Miscellaneous desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

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.

May 11

Mouthguards

What is the point of the part that sticks out of a mouthguard? All I know is that you can tie it to a helmet. --The Dark Side 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that, and acting as a handle, are the points. --Tagishsimon (talk)

love

Is there a name for when you love somebody alot but they don't know & it will never work out? is it "unreciprocated"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.211.8.100 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think secret is the word you are looking for. Unrequited or Unreciprocated love is love which is not returned (but is presumably known). --Tagishsimon (talk)

It is difficult for love to be such (among the many definitions of the word) if it is unknown or returned; "having a crush" may be a more appropriate term (Here relinked through Wikipedia's tubes to Limerence). V-Man - ^T/_C 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's called stalking. And I'm only half kidding ;) Vespine 05:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's love; it is an infatuation Sandman30s 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's unrequited love. - Atlant 12:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my previous answer. --Tagishsimon (talk)

which side of bed

Which side of the bed do most men or women prefer to sleep on? I'm particularly interested in cultural / national differences too. Results may be affected by which side the bedroom door is located. (Please define left and right as well: in bed or looking at it). Mhicaoidh 08:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people I know naturally sleep on the right side of their bed (assuming their head is at the top of the bed, they're on the side furthest to the right from anyone looking at them from their feet up, like | .*.|) every couple I've seen (which is only 2-3), the woman sleeps on the right and the man on the left (using the above definition), but then in those cases it's also the woman's home/bed. While it's certainly no study, I think this question has far too many variables. Door location, room layout, bed size and type (one side might just be more comfortable), etc. etc. might influence it, so it would be hard to draw any real assumptions from a study. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 09:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After my parents moved house, I was surprised to discover they had swapped sides. They told me that it was traditional for the man to sleep on the side nearest to the door, which makes sense. I am a man and I personally prefer to sleep with the lady to my right, but that might just be a psychological thing. My mother has always been deaf in her right ear, so I always need to be standing (not in bed!) on her left. I am not aware of any studies on this but it might be interesting to find out more.--Shantavira 11:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty much random - there isn't a tradition or we'd all know what it was and the question would not have been asked - and there obviously isn't any logical reason to prefer one way or the other - so each couple must figure it out for themselves - and there is no reason for there to be a common preferance. FWIW, I take the left side of the bed - I have no clue why. SteveBaker 11:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if there was a cultural or national preference. What you do in your bed is entirely private. My wife sleeps on the left because the baby's cot was once there, and she used to lean over and stick the bottle in the baby's face in the middle of the night :) But that was long ago, and I guess we are creatures of habit and we have stuck to our sides. Sandman30s 11:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which side has the shorter walk to the toilet? I think you'll find that very mundane factors make the choice. -Atlant 12:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all those saying there is no "cultural norm" for this kind of thing. Probably because there is no real way for the rest of culture to find out what everybody else is doing (they don't really discuss it in the latest magazines or anything), so nothing to set the standard by. In my case, my wife and I have switched sides several times. When we moved, when we vacation, or even when we just rearrange which wall of the bedroom our bed is on, we might end up on different sides depending on what "feels right" in the new situation. --Maelwys 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to sleep on the top side of the bed. Corvus cornix 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always sleep on the side furthest from the door, lamp or TV and when possible, closest to a wall. Down M. 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sleep on the side that isn't jammed up against the wall. --Charlene 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a white Canadian female, and when I was a child I absolutely had to sleep on the left (my left), which was the edge of the bed (the other side was against the wall). Then when I was about 12 or 13 I switched, and always slept on the right (my right when I was in bed) against the wall. In both instances I was so particular about it (in my own bed anyway) that I absolutely couldn't sleep except on the side I was 'loyal' to at the time. Then all of a sudden it didn't matter anymore, and I started sleeping in the middle. When I moved house, I slept in the middle until I moved in with a guy, then I slept on the right for a while, then when I started getting headaches from sleeping on my right side all the time we switched, and now that it's my bed again I'm back to the middle. Anchoress 22:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally the lady sleeps to the right, the other lady to the left, and me in the middle. Currently only one of these conditions is fulfilled. jnestorius^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sleep in the middle, with a lovely lady on either side.... ;). In real life I sleep on the right side (but only because my my wife insists on having the left.) Rockpocket 00:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right, she's left. Edison 03:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the anecdotes folks. Extensive perusal of etiquette guides reveals a gentleman should always be to the right of a lady so his right hand is free to wield his sword, doff his hat, open a door, offer a tip, shake hands etc. Likewise a bride should traditionally stand to the left of the groom. I wonder if this has carried over into the bedchamber and most men sleep to the right of women? Mhicaoidh 03:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stereotypical factory roof shape

Have you noticed that for instance in cartoons or illustrations, factories are always the same shape, that is with a sort of sawtooth roof made of right triangles. Does anyone know the reason for this?

thanks --WhiteDragon 11:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no answer, just an image for everyone's viewing pleasure. —Bromskloss 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an actual photo of such a roof? --WhiteDragon 12:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other images that would be much more pleasurable to view ;) Whilst it is a very fine roof,it is rather boring.Can't it dance or something? Lemon martini 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clerestory roof. The vertical parts of the sawtooth are windows and they admit natural light, saving on the need for artificial lighting.- Atlant 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are (or were) structural engineering reasons, to do with the relative ease of designing load bearing roofs over large areas. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I see no structural advantage of such a roof profile. It is to allow matural light to enter from angled windows. Edison 13:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would allow rainwater to run off them rather than collecting, which would also help wash away all the soot coming from nearby chimneys. Laïka 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What stops rainwater collecting in the ridges?Zain Ebrahim 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The roof is slanted so that it all drains into gutters. Laïka 15:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, even without gutters, the rain water would more tend to flow off one side and just leave easily evaporated pockets on the roof than to form large enough puddles to cause a problem. Water always takes the path of least resistance. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 15:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just happens to be the common pictogram for that thing. ny156uk 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlant and Tagish are quite right, the vertical sections allowed a combination of clerestory windows for natural light and large deep roof trusses that could span the width of the factory and avoid internal columns, even in timber. The valleys were a problem as their internal gutters rusted, blocked up or overflowed quite easily, causing leaks. Modern factories dont use the sawtooth because the development of translucent and shallow pitch roofing, with high tensile steel beams, avoids the internal gutter and allows the big box shape we see in industrial and commercial buildings today. Mhicaoidh 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallow land

What portion of the land mass of earth is not build on or farmed? But rather is left fallow and wild. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Makes a difference if you are talking about fallow, as in not farmed but arable, or if you just want the amount that is unfarmed, including unfarmable. The whole continent of Antarctica is unfarmed, and basically unfarmable. Also Greenland.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site defines arable land as land that is used for permanent crops and gives the following percentages...

arable land: 13.31% permanent crops: 4.71% other: 81.98% (2005)

Definition: This entry contains the percentage shares of total land area for three different types of land use: arable land - land cultivated for crops like wheat, maize, and rice that are replanted after each harvest; permanent crops - land cultivated for crops like citrus, coffee, and rubber that are not replanted after each harvest; includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber; other - any land not arable or under permanent crops; includes permanent meadows and pastures, forests and woodlands, built-on areas, roads, barren land, etc.

It gives as a source the CIA World Fact Book

There is no seperate listing for towns, cities, roads, etc. (it is included in the 'other'), but the amount as a percentage must be rather small. Of more significance is the fact that towns, cities, etc. are often built on land that would otherwise be valuable farmland, wetlands etc. I am not sure if this includes Antarctica, it is often excluded from such data.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raising orchids

How to raise Phalaenopsis orchrids and make them bloom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.20.44.194 (talk • contribs).

The Phalaenopsis article has some info about that here. Skarioffszky 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bmt

can i contact bmt center in departement of pediatrics—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.53.83.41 (talk • contribs)

Probably, but we could be more specific if we knew the country/city and the name of the hospital or medical centre. Bielle 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, BMT is, I believe, shorthand for "Bone Marrow Transplant," so I concur that more information is probably warranted. Carom 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw BMT, I thought of the sub sandwich that Subway restaurants used to carry. BMT stood for Boston-Manhattan Transit, if I'm not mistaken. So the pediatrics reference threw me off entirely. Dismas|^(talk) 18:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation, actually. --LarryMac | Talk 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew Boston sounded wrong... guess I could have looked it up. Dismas|^(talk) 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest

If someone presses criminal charges, and the police investigate, how do they decide whether to make an arrest or just let the person be summoned to court? --76.106.15.180 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It generally depends on the severity of the crime - I'm not sure about the specifics, but, according to the article Arrest, "for serious crimes, the police typically take suspects to a police station or a jail where they will be incarcerated pending a judicial bail determination or an arraignment. In other instances, the police may issue a notice to appear specifying where a suspect is to appear for his arraignment." --Ali 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severity in what sense? What about non-violent white-collar crime, which is usually classified as a felony and so severely punished by law, but not seen by the common man as particularly heinous? --76.106.15.180 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and judges have some leeway in the matter. Some defendants are arrested and released on their own recognizance, some are given bail, some are held. One consideration is whether the person will commit further crimes or flee the jurisdiction if not incarcerated or given bail. Someone who embezzled a million dollars from his employer likely won't have that opportunity again even if he is free, but someone who stabbed a convenience store clerk could do it again easily. --Charlene 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since many people enjoy seeing crooked wealthy people get their comeuppance,white collar criminals are sometimes subjected to a perp walk. --TotoBaggins 22:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Scotland UK the police investigate the reported crime and decide whether a crime has in fact been committed. They then submit a report to the Procurator Fiscal who is the state's local prosecutor, totally independent from the police, judiciary, and politicians, though employed and remunerated by the the state prosecuting authority known as The Crown Office which is headed by a Government Minister known as the Lord Advocate (the current Lord Advocate is in fact a female) who is also a senior QC (Queen's Counsel) and member of the Faculty of Advocates (Scotland's senior Bar). There is also a junior Minister known as The Solicitor General. From then on, the Fiscal directs any further police investigations and decides on the correct charge, following which, a decision is taken on the correct disposal of the case, ranging from No Further Action, through imposing a Fiscal Fine or Warning, to prosecution under Summary Procedure (trial by a local sheriff who is a qualified lawyer acting without a jury, sentence limited to 6 months imprisonment); Solemn Procedure (trial by a sheriff and jury of 15 persons, sentence limited to 3 years imprisonment if accused found guilty by a simple majority), or Solemn Procedure involving trial by a High Court Judge and jury of 15, sentence unlimited up to and including Life Imprisonment (compulsory for Murder) and again decided by a simple majority. But in Scotland, there is a third verdict besides Guilty and Not Guilty, and that is Not Proven, in which case, the accused person walks away, free from further prosecution for the same "crime" but is forever suspected of "having done it but the Crown didn't convince the jury of the Guilt". Incidentally, in Scotland, there is no right to trial by jury unlike in England. The decision on whether to proceed with a trial by jury rests solely with the Crown. Also, in cases where the Crown decide on No Further Action, private prosecutions are exceedingly rare. In one famous Glasgow case involving alleged Rape wherein the Crown decided not to prosecute, the victim persuaded the High Court to hear her private prosecution of the alleged offender, who was subsequently found Guilty. The responsible Government Minister (the then Solicitor General Sir Nicholas Fairbairn) was obliged to resign his post.

Travelling to Somaliland (part3)

I've been talking to Somali folks in my area, and I even found someone who visited in 2004. I am advised to carry a weapon and hire 4 gunmen to escort me even in the capital city. Now I'm realizing what I plan is a risky trip. So how do I consult professionals to help me plan?

Thanks, 128.54.77.36 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia is a war zone. There's an active civil war going on right now in all parts of the country which is threatening to break out into a region-wide war. Reading our articles on Somalia, it's quite clearly a very, very dangerous place to be right now. Is this work-related or are you hoping to help humanitarian efforts? --Charlene 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All parts of Somalia? I haven't seen the north, (former British) Somaliland, mentioned in the accounts of violence – but perhaps Somaliland doesn't count. —Tamfang 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm familiar with the area, but if this were happening... I'd tell your business partners/bosses to meet YOU. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What nationality are you? If you're American, have you read what the US State Department is saying about travel there? http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_933.html - though it's dated June 2006, it is still active on the State Dept website. Corvus cornix 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dare to visit Somalia. But I plan to go to Hargeisa, Somaliland. The purpose of my visit is tourism. I am a Chinese born American national.

Do you guys think if I call the UN office anywhere in the region I could find someone who has visited? What other sources should I consult?

128.54.77.36 01:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the US government considers Somaliland to the part of Somalia, and the State Department information sheet (linked above) explicitly mentions that it is including Somaliland. --Anon, May 12, 04:45 (UTC).

OK, I have zero authority so don't sue me if you die.

First, Somaliland and Puntland are to all intents and purposes different countries from that rules from Mogadishu, even though nobody will recognizes them as separate nations. Somaliland is by far the best governed and most stable bit of the country. Both the War in Somalia (2006–present) and Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present) are largely in the south. If you have to go through Mogadishu, first, I wouldn't go and, second, I'm not sure I would feel safe with only 4 armed guards. The entire south of the country is in heavily armed chaos.

My first stop online would be the UNOCHA site for Somalia, which includes regular situation reports aimed at letting humanitarian aid workers and UN employees in the country know what is going on. Another source is the Lonely Planet Somaliland postcard page, which seems to suggest that Somaliland is far safer than Mogadishu. Once you have a clear sense of what is going on, the Lonely Planet Africa thorn tree is a decent place to ask further questions. According to wikitravel (which largely seems ripped off from LP) the only place to get a Somaliland visa is in Addis. When you are there, ask the embassy for information. If you do have to hire guards in Somaliland, which appears unlikely, you're probably going to get the cousin of the embassy guy who recommended you and pay a premium, but that's still probably better than showing up and looking for some guy at the airport with a gun and asking if he is for hire. Good luck and, in a "not at all encouraging you to go or taking any responsibility for your safety"-kind-of-way, this trip sounds awesome. Banyan Tree 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pop-up lavatory drain

The "stopper" for a lavatory drain is often controlled by a lever or plunger on the faucet. Some types of these "pop-ups" are described as "50/50". What distinguishes a "50/50" pop-up from any other (ordinary) pop-up? Whatabob 23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Whatabob[reply]

it only gives out half of a full flush to save water? --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "lavatory" means wildly different things in different parts of the English-speaking world. Are you talking about a toilet (as Antilived assumed) or a bathroom sink (which is what it sounds like to me)? (Here, "lavatory" can mean a half-bath; in other words, a toilet and a skin but no bathtub). --Charlene 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatabob is talking about the stopper in a basin plughole. I haven't been able to work out exactly what 50/50 means, but I'm thinking perhaps it has something to do with what it's made of? Half metal and half plastic or ceramic? Because on the sites I found it's often contrasted with "Metal pop-up drain". FiggyBee 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life insurance

Is it legal to get life insurance for your husband or some1 else (in your family or not) without his knowledge, or without his consent (in which case the benifciary would be paying the premiums)? Cause you know how some people don't like getting life insurance (especially really juicy policies) because its like putting a bounty on your head? It wouldnt be fair if some1 else can put that "bounty" on your head, right? I'm mainly concerned with Canada. What about the U.S. and other countries? 209.53.181.69 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the UK, the law does indeed distinguish between people you have a legitimate interest in insuring someone, to prevent the "bounty" aspect - though originally the worry was simply about using life insurance policies as a way to gamble, by betting on whether or not someone would die in a set period. See insurable interest; however, ones husband is likely to be someone you have an insurable interest in regardless of circumstances... Shimgray | talk | 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a hubbub on this topic a couple of years ago when it was revealed that Wal-mart and their ilk were purchasing life-insurance on their employees, without their knowledge, and naming themselves as beneficiaries. link --TotoBaggins 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since my reply contains opinion, I've posted it here: [1]. StuRat 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Toto's link (above) I firmly believe that, come the revolution, there will not be enough lamposts in this country to hang all those deserving it. --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 03:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, wouldn't be talking about lynching and revolution in the same post- you know how eager our executive branch is in exercising justice --76.106.15.180 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organ donation

Are your family allowed to donate your organs if you die? That is if you had never expressed your consent or disconsent? What if you have specifically said (perhaps in your will) that you don't want your organs donated? Once again (like the above question) i feel like having any1 potentially benifit from your death is kinda like putting a bounty on your head. Any laws concerning this in U.S./Canada/UK? 209.53.181.69 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Organ donation#Legislation regarding organ donation and Uniform Anatomical Gift Act for the situation in the US and here for the situation in the UK. Both have opt-in policies, meaning you can make it clear you do not wish to donate if you choose, and doctors cannot presume to take your organs without checking your preferences first. Other countries have an opt-out policy, where you can still refuse, but you have to actively do so by making it clear in writing or else the doctors will just assume you are cool with it. If you make it clear in a legal document and inform your family of this, then it is highlky unlikely anyone would take your organs after your death, in any country. Rockpocket 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in doubt, hire a lawyer, and make it very clear, both to him directly, in your will, and in any other way he suggests. Keep in mind that we can't give you legal advice- but in same areas your will won't be opened until long after you're in the ground, so if this is an issue to you, be sure to have it easy to find. You might also consider a medical bracelet or even a tattoo signifying that you do not wish to be an organ donor (although, why wouldn't you? it's not like you're going to need them anymore.) -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 03:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The strict answer to the original question is probably "yes"; your family can offer your organs for donation even if that's not what you wanted, because once you're dead your opinion no longer carries any legal weight. However, I think the chances of anyone bumping you off for insurance money or for your organs are fairly small, and if this fear is a major factor in how you live your life I'd ask if you've considered some sort of therapy to help you overcome it. I think a tattoo might be a little over the top... FiggyBee 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a tattoo on your chest that says : "Cut me open and I'll haunt you for the rest of your days" in creepy writing with a skull on it:)... No but seriously, we are all human, feel the love, what if it is your son that needs a heart valve, or a kidney or something, and you die in a car accident? Wouldn't you want to give your son the best chance at life? If you are really scared that your terminally ill son is going to have you killed for your heart valves, well, like the post above says, you should probably go see a councillor, that's not a very happy healthy outlook on life. Vespine 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]