Miscellaneous desk
< December 21	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 23 >

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.

December 22

Chicago vs Salt Lake City

Is Chicago's numbering system for its streets anything similar to the one Salt Lake City has? 75.169.197.68 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many cities use a numbering system of some sort for its streets, but Salt Lake City (and indeed most of Utah) takes the cake as far as maddening adherance to the grid. Chicago's is pretty regular as well, but not exactly so. The numbers on Chicago streets ONLY apply to the east-west streets on the South Side (and some on the southside are named, and their "numbers" are skipped, like Roosevelt, Cermak, and Garfield) while all of the north-south streets and all of the streets north of Madison Street are named, and not numbered, meaning you have to "memorize" the name-number correlation. See Streets and highways of Chicago which has an explanation of the system in Chicago. I lived there for 2 years, and I have to say it was a GREAT system, by far the easiest major city in the U.S. to navigate. I personally find the Utah system confusing (for example, confusing the addresses between 1500 North 2100 West Street and 2100 North 1500 West Street and 1500 West 2100 North Street and... you get the idea) and would prefer a system which was a little easier to keep track of... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I've lived in Salt Lake for eleven years and personally I find its numbering system to be quite easy. Using your example, the first address (1500 N 2100 West) is fifteen blocks north of the north-south line of the city, and then on a street that is twenty-one blocks west of the east-west line, while the second address is located on a totally different street (1500 West) and that location is twenty-one blocks north of the line on that street (if that makes any sense). If someone tells me to go to a house on 11400 S 2000 East I know exactly where that is. However, saying you live on a house that's on 2150 East 3000 South certainly does not have its appeal :) and sometimes addresses like 100 West North Temple are just plain confusing. But one gets used to it - 75.169.197.68 (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My brain tends to confuse the numbers easier. Its easier to know that, for example, 2400 W Roosevelt means the corner of Roosvelt and Western, because its only got the one number in it. Even like 2400 W 23rd Street (corner of Western and 23rd Street, or one block south of Cermak on Western) is easier to keep track of because it uses a Cardinal number for the address and an Ordinal number for the street name. Having both the address and street name to be part of the same class of words makes it hard for me to parse. I suppose I would have gotten used to it had I lived there, but in general I find the system somewhat confusing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a Salt Lake address always has a redundant '00'? — Street signs in San Francisco have a little number showing what block you're on; this can be important north of Market Street, where numbers don't run in parallel (because Market Street is oblique). If I were in charge they wouldn't all be n00: the four signs around a crossing would be 498, 499, 500, 501 so that you can see immediately which side is odd and which end of the block is which. —Tamfang (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credit music to The Incredibles

What time signature is the music played during the ending credits of The Incredibles in? (you can listen to it on the Amazon page) 72.200.101.17 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all over the place. I heard 5/4 and 6/8, I believe, and maybe 4/4, too. Dynamic piece, and a great movie, dahlink. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember it, and the link is not working, but it's possible it is in a mixed meter (okay, try Time_signature#Mixed_meters). That could be why people can't agree on the time signature. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link worked for me. Under the "Incredibles" logo on the left is a link "Listen to Samples". "The Incredits" is the one. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movies in the Great Depression

This is brief: Who could afford movie tickets during the Great Depression?

Thank as always.

Always Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Considering they likely cost a dime or so, probably most people. This article: [1] reports that a couple could get two movie tickets for $0.30, or $0.20 for a matinee. even that was affordable to most people. The first $1.00 movie ticket wasn't recorded until the 1960's: see [2]). Also see [3] where it notes that by the end of the 1930s, 80 million tickets were sold annually. The answer is obviously "a lot of people". Its pretty useless to speculate that "there is no way they could have afforded it" when the evidence is already clear that they did afford it. Also, remember that, in the 1930s, there were less things to spend money on. Consider that today you spend money monthly on cable TV, internet, sattelite radio, i-tunes subscriptions, NetFlix, land-line phones, cell phones, as well as buying the devices to use those, such as video game systems, computers, Televison sets, DVD players, CD players, MP3 players, etc. etc. In 1935, you had a) A phonograph b) a radio and c) the movies. And that was literally IT. So, the entertainment budget went a lot farther, since you didn't have a multitude of different media to spend it on. A dollar a month could get you all the movies you needed to see and then some... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See that is what I expected, just had to make sure. Another question certain movies that come from 1930s and what not. If you ever watched them it appears the actors are talking really fast for a normal human being. Was this because they had a time limit of when to get their lines in? Why did they speak so fast? Thank you again. Its always appreciated.

Always Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

There was a certain "rapid banter" that was quite common for a few decades (Catherine Hepburn was one offender). Still, some people, like comedians Robin Williams and Dennis Miller, do the same thing today. I would like to sic them on each other and see which one explodes first. StuRat (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Hawks, in particular, is known for the rapid, overlapping dialogue in his films, with His Girl Friday being the locus classicus. Deor (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its also not confined to Hawks, or indeed to films of the 1940s. More modern directors who used similar techniques include Robert Altman, noted for such use of dialogue in MASH (1970), and Whit Stillman, who was famous for his "talky" films of the 1990's, including Metropolitan (1990) and Barcelona (1994). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gilmore Girls also did that. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The frame rate might have been different. Movie cameras from that era might have run at between 15 and 20 frames per second, but playing them back on modern equipment at 24 or 25 frames per second makes everying seem faster. In a dialogue scene, it would seem like rapid banter. Astronaut (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the case with movies from the silent era, but by the time of the talkies, the frame rate had been standardised at 24fps. (The WP article I've linked to references silent-film historian Kevin Brownlow as the source for this statement). Valiantis (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the $1 movie ticket in the 1960's translates to a $7 movie ticket today - because inflation has pushed down the value of money by a factor of 7 over that same period. It's hard to track inflation through the depression - but it's highly likely that the dime it cost for a movie ticket back then would be more like a dollar today. You'd have to be REALLY badly off not to be able to afford $1 in present-value money. There is evidence that distractions like TV, movies, computer games and such actually do better in times of financial crisis than they do in boom times because they are amongst the cheapest forms of entertainment - and people need (more than ever, actually) a way to take their minds off the daily grind and spend a couple of hours zoned out in a comfy chair with popcorn.

Another reason why it would have been popular in the 1930's would be that this was the only way for most people to see news footage - newsreel theatres did boom business because it was the only way to SEE the larger events of the world - and for people who probably didn't even own a radio, it was the only way to hear it either.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People had to have some relief from the staggering harshness of the depression. Some would take their main squeeze to a honky tonk, others to a movie, spending the price of a filling meal to have some joy in a stark world. Some sacrifice might have been involved. They skip a meal, or walk 3 miles to save bus fare, or put pieces of cardboard in the worn out shoes instead of having them half-soled. Edison (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Criminal Tattoos

Ive searched far and wide and can't seem to find any specifics on the tattooing of criminals in Edo period Japan. I only know that different markings or particularly bands were given for certain crimes committed. Bokukei or bokkei is the term thats used for the punishment by tattoos, but I can't seem to find any information regarding exactly which tattoos were given for which crimes. Ive only ever come across a book that showed an old illustration with various markings, but I couldnt translate any of the wording. Mugen, a protagonist in the Samurai Champloo anime is a good example. He has blue bands around his wrists and ankles, but other than him, I know no examples of reference. I've tried contacting traditional japanese tattoo websites for information, but have never received replies. plz halp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.106.51 (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe following threads from our Yakuza article will help. Irezumi has a bit of info, but no examples. [Criminal punishment in Edo-period Japan] only mentions tattoos for prisoners. This site [4] had following info: The original punitive markings on criminals, usually in the form of rings around the wrists, or lines down the arm, were called Geishin. another source [5] had this, aparently from a different period: First offenses were marked with a line across the forehead. A second crime was marked by adding an arch. A third offense was marked by another line. Together these marks formed the Japanese character for "dog". It appears this was the original "Three strikes, you're out" law. For googling it would help if you got in touch with s.o. who can read Japanese. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link #13 is a past version of our article tattoo. As for the letter 'dog' in Japanese, the stroke order is 「一」「ナ」「大」「犬」. It has four strokes. Tattoos as criminal punishment started in the middle of Edo period. A man named Hanbei was the first criminal who received the punishment. It was May 11, 1720. Where the tattoos were marked was different from place to place. The dog letter was used in Hiroshima and when the criminal committed the 5th crime, it meant death. Horizontal line/s on forehead was used in Tokushima. X mark/s on forehead in Hizen. And band/s on arm, mostly on the left arm, was used in many places for theft. See this. Oda Mari (talk)10:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The irezumiwaku link is precisely what I'm talking about! Would a translation of that even be possible? The reference is perfect except that I cant determinine what any of the tattoos mean. thank you for the help.

@oda mari Our Irezumi article says that tatooing criminals began in the Kofun period but doesn't cite any references. Since you have such detailed info maybe you should add that to the article. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the linked image, almost all words are place names. The top line from l to r: 京都/Kyoto, 人足寄場/Ninsokuyoseba/vagrant camp,？代/unreadable, 甲府/Kofu, 江戸（割増？）/Edo (additional tattoo?), 江戸/Edo. The second line: 大阪/Osaka, 伏見/Fushimi, 長崎/Nagasaki, 奈良/Nara, 駿河/Suruga, 堺/Sakai. The bottom line: 長州/Choshu, 筑後/Chikugo, 紀州/Kishu, 非人/hinin, 日光/Nikko, 佐渡/Sado. I wrote the fifth time means death, but some sites say it was the fourth and this one was sentenced death after his second arrest. Oda Mari (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School teachers

Why is that either 1 or 2 of 100 techer of physics know how to derive why like charges or poles(magnetics) repel and unlike attract but say like repel and unlike attract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.126.39 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for that statistic? Dismas|^(talk) 08:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the OP. The answer to "Why do opposite charges attract and like charges repel?" is not that complicated, and that your physics teacher has not explained it satisfactorily is probably because the real answer itself is so simple that it seems like an unsatisfactory answer. The real answer is "Because that's the way it works". Let me expand a bit on that, but its not any more complicated. The reality is, there are two fundemental Electric charges, and these charges either attract or repel one another. If we look at the atom, and look at say a proton and an electron, we can observe that protons will repel other protons, and attract electrons. Likewise electrons repel other electrons, and attract protons. This is an observation, and it is upon observation that all scientific thought is based. Now, the property of that attraction is called "electric charge" and, given that there appears to be two fundemental and complementary ways that charge works (i.e. the charge that attracts electrons and repels protons VERSUS the charge that attracts protons and repels electrons), we could call them anything we want, black and white, Peter and Stewie, A and B, whatever, but + and - has the advantage of also being mathematically useful in the sense that we can quantify this property called "electric charge" and then do real, useful math. By convention (and somewhat randomly) a proton's charge is called "positive" and an electron's charge is called "negative" and then all other item's charge is compared to these two; i.e. if it behaves like a proton does it is +, if it behaves like an electron it is -. Other articles that you may find interesting if you want to explore the nature of electric charge are probably electromagnetism, elementary charge, and quantum mechanics. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the OP's question/missive/whatever differently. The way I read it was "Why is it that so few physics teachers know even the most basic of material?" I got a sense of frustration from the OP, not curiosity. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic problem in the educational system. The ideal physics teacher would have a degree in physics and a degree in teaching. But someone with two decent degrees can get a job doing some sort of technological thing for about twice what a teacher earns. Hence quite a few high school physics teachers don't have a degree in the subject and learned what they needed to learn in order to teach the curriculum but not much more. There are exceptions - people who do it for the love of it despite the poor pay - but from what I've seen as a parent, they are not in the majority. Personally - I'd love to be a teacher - but I can't afford it and (rightly or wrongly) I believe that the constraints of having to teach to the curriculum and deal with standardized testing would drive me nuts. My kid is now in college - he went to a 'magnet' school (The School of Science and Engineering in Dallas, Texas) which has been in the top ten rated high schools in the whole of the USA (public or private) and which is renowned for it's strength in teaching science and technology - and STILL the science teaching was (mostly) terrible. It's unlikely that was due to them being able to get good people because what dedicated science teacher wouldn't want to work for one of the best high schools in the country? So the problem must be with the curriculum or the 'teach the test' approach that's being forced down the throats of competent teachers. But that excuse doesn't cover the OP's complaint - which (I'm sure) is due to underqualified teachers - which in turn has got to be due to pay and working practices causing well-qualified people to be turned away. SteveBaker (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that assessment. I have a Bachelor's of Science degree in Chemistry from a top-10 ACS ranked chemistry school (University of Delaware) and a Master's of Education degree, and I am a teacher, and could not imagine doing anything else, even for some more money. Nearly every science teacher I have worked with has had a degree, or equivalent, in the subject area they taught in. In the 6 years I was an active classroom teacher (I am on somewhat of a sabatical right now), every physics teacher I worked alongside had a degree in either Physics or Physics education. The greater problem is that there is a somewhat unrealistic expectation that everyone needs to know everything. Many students are placed in classes which they have no use or aptitude for, and yet we have to teach all of them. If, as a high school chemistry teacher, I didn't get to teach my students how to work with the Schroedinger equation or we never got to work with the Wittig reaction it wasn't because I was a bad teacher; there is a limited number of days to teach the curriculum, and by necessity there is some material we just can't cover in 135 contact hours. So when a Physics teacher doesn't take an hour out of his class to explain all of quantum mechanics to answer one student's question about electromagnetism, its not because he couldn't answer the question. Its because he's got all 135 hours filled with OTHER material that he has to teach first. You want science to be a more effective for these students? Introduce more levels into classes, and get students into the correct level, so that students who would benefit from it can move at a faster pace, and students who don't have the aptitude can move at a slower pace and work on the most important stuff only, so we can be sure they really get it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does she want?

OK, I've got a question. I've been out with this girl 3 times. The first date was dinner. We hit it off pretty good, kept talking long after dinner was finished. At the end of the date, she gave me a hug. She e-mailed me the next day to say thanks. The next date was on my hour long lunch break. At the end of the date, she gave me a hug. Usually, I'm used to a kiss on the first or second date. Thought it was strange, but whatever. Yesterday was our third date. I took her to see the symphony. At the end of the date, I was expecting at least a kiss. Anyway, it was just a hug. I think she's into me but I can't tell if it is as a friend or more. She's going through a divorce which isn't finalized, so maybe she just wants to take things slowly. She has said things about wanting to see me in the future. For example, on the second date, she said she wanted to watch me play softball. On the third date - well, this takes a bit of explaining. I'm a musician who's recorded 3 demo albums, plus a Christmas album which I won't let her listen to because it's pretty bad (it was recording in a week and I used my family as singers) and she said that she wanted to hear it. I said no. And then she said she would hear it eventually, even if it's not until spring. Anyway, the thing that really got me was as she was leaving, she said that the holidays were coming up (which I understand), so "keep in touch". What the fuck does that mean? "Keep in touch"? I have no freaking clue what she wants. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: She has three children. I'm 37, she's 33. (I'm the OP on a different computer.) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She wants security and children. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: She wants to inspire love. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd interpret that as 'phone me over Christmas and have a chat about whatever people talk about on phones once they've got past the "how you doin'?" and "what you been up to?" stage of the conversation'. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's also possible that the divorce situation means she has to be extra careful about not showing herself up as being the cause of the divorce - or risk losing her kids if her ex- makes nasty accusations about her going out partying all the time. Perhaps she's wondering why you don't kiss her? A peck on the cheek ought to be OK during one of those goodbye hugs. She's got to be under all kinds of stress right now. I think she's taking it slow for all kinds of very obvious reasons. I would try to help her out with that - keep in contact - phone often enough to keep things rolling but not so often as to appear "needy" (the last thing she needs is "needy"!) - invite her on low-pressure dates (lunch is good) - make it a regular thing (so she has it to look forward too when times are tough). And for chrissakes - she's 100% right about the Xmas album. On your very next date - put a copy of that crappy Xmas album inside a $20 portable CD player (don't forget the batteries!), gift-wrap the whole thing with a big bow on the top - give it to her and make her listen to it there and then! Tell her that she was right and that now she owes you the low-down on her worst screwup. If you can't laugh over your screwups with her - it's already over. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked her what she wants? --Moni3 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's always a good idea. The phrase "So how does that make YOU feel?" is one of the most useful in the English language when making conversation with women. While she tells you, you can go back to wondering how much better she'd look if that top button were to inadvertently come undone. SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that was a joke but I should point out actually listening is sometimes more important then asking Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! Oh - crap. SteveBaker (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to be a dick about it, but external events do not "make" people feel things. We all retain control over our feelings, no matter how compelling and automatic our knee-jerk reactions may seem. Take 9/11: the emotional responses ranged from fear and panic, through to joy and celebration. Some were amazed such a thing could ever have happened. Others were amazed it hadn't happened years earlier. Others were completely indifferent to it. I'm not saying don't ask her about her feelings, but rather than "How does that make you feel?", a better question might be "How do you feel about that?". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing ladies well,and have had the same done to me,they are complicated,change their minds in a blink of an eye,keep in touch means just that,then you also might never hear from her again,it also sounds as if she wants time,and would probably like to keep you just as a friend for now,to see you when she wants.If you want more,you might want to seek another lady or just contiunually waste your time and money on dates with a woman that won"t even give you a kiss good night. Fluter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After your next date, go to kiss her first. But be prepared for any eventuality from a longer kiss and more, to a slap and a "I never want to see you again". Crude, but at least you'll know where you stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.155.166 (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everyone's response. I think at this point I'm inclined to believe that she wants to take things slowly because she's still going through the divorce. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience: if you're looking for anything beyond a casual physical relationship, a 2 or 3 year post-divorce No Fly Zone will serve you well. --Sean 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Profit and Not For Profit

I was under the impression that any organization/person could establish a Non-Profit Company, but only the government could establish a Not-For-Profit company.

However, I have been told that non-profit and not-for-profit are synonymous and have no difference.

What is the difference between Non-Profit and Not-For Profit?

130.221.224.7 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)December22, 2008[reply]

It may differ from country to country. I used to work for a not-for-profit organisation, but their survival (and my bonus) actually depended on them making handsome profits. Not-for-profit in Australia means a company whose primary goal (officially, at least) is something other than profit, but they're not precluded from making profits. Non-profit means any profits they do make, after taking care of admin expenses, planned expansion etc etc, have to be disposed of and can't be retained for investment etc - not sure how this is done. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to non-profit organization, the terms are synonymous. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the two terms mean the same thing. The main distinction is between "not for profit" and "profit" in the description of the way business is carried out. A "not for profit" business in the UK is a slight misnomer, as JackofOz pointed out these organisations still have to demonstrate a surplus in their transactions, and they have to demonstrate solvency. What the term actually should be is "non-profit distributing" as they are not able to distribute their profits to third parties such as shareholders. Profits should be retained as reserves after paying staff, taxes and administration costs, and if the organisation is a charity in England and Wales, the Charity Commission has guidelines on the amount of reserves which should be maintained. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing your USAF aircraft

Hello. Is it possible that: when you enlist in the Air Force, that you can choose (or at least request) to fly an airplane of your choice?--DocDeel516 ^discuss 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiters are big on allowing people to request things, and will even promise things orally, but, if you read what you actually sign, they can do whatever they want with you, and probably will. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be VERY clearly stated that only a very tiny percentage of people who join the USAF will ever get to fly a plane. To put some numbers on this (data taken from our USAF article: The USAF has 328,000 personnel on active duty (plus a bunch of reserves and such like) - and it has 5,800 aircraft - of which 1,700 are actually air national guard, reserve units, etc. So - bottom line is that there are a third of a million guys out there who all joined the USAF with the dream of flying a plane (why else?) and about 4,000 planes for them to fly. Of those - many are big boring transport planes - and of the rest, aircraft are being replaced with pilotless drones and transports flown by civilians as fast as they can make the transition. So your odds of being able to fly a plane AT ALL is only about one in 75 - and the odds are getting worse - not better. Getting to fly the precise kind of plane (fighter, helicopter, ground attack, transport) has got to be lower than that - and your chances of getting to fly a particular kind of plane is very low indeed. Please don't take the word of a recruiter. If they won't give it to you in writing - assume it's not true. SteveBaker (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about going through flight school first, THAN joining up? Even better, go to college (if you haven’t already) and flight school first. As a fully qualified pilot already you would have a much greater chance of flying than all the thousands of kids than join right out of high school and end up polishing bird poop off the windscreens. Contrary to popular belief, the US armed forces are very interested in hiring well educated slightly older candidates, and because such recruits are in short supply they often end up in higher ranking, better paid positions. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I believe all pilots in the USAF, perhaps with the exception of some helicopter pilot, must be officers and hence, hold at least a bachelor's degree. Acceptable (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker's calculations depend on each plane only having one pilot so no co-pilots or rotating crews (I don't know if that is completely true). But also I would expect pilots to stay in the service longer than some more "lowly" occupations so that the number of grounded serviceman to pilots to be much higher. Any government statistics out there? Rmhermen (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some aircraft types would rotate pilots - and transports planes often have two pilots - but mostly not. If you're a fighter pilot they even paint your name on the plane. SteveBaker (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attaining US Residency as a student

I am going to the USA for university and am currently a Canadian citizen. First, do I need some sort of student Visa? Can I qualify for US permanent residency as a student? If so, how many years do i have to study in the US for? Hustle (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a Canadian and went to a US school. You need an I-20, which as I understand it is not an actual visa but for all practical purposes the equivalent of one. I believe I got all the information I needed from the school, or else they directed me to the American consulate. It wasn't a particularly big deal, especially compared to the visas required for some of my classmates (from India, Iran etc). The I-20 requires the school registrar to confirm you're enrolled and that you can support your studies financially, necessary in part because the I-20 does not entitle you to work off campus. You have to get the I-20 re-signed each year by the registrar people, if you try to go through and it has expired they can hold you up at the airport while they check to see if you're really enrolled (I made this mistake at the beginning of my second year there, luckily I got to the airport early. Another lesson learned: keep your SEVIS receipt). I believe you have a 3 or 6 month grace period after your I-20 expires before you are officially persona non-grata and quite deportable. I also think it's likely that studying in the states makes it easier to attain permanent residency, but I didn't apply for that so I wouldn't know fo rsure. I suspect having an employer lined up after your graduation is the critical part of that process. TastyCakes (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second part of the question: if a green card is your goal, look for a qualifying job; 'student' isn't it. —Tamfang (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Variable terrestrial measurements

Could someone provide me with some variable terrestrial measurements, ex: atmospheric pressure, distance from Sun, temperature, wind speed, humidity, ceiling, etc... The stranger the better. Thanks! Acceptable (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albedo, surface magnetic field strength, Environmental radioactivity, Biomass distribution, habitat quality, rheological behavior, crust thickness organic content of soil just for starters. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic declination is a favorite of mine: the variation of the compass needle from true north. It varies by location as well as over time at the same location. Old surveys were done by magnetic compass, and ewhen the declination varies several degrees in several decades, a new magnetic compass survey may put your house on the neighbour's farm. Edison (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming of course. -hydnjo talk 04:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of a day (compare UT1 and UTC). Daylight hours (by season). -- SGBailey (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the strength of Earth's gravity changes depending on where you are on the planet. Raven4x4x (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - forget diets - just weigh yourself at the top or Mount Everest and you'll be 0.3% lighter! SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but taking all your clothes off first to get a true reading could be painful. StuRat (talk)

Also see Earth for some astronomical data on our planet. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]