Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 21

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.

November 21

Ornlu the Wolf

What is the story behind the recurring character Ornlu the Wolf in the Age of ____ series, or is he entirely original? (Ornlu appears in Age of Empires 2 in the first Ghengis Khan scenario, Age of Empires 2 Expansion in the Vinlandsaga scenario of the Conquerors campaigns and as a cameo (renamed "Son of Ornlu) in some scenario in the Montezuma campaign, and in Age of Mythology (or the expansion?) as both a hero unit derived from the Fenris Wolf Brood unit, and as the relic "Eye of Ornlu".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.218.79 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that a searches for "ornlu wolf" and "ornlu myth" get no likely looking hits in Google Books, it is probably original to the game (compare to say, a search for fenrir wolf). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

no belly button

kelly kurkova has nobelly button, how is this possible? where did her umbilical cord come out of? virgin birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean Karolina Kurkova. There's an article on this here. It's probably the result of some surgery she had as a baby or child. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my dad had a similar surgery when he was a baby and they made a fake belly button for him afterwards! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Omphalos hypothesis, which discusses whether Adam (Bible), who the Bible says was not born, had a navel. Paintings showed Adam with a navel, implying a fictitious gestation during which he was nourished by the placenta of his nonexistent mother. Edison (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is really funny! (I wanted to say lol) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just covered by make-up for some bizarre reason. Only she knows for sure. APL (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This link shows her with one... Dismas|^(talk) 16:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the BBC article, one is sometimes added to her photos afterwards. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps she was at sea in wartime and was injured by a navel destroyer. Edison (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious, Eddy, hilarious. :) Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Virgin birth? How would that explain the absence of navel? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairly simply, I'd have thought. If you accept that such a thing a virgin birth is possible, you have to accept the concept of a child coming into the world through means other than out of its mother's womb. A virgin who "gives birth" has a hymen that's just as intact after the birth as it was at the conception. That means the child is not physically connected to its mother, there's no umbilical cord, and there's no navel. Just exactly where it gestates for 9 months is a conundrum the theologists have never quite cracked. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Which Cypher is This?

I am trying to decode the following cypher, however, I do not know which cypher it it. Is there any way to find out? (Please check to see if it works out before answering.)

Esheo Aorht Disas Eomta

Keyword: Death

http://www.scioly.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=325&p=11390

Thanks in advance.

--Chaffers (Something | Something else) 03:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For a start, is the keyword literally "death" or "death (don't ask)" Where did the cryptogram come from, since context might be helpful. A short text might have many different possible solutions, under various encryptions. Edison (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your revised question shows it is from a "Science Olympiad" implying that a clever student should be able to come up with a convincing solution. Previous posts at the Science Olympiad imply a Playfair cipher. See Playfair cipher for hints on decoding.Do you suppose q was omitted, or I and J were placed in the same square? Does "Death" go in the top row, or somewhere else? Edison (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I already tried that, and it reveals gibberish. --Chaffers (Something | Something else) 12:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cities with certain year-round temperture ranges & certain demagraphic characteristics.

Hi there,

I'm looking for a list of cities north of Georgia, east of Illinois & south of New York State! Cities where during the summer months, the annual temperture spends the fewest days in excess of 80 degrees. There should also be the fewest number of days when the humidity exceeds 65%! The winter months get the fewest days where the temper-drops below 35 degrees & the fewest snow days! Any city that makes the list should then be looked at from a demagraphic point of view! The city should have at least 20% Black population & middle-income Blacks are well represented!! Thanking you in advance for any information along these lines you can send my way! NE7p2w8L (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You can get the demographic info somewhere I am sure, but if you are looking for climate and weather info, the best site I know of is http://www.weatherunderground.com . And no, this guy has nothing to do with it. If you start with the climate info from that site, narrow down the cities to places that have a tolerable climate for your disposition, you could research a smaller list of cities for demographic data to your liking. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on your question, you appear to be a well-centered individual. However, be aware that some of the things you ask for exclude others. The only way to eliminate both the high and low temperature ranges would be to find a location on an island in a large body of water, or possibly on a coast with consistent on-shore winds. However, this would mean high humidity. There are relatively few communities which are both over 20% black and largely middle-class, as well, so that will be quite a limiting factor, too. StuRat (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anywhere on earth with annual temperatures over 80 degrees. Even with global warming such temperatures aren't expected. Rather fortunate since very little life can survive at that temperature Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume asker means 80 degrees Fahrenheit.Tomdobb (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for low summer temperatures and high winter temperatures combined with low humidity, you are looking on the wrong coast. Your ideal climate is essentially the climate of coastal central California. Though the parts of California that have black populations over 20% tend not to have large middle-income black populations. Still, some neighborhoods of Oakland, California, might fit the bill for you, such as Grand Lake or Rockridge. East of the Mississippi, there is really no place where humidity is often below 65%. In that part of the United States, any place that has few days below 35 degrees F and little snow is sure to have lots of summer (and spring and fall) days above 80 degrees F. Conversely, any place with few days above 80 degrees F is sure to have lots of winter (and early spring and late fall) days below 35 and lots of snow. To my knowledge, the part of the eastern United States with the most moderate temperatures would be the valleys surrounding the Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina and Tennessee. This is probably the best you can do in the eastern United States. You might consider Asheville, North Carolina, although the black population is only 17%. Another reasonably prosperous city with a relatively moderate climate (but rather high humidity) and a black population in your range would be Louisville, Kentucky. Marco polo (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this some more, and logically a location near the ocean should have more moderate temperatures on average than one further inland, due to sea breezes. The problem is that the largest U.S. cities on the east coast south of cold and snowy New England are just far enough from the ocean not to get much cooling from sea breezes. The parts of New York City most exposed to sea breezes (Staten Island, Coney Island, and the Rockaways, are not known for their friendly attitudes toward black people. However, black people make up almost half the population of Atlantic City, New Jersey, which has a relatively moderate climate for the eastern United States. In Virginia Beach, Virginia, black people make up about 19% of the population, but Virginia Beach has rather hot and humid summers. Marco polo (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Asheville, North Carolina. It's in the Blue Ridge Mountains, so the summers are relatively dry and mild. Winters are mild but snowier than most Southern cities. Black population makes up 17.61% of the city. —D. Monack ^talk 01:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

indian Riddle

kill them of an Indian sacredness and supply a world sport with its tools..it's one of those conc riddles a pal of mine got from the net,anybody who can help me unravel it i would very much appreciate it..a-What are we killing and B.-What sport is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.225.253 (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

War or proselytising?Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cows and soccer (soccer balls). CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it be many sports? Quite a few have or have traditional had leather balls. Cricket might be more appropriate for India Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Soccer is the "world game" though, which is hinted at in the question. FiggyBee (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That depends who you are though. For some Indians, cricket might be the world game. And many Americans seem to think basketball or sometimes baseball is the world game. Perhaps a plurality or even a majority of people agree football is the world game, but that doesn't mean it's the only correct answer to the question Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Soccer is, to my understanding, the most widespread game played across the most number of professional leagues across the world. Of course that doesn't make it the 'world game' but if any sport could claim this fictional title then soccer would definitely be among the favourites. Cricket, on the other hand, appears to mostly be observed and played by current/former members of the British Empire, with little extra interest in other nations beyond this. Similarly Baseball's world-series is often ridiculued here in the UK for its lack of being a world-sport. That said both sports can probably claim widespread fans/plays. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article on cricket says that it's played in 100 countries, no source, and the article on association football says it's the most popular in the world, with sources. If you change the answer to cows (Cattle in religion) and football (American football, Canadian football, Australian football, Gaelic football and rugby football) then you do have pretty much a world sport. By the way, there is nothing in the question to indicate that the question refers to Indian sport. The only reason to use India in the question has to do with Hinduism and probably few would get the answer if Egypt or Greece had been used. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So do I take it from all these responses that the phrase "The World Game" is not widely used outside Australia? Interesting. FiggyBee (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard it in the UK, for what that's worth. Algebraist 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase it self has great currency but if you were to ask people in quite a number of countries what's the world's sport, football (as said below, in case this isn't obvious I mean soccer) would be the pick in many countries and by many people (some may just say, as me, that it's a dumb question), including sometimes in countries where it isn't the most popular sport. But I definitely don't think you'd get anything close to unamity on this, particular from a South Asian cricket fan (of which there are a lot) or American baseball/football fan. Or let me put this another way I grew up in Malaysia and watch the World Cup so I know how nuts people can be about football however I have spent enough time on ITN to know there are a lot of half good arguments you can make about the relative merits of various sports and I've also spent enough time in NZ to know how little attention football receives in parts of the world. And in case it isn't yet obvious I still call the sport football despite clear knowledge of the other pretenders to the throne. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, using football generically doesn't complete the picture. Frankly Gaelic football and Australian football adds virtually nothing to the equation. Rugby adds a bit but even that not so much. (And I'm a rugby fan.) You really have to add cricket (to cover South Asia in particular) and perhaps baseball (for small parts of South America) if you want to approximate a truly world sport. (Even then your probably still missing Canada and perhaps some parts of Northern Europe.) And if you want to go so generic as to include football generically why not just ball games, since the vast majority of ball games use balls that have traditionally been leather? And whyever India was in there, which in the end is speculation even if it seems likely, the fact remains it was in there so you can use it to argue that cricket (or something else) would be a more appropriate answer. Ultimately I think this is a bit of a dumb riddle (as many are) since no one even uses real leather for most balls nowadays anyway. Besides the cow isn't sacred to all Indians. And you arguably need a goal post if you want to properly play football which you're not going to get from a cow. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that. However the fact remains, you can't IMHO claim one is the world game since if you do, you ignore the fact that football (and I'm referring to soccer here if that's not clear) is although very popular, clearly not the most popular sport by far in a number of key countries including India (a key one given its large population) and the USA (they do have a lot of influence in many areas). Indeed last time I looked while football seemed to be the most popular sport in China in terms of attention it received, ping pong had the highest participation and badminton and football were way up there on audience figures. In other words, while football has the most claim to be a world sport, you can't say it's the only one nor can you say it's definatively the world sport. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, it's just a stupid riddle ... why are we splitting hairs? Yours truly --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What else are riddles good for? —Tamfang (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A cricket ball is made from leather, which comes from cows - the sacred Indian animal - and this ball is a tool for the sport of cricket - a world sport. The answer is the cricket ball itself, not the game.

Except that a soccerball is made from leather as well, and is likely played in more varied parts of the world, giving it better claim to being a world sport. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest "world" in question is about international play rather than being a "global" as in universal sport. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability of authenticity of show

Hello. Please don't take this question as an attempt to start a discussion on whether a show is fake or genuine - it's just a question regarding whether it's POSSIBLE for a show to be fake. Ok here goes the question - I've read a lot of discussion about whether the show "The moment of truth" is genuine or is just fake with trained actors posing as participants. Now the show does seem unreal to me - why would anybody want to wash their diry linen in public for some money - risking their reputation and relationships. But my question is - wouldn't it be ILLEGAL for such a show to be fake - after all it amounts to perpetuating fraud against the viewers. And in case it is, would it be possible for such a large-scale thing to be kept under wraps? To rephrase, what I want to know is do those who allege the show to be fake have any logical foundation for the suspicions or is it just impossible. Thank you. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to The Moment of Truth (U.S. game show)? --LarryMac | Talk 16:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir. The article says nothing about the autheticity of the show. -ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I only asked the question and linked because there is also a British TV show with the same name. And a host of other items at Moment of Truth. You'd surely have been berated by some for not being specific. --LarryMac | Talk 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on man, it's not that big a deal. You're the only one "berating" - RelPhil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.165.158 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen shorts of the show and always thought it a bit silly. I noticed this from the linked article. "Sometimes, a "surprise guest" - such as an ex-partner or a good friend - will come on the stage and ask a particularly difficult question". Also I seem to recall the questions have to be answered in front of a live studio audience and usually some guests. Polygraphy itself is an inexact science but as it's strongly dependent on emotions I would say it would be extremely difficult for someone to answer such questions under the conditions and be determined truthful. So whether or not the rest of the show is fake, just because the show says these people may not have been telling the truth doesn't mean they weren't. It's basically set up in a way people are unlikely to pass all questions IMHO. I've heard the claim made people have confessed to crimes on the show (don't think this was the US version, perhaps South American ones) and I presume there would have been investigations linked to these if they really happened. The other thing of course is that people are pre-selected for these shows, so they will only show the ones with 'juicy' secrets. If the worst thing you've done is vandalised the polygraph article to say 'Bush is gay' don't expect to be selected for the show. (And as I said polygraphy is an inexact science so isn't accepted in court and this one definitely wouldn't be, therefore the only risk you entail legally is if further evidence is uncovered.) In terms of the most generic question, most reality shows are partly bullshit. For example, in one shot here in NZ someone was badly burnt in a second take of a scene for a reality show. TV shows tend to have a lot of leeway on what they can do and claim even in countries outside the US where the are stricter guidelines. For example, Sensing Murder often makes it sound like they are uncovering startling new evidence yet last I heard, no crime has ever been solved based on information garned from any of these shows in any country (not surprisingly) Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually my question is whether it COULD all be one big setup - with the participants and the guests all being trained actors - is that plausible? --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if people have been investigated in South American for stuff they revealed on the show then no, at least not for the South American versions. I doubt it would be illegal though. However the show is popular enough that if it were completely fake it's likely someone would have uncovered that by now IMHO. This source also seems to suggest the show isn't fake [1]. But to put it a different way, why would you bother when you can easily find (and you can easily find, believe me) a lot of real people for the show? That's a whole load cheaper, you don't need to fluff around with script-writers, actors and all the jazz nor do you risk you show being destroyed when people find out. (Actually there may still be some but likely a lot less) Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok I guess that answers my questions - the participants are unlikely to be fake actors. Thank you, Nil Einne :-) --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably couldn't be fake in that way, where all the participants are actors (shills) following a script. There are other ways for it to be fake, though. If the participants are paid, they may very well make up or exaggerate stories to get on the show. Many people will do this just to get on TV, even if the coverage is all negative. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed but I should point out this isn't solely about getting on TV. There is 'real' cash involved. As I said above, it's unlikely you will ever actually get the maximum prize but I presume quite a number of contestants (if that's the right word) walk with at least the 10k. Besides that if you're treating it as a game show and lying your ass off so you actually get on the show it'll make a good story the further you succeed in pulling it off. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone been to Anguilla?

When I asked to balance my trip to St. Martin with a few days in a quiet, secluded spot, my travel agent recommended Anguilla. This would save me from having to buy a $400 round-trip plane ticket to the Virgin Islands. (I had wanted to go to St. John.) Is Anguilla really tranquil and beautiful like St. John is? -- 192.206.151.130 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You will find many people who have been to Anguilla, and probably some who live there, on this forum, where you might find helpful answers to your question. Marco polo (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiTravel might also help. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Interview Questions

Hi, what are they looking for in the job interview when they ask, Why do you want to leave the present job?,how do you think you can add value to this position, if given?,what are your weaknesses and strengths?etc etc, and even negotiating salary? if anybody can unveil these mysterious venue's...any suggestions would be valuable.Vikram79 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As for why you want to leave your current job, I don't see why the truth isn't the best answer (unless you're being fired or something, then make up something fluffy). Strengths and weaknesses are (I think) pretty stupid/annoying/cliche questions for an interviewer to ask (but still do, of course), to which I usually answered something along the lines of "I'm always trying to improve my time management and organizational skills" or some other equally vague answer while hiding my derision for the question as much as possible. As for negotiating salary, it totally depends what situation you're in. If you have other offers or options that pay better than their offer, tell them that, I think they will usually appreciate candor. If you are effectively trying to "bluff them", I would be very careful, especially if it's for an entry level job or if you have been looking for a long time. Often a foot in the door and a boss that you aren't started on the wrong foot with are better than the possibility of a few more % per year. How you add value to the company is of course the meat of the interview, but ideally they know what you're going to be doing better than you and they should be the ones trying to answer that, based on how you describe your prior experience and attributes. If you know something about the job they'll be having you do, tell them that, your prior experience on the subject etc, being as specific and concrete as possible. I think references from former bosses/supervisors etc are usually very useful. Bragging about yourself is always difficult to pull off gracefully, having a letter filled with praise is much more straight forward. TastyCakes (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks tasty cakes, im getting somewhere thoughVikram79 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to put a positive spin on the answers. The important thing is to have something to say and not be flabbergasted by the question. Why are you leaving your job - for career or personal development. Add value - find something you do well or some trait that is positive - i.e. "I have a keen eye for detail that would be useful in the production of your technically complex widgets". Strengths / weaknesses are often the same game, but make the "weakness" something that could potentially be admired, like "sometimes I lose sight of the big picture because I get very focused on my current project" and so forth. Negotiating salary is mostly a question of knowing what the skill or position averages in the economy and the location in question. If you've got a lot of experience then it is okay to push the envelope. If not, try for an average figure with a little plus and be ready to go lower. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

wikiHow has several articles about job interviews, such as http://www.wikihow.com/Answer-Tough-Questions-in-an-Interview --Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the most important things to the interview is to carry yourself in a professional manner. Dress in a suit, speak in formal English, and carry yourself with tact and decorum. Given the fact that they have already seen your resume and/or your application for the job, they should know your qualifications. Interviews are time consuming expensive things, and they wouldn't schecule one if they weren't considering hiring you anyways! There's not a whole lot you can do in an interview to convince them that you are perfect for the job; however there's a LOT you could do that will make it look like it would be a mistake to hire you. Regardless of what specific questions they ask you, the ONLY thought on the mind of the interviewers is "Do I want to work with this person". If you show up in a tank top and flip-flops, mumble to yourself and stare at the walls, and sound generally uneducated in your interview you aren't going to get the job. The best thing you can do is to make a good impression by being proffesional in every aspect of your manner. Your specific answers to the question aren't really that important, its HOW you answer the questions; your confidence level, the way you comport yourself, the language you use. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Dress in a suit" thing is tricky...the super-effective recruiting consultants who found me my last job (which was in the computer games business) said that I needed to dress very casually - this de-emphasised my age and the fact that I'd been working in the defense industry on very serious topics and made it look like I could behave younger and 'fit in' with the company culture (which - as you may imagine - is incredibly casual in the computer games biz.)...so while dressing "up" is a good idea in some circumstances, it's not a rock-solid rule. SteveBaker (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Wilson,you have a deep insight to this. but if you could elaborate in this topic at leisure,it would be wonderful.. thanks againVikram79 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC) good enough Jayron..thanksVikram79 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember that not only they have to decide if you are the right person for the job, but also you have to decide if this job is right for you. Very important! So prepare a couple of questions on issues that you want to discuss, and that show your interest in the company. Lova Falk (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing what you are interviewing for makes it a little harder to answer. When interviewing I expect different results from a teacher than from a janitor, even if the questions are similar. Listen to the question, be relevant and answer the question. Don't go off topic even if you think it's interesting. However, think about what relates to the question, and consider adding it if there is a valid relationship. As an example, I asked a young woman if she had ever worked with children and she said that she hadn't. I knew the person, she was the oldest child and had 4 younger brothers and sisters, all of them she had helped babysit. She had had various babysitting jobs as well. All of that counts in answering the question. If the interviewers are taking notes then don't talk so fast that they can't keep up. Don't spend 15-20 minutes answering one question. Know something about what the job entails. Depending on the job you may be expected to know a little or a lot. Someone applying for my job is not expected to know to much, which is why they come and job shadow for a couple of days to get an idea. However, someone being interviwed for a teacher or a janitor is expected to know something about what they are going to do. But remember, there may be someone from the human resources department who is not familar with the latest jargon, thus throwing around acronyms, with no explanation, is not always a good idea. Be friendy but remember you are not my best friend. I'm doing the interview, I make the jokes to get you to relax, which is what some of the questions may be for. And thus try to relax without being too casual about it. If the interviewers know what they are doing, and there is no guarantee that they do, they will make some allowance for the fact that you are nervous. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that "textbook" answers may be appropriate for some jobs and organisations, but not others. For example, if I'm recruiting a red hot salesman I expect a very different answer when I ask about salary than if I'm recruiting most other positions. That's an extreme, but it's all about shades of grey. A good bit of advice I learned is to remember that they aren't really interested in you as a person*, but in how you'll fit the job, team and organisation. So, if they ask about your hobbies, don't get overexcited, but reflect on why they asked the question and what your answers says about you vis a vis those three elements. (*They might be, if you're very lucky, but assume they're not). --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a name for this style of light/light fitting?

Is there a name for this style of light/light fitting? It was called a safety light in a restaurant I worked in.hotclaws 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would call that a "cage light":[2]. Fribbler (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called an Oval Bulkhead Light Fitting. Used mainly in outdoor scenarious but also useful in sheds, garages, storerooms etc.92.22.181.106 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Incarceration Limit / Life Imprisonment

According to Life imprisonment many countries have a maximum possible sentence, e.g. Norway - 21 years, Portugal - 25 years, Venezuela - 30 years, Spain - 40 years. Do these values given in the article indicate the maximum penalty per sentence or the absolute maximum amount of time one can be incarcerated? e.g. if you murdered two people in Venezuela would you get 30 years or 60 years imprisonment? --124.177.29.112 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on whether the sentences run concurrently (A sentence of 3 years plus a sentence of 10 years = 10 years (the longest of the two sentences)) or consecutively (A sentence of 3 years plus a sentence of 10 years = 13 years (the total of the two sentences)- see Sentence (law). Judges sometimes have the power to set a minimum tariff too - a number of years you must serve before you can be considered for parole/release on license. Exxolon (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, I think I get it now. So for instance in Venezuela, which has a maximum sentence of 30 years, it is still possible to serve longer than that in prison if the charges are consecutive, eh? --124.177.29.112 (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Speck, who murdered eight women, was sentenced to death in 1967. After the Supreme Court overturned the sentence (but not the guilty verdict), Speck was re-sentenced in 1972 to a minimum of 400 and a maximum of 1,200 years (50 - 150 years per victim, served consecutively). That was further reduced to a statutory maximum of 300 years, according to the article. --- 14:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think that should mean that your corpse needs to finish your sentance. It's rediculous to give someone a 300-year sentance, and pretend like "Our state law doesn't allow life sentances." Puh-leez... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming to not give life sentences. In fact, Speck was originally given the death penalty. In Speck's case, his ashes were spread in a secret location[3] but many others never left Joliet Prison (Prison Cemetery internments) Rmhermen (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what is being claimed. It seems from our article that some countries have a maximum sentence (ie. less than life). It's news to me, and I would love to know more about such laws if anyone can enlighten us. --Tango (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that at least some of the time, when absurdly long sentences are given, it is not to really sentence someone for 200 years (obviously), but that "life without parole" might not end up actually being truly life without parole, but there is a limit on what percent of a sentence must be served before on could get parole. So if a sentence is 200 years and no one is allowed to be paroled before serving half their sentence, it would automatically be a life sentence. I'm not sure how often that's the case, though. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In Germany, "life imprisonment" is usually limited to 25 years, regardless of how many crimes you committed. Lately, the first RAF terrorists were released after serving 25 years, causing much public debate here.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)