Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 April 23
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 22 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 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. |
April 23
[edit]U.S. Geography, locating a city
[edit]I know that there are 3 cities with the name of Spokane in the USA. One in in the state of Washington, one is in the state of South Dakota. I believe the 3rd Spokane is somewhere on the US east coast but I can't locate it. Can anyone direct me to the state I'm looking for? Thank you very much for any help you can provide; it's appreciated!CharlieChanFan (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)CharlieChanFan
- We have a Spokane, Washington and a Spokane, Missouri, but I don't know about Spokane, South Dakota. Dragons flight (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the Spokane (disambiguation) page just lists two places, the big one in Washington and Spokane, Missouri, population 133.
- The USGS's Geographic Names Information System is more helpful. An exact-match search on "populated places" with the name Spokane finds five: Washington, Missouri, and South Dakota are three, and the other two are in Ohio and Louisiana.
- None of the last three has a Wikipedia article. I looked up the last four in the four different brands of road atlas I have at home and only my old AAA road atlas shows any of them. It shows Spokane, LA, which is about 20 miles north of Vidalia, and Spokane, MO, about 30 miles south of Springfield. It does not give populations for these two, nor does it mention the other two places.
- If you meant "city" in the strict sense of the word as distinct from things like villages, towns, and hamlets (the official terms for things like this vary from state to state), it seems very unlikely that any of the four is a city, so the answer is probably that there is only the one. But if you meant it in the vague sense where it includes any populated place... now you know. --Anonymous, 06:02 UTC, April 23, 2009.
- Looking at Spokane, Ohio in Google Maps reveals 10 houses and maybe two businesses...one of which is a farm. Spokane Missouri is a little bigger - but there aren't 100 houses there. Spokane Louisiana is also just a scattering of river-side homes with no really well defined boundary. Spokane South Dakota appears to be a deserted road running though some woodland with no sign of buildings or anything else. Calling any of them a "City" is definitely pushing it - even by American standards! By any reasonable standards, Spokane Washington is the only city with that name. SteveBaker (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- This may be affected by state law. I read a while back that any incorporated community in Georgia, for example, is legally considered a "city"... even if it's barely a wide spot in the road. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
non ox furnace
[edit]hot dip galvanizing process having non oxidizing furnace in detail also told me the function of skin pass mill in galvanizing line.
- You might want to start with the articles Hot-dip galvanizing and Rolling (metalworking). The processes for hot dip galvanizing are similar but slightly different depending on what it is that you're working with. You can find several in-depth explanations by Googling patent hot dip galvanizing process non-oxidizing furnace. A Skin pass mill see here improves surface finish, flatness and yield stress. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
defects in hot dip galvanizing
[edit]pls. tell me about the defect soft mark in colled roll coil what is the effect of this after galvanizing ( gp coil with skin pass) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshknit (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
please help me find this ebook!!
[edit]Okay. I'm going to be fairly straightforward about this. Could anybody please help me find a site where I can download the e-books (pdf files) for "the Seventh Tower" series by Garth Nix, that doesn't require registration or payment?? I tried googling, but almost all of the entries required some sort of payment or signing up. If anyone has any tips on how to search for such files more efficiently, or if anyone can find me a direct link to a download for the series, that would be great. Or if anyone already has the pdf files for the entire series, could you please send it to me through this email address? [Removed] (this is only a temporary email address, created only for this occasion. it doesn't have anything that could possibly lead to my personal info, so no worries there.) Thanks everyone in advance.
P.S. Could you help me find pdf files for "the Old Kingdom Trilogy (or Abhorsen Trilogy)" by Garth Nix as well?? Thanks a million!!
- Despite your disclaimer I've removed your email address. Refdesk policy is to only answer questions here. However, you're not likely to get an answer here, because linking to bootlegged material is against WP rules. Sorry. APL (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
How about if you lke the writer so much you show your appreciation for the time, cost and effort it took for them to write the book...and pay for a copy of it? I appreciate the idea that electronic-copies cost virtually nothing to make 1-more-copy (forget the economic term) but ultimately if you enjoy the work so much that you want to read their books why not cough up and pay the 10 or whatever dollars for it on Amazon? Sorry - rant over, APL gave a much more reasoned response. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Marginal cost, probably. Recury (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Securing income as employee
[edit]What is the best way of always having some form of income? Is there some kind of portfolio theory or perhaps an insurance for employees? --83.57.67.37 (talk)
- Some of the lowest-risk income options would be risk-free bonds, certificates of deposit, or insured interest-bearing bank accounts. However, these are coupled with some of the lowest available returns, so it takes quite a large principal sum to guarantee repeatable income. Consequently, most investment strategies call for a balance of risk across a portfolio so as to improve expected returns. The prerequisite large principal remains, though, even if it's lowered by taking on risk. Unemployment insurance is probably available in various forms; certainly, unemployment benefits can be viewed as a form of such. Finally, there are the practical details of one's place in the economy: is your job sector healthy? How often does your employer use layoffs? How marketable are your personal skills? How far are you willing to bend to accommodate a job opportunity? And so forth. — Lomn 19:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the only way to make sure you will always have some income is to become very wealthy first, and invest that money in some mix of stocks, bonds, and cash, and then leave the money invested, never touch it again, and live off the interest. If you require US$50,000 per year to live pretty well, then all you need is US$1 million invested at 5% to receive US$50,000 forever. Isn't that comforting? If you can't amass the million dollars right away, you'll have to get a job, and for when you can't work, you'll have to depend upon social safety nets like government unemployment insurance. Until you get that US$1 million. Tempshill (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking purely pedantically, the above scheme over time will assure you money forever, but it won't allow you to live well forever. What you need to do is amass enough so that you can live well off the interest and have a bit left each month to reinvest so that the compounding of the interest offsets inflation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- In the interests of completeness, I'll add that you need sufficient return that you can cover the capital gains tax, as well. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking purely pedantically, the above scheme over time will assure you money forever, but it won't allow you to live well forever. What you need to do is amass enough so that you can live well off the interest and have a bit left each month to reinvest so that the compounding of the interest offsets inflation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want security, it is important that you an insurance plan against common risks - disability, health, unemployment, accidents, fire, etc. Second, save a share of your income. Calculate the share according to the time that you could be unemployed. Unemployment insurance won't last forever. --Mr.K. (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Victory by resignation of one's opponent
[edit]It has occurred to me that it is not necessary to explicitly specify a win condition in giving rules for checkers, if one uses the principle common to many (all?) board games that it is always permissible to resign on one's turn to move: if you have no legal move, either because all your men are blocked or because you have no men with which to make a move, you must resign.
Is there a list of games or sports in which the only way to win is by surrender of one's opponent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.249.103 (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only way that concept makes sense is for endurance contests, where you win by doing something longer than anyone else. Obviously "something" could be anything you like.
- In any other sort of game, the only reason to resign is if you think your opponent is sure to win, and that's only possible if your opponent has some other way to win.
- --Anonymous, 23:48 UTC, April 23, 2009.
- Well, not exactly. In checkers there is the concept that if you can't find a legal move then you must resign...although another way to state that is that if you can't make a legal move then your opponent has won...whether you decide to 'resign' or not. That's not quite the same thing as "you think your opponent is going to win"...although that is another reason to resign. But not all games are like that. In chess, for example, if you find yourself in a position where you can't make a legal move, it's "stalemate" and the game ends in a draw. That's a very different rule! In yet other games (Go for example), you're allowed to simply not make a move if you cannot or do not wish to do so. Those are quite distinct setups from chess and checkers. But even that isn't quite what the OP is asking. We're being asked for a list of activities in which having your opponent resign is the ONLY way to win...but if the rules state a winning condition (such as 'checkmate' in chess) isn't it rather irrelevent whether the person "loses" or "is forced to resign" when that condition is met? If I changed the rules for the Olympic 100meter sprint to say that everyone except the first person across the line must "resign", it wouldn't change the race in any way whatever...yet it would move that even from the "No" to "Yes" column in our OP's hypothetical list. I don't think there can be such a list. The only exceptions might be if there were some kind of game (and checkers ain't it) where the game doesn't end until the player chooses to resign of his own free will - but that seems a bit far-fetched. I suppose "Go" is some kind of example of that - the precise termination condition for that game is very ill-specified - it's mostly one of those "you know it when you see it" things. In a sense, the loser could choose to continue to play if he wanted to...although no further benefit could be had by doing so. SteveBaker (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is there some form of wrestling or martial art like this, where the only way of winning is through a submission (as opposed to by a pin or fall, a system of points, or by pushing your opponent out of the ring)? Probably there would also be the possibility of losing by disqualification, or time running out. As a child we used to play a game called Peanuts, where you linked hands with the opponent and tried to apply force to make them submit (and say peanuts), generally by trying to bend their wrists back or bend their arms in unnatural ways. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- We always called that one Mercy. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just thought of another one: Chicken (game) in which two complete, raving idiots drive their cars head-on towards each other at high speed - the loser (the "chicken") is the one who loses his nerve and swerves out of the way. In a sense, the loser chooses to "resign" (by swerving) rather than force a "draw" (by crashing). There can't be many games where losing is considered a better outcome than a draw...but this is definitely one of them! SteveBaker (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- We always called that one Mercy. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is there some form of wrestling or martial art like this, where the only way of winning is through a submission (as opposed to by a pin or fall, a system of points, or by pushing your opponent out of the ring)? Probably there would also be the possibility of losing by disqualification, or time running out. As a child we used to play a game called Peanuts, where you linked hands with the opponent and tried to apply force to make them submit (and say peanuts), generally by trying to bend their wrists back or bend their arms in unnatural ways. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, not exactly. In checkers there is the concept that if you can't find a legal move then you must resign...although another way to state that is that if you can't make a legal move then your opponent has won...whether you decide to 'resign' or not. That's not quite the same thing as "you think your opponent is going to win"...although that is another reason to resign. But not all games are like that. In chess, for example, if you find yourself in a position where you can't make a legal move, it's "stalemate" and the game ends in a draw. That's a very different rule! In yet other games (Go for example), you're allowed to simply not make a move if you cannot or do not wish to do so. Those are quite distinct setups from chess and checkers. But even that isn't quite what the OP is asking. We're being asked for a list of activities in which having your opponent resign is the ONLY way to win...but if the rules state a winning condition (such as 'checkmate' in chess) isn't it rather irrelevent whether the person "loses" or "is forced to resign" when that condition is met? If I changed the rules for the Olympic 100meter sprint to say that everyone except the first person across the line must "resign", it wouldn't change the race in any way whatever...yet it would move that even from the "No" to "Yes" column in our OP's hypothetical list. I don't think there can be such a list. The only exceptions might be if there were some kind of game (and checkers ain't it) where the game doesn't end until the player chooses to resign of his own free will - but that seems a bit far-fetched. I suppose "Go" is some kind of example of that - the precise termination condition for that game is very ill-specified - it's mostly one of those "you know it when you see it" things. In a sense, the loser could choose to continue to play if he wanted to...although no further benefit could be had by doing so. SteveBaker (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c)The only contest I can think of (and this is more a reply to Steve's question), is pankration. The rules changed through time and place, but at least some of these contests were typically only winnable by submission. There were no "points" awarded or anything and almost no rules; when the loser's options are submission versus possibly being beaten to death, it tends to make for a lot of submissions! Matt Deres (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm - yeah - it's close. The article says that the umpire could declare the game a draw - and for sure there is a way to win without your opponent 'resigning' because you can kill him...or (more reasonably) render him unconscious. Certainly the objective of the contest is to have your opponent submit - so I guess in spirit, this counts. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)