other readers that something is wrong - but it's no substitute for the Talk: pages. Also, if you can find proof of which of the articles are wrong then you are STRONGLY encouraged to just fix it yourself. Some people find it tough to do that the first time - but that's exactly how most of us got into this. (For me, it was the Red Squirrel article that had wildly incorrect information about the size of red-squirrel litters.) SteveBaker (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How old is junk mail
When I was a kid in the 70's, I don't really remember there being much junk mail as there is these days. Is my perception correct, or was it simply because I had nothing to do with the mail back then (my dad being the one who usually dealt with the bills and so on). Astronaut (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the name of the color that Iowa's commercial vehicle enforcement department paints their police cruisers? I need the specific name of the blue because I have to fix a few paint chips on my car, which I got from them.
If you call or send them an email and ask to speak to their fleet management department, I'm sure they'll know the name of the paint from their own maintenance activities. Contact information is here. --Sean16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if they were free with such information, unless the colour of the cars has changed. It is usually a single-purpose mix, for obvious reasons. Even our local "white" police cars are not exactly white. // BL \\ (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt make a lot of sense, because then they couldn't touch up their paint if one of their cars had to have body work. I will try calling them on Monday. 12.216.168.198 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I bet if you went to their repair depot in person (in your car) - and brought donuts to "thank them for looking after the car so well that it runs great for you...and do they have any tips for keeping it running good"...er..."except for these odd paint chips" - you'd get a can for free. SteveBaker (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(OR) Police are rather leery of free food (for obvious reasons). Unless someone there already knows you, it's probably not a great idea to show up at random bearing gifts. I'd definitely recommend calling instead, though some departments might well consider that information "restricted". – 7402:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on the police department; some do have mechanics on staff. Perhaps it's just a minor language discrepancy, but to me "depot" would translate closer to "in-house dispatch station" than "repair shop" (I know it has additional meanings in British English). But I agree that, if you can find an outside body shop that normally works on police cars, the odds are good that they'll have the paint you're looking for (and will probably be willing to at least give you a paint code and/or fix your car). Bribery wouldn't hurt there either. – 7404:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the color may be applied by the manufacturer originally, in which case you might be able to ask them for the code and/or repair paint. (This is particularly likely if the state purchases a large number of vehicles; manufacturers tend to accomodate a number of requests to win a large bid.) Have you checked the vehicle's original paint code? – 7404:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a shop, though I forget its name right now, where if you bring in something of a particular colour, they will create a paint of the exact same colour for you. Maybe you could take your car, or a photo of it, there. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How pristine is the condition of the car? How exact does the match have to be? I think you may have to account for color fading if the car has had more than a few years' exposure to sunlight. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@12.216's's comment that a single-use colour mix "doesn't make much sense" because they couldn't then touch up the car. I didn't explain "single-use" properly. It means a colour manufactured or mixed to a formula just for this one user. For example, the company Mary Kay has its own pink shade for its infamous Cadillacs. There are lots of them around, but it is not available to the general public. Of course, a specialty auto-paint shop should be able to match anything. // BL \\ (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only brain dead person who was wondering why the OP needed to know the colour of law enforcement car paint to touch up their car which was chipped by a law enforcement vehicle and was wondering why no one seemed to notice the odd question until I finally realised the OP got the car, not the chipping from law enforcement...? Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not alone! The first time I read it, I thought the OP needed the paint colour as evidence to prove that the damage to his car had been caused by a police vehicle. (And an additonal confusion, not due to ambiguous phrasing, is that samples of paint colours, presented on small pieces of cardboard, are often referred to as paint chips.) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Random Article" stats
Does anyone know how often the "Random Article" link is clicked by Wikipedia readers? Also, is it truly random? I ask because I'm wondering, if an article is created and nobody notices it, how long (on average) before it will come up on someone's screen as a random article. -GTBacchus(talk)16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So when I select the first link now, it says "Special:Random has been viewed 30067040 times in 200903." But it doesn't say how often that count is updated. We are now 13 days and about 20 hours into 200903 (i.e. March 2009) by UTC; 30,067,040 viewings in that length of time would be 25.16 times per second, while if updates are less frequent, it might be say 30,067,040 times in 13 days, which would be 26.77 times per second. Anyway, "about 25 times a second on average" must be right if the statistics are reasonably accurate and reasonably current. --Anonymous, 20:18 UTC, March 14, 2009.
Ok, 25 random articles per second, and we've got almost 2.8 million articles. That means that, each second, the chances of an article being hit by "random article" are 25/2.8 million, and the chances of not being hit in that second are 1 minus that amount. Multiplying this number by itself once for each second that passes, it appears that an article's chance of having been seen reaches 50% after about... 77,000 seconds, which is less than 24 hours. Wow. -GTBacchus(talk)00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You might also like to check out WP:RANDOM which has links to surf random Wikipedia user pages, images, templates, categories and portals. We are asked the 'how random is it' question very often - one of the best threads is here. There is also an 'official' answer here. If people are viewing articles at a rate of 25 per second and there are 2.8 million articles (in English at least) - then (crudely) someone will typically see it at random after about 31 hours. In practice, it'll get looked at deliberately much more rapidly than that because lots of people patrol the 'new articles' list looking for garbage that needs to be deleted. SteveBaker (talk)
The artist of the drawings in the Good News Bible is Annie Vallotton; some of them are here. If you want to use them, the copyright is owned by the American Bible Society; see here. - Thanks, Hoshie02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does physical appearance significantly affect job interviews?
The question above about job applications got me thinking about reasons for rejection... specifically, I am wondering about the possibility of candidates being rejected because they are overweight.
I have recently applied for a job for which I hope *crosses fingers* to get an interview. I am also overweight. It doesn't affect my health, or my ability to work, and I don't think I would qualify as horrendously obese, but aquicksearch suggests that the problem does exist.
How likely is it that this may be an issue? Given two equal candidates, would you choose the thin one over the fat one? Are there any other issues of appearance that might affect the interviewer's opinion (assuming people turn up neatly dressed/groomed etc) If yes, any ideas on how to mitigate the problem (barring spending the next 3 weeks on a treadmill!)? I am in the UK and female, and the job is in a public-sector organisation with a fairly casual culture, if that makes a difference. --92.16.235.230 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal? If it is otherwise a coin toss, then yes probably. Things like obesity and poor grooming often, though not always, speak to poor lifestyle choices. Everything else being equal, I would give some negative weight to that. I wouldn't give a lot of weight to that though, and hiring decisions would nearly always turn on factors that more directly influence an assessment of how capable someone is to perform the necessary work. So, given a short time frame, I'd say improving your knowledge base and skill set is usually more important. Dragons flight (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, the selection criteria are the only things that are relevant. But first impressions are extremely powerful, which is why applicants are well advised to be well groomed and dressed, even though how they have their hair and what they wear may have zero impact on how they do their job. If the committee's very first thought when an applicant walks through the door is "Wow, she's going to be a big girl when she grows up", that sticks with them. It could well be a deciding factor if two candidates are line-ball, even if it's never actually discussed by the committee. We may say that that's not how it should be, but in many cases it's how it is. General appearance is a hugely important factor in forming an immediate assessment of anyone at all, in any circumstances. If you're overweight, there's nothing you can do in a short space of time to lose the excess, but you can choose your clothing and hairstyle in a way that enhances your appearance and minimises the immediate impression of obesity rather than emphasises it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely though, not hiring someone because they are overweight has to be a case of discrimination? Hard to prove I know. I can imagine the response to this question being somewhat different if the questioner asked if the reason for a possible rejection was that she habitually wore a Hijab--121.44.126.6 (talk)
Discrimination is what you are doing at a job interview. It's the only point in having an interview in fact! You discriminate between good candidates and bad. Unfair discrimination is undesirable because it means you are turning away a candidate who might be better at doing the job for someone less able - and that's bad business. Illegal discrimination is something you have to be scrupulously careful to avoid of course - but that's not the case here - I'm not aware of any law in this regard. Not hiring someone because their weight interferes with their ability to do the job isn't illegal - and it's not even unfair if you have the company's interests at heart. We certainly discriminate on the basis of what people know - and (in some jobs) on the basis of the physical skills they have - and (in other jobs) on the basis of physical strength and endurance - and (in yet others) on the basis of their intelligence/honesty/ability to speak publically/...etc. Why would their weight be any different than all of those other aspects - in a job where it actually matters? But you don't discriminate against a candidate for a bank teller job just because they have too little knowledge of Italian renaissance painters - while you might if the job is an art museum curator. So while you certainly would discriminate against someone who is overweight in an interview for an airline cabin crew position - you shouldn't do so if the job is as a computer programmer because by choosing that as your final criteria, you're missing some other small benefit they may have over the other candidate and that's bad business sense. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has to depend dramatically on the job you are seeking. Some jobs (airline cabin crew, and race car drivers for example) depend critically on their staff not being too heavy or too large for the confined working conditions. Other jobs (face-to-face sales and TV news presenters for example) require the individual to represent the company directly - in such cases, consideration has to be given to how the individual presents to the public. No matter how far-sighted the company is they have to consider how the general public will feel about this person. But then in other circumstances it's irrelevent or perhaps even "negatively relevent". I'm a computer game programmer - although I was not always doing that. I used a professional recruiter to find my first job in the games industry and she advised me NOT to dress nicely or overdo my appearance for the interview because it would give the appearance of being too 'formal' to fit in with the extremely informal environment of the games business. Under-dress for success...well, that's what I did - and it worked. Now I interview people for games jobs - and I too am concerned when a candidate shows up in a suit and tie - it says "I don't understand your business". However, when I was looking for an almost identical job - doing absolutely identical work - in the defence industry - I wore a 3 piece suit with the waistcoat and that whole paraphanalia. Go figure. SteveBaker (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you program computer games now, and you used to do "absolutely identical work" in the defense industry. Should that inspire me with confidence in the defense of whatever nation you live in? ;) -GTBacchus(talk)00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - definitely! I used to design computer graphics for (mostly) US military flight simulators. Almost every single F16 pilot in the world trained to fly it on a simulator that I designed the graphics system for (ditto for F18's, Stealth fighter and many helicopters). Then I switched to video game graphics with Midway Games working on games for Xbox-360 and PS-3 (the technology involved is identical) and now I work for "Total Immersion" who make "serious games" - using games technology to train people like fire-fighters, police and the FBI - as well as navy seals. The work I do doesn't change significantly - only the application is different. But (bringing this thread screaming and kicking back on topic) - the significant point is that while the work hasn't changed at all - the corporate culture is 180 degrees apart - and the way interviews are conducted is totally different. It's weird - but true. When you work as a "defense contractor" - you are supposed to be super-professional and exude a suit-and-tie appearance, follow ISO 9000 work practices and tie everyone's creativity up with as much red-tape as possible. When you do the exact same work - for the exact same pay - for the exact same final customer...but it's "games technology"...you're into shorts, sandals and "worst hawiian shirt ever" contests during the free-beer-at-work 'happy hour' every Friday. Logic doesn't enter into it. Go figure. SteveBaker (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ OP Why not bring the topic up yourself during the interview? Get together with a friend and go through good points you could put forward. You already said it doesn't affect your health or productivity. What other things might go through your prospective employer's mind? What arguments could you use to disarm any such impression right out of the gun. You will probably be given time in a "tell us about yourself" section. Don't make it a major topic, start off with your strongest points, then throw in "As you can see I'm a big girl ...." Make a joke and then tell them why it doesn't matter. You can even use that as a vehicle for introducing another strength. (...I spend most of my time off studying textbooks.) Your employer has to find the most suitable candidate, not just the most skilled/qualified. Even if you don't have face to face contact with clients, you'll usually have to work with a supervisor, a team, or other office staff. If you show you are aware your weight might be an issue and are able to deal with it, they'll most likely check it off their list. You could always offer to join a gym or weight watchers, but you might not want to work for that company if they insist. If you aren't strapped for money you might want to treat yourself to a color and style counseling session. As was said above clothes can hide or emphasize things. (OR I once ended up not hiring a skinny lady because she seemed too fragile for the job at hand. So, yes, appearance does figure in when hiring.:-) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing it up yourself is – no offense to the responder above – likely to be a breathtakingly bad idea. There are far too many ways for it to hurt you (fair or not), and very few ways it might help. Some of the things that might go through the minds of your interviewer (or the mind of the HR rep who is sitting in).
Wow. That's kind of inappropriate. (We're trying to do a job interview here, and she's trying to tell us about her body image issues. What's up with that?)
Is she going to threaten or sue us later? (Why is she bringing this up? Is the afraid of discrimination? Is she expecting discrimination? If we don't promote her, is this going to lead to lawsuits?)
She seems kind of desperate and pathetic. (Who offers to join a gym just to get a job? Really? It's not like weight loss will ever be a suitable entry on her quarterly performance review. Is this her way of saying she thinks she isn't good enough to work here? Have some dignity.)
She makes excuses for herself. (She's overweight because she was *ahem* studying too hard for work, and couldn't find the time to eat right and exercise. Hm. Boo hoo.)
Now that she mentions it, she is a bit hefty. (Congratulations — the interviewer wasn't thinking about your weight before, but now it's at the front of his mind. You've opened the door to all the uncomfortable thoughts above.)
So, how do you get the job? Here's the short list.
Make sure that your skills meet or slightly exceed the requirements. If you're massively overqualified, be prepared to explain — otherwise the interviewer will assume that you're damaged in some other way, that you're lying about your qualifications, or that you're going to leave in a few weeks as soon as something better comes along. If you're underqualified on paper, but still think you can do the job, be prepared to explain. (In some cases, the job posting or description was written by a hack in HR who has no idea what the job actually is about. Unreasonable qualifications demands may also be used as an excuse to offer a smaller starting salary.)
Dress appropriately for the interview. This has been covered before. Don't be over-the-top formal for the workplace, but if unsure never err on the side of too casual. (Wearing a dress shirt to a 't-shirt and jeans' workplace doesn't have to hurt you; wearing a t-shirt to the 'dress shirt and slacks' employer is likely to be fatal.) You're making first impressions here; 'neat' and 'attentive to detail' are important. As several posts have noted, it may be worthwhile to consult a professional. Properly-chosen clothing can emphasize and conceal. If it hasn't been said explicitly, I'll hammer the point now. Wear clothes that suit you and flatter you — not clothes that would suit the body that you wish you had (or that you think the interviewers are looking for). Don't wear too much fragrance, and consider skipping it altogether. It can be suffocating in small offices, and some people may have allergies and sensitivities. No interviewer will recommend hiring a candidate who makes him physically ill.
It's all about personality. Honestly? If you clear the minimum standards for skills and appearance, the absolute most important thing is personality. You're going to be spending eight hours or more each day interacting with these people. It's more time than you're likely to spend with your family or any of your friends. The smart employer knows that he can teach the odd missing skill to a willing employee, but that it's virtually impossible to teach humility, common sense, a work ethic, or a sense of humour.
There have been lots of studies that show that all other conditions being identical, tall people are more likely to be hired, people with "whiter" sounding names are more likely to be hired, and, of course, white people are more likely to be hired. I would be surprised if weight did not also have some sort of factor in that as well. But be aware that these questions are about "all other conditions be identical/equal"—if you are considerably better or worse than whomever else you are up against, this single factor likely will not be the deciding one. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that discrimination based on physical appearance can work both ways. I know of a case where a company hired a less attractive woman to work as a clerk dispatching truck drivers, because they felt that if the gorgeous one were sitting at the desk the men would want to hang around the office, or that she would be a distraction. There are also cases where the boss's wife has a say in hiring a clerk, dental assistant or nurse, and would choose a less physically attractive but equally competent candidate to be working with hubby. Edison (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - thanks everybody for all the information and tips; I really didn't expect to get so many replies! I really appreciate people taking the time to give such interesting responses, and it's given me something to read as I sit at home biting my nails :) I've been a long-term temp for a while (2 posts over 4 years), so it's been some time since I've had to worry about first impressions with a potential employer.
SteveBaker, the points you make about dressing down for interviews are interesting as I haven't come across this before. This job is not unrelated to the IT industry, and I know the dress code in-post is very casual. I suspect this wouldn't carry over to the interview, though, as the interview panel will likely be composed of managers.
79.96, I'm not sure I could bring it up myself in interview; I'm afraid I might end up laughing hysterically! However, one of the job criteria was manual lifting ability, so at least I won't have to worry about being judged too fragile (although this brought up another point - how do you demonstrate on an application that you can lift heavy things without sounding like an idiot?)
TenOfAllTrades, that's definitely not tl;dr. Thanks for your ideas, which I will add to my (frighteningly detailed) list of "things to remember for interviews".
Again, thanks all for your answers, and in general for your contributions at the reference desk, of which I am an avid reader --23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no! I didn't say "Dress down for IT jobs"!! I was talking specifically about the computer games business - where dressing down is virtually a competitive sport! There are other IT jobs where the full interview regalia is a "must" and yet others where you can aim somewhere in the middle. The puzzle is to find out which - and to what degree. This is where I found a recruitment consultant so helpful when I was switching career tracks. I have to say though, being female is a big help in that regard - the IT dress code isn't nearly so 'polarized' as it is for we guys where the presence or absence of one narrow strip of colored cloth wound tightly around the neck appears to symbolize so much! SteveBaker (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently didn't take any notice of my answer to a previous question about ties, Steve. They're really not supposed to be tight, and if they are, you're doing something wrong. They're supposed to be not so loose that they look scruffy, but loose enough that you're not even aware you're wearing one. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - sorry, Steve, I probably wasn't saying what I meant to say in my response! I know there's a very wide range of expectations for interviews (and jobs). I've attended some where formal business attire was expected at all times, even over several-day and evening-long interview events. If nothing else, they helped me discover that my preferred career lay in a different direction. Women definitely get a lot more flexibility when it comes to business wear, though. I feel terribly sorry for my current shirt-and-tie-wearing co-workers in our poorly ventilated office, particularly during summer. As stylish as a well-done tie can be, 14 years of wearing one to school was more than enough. --92.16.235.230 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
March 15
check in question
When checking in on southwest.com and you have 2 passengers on the same reservation are there 2 check in boxes for 2 customers so you get a boarding spot separately or is there only one box to get your boarding spot all at once. My browser has been acting up lately and i am not sure about weather this airlines page works right. This question is for the American airline southwest.--logger (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your browser has been acting up, I suggest downloading Firefox or Google Chrome. Sorry, I can't help with your question though. NByz (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sales Management
Today in our class there was a discussion whether manpower was important in sales management and i got totally lost in the whole conversation as people said its important but no one could explain how and why. Can you please help me with the whole concept by giving some examples as to why is manpower so important in sales management? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.42.113 (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at our article or your textbook a couple of factors should appear through common sense. (I assume we are talking sales force manpower, not sales management staff). Lets look e.g at a couple of things your sales staff should work on:
Managing the Buyer/Seller Relationship >> you obviously want to have enough sales people for the number of clients and the type of product lines you have. The channels you employ also factor in here. (E.g. brick and mortar, mail order, BtoB, internet based etc.)
Sales Call Planning >> you want your sales staff to be able to visit your clients without causing disproportionately high travel expenses. 2 regional sales reps will most likely come cheaper than one "frequent flier" rep. For staff only doing phone contacts you'd have to figure in data maintenance and call planning time.
Questioning Skills >> you want to have sufficient staff to allow them to attend training courses and meetings.
Presentation Skills >> dry runs and peer review can make a huge difference. Your reps will need sufficient time to become familiar with the products they are selling and to follow up on faqs from previous presentations.
Gaining Commitment >> the biggest factor. Most accounts still prefer dealing with only a couple of reps. from your company in a given time-frame. That is more cost efficient for them because they don't have to repeat certain basic terms and information. Regular clients also would expect "their" rep. to be available whenever they have a question. So your reps will need a certain amount of "downtime" for inbound business. One of the biggest threats in sales is an established rep. leaving the company and either abandoning the clients they cared for or taking them with them to a new company. Having two sales reps. sharing each account can safeguard against that. (Mandatory account data recording has been suggested as another remedy here, but is a lot harder to realize in the field.) If you run your sales force ragged they'll leave as soon as they find s.th. else.
If you add up all the time requirements, multiply them into man-days/client, get a map and separate your sales area into sales regions and then multiply the regional number of clients times your man-day/client figure you should get a good starting point for the size of your sales force. (Don't forget to account for holidays, vacations and sick leave). Hope this helps. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most of our business articles are pretty good. This isn't really one of them. One could work with what's there, but it could stand some TLC. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michel Eugène Chevreul, a French chemist who died in 1889, aged 102. seems a reasonable candidate, implying he was born in 1779 and reached a grand old age. scratch that and try Margaret Neve 1792 - 1903. haha my first answer on this thing and i bet someone proves me wrong!--Monomath (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a silly definition of 18th century. Also, if you look in the body of that article, you'll see events that occured in 1700, but none in 1800... 77.12.14.73 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do we respond to people who are always sarcastic in the way they talk to us with an intention to demean us and our credibility, as i do not know the art of it,but do certainly get offended.is there some tricks we ned to learn to reciprocate with bigger intensity in the similar style? please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find that one of the most successful techniques is to simply ignore the sarcasm as if it was never said. The lack of response can often be enough to make the individual stop using it so much around you. ny156uk (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you happen to have Oscar Wilde's wit, you can feed it right back to them, but few are able to achieve such heights. Unless you know you can outwit them in that way, you stand to lose a lot by battling wits and drawing a sword broken at the hilt.
Ignoring the sarcasm is probably best. If there are other people about, dryly (and subtly) drawing attention to how little it contributes to the conversation might draw some wit-blood, but if you do that, you can't dwell on it. You must move the conversation straight on and pretend it never happened. Steewi (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're ok with the possibility of coming across as a bit thick sometimes, you can often manipulate the situation by pretending you have no concept of sarcasm. Every time a troublesome individual gives you a sarcastic retort, act as though they just made a sincere statement. This sincere statement will probably be nonsensical, redundant, idiotic, or absurdly enthusiastic, and you should react accordingly. If possible, ask an off-putting followup question. The response will probably be something along the lines of "I was just kidding," to which you can respond with a sarcastic: "Yeah, funny joke." Voila, the tables have turned! More aggressive people might confront you with a line like, "Wow, you just don't get it," to which the stock response is, "No, you're just not funny." After going through this a few times, some people will learn quickly to stop being so sarcastic. Others will become more obnoxious. Your mileage may vary. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Produce a manifestly false laugh, something like this: "ah ha ha." (spoken slowly, without excitement). If more responses are necessary, try extending and elaborating it, perhaps stating "my sides are splitting" or "the hilarity is unbearable". At no point sound actually amused. 213.122.39.235 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people (adults anyway) use hurtful sarcasm directed at people only when they don't realize they are being hurtful. They may perceive their relationship with you to be more chummy or informal than it actually is. If that is the case, I would think usually a couple of icy receptions of their jests would clear things up. Of course if you're in highschool or below, human behaviour is very different, and them just being dicks is a possibility. I would suggest ignoring them in this case. TastyCakes (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ontario sidewalk bicycle laws
Hi. First of all, I'm not asking for legal advice (or illegal advice, for that matter :P ). I'm looking for, say, an online list of the municipalities in S. Ontario and whether or not it is prohibited for bicycles to be ridden on the sidewalks, etc, and whether this varies with the age of the cyclist. I know that in the City of Toronto, for example, cycling on sidewalks is generally prohibited. However, in many smaller towns it is not. I don't want to know the municipal laws in your area, unless you live in S. Ontario (GTA area specificly) and are positive about your knowledge of your municipality. Some links to websites regarding this (S. Ontario only!) would also help. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be brutally honest, bikes should be on the road. See [2] for an example of what can happen if they are on the pavement/sidewalk. Exxolon (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are a lot more cases of cyclists killed by cars than of pedestrians killed by cyclists, but that's one of those interminable inappropriate-for-the-reference-desk debates and doesn't help answer the OP's question. --Fullobeans (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this isn't a debating point, but a straight question. In Canada, we have a law against "criminal negligence", which says that "Every one is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons." If someone dies as a result, you can be sentenced to as much as life imprisonment. Running down a pedestrian when you could have stopped sounds to me like it meets that description. Does Britain not have such a law, or was it not applicable for some reason (I do note that the cyclist was under 18), is it just that the prosecution in the cited case chose not to use it? Thinking of parallel cases, I looked at Gary Hart, who fell asleep while driving a road vehicle and caused 10 deaths in a train wreck, but I see he was sentenced sspecifically for a driving offense. --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, March 15, 2009; corrected 09:38, March 16.
If the facts are as described in the article, I'd say it's beyond "negligence", which usually means an accident that happened because you were reprehensibly careless. Deliberately plowing into a pedestrian is not any sort of "accident" in my book, even if you yell at her to get out of the way first. This sounds more like voluntary manslaughter to me.
I agree though that bikes should generally not be on the sidewalk, also because if cyclists start driving on the sidewalk, motorists will come to expect that they ought to. Motorists need to learn that bicycles are part of vehicular highway traffic and to respect them as part of it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Londom the by-laws are on this page. It is generally prohibited but the bicycle path system in London is pretty good so it's not a problem. Toronto's is not so great because you usually have to ride on the road. Mississauga has bike lanes and paths but I can't find any specific bylaws. (Mississauga is behind on transportation in general, I have noticed. There have also been a couple of recent incidents where people have fallen over bridges because the bicycle lanes are so inadequate.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a cyclist runs over a pedestrian while riding on the sidewalk, then the cyclist was riding too fast! In many places bicycles are allowed on trails (even those a few inches wide), something that cars cannot do. I think I read somewhere that municipalities in Ontario with populations under 100,000 do not have the right to prohibit cycling on sidewalks, but maybe this isn't always the case. I think where I live, I've noticed more people riding on sidewalks either in neighbourhoods with paved sidewalks or along large urban streets which do not experience a large amount of pedestrians, and more people riding along roads in more rural areas, especially if there are no sidewalks. Along more rural roads, I usually see people cycling on the side of the road, either on the lane not occupied by motor traffic (where cars may "pull over"), or sometimes in the gravelly region just to the side of it, and usually in the same direction as the traffic. I have yet to see cyclists riding within traffic, but maybe that's just due to my location. Also, if a cyclist crosses a road (not a busy intersection), they're crossing it the "pedestrian" way. There are also bicycle locks in places which would nessecitate utilising the sidewalk, even for a short distance. Are there any searchable websites on this matter? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the specifics of the Toronto no-sidewalk rule. It's also illegal in Ottawa, apparently, as well as London. In Hamilton, only children may ride on the sidewalk. Couldn't find anything for Kingston or Kitchener, and that's all the cities in southern Ontario I can name. The Ontario road laws for bikes don't mention sidewalks, but do specify that bikes may not be operated in crosswalks, and face an $85 fine for doing so. This site does say "no cycling on sidewalks in Ontario," but the site looks... questionable. So, the rules do appear to vary between towns, and there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive list. You could contact the Ontario Cycling Association, though, and see if they have more information. --Fullobeans (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, but what about South Simcoe, York, Northern Durham, and Northeastern Peel in particular? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that was unclear from the above article is whether the cyclist was even on the footpath (the article only mentioned the road). This [3] makes it clear it was Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that some Clementine oranges are sweeter than others?
It's a quality-control problem that is being addressed. We much apologize for the inconvenience, and are working to ensure that every individual fruit of a given denomination is identical to every other one, as you, the customer, have a right to expect. God forbid you should ever be surprised. Apologies again -- Nature
To clarify: in a given bunch of Clementine oranges -- say, a box, or a bag -- why are some more sweet than others? What factors could account for that? I'm not saying that no factors could possibly exist to account for variations in sweetness. But I am asking if we have any information that could explain that. I would even be curious if there is any information as to why any fruit that is understood to be of identical botanical type might have variations in sweetness among individual examples. For instance -- would some apples on the same tree be sweeter than others? Supposing degree of maturity were accounted for, since obviously unripe apples would unlikely be very sweet? Are any other factors besides maturity contributing to perceived sweetness in fruit, such as apples and oranges -- or other fruit? Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect small variations in conditions can produce large variations in resultant fruit (see butterfly effect). Some potential variations: rainfall, sunlight, temperature, plant age, plant genetics, amount of fruit on the same plant, amount of fruit on the same branch, etc. – 7401:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, Vidalia onions get their well known taste due in large part to the soil in which they grow. (and while checking my link, I see that the article confirms this) I'd suspect that the same thing could play a part in apples, oranges, or clementines. Dismas|(talk)05:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far from every fruit from a particular tree being the same, it has been shown that each fruit is slightly genetically different. That way trees manage to stay ahead in the battle with bugs. In ripening the brix acid ratio indicates sweetness. [4]. Tree ripened fruit show more variation than artificially ripened ones, but the latter are often reported as less sweet overall. (Our ripening article really needs a biochemical expert to put in some work. The relationship between sunshine, nutrients and chemical changes needs to be explained better IMHO.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also - because your oranges are in the same 'bag' doesn't mean they are from the same area of the plantation/farm/orchard/whatever you call orange growers (orchard?). I suspect they are all transported back to a central place where they are sorted/dealt with and either boxed-up on-site or sent elsewhere to be packaged together. Either way in all that intervening happenings i'd suspect that it means your bag could contain fruit from all over that place - be it some that has more sunlight or whatever. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for magazines that cover daily events, science, or history, but are presented in a comic-style format. The magazine should be targeted at teens. Kayak magazine is a good example, except it is for younger children. Muse Magazine is close, but it's too text-heavy. Are there any magazines with the criteria I've specified? --Munchkinguy (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we intend to buy a puppy soon. Though we are going to obedience training, and ask the same question there, does anyone have any recommended material regarding dog training? 24.76.160.236 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, at that, while I've looked for books online the best sellers all seem to be extremely intuition-based or... stupid, frankly. I guess this is similar to human pop psych books, though. 24.76.160.236 (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we already know a reasonable breeder, we're certainly not buying from a pet store or someone shady. We would love to adopt a shelter dog, but right now we don't want a big dog. Those are all that any shelter in town has; that and cats. 24.76.160.236 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)s[reply]
After a lifetime of experience suggest you treat the new pup much as you would a new baby. Bring the dog up the same way you bring up a toddler. But the dog stops for ever at toddler intelligence. (Of course you don't shut a baby outside, etc. dogs are tougher and mature far faster, so no <clever> comments, please.)90.9.211.187 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]
Yes - but you can do more with love and kindness than you can do with punishment. It's vital to remember that almost everything that goes wrong with a new puppy is your own fault...keep that firmly in mind. Dogs are pack animals - and they value leadership above all else - but they absolutely NEED lots of contact with their pack-members. Also, in general - I'm of the firm opinion that big dogs are better dogs. I've had a lot of dogs as pets over the years - and without a shadow of a doubt - the smaller they are, the more trouble they are. The 6 week old fluff-ball we got from the rescue center (who we were assured was a cross between a border collie (45lbs) and an australian shepherd (55lb)) turned out to be a very lean 135lb giant of a dog who was the quietest, most well-behaved, gentle animal you've ever met. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Always, always reward the dog for coming to you, no matter what terrible thing the dog did over there in the corner of the room. One day when the dog's heading toward the street full of cars, you'll be glad the dog turned around and came to you when you called. Acroterion(talk)19:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean more along the lines of an alien turning up or a fleet of UFOs or discovering life on Mars; a situation where we're answering the phone, rather than dialling random numbers. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post-WW II there was a lot of interest in this issue, as evidenced by a whole string of movies on the subject, e.g. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Red Planet Mars (1952) and many others. They were very popular - they took people's minds off the Cold War, for starters, and it was better to think of aliens hovering around than Reds under the bed. They often had a theme of aliens arriving in Washington DC (obviously) and warning us not to have a World War III etc. This was also the period when interest in UFOs really heightened. I'd be very surprised if some governments didn't at least consider the idea of drawing up contingency plans. But I'd be even more surprised if they ever released any such plans to the public. That would have legitimised alien existence, and in the atmosphere of the day (it wasn't very long after Orson Welles's 1938 fatal broadcast of War of the Worlds), a government appearing to acknowledge the very existence of aliens would have caused panic. It would probably still cause panic today. There are a whole string of X-Files-type movies that show secret government/military-run bases in underground locations dug into mountains etc, where they investigate the evidence that proves incontrovertibly that aliens have arrived, etc, but whether such places exist, or have ever existed, is something that only an insider could possibly know. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What panic? Almost everytime when "they" hide X-Files about aliens or UFOs, explanation is "to not cause public panic". So what panic is that? One might think that if g-men ever released dox to the public, people would start mass suicide. But srsly: "Aliens? They exist? Well, that's some nice news," and it's OK, no panic. 81.95.228.239 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eternally recognizable communication
I seem to remember hearing about a study performed by the Federal government about coming up with a way of communicating very basically with a completely unknown future (IE. No assumptions about the state of human development when they were going to be read); does anyone know if such a thing was done, or if there is a name for that type of (Attempted) communication? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This earlier question kind of dealt with it, particularly here and here. Leaving messages for future far distant generations who's culture might be very different to our own, about the dangers of radioactive waste. meltBanana04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one that was most studied by the US government was for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. They wanted to place signage around the mountain warning future generations not to go rummaging around in there. They were required to consider what would happen in (I believe) 10,000 years from now when NO assumptions about the state of society or the nature of language could be made. The problem was to avoid the place being made to be seen as interesting or exciting - whilst still communicating the importance of the place. They also wanted to explain the precise nature of the materials deposited there in case some future advanced society might have a use for the exotic materials stored there. It was an interesting study. (Hmmm - our article doesn't say much...so check this out. SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it take longer time when we ravel to west side of teh earth?
ex: the earth roates from west to east. and so when we travel in air from east to west, why it is taking more time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nag183raj (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jet streams flow from W to E. In North America, flying from coast to coast, this results in a gain (or a loss, when flying West) of some 30 minutes. There ARE easterly jets, but only in tropical regions. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that when the earth rotates, so does the earth's atmosphere; you'd have to be outside the atmosphere for the earth's rotation to have any affect on the travel time in either direction. --LarryMac | Talk12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The atmosphere does rotate with the Earth's daily rotation, but differential heating causes wind to blow which does have a significant effect on the progress of an aircraft over the ground. A modern commercial airliner cruises at an airspeed of around 900 km/hr. If flying into a headwind of 200 km/hr, the speed over the ground will be only 700 km/hr, but if flying with a tailwind of 200 km/hr, the speed over the ground will be 1100 km/hr. Astronaut (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, can you help me find an online version of "R v Jacobs (1817). Russell & Ryan's Crown Cases Reserved 331", a pdf, webpage, anything will do. It's an old court case ruling from the 19th century but I can't find it though I've searched. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish wikipedia page on es:Daniel Camargo says he was sentenced following a "field court martial". That might be why the maximum sentence is lower. But the Spanish page doesn't say that that was the maximum sentence available. The Spanish page on life imprisonment doesn't contain any info on Ecuador. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for a Ford truck maintenance manual for a 1972 F100 Range XLT pick-up, with pictures and diregrams for repairing and restoring the truck, where can I find something to buy.
Thank you for any help.
PEP BOYS WILL HAVE THE MANUALS For a Ford Ranger XLT Good choice of truck,I maintained them for 12 years. Lighten up WIKI staff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have removed your email as per reference desk policies. This is not a forum for placing want ads. I would suggest finding a website about Ford trucks, or truck maintenence in general, and posting your request there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's asking for a specific maintenance manual, I don't see a problem in that. Try searching amazon.com or ebay, they have loads of car manuals for sale, or look for a specialist handbook seller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers on Placards on Tanker Trucks
What are they? I know they stand for what's in the tank, but i can't find anything but the generic placards on Wikipedia. What do the numbers mean??? BufferedInputOutput16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might be referring to UN numbers (list here) or the related NA numbers. Or you might be talking about some other system in use in the area you're talking about, wherever that is. Algebraist16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the question and answer about isolation above, someone mentioned Stylites and this made me curious. What's the day to day routine for a Stylite? Did they have servants bringing them food and water, and carrying out their waste? The articles I've found don't touch on such aspects of the practice, but surely something had to be done if people are spending years sitting on a pillar for years and years? Would they depend on donations being thrown up to them by passers by or would local clergy support them? Thanks. 142.132.4.118 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might get a better answer at the Humanities desk, but check out the stylite article. Also try finding hagiographies for these guys, but remember that since they are hagiographies, some of this stuff might be more legend than fact. Fasting was a big deal for them so they probably weren't too concerned about who brought them food. They did tend to attract groupies so there were probably lots of people to bring them whatever they needed. Peter Brown has written a lot about early Christian saints so he might have something to say about stylites (see "The Cult of the Saints", 1981). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mysterious tile outside Australian house
A friend has purchased a house in the suburbs of Sydney and discovered a mysterious tile in the backyard. Can anyone identify it?
It certainly looks like a compass rose - I'd expect the dot to be on the North side. But failing that - is there anything interesting or significant in the direction of the dot? Any hidden trapdoors? Secret passages? Does the sun cast a shadow in that direction on the birth date of the notorious local pirate captain?
Hi guys, thanks for the replies. My friend will take a compass to see if it's related to the magnetic poles. I'll keep you updated Fryboy (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the magnetic poles? I meant, it could be, but I'd expect the north pointer to indicate true north. Of course, if you know the compass variation for the area, it'll tell you both. --Anonymous, 07:05 UTC, March 17, 2009.
Oh, or alternatively, pick out the house in a Google Maps / Google Earth satellite image and see what angle its walls are aligned at. --Anon, 07:07, March 17.
My guess is that it's a platform for a sundial. You'd need to know where north was to line it up properly and the thing in the middle looks like it could be used as an attachment point for the stand. Matt Deres (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll apologize in advance for my lack of knowledge about martial arts and everything related, but I saw a demonstration of a particular style once and I'm trying to work out what it's called. It wasn't something I'd heard of before (like Tang Soo DoorKarateorTaekwando), and the focus was not on actually injuring your opponent, but on disarming them. I remember the girl and her partner who did the demonstration had "knives" (bamboo or wood, no sharp edges, not real knives!) and longer pieces of rattan (I'm pretty sure it was rattan) that they used to show the different forms.
I also remember her saying that they learned to fight with a weapon against someone else with a weapon, as well as fighting unarmed against an armed attacker. And the only other thing I remember is the belt colors, if that's any help- they went white, yellow, orange, green, purple, blue, red, and black, as I recall. The girl had a green belt and her partner had a blue belt, and he had just started intense knife training, whereas she didn't have very much. If anyone knows what this is called, I would appreciate it! --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 02:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Krav maga doesn't typically use belts. Eskrima does emphasize knife fighting, but I don't think it has a belt system, either. Was the martial art itself focused on disarming instead of injuring, or was that merely the purpose of the demonstration? If it's the former, then aikido springs to mind, although aikido traditionally uses only white and black belts. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second aikido, my daughter did sports aikido and a lot of it did involve defense against an armed opponent. The adult group had a number of policemen and a psychiatric nurse at a "secure unit", who all said that the skills were useful professionally. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it was aikido, as I've heard of it, but I may have misheard the name completely. To Fullobeans, as I recall the focus of the martial arts was indeed to disarm without causing injury to either party. Well, aikido appears to be closest to what I saw, anyway... looking at the articles (and related ones), it is likely something quite similar to that. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 01:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People with intersting/rare diseases
In countries where medical care is privatised, do people who have rare medical conditions get free treatment because of the opportunity to learn more? Or will they still need insurance/money? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, the grant-giving NIH has an Office of Rare Diseases, and there is also a non-profit organization called the National Organization for Rare Disorders. There are often special incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases which due to their rarity are not profitable. See Orphan drug. Researchers, regardless of the rarity of the condition, will frequently provide some sort of compensation for volunteers participating in studies; i.e. subsidizing part of the cost of a gym membership and a personal trainer for one day a week over the course of a trial period for volunteers in a study examining the long term effects of knee injuries. I can't think of any cases off the top of my head where a patient gets treated at no cost without some form of sponsorship. Sifakatalk04:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, people with a certain condition may be able to take part in a study for free. Some of the people selected will get free (although experimental) drugs, but others will only get placebos. StuRat (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happyness??
if nothing seems to be working in the professional and the personal front is abound with a thousand tensions how de we inspire and motivate ourselves to stay focussed to the goals and be happy .is this called depression? iy yes how do we rid ourselves from this?Anybody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though the way depression affects perception it may seem to depressed people that everything is fraught with tensions. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depression is a medical condition, though the term is used by people to describe all different levels of the feeling of sadness. It's impossible to say how to make yourself feel less depressed for certain but perhaps - a) actively try to read about positive circumstances - seeking out what good things people do may renew your confidence in the idea that things might improve b) have achievable, realistic goals. Don't lose the (less realsitic) dreams, but try to be more realistic - achieving your goals will build confidence. Goals should be difficult but not impossible to achieve. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And definitely, if you are unable to feel happy, you need to see your doctor, who can provide you with a number of options - most not involving drugs. Steewi (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does O- Level results matter if you are willing to attend an American University???
Hey, this is Firenze here. I am from India. I always wanted to study in an American University. But due to an illness, I couldnt do good enough in my O levels. O level exams are exams that we take when we turn 16. I got 4 As and 4 B s of the total 8 subjects I gave in my Cambridge Ordinary level exam. Someone told me that the 4 B's that I got will ruin my dreams of studying engineering in USA. I am skeptical. Whether the Ordinary Level qualification matters, I am unsure. So could someone please help me out??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.43.236 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK you normally need A-levels or equivalent to attend university. The grades at this level will take precedence over your O-level grade. The only exception is that you normally need a "C" grade or above in Maths and English O-level (unless you take Maths and English at advanced level). I would imagine the same goes for USA universities. BTW, Four A's and for B's is by no means bad, if it includes Maths and English it would be a pretty average grade. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I know a friend who's son got worse O-level grades (2 A's, B's and C's) and but really worked at A-levels and got straight A's. He is due to start in UCL (University College London - which has a good reputation) next year. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the most important academic qualifications for entry in to university are your highest ones. If you plan to get in to any university with your current qualifications then given the fact you didn't do extremely well I expect this would be very difficult since getting in to university with the O level alone is never the easiest of tasks. Realisticly you'd be far better off with a higher level i.e. pre-university qualification such as the A level or since you plan to attend a university in the US probably the SAT. If you do extremely well in your SATs (or A level) your O levels would likely be less important indeed they may not even be considered in many instances. However for highly competitive universities and scholarships, they may still take your O level results in to consideration. But don't lose hope, there are lots of other things that will also make a big difference, for example your participation in co-curricular activies and if the movies/TV shows are to be trusted, there's also likely to be some sort of entry essay. P.S. If you have some evidence your performance is likely to have been affected by illness this will often be taken in to consideration if your O level results are of any importance. Also re the above comment by Q Chris, a good IETLS or TOEFL result is likely to be sufficient for any English language requirements Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest your first line of attack, after trying to get better grades, should be working on getting a stellar TOEFL score. Find a study buddy and/or take a preparation course, check out TOEFL sites and forums online e.g. [7], [8]. "Studying at an American University" has two parts: First, finding a university you'd like to study at and who will accept you. Second getting a visa.
Finding a university you can study at gets easier the farther down the list from the most desirable choices you go. Anything you can throw into the scales in your favor helps: grades, internships, relevant job experience, a very good SAT score [9], any engineering project you've completed (schematics, calculations, pix), essay that knocks their socks off, etc. Take a look at Caltech's catalog [10] (from p. 115) and admission information [11] to get an idea. Big Us have special programs and facilities for foreign students, at a smaller one you'll have to "swim with the sharks". Credits for foreign degrees vary, but you might consider doing a BS at home and then finishing up in the US.
Before you apply for a visa you'll have to have your financing firmly in place. That's a deal-breaker if you ignore it. Be aware that relying some standard avenues of financing, like part time work, is not an option here. You'll have to show sufficient funds to pay the tuition fees, have a roof over your head and money to live on for the period of Visa you're applying for. Getting accepted by a reputable university used to be pretty much sufficient to get you a visa, that's changed radically! If you rely on scholarship monies you'll probably need a bank guaranteed promissory note or some such. It also helps with visa proceedings if you have a place to stay (friends, relatives, prearranged dorm room) before you apply. Hope this helps. Good luck. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that there are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. and each has its own admissions standards - some very tough, others not. And admissions for foreign students may have to meet different standards from local students anyway. A good start would be to narrow down where you would like to go and contact their foreign students department. This general background page may help. India, by the way, is the top source of foreign students in the U.S., having sent 94,563 here last year.[12]Rmhermen (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Of course, 94,563 is probably still pretty selective given the total number of Indian students entering college each year must be quite large.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Classes for Fear of Rollercoasters in US?
Summer will be here soon and I am usually the lame one, watching all my friends go on rollercoaster rides while I stand by and wave. Are there any programs or classes or something anywhere in the US that helps people who are terrified of rollercoasters(or the ride itself)? Last year, my very patient boyfriend tried to get me over it. He took me to a mini-coaster that was meant for smaller children. But that didn't work. The only thing maybe that I can stomach is the log water ride. The only thing that gets me is when we drop from a very high point. If I don't scream my head off, the sick feeling in my stomach goes into my throat and I literally panic and want to get off the ride immediately. So I guess, its the dropping from a high point and going upside down that terrifies me. --Emyn ned (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this qualifies as a phobia, as that's an unreasonable fear, and it's quite reasonable to be afraid of roller-coasters. They are, after all, designed to cause fear. You may have a bit more fear than others, but nothing abnormal. I don't have any desire to subject myself to a roller coaster, either (or the long lines before the ride). I suspect that a fairly large portion of the population doesn't. Unfortunately, your friends aren't among us. Aside from working your way up from small rides, I can suggest keeping your eyes closed. Also, go to the bathroom right before the ride and avoid eating several hours before, to avoid making a mess. Finally, I think of people who intentionally engage in apparently risky behavior for the "thrill" to be the defective ones, not those of us who avoid it, as the evolutionary purpose of fear is precisely to prevent such behavior. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that actually this could be considered irrational. I see a fear as rational if the object of fear could actually do something to you, but rollecoasters are designed to be, as well as scary, completely safe. I always hated rollecoasters, but found the most effective way of overcoming the fear was to be with friends. If everyone around you seems fine, it all seems a lot smaller. I also agree with closing your eyes. I also find it helpful to engage in conversation with your freinds while in the queue. Most queue lines are layed out in a way to invoke tension in the people waiting, either through scenery or views of the ride itself. Taking your mind of these can help reduce anxiety Chaosandwalls (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since everyone who rides a roller-coaster feels some fear (that being the whole point), that would mean everyone has a phobia. After all, if your heart beats faster and adrenaline pumps into your blood when you see a butterfly, that would be a (weird) phobia. But that's because the fear of butterflies is unreasonable, while the fear of roller-coasters is not, because people do occasionally die on them, and far more often are made sick by them. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how safe the roller coaster may be, it is safer to not go on the roller coaster. I would say that the fear is rational, because there is no benefit to be gained from riding a roller coaster. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Of course there is a benefit to be gained from riding a roller coaster: it is (for most people) a highly enjoyable activity. Algebraist16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by the notion that being afraid is a prerequisite for riding a roller coaster. Plenty of people I know enjoy roller coasters and are not afraid of them at all. They find the ride itself (the speed, the curves, etc) fun. Roller coaster afficianados are often called enthusiasts, after all. Tomdobb (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common consequence. I don't think you could deny that many people experience fear contemplating the riding of a roller coaster. Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that fear is a common consequence, but I'm confused by statements like "everyone who rides a roller-coaster feels some fear (that being the whole point)." I don't agree that that's the case or that it's the point. Tomdobb (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "sense of excitement" that comes from something apparently dangerous is because it creates a fear response, which causes adrenaline to be released into the blood, increasing respiration and heart rate, among other things. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My only point would be that roller coasters are peripheral to basic needs of life, for most people, most of the time. Therefore any degree of fear associated with roller coaster riding has to be evaluated against the backdrop of the relative unimportance of the activity. If a starving people (group of people) were fearful of procuring food by hunting fearful animals, that might be a fear worth examining. (That is just an attempt at coming up with an analogy. Other analogies may be better.) But the "benefits" of riding a roller coaster are, in my opinion, of a different order. The "thrills" of riding on a roller coaster are a luxury, and therefore any fear associated with the activity are sufficient reason to just dismiss the activity from one's itinerary without a second thought. It is simply unimportant, and it is a fear not particularly worth examining. Editing this question has been a roller coaster experience. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, does anyone know if any amusement parks (Disney or whatever) offer programs for those who are a-feared of this contraptions?--Emyn ned (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then its benefit is of secondary importance to the basics of life. It comes far after for instance: food clothing and shelter. Risk is taken for things of importance; I think it can be reasonably said that there is a degree of irrationality to the taking of risk for little potential benefit. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you live around Ohio, I would suggest going to Cedar Point and riding Top Thrill Dragster. Once you do, you will never fear another roller coaster again. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let people think any less of you for missing out on a so-called "great ride". You are not the only one who doesn't appreciate being whizzed around at high speed on a rickety pile of girders. Astronaut (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Benefit, Bus stop? For some people, a thrill is a huge emotional benefit (even if it comes with some fear). These are the types who will run at breakneck speed into the surf for the full-body sensation of near-fatal shock - a sensation that $1 million couldn't buy them - while their friends spend 25 minutes namby-pambying around, getting one toe wet at a time, gradually acclimatizing themselves to the temperature difference. (I'm definitely one of the latter, btw.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are roller coaster simulators at some parks which let you design your own track and ride it. The one I tried (somewhere in the Orlando vicinity) did a pretty good job at simulating the forces you feel on a real coaster. They also come with a big stop button. If I were to try to help someone get acclimated to the sensations on roller coasters, a roller coaster simulator would be a logical first choice. Another thing to consider trying are drop towers. It will let you focus on the weightlessness feeling in freefall and the heights without all the hurtling around. 152.16.253.109 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some online “how to” guides here, but I see no signs of there being an actual class anywhere. However any therapist who has experience with phobia sufferers should be able to guide you through a desensitization process. Ask your doctor for a referral. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-Defence
I just saw The Hoodlum Priest, where a criminal claimed self-defense because the victim came at him with a crowbar during a robbery, and the criminal shot him dead. In the movie, it didn't work. A similar claim might occur if police are hunting a criminal they intend to kill, and he kills them instead. Has this ever worked ? Or is there a general rule that you can't claim self-defense during the commission of a crime ? StuRat (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a not-lawyer not offering legal advice, which this would generally fall under and if you have further questions, should probably ask, self-defense is only applicable if the victim fears unlawful deadly force is going to be acted upon him by his assalaint. Or unlawful deadly force is going to used on a third party and victim acts in defense of that party. (The bolding is emphasis, not any sort of sarcastic attack, now that I read my comment) Livewireo (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't necessarily mean the situations StuRat describes couldn't be legitimate self-defence, though. For example, hunting down and killing a criminal is normally unlawful, even if you are the police. Algebraist17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. However, 'commission of a crime' and 'hunting down and killing a criminal' generally take place at different times. If I were robbing a store at gunpoint, I could not claim self-defense if I shot a police officer. If that same officer came to my home well after the fact (off duty) and attempted to do his best imitation of Batman, I could theoretically claim self defense. But now we are falling to in to legal advice territory, I beleive. The Right of self-defense page has some good case law examples. Livewireo (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are more about defence of property than self-defence. There is a big difference between someone breaking into your house and you using force to stop them stealing stuff and someone attacking you and you using force to protect yourself from physical harm. The latter is very clearly legal in every jurisdiction I know of (there are some differences in the details - for example, some jurisdictions have a "duty to retreat" - you have to try and run away before you fight back). The former is a much more controversial issue. --Tango (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know of this man who shot two police in self-defence.[13] Or at least was successful in claiming so. I think quite a few people have claimed the same defence but usually without success. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada, here's what the Criminal Code says about self-defense:
Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
Provocation
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
It seems to me that section 35 does cover the case described by the original poster. There's another section that defines when killing someone in the course of committing another crime is automatically murder, but as far as I can see it doesn't apply here. But that's Canada. This is the sort of thing that jurisdictions might well differ on. --Anonymous, 00:26 UTC, March 18, 2009.
It's worth remembering in many countries the police are not legally allowed to "hunting a criminal they intend to kill" so it's a bit of a moot point. They may be allowed to use deadly force if it's necessary but generally speaking if a criminal surrenders and clearly does not pose a threat killing them would usually be unlawful. (There are obvious debatable cases e.g. Jean Charles de Menezes.) Therefore I suspect most courts are likely to take in to consideration that the only reason in most circumstances why your life would be in danger from the police would be if you continue to pose a threat and therefore would normally not find it resonable for you to use deadly force to defend yourself since the better option would be to surrender and make it clear you don't pose a threat. There are obvious borderline cases, e.g. if you've just been engaged in a shootout with the police is there much hope for a successful surrender but often that would mean there are sufficient cases where self-defence is not involved and more significantly perhaps, good luck convincing the court that you genuinely suddenly decided you were willing to surrender. Now a different case re: the Canadian law bit above for example would be if you try to claim you believed the police would not act in accordance to the law and police policy and would instead act unlawfully (e.g. would allow themselves to be provoked). This would likely depend on many factors but would ultimately require you convince the court it was resonable for you to believe so. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Golf
Resolved
I'm looking to stub-create a load of golfers, but it would be nice to have basic details about them written in, such as age and nationality. As a bot's going to be doing this, all I really need is to find a helpful website either containing a table of these uncopyrightable facts or with a semantic URL system that could be tapped into. Cheers! - Jarry1250(t, c)16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a friend, and I'd like to record a conversation I have with him over the phone. How could I best go about doing this? I have Vonage at the house and my computer. Would it be best to use an old answering machine (and how would I get one of those!)? RefDeskPrivateAcct (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Vonage, so this might be useless, but Radio Shack and other electronics suppliers usually sell an adapter to run a phone directly into a tape recorder. This may be all you need. As an aside, make sure you have you friend's permission before taping him, as it may be illegal to tape a phone conversation without the approval of both parties depending on where you live. Tomdobb (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did check out Google's Jobs section and underneath Job search, I was looking for if they have anything to do with Historian. I tried but nothing work. Is there any job search site where it can help me with getting a job as a historian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.69 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know where I can find statistics on the relative popularity of different first- and middle-name initials (as two-letter combinations)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.146.142 (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the Philippines.Please help me and my family. I am looking for a person named RUI MANUEL MARQUEZ.This guy is a united nations police officer assigned @ East Timor since Dec. 2008.He is from Portugal.Anybody knows this guy please help us. I saw his name from the receipt @ dili international airport last Dec 24, 2008 with my sister.This is a very important matter.Please anybody help us very badly.Thank you & God Bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.198.94 (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your example would just be called a picture or a photograph. Maybe a self-portrait? It certainly doesn't appear to have anything to do with medicine other than it shows a laceration. Tomdobb (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture might or might not have been taken by a digital camera. I'm not knowledgeable about any of this, but can't a photograph, to be used for medical, or legal purposes, be taken by any photographic means? Need a photograph taken by a digital camera have a special name? Can the person posing the question provide some background about the context in which it seems necessary to identify the type of medical imaging used? Can't it just be referred to as a photograph taken with a digital camera, or even by a mobile phone? Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This miscellaneous desk might not be the best place. If don't get what you want within a few days, ask again on the language desk, because they know terms for most things under the sun. (But wait till this thread is archived, because it's considered rude to post in two places at once.) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medical imaging is a generic term meaning any image - normally all or part of a human body - to aid medical staff in diagnosis, treatment or possibly for teaching purposes. This may be carried out by various means, for example, x-rays, CAT scan, screen capture from an endoscopy or a camera (usually digital). X-rays, CAT scans and related procedures are normally carried out by the radiography department of a hospital. Screen captures from an endoscopy video are usually taken by the doctor or surgeon carrying out the procedure. Medical photography is performed by a person trained in this speciality using a good quality digital camera. A medical photograph is any photographic image produced at the request of a doctor. Other images requested by other clinical disciplines may be called clinical photographs, but these terms are not necessarily strictly adhered to. I have never heard of a medical or clinical photograph being taken by a mobile phone. Undoubtedly they have been taken by this method but only in emergency situations when calling for the medical photographer would result in the moment being lost. Richard Avery (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well like CT and X-ray use same technology but have differnet name.In simialr fashion this must also have different name.Surgeons usally use mobile phone to capture photos during operations.yousaf465'
Hmm, so how do these surgeons ensure cleanliness of the operation area when they whip out their mobiles. Are we talking about major city surgery here? I believe this is unheard of in the UK. Richard Avery (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will upload one such image.Clean they are.yousaf465'
"X-Ray" is not a form of imaging - it is the name of the radiation used to form the images, i.e. Computed Tomography uses X-Rays to produce images. Likewise, plain film imaging (Radiography) (the sort of film image you'll see hung on a light-box on ER) is often given the name "an X-Ray". So its two different technologies, both using X-Rays to produce them. Likewise, a photograph may be referred to as a medical or clinical photograph, but at the end of the day the technology used to produce it means its still just a photograph. Personally, I find it hard to believe surgeons use mobile phones to take images in theatres. If it was deemed necessary to take photo's in theatre you'd surely want to use a decent quality camera, with good resolution, etc. Also, due to patient privacy concerns, mobile phones are often banned from theatre areas due to the fact that they have cameras built in. Stulock holmes (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting in all title
I really don't know how to phrase this, so those of you who have come across me before, please bear with me. The underlying question is, should I tell her? But that is not RefDesky at all. Is there any research about whether women want to be told if their boyfriend or husband is using or has used the services of a prostitute? Obviously, some women would want to know and some wouldn't. Are there any solid criteria for an unwillingly observant neighbour to base her decision on? Have any social scientists or counsellors (or for that matter prostitutes' organisations) come up with helpful ways through this minefield? I am not asking for opinion or anecdote here, although frankly, under the circumstances, helpful suggestions (of the "This is what my cousin did..." variety) would be welcome on my talkpage. Any pointers to reliable, preferably academic, material would be much appreciated here on the refdesk, not least for future archiving. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't research, obviously, but just the same: I think in a situation like this you should be very, very aware of the fact that since you are an observant neighbor, rather than a participant, chances are that you don't know the whole story. Assuming that your observation is correct -- and it sounds like it's possible that it isn't -- it's possible that she's entirely aware of her husband's actions, for example. Or that she isn't aware of this specific activity, but he has permission because of an existing arrangement. Or that he keeps it out of sight and she makes sure she doesn't see anything (although if that's the case, clearly he hasn't been doing a great job since you found out). Or maybe he's just a cheating shit. The point is, as long as you don't know, you should probably be pretty careful about what you do. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone help me find a list of countries that have the most islands?
The problem here comes with defining an island. The question of "What is the smallest island?" has come up from time to time and there's no answer to it, because the minimal size for an island isn't defined. That makes counting them rather difficult. That being said, I would think that Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada, and the Philippines are probably the top contenders, in some order or other. Russia and Japan are probably there as well. Depending on how you want to count the various bits and pieces of Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia, that could really throw the numbers off. Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a DIY guide, there is the article list of islands. Bear in mind that many nations with a coastline have numerous rock islands (Norway or Greece are examples) . In other cases you have to decide if, for instance, the dozens if islands in the Nile delta are islands. Even Switzerland, not a country noted for islands, has a list of 33 in lakes and rivers. Alabama seems to have > 100 islands, all but 4 are red links. The vast majority of these are definitely "for the birds". --62.47.141.18 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC). Ooops, --62.47.141.18 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC). Ooops number 2: --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Indonesia would be the top of the list by most definitions but I think the other ones may be more difficult and as MD and Cookatoo have said, it ultimately comes down to how you classify islands. For example we have a bunch of articles Islands of Indonesia, List of islands of the Philippines, List of islands of Australia, List of islands of Japan but these probably primarily are official figures and therefore their definition of islands will vary. The intro of Islands of Indonesia helps explain the difficult counting these sort of things. It would obviously be easier if you restrict yourself to inhabited islands or something of that sort Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Museum quote
O you people, beware of being extreme and exceeding the limits in the religion, for that which destroyed the people before you was none other than extremism in the religion
I saw this quote on a recent visit to a British Museum (not THE British Museum), and thought it a wonderful bit of advice to adherents of ALL religions. But I can't recall seeing a reference to the author. Any advice welcome and also, any follow-up reading material suggestions appreciated. 92.22.75.125 (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation of the thread above, "help." on Timor-Leste
Thank you Sir/Madam (DJ CLAYWORTH)i REALLY DONT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS RESEARCH IN THE COMPUTER, I JUST CLICK CLICK AND CLICK UNTIL I ENTERED IN THIS SECTION. SIR, YOU SEE MY SISTER WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND LAST MARCH 6, SHE JUST ARRIVED FROM EAST TIMOR LAST FEB. 11.BECAUSE SHE HAD TO REPORT TO HER OFFICE HERE AT BACOLOD CITY ,PHILIIPINES.I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS HER CONNECTION TO THIS GUY?DOES HE KNOWS THAT MY SISTER WAS DEAD? YOU SEE , 2 WEEKS OF GREAT TRIALS IN OUR LIVES, AND THIS TRIALS WAS VERY VERY STRONG THAT I MYSELF IS ALWAYS CRYING. SHE WAS KILLED FRIDAY MARCH 6 AND MARCH 2 WE HAD LUNCH, SHE TOLD ME EVEREYTHING ABOUT THIS GUY, IM SORRY I COULD NOT FINISH THIS.......SEE YOU, THANK YOUS SIR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.198.94 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My heart goes out to you. You sound sincere. Perhaps someone familiar with your country and your language will see this and maybe offer helpful advice. I do not know how I can help you, because I am in New York City (approximately) and I only speak English. Your English is pretty good, but I don't think I really understand all that this is about. I feel that maybe some sort of police work is called for, to try to the bottom of this, but I really don't know. I wish you the best, and I hope you get your questions answered. Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent it helps, the individual you are looking for probably works for United Nations Integrated Mission in East Timor. A gentleman by the name of Chief Superintendent Luis Carrilho is apparently leading the UN Police part of the mission. I suspect the only way to get through to the man you wish to track down would be to write via Carrilho in Timor-Leste. --Tagishsimon(talk)00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
March 19
diet
it's diet enhances it's defence mechanism. what is it and what is it's defence mechanism. it's a question i need assistance to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.26.36 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few non-poisonous bugs eat poisonous plants in order to become poisonous themselves in order that birds and other predators learn not to eat them. Milkweed butterfly caterpillars eat the leaves of the (poisonous) Milkweed plant - storing the poisons in their gut. If a bird should eat such a caterpillar, it will get very sick and (presumably) leave the caterpillars alone thereafter. But this is just one example - there are others. SteveBaker (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i always look at questions like this and think 'nasty pub quiz question'. as such i reckon it's japan. and that the defence mechanism is the japanese armed forces. --Monomath (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
new jacket
hello, i bought a new jacket today and I have a question about it. There are two white stitches on my all black jacket at the bottom of it on the back that appear to be holding the flaps together. Are these to be removed, or is it some style thing I'm unaware of?
sorry if this is a dumb question, I rarely buy new clothing, especially jackets, and i have a date this friday and i'd rather not appear to be ignorant (even though I clearly am..) thanx! -johnn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.14.113 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure, but they don't look like style elements to me. In fact they look like they might be simply holding the two vents at the back closed so that the jacket doesn't get creased/damaged in the store (like the way the pockets are often sewn shut on new jackets). So what else will come undone if you were to remove the stitches? Maybe you could ask at the store where you bought it. Astronaut (talk)02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view: they should certainly be removed. They hold the thing together after manufacture, during pressing & transport. They are not a style element. (That said, I went into work this morning with a label attached to the leg of my new chinos, looking like an idiot or member of Coldplay. Perhaps not a person to take sartorial advice from). --Tagishsimon(talk)02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the quality of the stitches. If they are there merely to hold the material during storage then they will be just two long loops and easy to remove. If they are a style feature they will be composed of many small stitches and will not be easy to remove. The decision is yours! Richard Avery (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be the type of stitches used to attach size and price tags to the garment. They may be removed. B00P (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the late 2000s recession becomes as severe as the Great Depression, will significant numbers of people have to switch to coffee and tea substitutes as they did during the 1930s? If so, are the substitutes likely to be of better quality and to include caffeine? NeonMerlin04:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap coffee is bordering on free in most cases (not of course, Starbucks, but the standard freeze-dried stuff), especially relative to most people's income. Shit will have to get a LOT worse before we start drinking ersatz coffee of any sorts (unless its done for taste, ala ChicoryinNew Orleans). Coffee is just far more availible today than in the 1930's, and much less of a "luxury". --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee, much like diamonds, seems to have a price that's kept absurdly high relative to the cost of production of the raw materials (pennies per pound in the case of coffee). If the economy declined, presumably the companies which sell coffee would just need to improve efficiency and lower their profit margins to bring the final price down to something people could afford. StuRat (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paranormal : Is it true that the Spirits or the Souls exist?
If yes the can i get to know that how can somebody contact someone who is not there anymore in this world by doing nothing destructive or by hurting anyone at all.
Can somebody tell me that if something called souls do exist then do they see us and be around us.
Or should i just simply convince myself that there is nothing that sort and when somebody is gone, he can't comeback ever.
Its just nothing left now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinkajoinsarmy (talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, assuming that you are talking from personal experience, I am sorry for your loss. You may like to read our article on the soul, which discusses various philosophical and religious views on whether souls exist, and what their nature is. There is also a brief section in the article on scientific views; there is no scientific evidence for the existence of souls. Most of the viewpoints which consider souls exist do not consider that it is possible for the living to contact people who have died, and believe that it is necessary to accept that they have gone. Spiritualism discusses the opposing view, that contact is possible. Again, there is no scientific evidence for this, and many supposed mediums have been exposed as frauds. Warofdreamstalk13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no evidence to suggest that any part of what makes us "us" continues to exist after death, at least in the sense that you're using. My own opinion is that the very idea of souls and the afterlife was invented for just such times as these, to help us come to grips with the loss of a loved one. The fact that they're gone does not, however, mean that they have to be forgotten. I've weathered quite a few losses over the last few years and have noticed that constructive memorial services can be very helpful at times like these. I'm using "constructive" in a very literal sense there, as one of the best things we've done has been to make up memorial books using services like shutterfly. Picking out and arranging the pictures was a very helpful process in providing a sense of balance; "Yes, they're gone, but look at all the good times we had...". Keep the memory of the good times alive. Matt Deres (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply :Thanks
Thanks for the quick response.
But yes i m not able to get over this thought that i do need to talk to my Love who is not thier anymore in this world.
I have tried that a lot but still, everytime its the same thing comes in mind.
I have checked out all the Forums on Wikipedia,and for the Psychics as well mentioned in it.
but i do not think that i can contact them ever and yes m again not sure about their credibility. Don know what to do, but watching these TV serials which talks about the paranormal and Ghosts it comes in my mind that if something is possible like this.
It would be Ok with me if u can just help me know that his soul would be there watching me always.
I would be very relaxed and would be able to concentrate on my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinkajoinsarmy (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and firstly may I say I sympathise with your loss. It was a great comfort to me to know that my loved ones live on, if not as an external "soul", then definitely as my memories and internal dialogue with them. While you remember them, they surely still exist. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, my deepest sympathies for your loss.
There is some evidence that loved ones live on after they are gone, in the nature of heart transplant patients. It has been reported that such recipients sometimes gain the interests of the departed. So, there may be something there, perhaps, though I don't have any sources in frotn of me.
As to the way you are describing, however, as a practicing Christian I have great faith that I will see my loved ones again. And, perhaps this is what you need to look i nto - faith. Because, the Bible has a definition that you might appreciate - "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) However, this same book of the Bible reminds us that we are "once to die, then the judgment." So, this faith is not for us to be able to talk to our loved ones once they die. It *might* mean they can see us (I think it does). It certainly does mean that we have a personal relationship with God, who promises peace, comfort, and solace in times like this. Indeed, the shortest verse in the Bible, at a time of great sorrow for His friend, speaks multitudes - "Jesus wept." (From John chapter 11.)209.244.187.155 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funds Raised for No on 8
I was just curious if anyone knew how much money the No on Prop 8 side had raise prior to the election? I know Steven Spielberg gave a million or two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.254.135 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
