Humanities desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 18

9-1-1 on a cell phone

What happens when you dial 9-1-1 on a cell phone? Where does the call get routed to? This question refers to the USA. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It depends on what cell tower is routing the call. See here and it's sometimes routed to the state police instead of a county sheriff or local department according to here. Dismas|^(talk) 02:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago I called 911 on a cell phone in Canada and they knew my street address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.14.228 (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider that to be good or bad? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't they know you're street address? The phone is registered with the phone company, and for the efficacy of 9-1-1, I'm not surprised (and am pleased) that they know this. After all, mobile-only households are rising dramatically. I'm one of those households. This is the same as you phoning from a landline: they know where you are then, too. Aaronite (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the street address to whom the phone is registered may certainly be different than the street address from where the person is actually telephoning 9-1-1 (i.e., the location of the emergency). Right? (64.252.34.115 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Certainly the location of the caller at that moment is the most important fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, they use Mobile phone tracking rather than just the street address your phone is registered to (if any - throwaway mobile phones don't have such an address). This was forced on the cell phone networks, who whined that it would cost them a lot of money to implement this system, that it would discourage future investment in the cell phone industry, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as we all know, hardly anyone buys cellphones anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally related rant et seq hidden

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(rant alert) That's because people in their billions have fallen prey to the greatest scam in the history of the world. Once, people would use their phone when it was necessary or convenient to do so. Now, thanks to phone plans, people are charged for making a minimum number of calls/texts a month, whether they actually make that many calls/texts or not; but because they've agreed to be charged for them in return for not having to pay for the phone outright, in most cases they feel the need to then make that many calls/texts, but many of these are calls/texts they would not otherwise have made. Sure, the unit cost of calls has in many cases fallen, but people have been hoodwinked into making far more calls than they would naturally consider necessary, so the phone companies are making massive profits and the hot air industry has gone completely berserk. Imagine the stupidity of having a "lawyer plan" where you're charged for a certain number of consultations with your lawyer every year, whether you actually have those consultations or not. Or a "doctor plan", or a "dentist plan", or a "hospital admission plan". Dumb, eh. I rest my case. (end of rant). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or what, but we call that "lawyer plan" a retainer and lots of people have a lawyer on retainer. --Tango (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a "doctor plan", if you consider that your taxes pay your doctor's salary whether you visit or not (assuming you live somewhere with universal health care). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dentist plan and a doctor plan. I don't pay anything when I go to either of them. If I go at all. What I want to know is how you got from 911 calls to a personal rant about cell phones. Wait. No. I actually don't care. Dismas|^(talk) 08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea that people are hoodwinked into making more calls. That's hilarious. I see that all the time. "Gosh, I'd better make a bunch of phone calls I'd otherwise not make, because I need to use up my minutes!" Riiigght. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Valley, CA

According to the Imperial Valley article:

Imperial Valley was so named by the Imperial Land Company, in hopes of attracting settlers

According to the Imperial Land Company article:

The Imperial Land Company was a land colonization company incorporated in California in March, 1900 for the purpose of encouraging settlement of the Imperial Valley.

So I'm curious: Was the valley named after the company, or vice versa? Was "Imperial" chosen on a whim, or does it have some historical significance? The Aztecs, or Maximilian maybe. Rojomoke (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1900: "Chaffey [head of the California Development Company] renamed the Salton Sink to which he was bringing the empowering waters of the Colorado. The Sink would henceforth be called the Imperial Valley: imperial as in empire, for the million acres of arable land seized from the desert by irrigation were linked in Chaffey's Anglo-Canadian imagination to the march of empire in Canada and Australia in which he had played a part through his engineering and entrepreneurial skills. Imperial: not a kingdom inherited, but an empire seized from inhospitable nature through engineering and water." Kevin Starr (1991). Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s (see footnotes to Imperial Land Company.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The footnoted source, if you open the link, tells a good story, which the article short-changes, as the query above shows. Couldn't a brief report of the gist of Starr's text be edited into the article Imperial Land Company?--Wetman (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could. There is no person in the entire world more qualified to do this than you. --Jayron32 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]