Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 September 27

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.

September 27

Multiple banks

Are billionnaires and large corporations more likely than average people and smaller companies to have active accounts at more than one bank in the same country (e.g. to increase the number of ATMs they can use, or the number of people they can send transfers to, without fees)? NeonMerlin 01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In the UK anyone can use any ATM and there are no fees for interbank transfers, so those reasons certainly wouldn't apply (for individuals - companies are a another matter). Splitting your wealth between multiple banks usually means more of it is protected by the Bank of England, but that's only £35k per bank, so wouldn't really matter to a billionaire. Other countries may be different. Billionaires aren't likely to keep much of their money in a regular bank account, there are special types of accounts for the very rich with "Wealth Management" departments of investment banks and similar. --Tango (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When I went to Canada this summer, I was surprised to discover that the ATM network is split inot two, Visa and Mastercard, and you have to find the right machine. Is this Canadian (Vancouver) split common worldwide or is it an exception? I haven't knowingly encountered it anywhere in Europe. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction: the Canadian ATM network is run by Interac; it is a single unified network across the country; there are (to my knowledge) no ATMs that are not connected to the network. There are subnetworks (such as Cirrus) which not all machines are part of, though the Cirrus and PLUS links into Interac should guarantee use by just about anyone worldwide. Any debit card from any bank anywhere in Canada will work at any ATM (whether bank-branded or private) anywhere in Canada. For credit cards, you have to ensure that your account is set up to receive cash advances from ATMs, and sometimes there are machines you cannot access with your credit card. If your credit card is with a Canadian bank and you are set up for cash advances through ATMs, you can generally speaking use your debit card to obtain the cash. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You were doing fine until you said "subnetworks". Cirrus and Plus are worldwide ATM networks belonging respectively to the MasterCard and Visa organizations. Canadian ATMs, or typical ones anyway, are all on Interac (so Canadians can use them regardless of which they use) and also on at least one of Plus and Cirrus (so people from other countries can use them, if their bank is on the right network), sometimes both but not always. --Anonymous, 01:42 UTC, September 29, 2008.

From the point of view of a Canadian, PLUS and Cirrus are subnetworks of Interac; all machines have Interac while not all have access to PLUS and/or Cirrus. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if the Canadian is unaware that there are places outside Canada. --Anon, 05:32 UTC, October 1, 2008.

In the U.S., there seem to be many networks of ATMs -- you'll see machines with half a dozen or more logos on them. Usually if you're part of one of the networks, you can use the ATM without any extra charge. On the other hand, you can use virtually any ATM if you don't mind paying $2 to the bank it's in, and another $2 to your own bank, for the convenience. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I was trying to use a UK Mastercard credit card. Most machines let me go through the process and then spat the card out with "transaction cancelled". Eventually I discovered that the Bank of Montreal's machines would work. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious Use of Entheogens in the United States

In 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing a relatively new Brazilian religious movement to use a hallucinogenic tea as part of its religious ceremonies. Apparently the court ruled this way because the government hadn't proved any harm had been caused by the use of the hallucinogen. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737994.stm

More recently Johns Hopkins University completed a scientific study that showed that psilocybin, the active ingredient in psilocybe mushrooms, can induce geuine spiritual or religious experiences that have long lasting benefits to participants. See: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html

Doesn't this open the door legally for other religions to allow for the spiritual use of entheogens like psilobye mushrooms in the United States? 71.112.229.171 (talk)

I don't understand how you can call a religious experience that's clearly the result of a hallucinogenic drug fritzing with your brain: "genuine". The correct word under these circumstances would be "bogus". Then to call a religious experience (especially such a clearly false one) "beneficial" is another rather wild claim. However, to answer your question - it's likely that case-law would apply so it's possible that other non-harmful hallucinogens could be ruled legal. However, I'm pretty sure that the religion in question would first have to prove that the drug had been in use as a part of their religious rites for a significant amount of time. If no long-standing religions actually use these kinds of drugs, it doesn't necessarily open any doors whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve, while you may not be able to understand how people could consider things in this way, there are people who hold these views. There are people who consider experiences brought on by hallucinogens to be genuinely religious, and that the hallucinogens simple 'open a door', or 'unleash hidden capabilities', or whatever terminology they want to use. The word bogus is not necessarily the 'correct' word, although it may accurately reflect your own view, nor is the religious experience 'clearly false' no matter how obvious that viewpoint may seem to you. Religion is a broad umbrella and personal experience is very personal. (As to 'beneficial', there are those who hold the view that careful use of hallucinogens could be beneficial for some mental health problems, although the difficulty of ensuring a positive experience usually undermines this.) 79.66.84.84 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See Native American Church and Peyote. That door was already open. Corvus cornix_talk 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WHOLE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC DEBTS IN USA.

How are today the whole private debts and public debts in Usa? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.225.77 (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

private debt and public debt. --Tango (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,so private credit debts are 2.587 trillions $ and public debts 9.86 trillions $. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the money gone?

Central banks have recently sunk billions of dollars into propping up the finance industry, but problems still exist and the US government is discussing handing over a further $700 billion to hopefully stop a financial meltdown. Where is all this money going to? Astronaut (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposed bailout (i.e. the first $700 bn) has afaik not been approved by these guys yet. Here's a relevant article from this morning. To answer your question, see Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system (2008)#Components of the plan. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At least some of the billions of dollars lent out so far was in short term loans, so some of it has already been paid back. The reason central banks are having to lend out more money is because banks are choosing to leave most of their cash in their deposit accounts with the central bank rather than lending it to each other, so the total amount of cash in circulation is probably pretty much the same as it was before. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At the heart of the matter is the problem that house prices were very high - and banks had a lot of money to invest. They decided that they would lend more money to riskier people - with the loans backed by the value of the property used a collateral for the loan. Most of these loans were made on variable interest rate mortgages. When the interest rates on those risky loans started to climb, the borrowers defaulted - that caused a rash of foreclosures and that int turn dumped a lot of homes onto the market. Many people when evicted from their homes by the bank would trash the place before the left (I know, I just recently bought a foreclosed house from a bank - it's only three years old - yet it's a TOTAL wreck. Between the crappy condition of these houses and the large numbers of them on the market - and the rising interest rates making it harder for new buyers to get a loan to by them...property prices tanked. The banks could not get back much of their money from the original loan. Worse still, the banks frequently sold large batches of mortgages off onto secondary market lenders who didn't get good information about the reliability of these loans that they were taking on. Also, there are all of these other complicated financial products such as insurance that a lender would take out in the event of the borrower defaulting that would cover some of the loss. This progressive handing off of "junk" loans to more and more financial institutions spread that original terrible decision to lend money to someone who couldn't afford to repay it to many other companies besides the bank who originally offered the loan - and also diluted the ability of those companies to realise that the loan was "junk" in the first place.

Worse still, a normal insurance company has a legal obligation to have enough liquidity (cash) on hand to cover their losses in the event that they have to pay out on the policy. There are laws that state what percentage of their POTENTIAL losses they have to have in liquid assets. However, the companies who "insured" the mortgage loans (who ought now to be paying the banks for their losses) used a loophole in the law by which they didn't call this transaction "insurance" - they called it something like (IIRC) a "Bond Swap Instrument" - which amounts to the exact same thing as an insurance policy - but because of the loophole meant that they DIDN'T have to keep enough liquid assets around to cover their losses. Hence when the banks go to their "insurers" to claim their money according to the policy - they discover that their insurer just went bust and doesn't have the money to repay them.

You can see how a lack of regulation allowed the banks to lend money in ridiculous ways in the first place - using these "Bond Swap" things to cover their asses. But because the bond swap market wasn't regulated, those "insurance" policies weren't worth the paper they were printed on. So between incompetant bankers, dubious "insurers" and a lack of government oversight - we ended up in all of this trouble.

So now we have banks and other financial organisations who are getting defaulted on left, right and center. They can't sell the homes they now own because nobody is buying and the prices fell through the floor - and they can't claim on their "insurance" policies. Therefore, they have no money to lend out - which is a disaster for business. If you can't borrow money, you can't buy new machinery, you can't buy raw materials - all sorts of nasty things happen. Worse still, if money is too tight to lend to house-buyers, you get into the vicious circle where you aren't lending money to the very people who would be buying up those foreclosed properties - or allowing people to get out from under a difficult mortgage by selling their homes.

The $700,000,000,000 (I think it's important to see all of those zeroes!) that the government is probably going to spend will allow the government to buy all of that bad debt from the banks and other agencies - so that they no longer have "toxic loans" on their books and will be on a stronger financial footing. The government would then be the recipient of mortgage payments - which would go some way to paying down that $700bn - and the ultimate "owner" of a lot of foreclosed properties.

So if you wonder where that money "went" - it was originally payed to people who sold their houses to people who couldn't afford to buy them. It was these property sellers who made the money. Over the period we owned our home, it almost tripled in value over ten years. Had we sold it before the price crash, we'd have made about $350,000...which (if the person who bought the house had failed to repay their mortgage) would have been a part of the $700bn.

When people complain that "American Taxpayers" will be footing the bill for the $700bn, it's worth bearing in mind that the people who benefited from the housing price bubble were mostly "American Taxpayers". It's also worth mentioning that the government has already spent close to $100bn bailing out companies like Fanny May and Freddy Mack...so the true number will be $800bn. Also, there is no guarantee that this will be the end of it (to the contrary - I'd be very surprised if it was)...so expect it to end up costing over a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000 for those who like to see the zeroes!)

One other thing. When we get incomprehensibly large numbers like $700,000,000,000 - I think it's important to divide that number by the size of the population of the USA (300,000,000 people) - and realise that this amounts to over $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. That money ultimately must be repaid as taxes - so if you are a "middle-income" wage earner - you can probably look forward to paying perhaps $10,000 in additional taxes over the coming years to cover this debacle. Of course if you sold your home before the crash, you'll certainly have made way more than that due to the housing price bubble...and if you are buying a home right now (as I just did), you'll easily save way more than $10,000 because houses are so amazingly cheap right now. If you can afford to buy a house (and for chrissakes get a fixed rate mortgage and do the math before you sign up for a loan) - now is DEFINITELY the time!

SteveBaker (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Steve (we should create a new Wikipedia namespace - SteveBaker: and SteveBaker talk:) :). It's worth noting that (at least in my understanding) bad loans are bought at a discount, i.e. the shareholders of the institution take a hit, but they get their balance sheets cleared up, so that their capital ratios allow them to begin lending again. Put another way, a loan that is in default counts as zero-value, even if there is a chance you will get some of your money back in the long run. Essentially the government is offering to take on the risk and reward of taking the long-term view, as the existing institutions can't afford to do it. Another point is that the money is essentially staying in the US, and is being mostly used for the benefit of US citizens, i.e. everyone needs a place to live. A friend of mine got himself a nice little house back in the early 90's, bought from the Resolution Trust Corporation set up after the savings & loan collapses. Speaking of which, talk about not learning from the lessons of history!

What has mystified me about some of these foreclosures (leading up to this meltdown) though is that the houses are apparently left to rot, sitting empty. This mystifies me, you've repossessed a home, taken your write-down and ended up with a tangible asset (which you don't want, 'cause you're a loan company, not a landlord). But now you're letting that tangible asset become worthless - surely someone would want to rent the house? Even if you rent it at $20/month and a promise of upkeep, isn't that $20 more than letting it rot to nothing? Franamax (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they're not landlords, and the hassle of renting is not worth the return?? Also, once tenants are in, they're even harder to sell. What they want is for more cash in the system, so people can buy them; hence the bailout as Steve describes.

But Steve, the bankers weren't incompetent, they were greedy, which is quite different. (The greed is not really that of the fat cats at the top, either, but the shareholders, who demand increasing returns; and don't think the shareholders are merely big businessmen: they're frequently the individual, who wants a good return on their pension plan/health insurance scheme/term deposit/house value/stock portfolio.) The dodgy loans weren't passed on to unsuspecting holders: they knew what they were about. But the loans were parcelled up into groups, so the risk was shared: the idea being that if one in the package defaulted, the value of the others would compensate. Unfortunately, too many defaulted for the others to cover.

Another part of the problem is that in the US (to my understanding) to default on a house loan means you lose the house: effectively you walk away from it, and the loan is written off. In other countries, to default on a mortgage, you still owe the money to the bank. If the bank's sale of the house doesn't cover the outstanding debt, then they can sieze any other assets you hold, or insist you continue to pay. Fail that, and you're bankrupt. People have a disincentive to default: I know people who have taken a second job to meet the debt. In the US, is easier just to walk away. (But do correct me if I've mis-stated the case: my American knowledge is not high.) Gwinva (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That has to be the longest single ref desk answer I've ever seen... (I won't judge how good it was since it was a tl;dr for me!) --Tango (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, outstanding reply, Steve! Thanks! --Taraborn (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But I thought that if you defaulted on a mortgage in the US, you went to jail. Are all those defaulters in jail now? --Taraborn (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

USA MORTGAGES DEBTS AND GLOBAL DEBTS

How are Usa mortgages debts? How are the global private debts (credit cards+mortgages+lendings+etc.)?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what question is being asked here. You can read our mortgage article for information on how a mortgage represents a debt. Were you perhaps asking how large US and global debts are? Franamax (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know the the global value of mortgages(mortgages are debts) in Usa. I'd like also to know the whole global private debt in Usa...if it is possible... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This was answered a few questions above here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, i want know the whole private debt in Usa and the only debt in mortgages.Are you able to understand words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NOBODY is able to answer?

Vandalism

Removed as this doesn't seem related to Wikipedia and could be an unsafe image. OP, could you explain why you posted the link? Franamax (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay, vandalism is now reverted (removed was link to screenshot of vandalism). 89.146.68.20 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK sorry, I was just being cautious. You can bring that kind of incident up at the ANI noticeboard where it will get swift attention (especially since it looks like the Avril-Lavigne vandal). Another spot is the vandalism noticeboard. Thanks for spotting it!! Franamax (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The OP is the vandal. It's already been reported at AIV and ANI and WP:VPT and a few places at the Help desk and at Talk:Main_Page and heaven knows where. The ref desk was probably the last place left to get attention. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

NO U! Actually when I saw the Avril-Lavigne thing I thought it must be some hard vandalism, so I decided to screenshot it and place here. Then I looked at Talk:Main Page and realized that the problem is solved (though Computer article still not fixed). 89.146.68.20 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Knowing people and meetings

This week, after having gone to meet two women that I know of different organisations, separately, I came to think: It is possible for the same two people to belong to the same two different organisations, and not know they both belong to both organisations, until they both meet each other in real life at both organisations' meetings. This is only possible if at least one organisation uses aliases, instead of real names, for its members, because a person has only one real name. Has this ever happened? JIP | Talk 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --Sean 20:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, is it possible for two people to not know each other? Even if they have been in close proximity many times? Yeah, I think so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, but when I visited Bletchley Park the tour guide told the story of a man and woman who both worked there during the war and subsequently met and got married, and each only found out the other had worked there when they visited as tourists decades later and the wife corrected the tour guide during the tour. -- BenRG (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't quite the same thing either. Not the same thing at all, actually, but now that I've remembered it, I can't help sharing it. Billy James Hargis was a far right wing evangelist and anti-pornography campaigner who sermonised about the evils of illicit sex; but all along he had been having sex with members of his congregation - of both sexes. A woman revealed to her husband on their wedding night that she had already lost her virginity to Hargis, and then he admitted that he'd also had sex with Hargis. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So, let's see...

• Case 1: Susan and Veronica belong to the National Federation of Associations. They also belong to the National Association of Federations. So what? This is as unremarkable as their living in the same city, or even in the same apartment building, without knowing each other.
• Case 2: Carol Jones (of Alfred, Maine) belongs to the NFA and to the NAF. So does Carol Jones of Petaluma, California. They do not know each other. The organization itself may not "know" it has two members with the same name, because the names are in a database, and the database doesn't really find this sort of thing interesting. Most likely the organizations have some sort of member ID, one purpose of which is to separate all the Carol Joneses (and all the John Smiths). This is not particularly remarkable, either.

I did a little poking around in the 1891 Canadian census a while back -- 10% of all the names in Nova Scotia were "Macdonald (MacDonald, Mcdonald, McDonald)... and 10% of them were named "John." (Thank heavens my great-granduncle married a woman whose first name was "Murdena," not quite so common.) --- OtherDave (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What I was thinking about is that two people both contribute pseudonomously to the same organisation, where they do not normally see each other face-to-face. These two people get to know each other's personae in this organisation very well. When they finally go to a face-to-face meeting of that organisation, they discover they are husband and wife, or schoolmates or work colleagues, or something like that. Has this ever happened? JIP | Talk 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How about an adoptee finally finding his birth mother...working at the same store. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Job interview question

What is the best way to answer that standard job interview question about "what are your weaknesses"? Obviously you don't want to say that you don't have any, but if you own up to some weakness then that gives them a reason not to give you the job. --Bluegrouper (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate.

Well, seriously - this is such a dumb question. I don't know what interviewers expect to get out of it - but for sure it's not going to be useful information. A lot of times we ask this kind of thing just to get a rather silent/clammed-up candidate talking. I prefer to ask "What's the best thing you ever worked on?" - and if the answer is less than a solid minute of enthusiasm - come back with "Why?" - because you hope the candidate will be enthusiastic about that - and you can get into some kind of dialog.

In terms of what you should do before the interview - you need to make a list of these kinds of awful question and work out the answers in advance so you can just produce a canned answer that you're happy with. In the case of weaknesses - you don't want to say "None" - and you certainly don't want to list any weakness that would in any way cast your ability to do the job in a bad light. So you have to come up with an answer that's convincing - and preferably enough to raise a chuckle. Hence "Chocolate"...but keep a "deeper" answer in reserve in case they say "No - but seriously?"...so pick something that you don't think they'll care much about - "I have a hard time remembering names" (assuming you aren't working directly with customers) or "I dislike doing a lot of typing" (assuming the job doesn't entail doing a lot of typing).

You also need pre-canned answers to "Why should we employ you?", "What do you think you have to offer us?", "What are your career aspirations?", "Why did you leave your previous job?" - you need carefully pre-rehearsed answers for all of those. SteveBaker (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"I tend to be a perfectionist"; "I can't leave the office till the day's tasks are done"; "I have obsessive compulsive tendencies towards emptying my email inbox"; etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"I tend to put my work before my family"...yeah - maybe. But they've gotta be credible too. Those all sound a bit too rehearsed! SteveBaker (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No way, they see right through that bullshit. They know you are lying. Plasticup ^T/C 04:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider what it would mean if employers really thought that way: they wouldn't give the job to anyone, and they'd be the losers as well as all the applicants. Employers know that everyone has weaknesses, but they are looking for people:

who are aware enough of their weaknesses to not let them affect their job adversely,

who are prepared to take on a challenge and overcome their weaknesses,

who can turn their weaknesses into strengths,

who aren't either so forgetful or prone to lying that they'd say "I'm sure I must have some, but none seem to come to mind right now", and

who don't appear to model themselves after John McEnroe, who once said "My greatest strength is that I have no weaknesses".

So I'd suggest you tell them about some previous experience where you had a perceived weakness but you triumphed over it, and then identify some current weakness (not the absolutely worst one you can think of, but something non-trivial) and how you would manage it to a similar positive outcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Job interviews tend to be pretty quick and more about their gut-level impression of you rather than specific answers to questions like this. If they actually care about anything it'll be about whether you have a competency they require. This kind of question is to see how you deal with pressure, also a bit of an intelligence/preparation thing, are you smart enough to figure out an answer to a standard question? You can almost certainly get away with a little set piece about a weakness that you overcame in the past—a great one is being a bit of a loner who learned the value of teamwork. Darkspots (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all job interviews are quick. I once interviewed at Silicon Graphics - that was a solid 8 hours, they even grilled me over lunch. Just two weeks ago, I had two, 2-hour phone interviews followed by a 6 hour face-to-face with nVidia - and they wanted to fly me out to California for another long session before I decided to punt and take a job elsewhere. Of the half dozen companies I talked to in my last round of job hunting, I think pretty much all of the phone interviews went over an hour - and the face-to-face stuff was typically two to three hours. No - it's an over-simplification to say that interviews are usually pretty quick. It depends dramatically on the nature of the job. SteveBaker (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not very good at coming up with answers to bad interview questions"? Seriously, though, I'd go with something that you used to be bad at but have work on and improved at. "I'm bad at X but recently I've developed Y to overcome it." (Disclaimer: I'm a student and haven't actually had a successful job interview, so I'm just guessing really!)--Tango (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"I have trouble understanding why other employees are less (readded word eaten by text editor) willing to make personal sacrifices for the success of the company than I am." Edison (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed a word out somewhere there ("more willing" perhaps?), it doesn't make sense... --Tango (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It amuses me to think about just answering it honestly: "I only work on stuff that interests me, not stuff that matters to the company"; "I usually just pretend to work for months, and then knock something together in the last 2 weeks"; "I used to love programming, but now I'm just in it for the money"; "You'll mostly be paying me to answer questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk". --Sean 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"I spend increasing amounts of time calculating when I will have sufficient retirement savings to bid farewell to this simulacrum of hades." Edison (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NASA image font

I've looked at several images from NASA during the Apollo project (e.g. Image:Saturnsandlittlejoe2.gif), and most of them have text written in a round font I can't recognize, but that I guess is Futura. Does anybody know for sure what that font is? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I cropped the image and sent it get analyzed. WhattheFont came back with five possible matches of which I think these two are the closest. YMMV, I guess. I think RTF Dokument Cond SC (the second link) captures the distinctive "C" the closest. Matt Deres (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Futura is probably right. Remember that when fonts were typeset there were often lots of subtle variations between different sizes and variants. I disagree completely with those myfonts results—the A's, for example, look nothing like the NASA font, which is clearly some sort of Futura/Century Gothic type of font with a distinct angle joining the two legs. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on putting stuff into identifont, it's definitely some kind of Futura. --Random832 (contribs) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the one they gave you there is a worse match than the one right above it on the list. Check the B's, for example. Anyway—trust your eyes, not "match-the-font" algorithms, which are often quite wrong. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)