Miscellaneous desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

July 7

Morality of Investing

I would like to invest in Sinopec because its a good stock. however they fund the misgovernments in tibet Sudan Burma Angola Iran Gabon Somalia etc. But a friend of mine told me that I'm not directly investing in Sinopec by buying on the NYSE since someone else has already given Sinopec the $ and I'm just buying the debt. Can someon clarify? --Gary123 01:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shareholders are owners. Owners are (or should be) responsible. There is, for me, a clear moral issue with such an investment. The "buy the debt" argument is based on a truth - that your purchase of the share does not directly benefit the company - they benefited once only, when they first sold the share. But it consciously avoids dealing with the moral implications of ownership and of the benefit you will receive from the actions of the company you now part own; and so it falls short of being full enough consideration to dismiss the moral question. Your purchase of the shares would indirectly benefit Sinopec, since it positively affects the share price (as demand does, in economic systems). There is one counter-argument to all of this, which is to do with using your share ownership for positive purposes - such as to enable you to ask prickly questions at an Annual General Meeting. (And the complexity of a moral issue such as this cannot be reduced to a ten line response). --Tagishsimon

(talk)

Your friend is a bit confused. Whe you buy a company's bond (finance), you are buying debt. As --Tagishsimon explains above, when you buy stock you are buying equity (ownership) in a company. I suggest that, before you buy any stock, you talk to a professional who knows more about the financial markets in general than your friend appears to know, and more about specific equities and thus how to match your money with your morality, if that is an issue for you. Bielle 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I want to know if anyone would make an image like this using this images 1 2 3 4 5 with the word Mexico in the middle.I want to use it for Portal:Mexico. Bewareofdog 04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Bewareofdog 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place for such requests is Wikipedia:Requested_pictures - there are a bunch of people there who I'm sure can do a great job for you. SteveBaker 05:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've just made one, hope it suits what you need. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image Bewareofdog 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holes for mobile phone straps

What are those little holes on mobile phones called the ones where you can hang straps and charms off them? --203.214.46.104 11:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strap attachment points?--Tugjob 16:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching material

What is 'phonic wheel' in teaching English for second language speaker ? How is it prepared?

File:Kinesthetic English-IPA Vowel Wheel.PNG

Kinesthetic English-IPA Vowel Wheel

I have no clue what a 'phonic wheel' is - but looking around in our phonics articles turned up this image referenced in the "See Also" section of IPA chart for English (IPA is the International Phonetic Alphabet). Is that what you mean? This image is not directly used in any of our articles - but if you click on the picture and scroll down, the image notes contain a lot more information (someone should fix that so there is a proper article it's not good to have that stuff hidden down in the image notes). SteveBaker 13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that this wheel puts the "high" vowels at the bottom. —Tamfang 05:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "undergraduate master's degree" in the UK?

What is an "undergraduate master's degree" in the UK's system of higher education? How does it differ from the traditional (postgraduate) master's degree?

It can be one of two things. Some undergraduate courses (usually four-years long) are called masters' (e.g. Master of Physics). Then there's the strange Master of Arts at Oxford, Cambridge and Trinity, Dublin, that is awarded to holders of the Bachelor of Arts after a certain amount of time has elapsed. — Gareth Hughes 13:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Master's degree in Europe#United Kingdom. That article outlines the undergraduate and postgraduate masters'. There is quite a wide variation in level of accomplishment in these masters' degrees: a four-year undergrad degree requires much less experience than a two-year postgrad research degree. — Gareth Hughes 13:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most english Universities deliver their Undergraduate degreece in three years and taught Postraduate Masters in one year. There are some courses which combine Undergraduate and Postgraduate level of study in a four-year course. I pressume that you are an non-English person who wants to study in the UK so my response is based on that. If you consider undertaking such degree you might want to know of its advantages and disadvantages.

One advantage is that the course is delivered in a monolithic way which takes you gradually from nothing to Masters holder. This approach helps your understanding and promotes gradual learning. It will be easier for you. In addition I would dare to say that it is also cheaper as you will be living in the same area for the whole four years.

The main dissadvantage thought is that you might find difficulty in receiving recognition from your local goverment that this Degree is actually a Masters degree (especially if you are not from a European country) so check it before you decide. One might also point out that it is not exceptionally good for your CV and your life to stay in the same university with the same teachers for the whole period of your higher education. You need to learn how to cope with alternating situations and collaborate with different people. It's difficult but it's better.

Grave subsidence.

Went to a UK funeral today. Newly dug grave about 6 feet deep in heavy clay soil in Central Scotland rural area with typical Scottish wet weather pattern. Coffin made of modern pine veneer construction. Grave filled back to surrounding area level with previously excavated soil. 2 questions: how long before deceased decomposes to a skeleton and, how long before coffin decomposes so as not to retain original supportive shape and form. 3rd question, after 1 and 2 occur will the soil above the coffin subside accordingly? 4th question, why were the graves adjacent to the one I was attending not subsided but instead, perfectly level with the surrounding land table? Thanks.

There was a Mythbusters episode where they planned to bury someone alive to determine how long they could survive in a sealed coffin. They found that the sturdiest, most up-market coffin they could find was already crushing and bending before even the mandatory 6' of soil had been piled onto it - a wooden coffin would presumably break long before that - 6' of dirt is a LOT of weight. Therefore, I suspect that any 'subsidance' that is likely to happen will be happening as the grave is filled in. It's hard to tell though because soil naturally decompresses when you dig it up - so even if you just dug a hole and then filled it in again with nothing at the bottom, you'd still wind up with some excess earth. Over weeks, the soil in the hole will compress again leaving a hollow. So I presume that when they finally get it filled in, they'd leave a bit of a mound to allow the ground to naturally level out when the soil eventually recompresses. With all of that complication going on, it would be hard to tell whether the coffin had collapsed or not. SteveBaker 14:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They buried someone alive on Mythbusters?!?! Did they use a dummy or what? --Candy-Panda 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - it was with a real person - Jamie Hyneman - our article says it was episode 8.SteveBaker 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the second part of your question, the rate of decomposition (read the article) varies hugely depending on a very large number of factors, including the diet of the deceased (e.g. whether it included lots of preservatives).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source regarding preservatives? It makes sense in a common sense sorta way, which makes me suspicious (and decomposition doesn't mention it.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can't find much of a source. It's something I heard a few times in recent years. Could be an urban myth. How about this?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links on the Sokushinbutsu page describe one method by which a body could be preserved.--193.195.0.102 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in some places it is also common (or even compulsory) to use a burial vault to prevent crushing of the coffin and subsidence of the ground above. I can't speak to practices in the UK, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in some cemeteries vaults are actually forbidden. It's impossible to say without more details, I think. --Charlene 17:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vault; coffin straight into the ground.

I think the crumpling of the metal casket on Mythbusters was abnormal, and that either it was a substandard casket or their test conditions were not identical to burial in the ground. If a hole six feet deep is dug, and a coffin about 2 feet high is lowered into it, then it would only take 4 feet of dirt above it to make it level with the ground. This dirt would then sink several inches as the disturbed soil subsided. If the coffin later decayed and caved in, the surface would subside additionally.In old country cemetaries people often add dirt to level the surface. If the removed dirt is all placed on top of the coffin, then the grave surface should be raised for several years and eventually, when the coffin and contents have turned "to dust" be back about at the original level. Old burials often have only a few bone fragments when dug up, as when a cemetary is moved. Each "moved" burial may amount to only a few bones or teeth, with the rest left behind. Edison 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think the Mythbusters thing was a flook? Firstly, they did go for the most solid coffin they could find - so it wasn't cheap junk. But let's do the math: Soil morphology says that the density of a sandy soil can be between 1.5 and 1.7 g/cm³. So 4 feet of the stuff (120cm) exerts a pressure between 180 and 210 g/cm² - which is close to 3 psi. Over the area of a 6'x3' coffin lid, that's 7780lbs - which is about the same as an unladen Ford Explorer. Notice that soil can act as a fluid - so you might well have close to 3psi acting in on the sides too (and that's definitely going to be the case if the ground is wet). I don't think you could lower a Ford Explorer onto a coffin lid without it being crushed like a soda can - no matter how well it's constructed. SteveBaker 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for a few years as a mechanical testing technician. You'd be amazed at how strong materials can be, especially if they're uniformly loaded (say, 8000 pounds of dirt spread over the entire top surface of a coffin). A pencil-thick piece of steel could easily hold that Ford Explorer of yours. The crushing damage comes from load concentrations because the bottom of the Explorer isn't perfectly flat. --Carnildo 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Mythbusters episode... It's described briefly here. It's been a while since I saw it, but I think what they did was construct a container above ground that would hold the required depth of earth, but also could be opened quickly in case of emergency. Then they really did put someone in a coffin and pile on the earth... with a communications line and quite possibly an emergency air supply. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid. --Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 03:15 (UTC).

Shower Mirror That Does Not Fog Up

Here is question that is not nearly as interesting as those above, yet I would like an answer / advice / input / suggestions. I want to purchase a good mirror that I can use to shave in the shower. One that will not fog up, etc. And, if it matters, I am referring to facial shaving only. Can anyone offer suggestions / advice on what is a good (or great) product ... or, equally important, what ones to avoid? Also, I assume they all cost roughly in the same ball park, so cost is not a factor. Just quality / durability / functionality are the concerns. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 18:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The only mirrors I have ever found that don't steam up in the shower are the metal travel mirrors one can buy in camping shops. DuncanHill 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wipe it with RainX (you can get it at car parts stores). Instead of getting a fine mist forming, you get big solid beads of water - most of which run off the mirror. SteveBaker 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am over 60 so what I am about to say doesn't amount to a heap of shit BUT, if you smear a bar of ANY soap across your mirror, and then polish it in with ANY dry cloth or towel, you can enjoy mist-free shaving thereafter. Thereafter, repeat. And, although I am 60 and overweight, by using the above method, I find that when I look in the mirror, I see a 26 year old stud with a 6 pack. Now that can't be bad !

I want one of those mirrors! Bielle 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - the only way I get to see a 26 year old stud in the mirror is to drink the 6 pack! SteveBaker 02:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input - much appreciated ... (JosephASpadaro 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Truth?

Is it true you can get anything you want at Alice's Resturant?

Excepting Alice! — Kieff | Talk 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a song...please don't waste our time. SteveBaker 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unless with a better joke than that. —Tamfang 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police & What You Have to Do

Lately, I've seen a couple of really good web pages outlining what authority police have over random civilians. (For example, if asked for ID, do I have to show it, if told to leave an area, do I have to do it, etc.) But now I can't find any of these web pages. Can anyone help? --Tugbug 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for "police rights citizen" and such finds a bunch of pages that claim to give advice. Whether you should trust some web page to give yoy advice about such matters is left as an exercise for you. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it varies widely from place to place. —Tamfang 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but such pages soon go out of date, as anti-terror legislation is constantly being created and eroding your rights. (At least in the UK) if you don't do what they ask you, you can always be arrested for "obstructing a police officer".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the Unholy Trinity of offenses is: 1) Disobeying the orders of a police officer; 2) Resisting arrest; and 3) Simple assault (even if it's your nose assaulting the officer's closed fist). Pretty much any time the police want to hassle someone, the hasslee will end up charged with those three crimes, no matter what the original cause was for the interaction with the police officer(s). See also "Terry stop". Lately, the American police have also become very creative in applying anti-wiretapping laws when their public-but-embarrassing actions have been captured with a video recorder.

Atlant 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]