Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 24

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 24

Factory cash backs

I've never bought a car under such a scheme, but for decades I've seen TV ads offering this carrot, and I've always wondered how it works. If the price of the car is $50,000, and there's a factory cash back or factory bonus of $2,000, then the net cost is $48,000. But if you're paying it off, as most people would be since very few people I know have a spare $48,000 lying around in the bank, then you're paying interest not on $48,000 but on $50,000 (less your deposit/trade-in). Also, rather than getting the third-party factory involved at all, why don't they work it out so that the only parties involved in the transaction are the dealer and the purchaser, and the price is $48,000? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Any extra interest would be pretty small in the grand scheme of paying for a car. They are just hoping you won't be bothered to mail in for your $2000. Astronaut (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They make a profit on loaning you money - lending you more is more profit (well, perhaps not in the present financial crisis - but old habits die hard!). Plus it sounds like you're getting the car more cheaply...which is really an illusion because they could alternatively simply have sold you the car for less money...but if your competitors are pulling these kinds of silly stunt - it's hard to avoid competing. SteveBaker (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know so much about cars, but I worked for a time for a redemptions company who had a "call centre" to deal with cashback complaints - against a well-known manfacturer of consumer printers that shall remain nameless. The cashbacks were usually for quite small amounts - sometimes even as low as $10 - yet a large majority of these had still not been paid 18 months after purchase. This was what the call centre was for - taking complaints about why the cash back amounts had not been received. The complaints, once received, were duly passed on to the client, after which still nothing was done! I formed the opinion that the whole point of cash back - for this company anyway - was to make it is hard as possible to get the cash back, in the hopes that all but the most persistent customers would give up and get nothing.138.217.158.154 (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Car companies haven't made a cent in sales for many years. They usually take a loss on the car as sold, or barely break even, this is especially true for American car companies, since their worker costs are so high; in order to keep the cost of an American made car competitive, they need to offer incentives. Most car companies ONLY money-making wing is their financing companies, like GMAC. They generally make more money on interest on their own loans, or in incentives from whatever in-house financing company they use (i.e. the car company gets a kick-back for steering you to certain financing companies which have a working relationship with the car company). The idea behind cash back is EXACTLY as you suspect; you finance say $20,000, but you purchased the car at $18,000 net (due to the cash-back incentive). It looks like a better deal than it is... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone really taken in by such an illusion, though? If the only way to get a $48,000 price tag is to pay the dealer $50,000 and then get $2,000 back from the factory, so be it. But does anyone really believe they're getting the car for a net $2,000 less than they would have got it from a dealer that doesn't use the cash back system? I dunno, it just sounds fundamentally (and unnecessarily) complicated to me, and if I were a dealer, I think I'd be interested in giving my customers a simple offer - the car costs $48,000, you pay the money to me, and I give the keys to you, end of story. I'm really surprised to hear that some people don't request their $2,000 (or whatever) cash back. I could understand it if they thought the factory made the payment automatically as soon as the purchase was finalised; but if they understood it required some formal application from them to get it, who in their right minds would decline to submit the paper work? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

YES people are taken in my that illusion, or else a) the car companies wouldn't do it and b) we wouldn't BE in this current credit crisis. Does the cash back scam sound any more rediculous than: 1) suckering people into loans that they can BARELY afford today, and then expect them in 2 years to be able to afford 50% higher payments? or 2) convincing people to finance purchases that become nearly worthless upon purchase (i.e. computers, television sets, vacuum cleaners, etc. etc.) 3) Giving people credit card limits where if filled, would make their monthly payments higher than their income? And yet, people do all of these things and equally more insane financial decisions. Also, car price is very negiotiable, and many dealers WOULD rather have cash up front than financing plan; they would probably give you the same care for $48,000 cash they would make you finance for $50,000... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC

I don't know anything about cash back for cars in particular, but rebates are notorious for making it very hard to actually get - i.e., you have to fill out a complicated exactly right, and any tiny mistake will make it void, etc. You think the company is just going to give you money? Nope, if something is $200, with a $50 rebate, it looks to the customer like it's $150, but to the company, they know that they're going to be getting well more than $150 out of it. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After you've filled out a complicated exactly right, do you accidentally the whole thing? FiggyBee (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While perhaps not so important for cars, I believe many cashback promotions have rules which may prevent business taking advantage of them or which limit the number per customer so they also enable the company to control who can get the cheaper price. Plus some people may not bother for a small amount (yet for others it may matter) Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are rules that stop the retailer claiming the refund themselves. On more than one occasion on holiday, I've suggested that the salesman give me the discounted price and then they can mail in and keep the money for themselves - none agreed to do that, saying it was up to me to mail in the refund claim and that they were simply not allowed to do it. Not even proposing they give me a smaller discount and the salesman then claims the full refund, would make then agree. Unfortunately, as a foreign visitor I would have been unable to recieve the refund anyway, and without it the price was higher than at home. I just didn't buy in the end. Astronaut (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter - one should ALWAYS haggle with the dealership - this will almost always get you a price reduction, and in the case of these silly deals, they may be willing to sell you the car for less without the 'cash back' option if you simply ask - and look like you're going to buy a cheaper car from somewhere else if you don't get what you want. SteveBaker (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC

I agree with that. It's funny how the West is ok with haggling on big ticket items like cars and houses, but not with groceries, petrol (gas), books, CDs, computers, gifts, utility charges, postage, travel, etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Most people seem uncomfortable with arguing over the price of something - so for the small things in life - it's just not worth the grief. But cars and houses are probably the most expensive things you'll ever buy and cutting the price by even a couple of percentage points is well worth the effort. It's notable that car companies like Saturn (who have a fairly strict "This is the lowest price we can manage - it's not going to change" policy) are seen as the good guys by the public...presumably because they dislike to haggle so much. Of course this is not a universal thing - but it's certainly the case in the USA and UK. SteveBaker (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons why haggling on small items doesn't make sense in the West:

1) The value of the time to the customer exceeds the value of the money saved. Let's say that there's a place where you can haggle over the price of groceries and, by spending an hour doing so, you can lower your grocery bill by $10 versus what you could get otherwise (say with coupons and specials). That hour might be better spent working overtime (for more money) or spending it with your family (for more satisfaction).

2) The value of the time to the seller exceeds the value of the sale. In the above example, the seller not only takes in $10 less but also spends an hour haggling over various grocery items which could be better spent elsewhere. Rather than waste their valuable time, they are likely to eject any customer who tries to haggle.

So, it comes down to people's time being more valuable than the small amounts of money to be saved by haggling on small items. In a broader sense, haggling is a way to ensure that customers who are careless with their money pay as much as possible, while those who are careful still pay enough for it to be profitable for the seller. In the West we have other, less time consuming, methods for that, such as coupons, 4 AM sales, and even requirements that customers cluck like a chicken to get the good price. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Batteries not included

Why are batteries not included? Whenever you see any toy advertisement, it's always the same! Yet when I buy a DVD/TV/set top box/etc there are always batteries included for the remote. So why not toys? Thanks everyone!! 138.217.158.154 (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically talking about toys, I'd imagine it has something to do with the potential dangers when batteries are around children. Toys are around children a lot more than remote controls are - probably the same reason the battery compartments on toys have a screw to fix it shut. Booglamay (talk) - 03:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It could also be because that company is cheap. I have bought plenty of toys WITH the batteries included as without; its probably just up to the preference of whether or not the company who makes and sells the toy wants to go through the added expense of adding the batteries to the toy ahead of time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree it would keep the price of toys down (and the price of separate batteries up?). Adults paying for remotes don't seem to worry about saving the price of batteries. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say shipping costs and shelf-life are two arguments. Batteries add a lot of weight without that much added value. They are also subject to aging and can create quite a mess if they should start to leak. So from a perspective of preventing costly returns a company who doesn't include batteries wins out and sacrifices very little until buyers start insisting.76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And then there's the odd regulatory requirement that comes into play, such as at [1] (item 70) regarding the U.S. standards for DTV converters. (Er, yes, Senator, the remote is easier to use when there are batteries in it.) 198.29.191.149 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the whole reason, but probably a contributing factor : Remote controlls draw very little power, so even the cheap, off-brand batteries that come with will work for some time. Toys are usually very energy hungry. Even when they do come with batteries, they never last. APL (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

workplace

how to feel comfatable at your workplace,when few people are not in proper behaviour,do not cooperate and they do not help.how to manage myself.waiting for your valuable suggestios Parvatisharma (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What type of improper behavior ? I've had some coworkers who were very difficult to work with and found it was best just to keep it on a professional level instead of trying to be friends with those people. So, don't start conversations with them unless you need something specifically work-related. If they actually refuse to do their job, or prevent you from doing yours, then it's time to get management involved. StuRat (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much,Yes that can be done but i am afraid that will hamper my job,since i am recently in.

Yeah, it's difficult being the new guy. There are sometimes long serving employees who delight in making it tough for the new guy - either just being unhelpful, guarding their knowledge, making up petty and daft rules, or having jokes at your expense. It's only after you have been there a while that you get to find out which of your workmates are assholes and which turn out to be friends. Astronaut (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is someone who's been working at your workplace for more than a year or two and who seems to be friendly, helpful, and decent, you might try describing your difficulties to that person and asking for advice. He or she will have a sense of the personalities and workplace dynamics at your job, which none of us on the Reference Desk can offer. Marco polo (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Interrupter

That character on Late Night With Conan O'Brien, is any of him based on Robert Plant? Because I notice their mannerisms are very similar. Or maybe it's just me. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you've already tried this, but neither our article on him, nor a google search for "robert plant" "the interrupter" yields anything of value. I'd say, if it were true, it's not a widely held belief.NByz (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Prince William and Prince Harry: humanitarian work

In writing a book, I’m attempting to show the royal princes as exemplars of those who express their social concerns in very personal, experiential ways, especially physical commitment. Such images and news stories are inspiring to the young whose values are being formed. Recently, I believe it was Harry who was shown helping to build something in Africa, heaving dirt into a wheelbarrow, then hauling it away, returning repeatedly.

I’ve spent much time trying to find something like that about Prince William, but everything is that found in People Magazine, dating, etc. The military experience of both princes is easy to find, but I need something about their humanitarian concerns, in which they have been directly involved. They both appear to be very fond of and concerned about children.

Thank you greatly for any help you can give me.Lighthouseboy (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the obvious place to start... FiggyBee (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

interviewer

what are the qualities that Interviewer looks for, in a candidate?

A self-starter is a start. Like typing 'interview' into the search box at the top left and eventually finding job interview. Google is also worth learning up on for getting solutions. Or had you something more specific in mind? Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While you're googling don't forget to look at the company's website. They usually give lots of hints and pointers as to who works for them and what qualities the company considers assets. If that's not enough to keep you busy check out the competition and see if there are any differences. --76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody that knows what job they're applying for. Since we don't know that, we can't really help you. --Tango (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to have a really good story about why you want that particular job. Discussing how you have been 'preparing yourself' for that job for years indicates both a lower potential for attrition and a higher likelihood that you'll have a strong work ethic. This can be tougher for entry-level jobs. You should still have a good, believable story about why you want THAT job and no other. NByz (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-think questions you may be asked. Devise good answers. Practice with a friend. Learn from the interviews so you improve.86.202.154.30 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)DT

Treat it as an inter–view, i.e. a mutual exchange of information, and not as a one-sided interrogation. You have as much to find out about them and their organisation as they have to find out about you; after all, if you go to work for them, typically you'll be spending your entire working day there plus travelling time to and fro, for perhaps a significant proportion of your life, so you want to know what you're getting yourself in for to make sure it's worth what you have to offer. This is not arrogance, but an indicator of self-esteem, a quality any decent company would surely be interested in detecting among its employees. Prepare a list of your own questions, have them in front of you, and tick them off as they get answered during the course of the discussion (this shows them that you're assessing them just as much as they're assessing you, a perfectly reasonable approach to take, so why not be open about it); and even if they're all answered by the end of their formal questions, come up with at least one final one when they eventually ask you if you have any questions. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thirsty mouse

I caught a mouse in a (humane) trap yesterday. I planned to release it somewhere far away but I completely forgot about it and now I'm at work (the next day). I am worried the mouse might be thirsty (or hungry) and not able to get any water! How long can mice survive without water? Also I was thinking of keeping it as a pet but it smells really bad. Do people keep pet mice? If I do will the mouse like the confinement, or will it be under distress? Thanks 125.21.165.158 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people do keep pet mice. Although, they usually get them from pet stores and not the wild. There's no telling what the mouse might be carrying disease-wise though. Dismas|^(talk) 10:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but is it thirsty? It's been 24 hours, and I'll be at work for another 4 hours. 125.21.165.158 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I got the answer from here (> 9 days). Now I can breathe easy and concentrate on work :) I would still like to know if it is feasible to domesticate a wild mouse. 125.21.165.158 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mice shows all their tiny charms and this section[2] is helpful. They do have a strong smell naturally, but make up for it by being cute, entertaining and social. There are different types (see Fancy mice). As for wild mice, it's probably ideal to domesticate from a young age, but who knows? you might just *click*, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to domesticate it, you would need to take it to a vets and get it checked out and vaccinated against various things. Also, don't expect it to be as tame as a mouse from a pet shop - they have been selectively bred to be good pets. If you want a pet mouse you would probably be better off going to a pet shop, they aren't expensive (the main cost is keeping them, buying them is a tiny amount by comparison). --Tango (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The smell might well be urine and feces it has left in the humane trap. I second the idea of letting this one go in the woods and getting yourself a proper mouse from a store. This mouse will probably be terrified whenever you are around it, because it didn't grow up with humans. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I definitely don't recommend it - take the wild mouse a good distance from your home and let it go. You wouldn't be doing the mouse any great favors by keeping it in a cage. The cost of the vaccinations you'd need it to have in order to protect yourself in the (quite likely) event that it bites you would easily exceed the cost of buying a specially bred pet mouse. If you want a pet mouse - get one from the pet store. They are typically so cheap that they practically give them away - correctly figuring that you'll spend more money on a cage, some toys, some bedding, a water bottle and food than the mouse could ever be worth! SteveBaker (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also consider hiring a proper divorce lawyer. This trick with the mouse may cause mind numbing aural pain if your loved one suffers from hysteric musophobia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the informative (and some amusing :)) answers. I released that mouse far away from my home. Will get a proper pet, probably, haha. 125.21.165.158 (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Credit crunch

According to the BBC News website, Woolworths is considering selling its entire chain of 800 odd UK stores for £1. Why does it have so little value? Surely the property it owns has value as do the goods it has in stock. Even if it were completely unprofitable and had to be immediately shut down (not the case) I would have thought the value of its assets were worth more than a pound. What would be to stop an individual making a bigger offer (say £1.50 and acquiring the business?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, the retail arm of Woolworths had "net debt" of 295 million pounds. Remember, when you buy a company you buy its assets and its liabilites and this company's liabilities was worth more than its assets. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it has massive debts. The company has been making a very large loss recently (and has been barely profitable for some time) so in order to cover day to day expenses it has had to take on significant debt. That debt is now greater than the value of all its assets combined, so the company is worthless. If whoever buys the company doesn't pay its debt it will be forced into administration (basically the same as what some other countries call bankruptcy) and all the assets would be sold and the buyer would get whatever is left over (which would be nothing). --Tango (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is one of many issues around buying a 'company' rather than it's assets. When you buy a company you also get it's financial liabilities, contingent liabilities (if someone is going to sue it), you can carry forward any losses (for tax purposes) that it's had in the last several years (this is a valuable asset as it reduces future taxes). When you buy the whole company (when a company is struggling), you sometimes end up with a lower book value of assets than if you buy the assets directly. This is relevant as the purchaser wants the highest book value possible, because he/she can depreciate those assets for tax purposes, again, reducing tax. The seller wants the lower book value, because it means he/she will realize a smaller capital gain (or 'CCA recapture' under the Canadian depreciation system) for tax purposes. There are other important asset-versus-company issues that I am not remembering right now, I'm sure.NByz (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, most of the time, when a company has secured debt, covenants on the debt will disallow the sale the assets by which the debt is secured without selling the debt to the same party (or paying off the debt).NByz (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing Stains from Shirt

Hi, i had a couple of perfume and deodrants which i generally used until recently i have to dispose them off as i realised my few brand new shirts had been rendered completely unusable as the yellowish stains got prominent with the perfume i used.are there any sureshot ways to rid them off? thanks in anticipation..As no lundry could help, i even tried petrol.Vikram79 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You could try washing it with a stain removal soap like sard or preen. Next up oin the scale could be cleaning with alcohol, or eucalyptus oil. A last resort may be bleaching with peroxide or chlorine bleach, but the latter may destroy the cloth too, as well as any colour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Apply a dry-cleaning solvent? then soak/wash. Any oil based things seem suss but could be wrong. Are they light coloured? then you could use a nappy soaker and follow the instructions for patch cleaning. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For future reference: Rather than use perfumes (because they give me a rash), I spray my pits with rubbing alcohol in the morning, to discourage the bacteria that cause odor (it's not the sweat itself). It's cheap and effective, and doesn't stain. —Tamfang (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Asking a Girl to High School Prom in North America

I am currently a senior (last year) in high school and my high school prom is coming up in June. I would just like to inquire into the proper procedure of asking a girl to prom.

I am not dating anyone, so if I ask a girl, it will just be for this short-term one-night time only right? The two parties need not any prior or succeeding relations before and after prom, respectively?

Is there anything I should give her when I am asking? Will I just approach her in an interrogative manner and ask whether she would like to attend prom with me and wait for a negative/affirmative response?

Since neither of us is dating, is it appropriate for me to dance with another girl during prom? Or must I focus mainly on my date?

Thank you, Hustle (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You should discuss the prospect of dancing with others with the girl in question. Both of you should have that understanding beforehand. Hopefully you will be able to talk about it, and you should think of how you feel if she decides to dance with others as well. If you ask her to prom, you're just asking her to prom. Prom invitations aren't necessarily marriage proposals. Although I have to say that at times young women do get carried away with the romance of it all. If you approach her and ask, "Would you like to go to prom with me?" and she replies yes, and you both plan the transportation and other arrangements, clearly limiting your conversations to prom, not much else can be construed from your relationship. It may lead to more, but should it advance to more at any stage, feel free to talk to her about it.

Now, be nice. Don't expect anything more than her attendance at prom. Be a gentleman. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not being American, I can't comment too closely. However, it would probably be impolite to dance with other people a lot when you have asked a girl to prom - after all, you singled her out to ask her, and her friends will all have their own dates as well. A dance or two with others is not unreasonable, I think, but she should be your primary focus.

Although she may not be completely happy with it, Moni is right that communication is key. If she knows that you're just out to have a fun night and she's invited to have fun too, without further commitment, then it's great, but there is a lot of room for misinterpretation, even if most people think that it's 'just for the night'. Sometimes it can be very useful to make sure things are said explicitly beforehand.

Remember, too, that she is probably just as nervous as you, and might be asking (or wanting to ask) her friends about what's appropriate or not. The rules aren't set out as a list, nor are they taught, or even fixed. You have to play it by ear and sight - watch how she reacts and respond to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's likely to be considered rude to go with the intent to dance with someone else...I mean, it might "just happen" that way - but to be seen to be planning on that from the outset is probably more honesty than is wise! You might want to skip that part. SteveBaker (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I started going out with my girlfriend (of 8 years) shortly after I asked her to grad. I would say asking her to the prom and asking her out were two separate things. Asking her to the prom did not involve any special procedure - I just asked her one day. As far as dancing, I was surprised when there was little dancing at our grad, most people just left and went to the aftergrad shortly after dinner. But friends of mine did briefly dance with people other than their dates, although from what I remember they weren't "going out". I think a few dances with other people is alright but if you're hardly with your date all night something's off. TastyCakes (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also remember it being a little more social, unless the couple has been going for a long time. Then, it's really romantic. There were people who went just to go, all the way up to a claassmate who proposed at the prom. So, there will be a wide variety of people and situations. The one who proposed (yes, they're still married, 20 years later - they were sweethearts *long* before then) probably did something somewhat elaborate, I think the medium ones go to the most trouble. SOmeone like you, you can just ask. However, I would recommend you plan something nice beforehand; a fancy restaurantfor instance. This can be done with some other couples, too. Plus, at least in our area, it was customary to rent a limo, making it at least a little special. Again, that can be done with a few couples all joining together to split the payment.

One thing I would note is that many of the most popular girls at my school were taken by...well, now. Not to say you won't get anyone, if yu're going just to go then this is certainly okay. However, don't be surprised if you find that you have to ask a good number of girls. So, I would ask something a little more than interrogatory; I would talk about how it's really special, you're hoping for a very memoriable night of fun-filled high school memories if nothing else, and that you would be honored if she were to go with you. That helps her understand that this is what you hope for, and if something develops, that's fine. Again, talk with her about it, as others have said.

I would also suggest - and this is personal experience here - that you shouldn't give up just becasue you ask x number and all have plans already. Underclass girls are possible if your school allows that. So, too, might handicapped girls. I still remember the joy of seeing one girl who was in a wheelchair at our prom; it was a touching story.

Even if you're not planning to do more than go to the prom, though, it is a good idea to at least build a friendship witht he girl beforehand, talking to her about the things that others have said.Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Digital television

KSTU is currently Fox 13 with analog. According to its article, the digital channel will turn into 28. Does this mean after 17 February it will turn into Fox 28? 75.169.200.242 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. ATSC (the digital TV standard in the US) has the capability for virtual channels. That is, along with the television program a conversion table is sent, telling your TV receiver that when you tune to "channel 13", the hardware attached to the antenna should look at "channel 28" in the radio spectrum. So unlike NTSC (the US analog standard), the "logical channel" (what you enter on your remote) and the radio spectrum channel (what the tuner actually listens to) aren't necessarily the same. Most television stations in the US are already broadcasting analog signals, and are doing so under the their NTSC channel branding. Where I am, the stations are doing a lot of promotion of their digital signals ("Check us out on digital channel 3.1", "Constant news and weather updates on digital 15.2"), all using their "regular" channel numbers. (Note that because the digital signals take up less space than the analog ones, you can have digital subchannels. In one radio band channel you can have multiple television feeds, each identified with a ".1", ".2", etc. after the logical channel.) -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this site: [3], until the February 17th transition date, channel 13 will be used for analog and channel 28 for digital. However, as noted above, the digital channel listed on the TV will be 13 (after if is "remapped"). After the transition date, analog 13 will cease broadcasting and the digital signal will then be broadcast on channel 13, making remapping no longer necessary. One potential problem this will cause is that you'll need a UHF antenna to receive channel 28 and a VHF antenna for channel 13. So, either you need to have both hooked up to your TV or digital converter box or you'll need to change which one is hooked up on the transition date. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia searches

i am enquiring if you keep or have information on the most searches conducted on the wikipedia website, top 100 for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.4.165 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You can find the most visited pages here [4] - but that's not quite the same thing as the most searched for because people arrive at pages via cross-links as well as by typing things into the search box. SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

#35, 36,308 [ 0.02 %]: Hypoallergenic dog breeds  ?????? NByz (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Most likely Barack Obama fans - he's looking for a dog, but one of his daughters is allergic to them. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Number 14 on that list is "HIT MUSIC ONLY". What the heck is that about? --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And no. 111 is "David 'skOre' Deutsch". We're to believe that c.18,000 searched and found that redlink? --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"David 'skOre' Deutsch" does at least exist, a google search confirms. "HIT MUSIC ONLY", though. Weird. Maybe it's some kind of a bot's search. Fribbler (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"HIT MUSIC ONLY" ("QUE DU HIT") exists as a slogan. Doesn't explain its strange appearance in that list though. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm betting some evil spammer created an article promoting some business - then set a 'bot loose loading it over and over in some kind of effort to promote the link...that would explain why the article(s) in question are now redlinks. SteveBaker (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but neither of the articles have ever existed - I just checked the deletion logs. --Tango (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)