Miscellaneous desk
< April 8	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 10 >

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 9

19th Century Scottish Towns

For the purpose of family tree research could the towns of Armadale and Bathgate be considered the same? What information I've found on your site is that Bathgate appears first in the 12th century but there is no elaboration on Armadale. They are approximately 2.5 miles apart now but in the 1800's I wonder if that meant anything.

Thank you, --ScotsBloodline (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: no. Longer answer: yes :)

Bathgate can, as you say, be traced back to the C12 or earlier. Armadale as a town dates back only as far as 1785, according to http://www.armadale.org.uk/localhistory.htm ("Armadale, from the building of the first house in the year 1795 up to the year 1850, had grown very slowly"). 2.5 miles is a considerable distance - moreso in the 1800s. I'm sure that is is unlikely in the extreme that anyone from Armadale would consider themselves to live in Bathgate. There is a big however, however. And that is that Armadale was in the parish of Bathgate, and so it would be accurate to say of an Armadale dweller, that they lived in the parish of Bathgate. And so far as genealogical records are concerned, I suspect that much of what is available will be parish records which may or may not draw a distinction between the two places. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of caution, though I apologise if this turns out to be a bit of a red-herring. There is another Armadale I know of in Scotland (having visited last year), and that is on the Isle of Skye, a short ferry crossing from Mallaig, neither of which are anywhere within 100 miles of Bathgate, West Lothian. 92.20.13.27 (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Wedding

If this constitutes a request for legal advice please feel free to ignore/delete. My question is simply this: If a man marries a thai woman in thailand is that considered a legal marriage in the western world, specifically UK?

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site (http://www.th4u.com/thai_marriage.htm) has some info. It suggests that yes it would be considered legal but that the UK would require 'evidence' by way of an Affidavit or Statutory form. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Thailand, but I married a Japanese woman in Japan. The process was that I had to inform the UK Embassy that we were marrying, we would have an interview, then they would leave a notice up for 21 days, after which I had to go back to the Embassy to tell them that I still intended to marry. After that I was free to marry. You do not need to register the marriage unless she is coming to live in the UK, for which she will need a spousal visa. This is for Japan, but you are asking about the UK 'law' on this, so I think this is relevant. Good luck!--KageTora (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White out

I have a note from someone where the bottom part is whited out. I would like to see what is whited out, but the person signed her name on top of it. Is there a way to see what is under the white out without damaging the note? Anonymous--12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you turn the paper around and hold it up to the light it's often possible to see what is underneath what we in the UK know as Tippex. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a bit of wiki-surfing just informed me that the original correction fluid was called Liquid Paper and was invented by the mother of Mike Nesmith out of the Monkees. Extraordinary. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried holding it up to the light, but I'll try again with a better light. And I never knew that about Mike Nesmith's mother. Any other responses are welcome! Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 19:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One time, I used a simple eraser and it took it off cleanly. Do it lightly, though. --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a penknife to it and try to scrape it off? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not, as it would damage the note, but I'd be willing to give it a try! Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to xerox it. Set the xerox to Photo setting and try it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-trust

In the US, does the government have any way to legally prevent a company from getting so big that it's collapse would cause a recession or depression ? Certainly if they engage in anticompetitive practices an antitrust suit can be filed. And media companies can be limited by arguing that having control over too many outlets (newspapers, radio, and TV) infringes on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. However, if a company has no media outlets and doesn't do anything bad, can it be broken up just because it's "too big" ? StuRat (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US has the Federal Trade Commission (http://www.ftc.gov/bc/index.shtml). I would expect that went considering mergers/acquisitions they consider whether or not it is in the interests of the public for the companies to merger (or be acquired), but can't find definitive confirmation either way. ny156uk (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two troubles: 1) a company doesn't have to be very big to be "too big to fail". Neither AIG nor Chrysler account for very much of their respective markets. In the banking sector the failure of even a small bank can be catastrophic. 2) "Too big to fail" is often a matter of politics. In my humble opinion the US economy would certainly survive the loss of either GM or Chrysler, just as Britain survived the loss of it's car industry; but it would cause a lot of pain to a lot of voters, and all concentrated in one area. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the original question, I don't think so. Antitrust law is the only tool that comes to mind, and as you note, the company has to engage in illegal anticompetitive practices in order to merit drastic remedies like breakups. There is no US law putting a ceiling on the size or power of a corporation. Tempshill (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like one of those things that would require an act of congress; Rare enough to not have an official regulatory policy in place.NByz (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US antitrust law cannot prevent the organic growth of a company (even if that company eventually grows to monopolize its market). Antitrust law can only prevent anticompetitive behavior (which might lead to growth) and certain very large mergers (see Merger guidelines). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation tends to discourage startups, and thus favors bigness. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation also creates transaction costs, and thus economies of scale. —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest red light

In Marin County, California there is a narrow tunnel about a half mile long. It is so narrow that it has a single lane to service both directions. There is a traffic light at each end of the tunnel, which stays red for about five minutes to allow traffic from the opposite end to go through. For a minute or two both ends have a red light to allow traffic already in the tunnel time to exit. Are there other places in the United States with a similar set-up? Where is the longest red light located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.90.166 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawbridges will have very long red lights when the bridge is up, but that's not normally a regular, predictable thing. APL (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really fun when that tunnel is closed for repairs (like it was after the Loma Prieta quake); people instead get to drive on the edge of a cliff with nothing but optimism between them and the breakers far below. On the other hand, they don't have to wait for the red light to change. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Point Tunnel in Oregon, which no longer exists, was like that. There are also plenty of one-lane bridges and such around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel in Alaska. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Easter/Christmas road toll and the media

I don't want this to sound like a rant, but I have to give some background first. In Australia, Christmas and Easter come with various traditions. One of them is how the road toll is reported in the media. Leading up to the events, we're told that all the police are going to be on duty, and speeding/drink-driving/drug-driving/mobile phone-using/seat belt non-wearing drivers "will be caught". We're assured it's not about revenue, but the public are being given an incentive to drive safely, and arrive alive. That's all good. Then the deaths inevitably start happening. That's bad. What we get given, though, is a state-by-state breakdown, which is updated frequently. Newspapers have maps, with the state figures shown prominently. We're told things like "<state> has had its worst Easter road toll on record, with 17 deaths; <other state> has had only 3". Maybe the fact that we have only 6 states and 2 territories lends itself to this type of comparison; I doubt it would happen if we had 50 states, like the USA. But apart from that, I've always wondered who is interested in this type of information. Why would a person living in Tasmania (say) have any real interest in knowing the number of people killed in Western Australia (say)? At any other time of the year, reporting of road deaths is generally confined to the state concerned, not broadcast throughout the nation, unless it's something particularly horrific or record-breaking. (I've always regarded this daily (or even hourly, on radio) reporting of the state-by-state tallies and the national total as extremely ghoulish, but I seem to be a lone voice on that score because it's become such a hallowed tradition that I doubt any opinion I may express on the matter would ever have any effect.)

The other part of the reporting is that this year's figures are always compared with last year's figures, state-by-state and nationally. I've always wondered what makes whatever last year's figures were some sort of benchmark. What if last year happened to be particularly high; or particularly low? What does that comparison tell anyone? I'd have thought a better comparison would be with an average over, say, the past 10 years. But why compare this year's figures with any previous years at all? When fewer people die this year compared to last year, newsreaders have a happy face; and when more die this year than last year, they put on a sad face. They seem to treat this subject as some sort of contest.

So, now that I've veered too close to a rant, what I want to know is: Do other countries have similar media practices? -- JackofOz (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Ireland the road toll (does everywhere use that phrase?, its kind of odd) tends to be mentioned on the news after bank holiday weekends. I suppose its because the number of deaths are higher than at other times of year; with more people on the roads, making longer journeys. The statistics may be more readily available from the police, in an effort to raise people's awareness.Stanstaple (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the term "road troll" in the US, but I like it. "Armed bandits" also seems appropo (and if the reason for giving tickets isn't for "revenue enhancement", we can assume they will give all that money to charity rather than keeping it, right ?). As for the reason for state-by-state and year-to-year comparisons, it's because people just don't know if a number is high or low without some context. A dozen people died ? Is that normal or not ? (How would they know what normal is, without a basis for comparison ?) StuRat (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's why I suggest a 10-year average, not just last year's figure. What's to say last year's was normal? It may have been spectacularly low, or it may have been horrifically high. Just comparing this year's figure with last year's figure tells you nothing except whether this year is higher or lower than last year. You still don't know whether it's anywhere near "normal" or not. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the complaint that reporters and mass media news organizations are stupid and/or that they have the memory of a sand flea? Agreed. Tempshill (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there was a complaint implicit in my question, although that wasn't its main point. But since you've asked, I don't think it's down to either short-term memory or stupidity per se. It's more like total and absolute subservience to a media cliché (which is a form of stupidity): "We always present this information this way, we always have, and we always will, because ... we always have. We're not going to spend a single second asking ourselves whether it's useful or not, whether anyone actually wants this information, or whether there's a better way." -- JackofOz (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note in passing that the French phrase à propos (meaning 'on that subject'; anglicized as apropos) is not related to appropriate. —Tamfang (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we have the national road deaths figures that come out and a big thing is made of them. I've never seen this sort of "this <festive> period we saw X deaths, compared to last year where we had Y deaths" but certainly the UK media is very interested by road-death statistics (and i'd have to say quite rightly - whilst under 3000 (2008 saw 2,943 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/27/transport1) is impressive obviously the less the better. Comparing this year vs last-year is pretty common-place in every sort of media reporting and it's definitely questionable statistics-wise, but then they often use it to be able to produce a 'good' or 'bad' story - ultimately the long-term trend is less interesting (news wise) if it is only showing a 0.5% drop per annum. ny156uk (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely questionable statistics to compare the raw death figures for the Northern Territory (which has 221,000 people) with those of New South Wales (which has 6.1 million people). -- JackofOz (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off topic (sue me): what I object to in the British media is the way they instantly jump on a single death on the railways, demand an inquiry and the spending of millions of pounds on new safety features, insist that it shows the railways are not safe, all the while not seeming to care so much about looking at the root causes of deaths on the roads. There is a real kind of doublethink at work here. The media seems to think that deaths on the railways are somehow more serious, outrageous and even preventable, because of the perception that rail passengers are trusting their safety to some authority. The fact that road users are doing exactly the same thing doesn't seem to occur to them. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were particularly interested in assuming good faith among the media (not that you should, but it would likely be good exercise, like biking up a mountain... on two flat tires... with a large elephant on your back), you could say that they hope that the comparison between areas will provide a sense of competition. "Those beery swine in Tasmania had only three kills last year; no way we're going to exceed that amount! Come on guys, let's bear down!" Um, maybe. Matt Deres (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for asking, Jack, but do folks in Australia celebrate Easter by getting liquored up? In my neck of the woods, Christmas parties where the booze flows freely are common, and the accident rate does go up on the roads as a result. Easter celebrations, however, tend to focus more on the religious aspects of the holiday, or on non-alcoholic stuff like Easter-egg hunts and lamb dinners. (Or are you referring to the "spring break" phenomenon among college kids?) Deor (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's Easter, I forgive you, Deor. :) To many, it's a time of reflection, church attendance, and taking part in public professions of their faith. To many others, it's just time off, time to catch up with friends and family, go to sporting functions, go for a mini-holiday, etc. But to many others, it's just an excuse for getting pissed for 4 days straight (that's drunk pissed, not angry pissed). That's OK as long as they don't drive while in that state, but some do [1]. As you can see from the link, the police trot out another favourite cliché: "Drivers are just not getting the message", which is targetted at the tiny minority who drink drive, but is said to everyone, and comes across as if the actions of the tiny minority somehow make the entire community seem like a pack of irresponsible idiots who have to be lectured like recalcitrant school children. Re drinking generally: it would be quite unusual for any sort of social occasion in Australia, at any time of the year, not to be accompanied by more alcohol than anyone can drink. That doesn't mean that it has to be all drunk just because it's there, and most people know their limit, act responsibly, and there's no drama. Some others, however .... -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's a four-day holiday. For most people in the U.S. there are no extra days off work; it's just a normal weekend, except for the religious stuff (and parading down Fifth Avenue in daytime formal attire if you're Fred Astaire). Deor (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Good Friday and Easter Monday have been public holidays for many years in Australia. Good Friday used to be a day when newspapers were not published, sporting events did not happen, betting agencies were not open, cinemas and galleries/museums were closed - but most of these have now changed. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. it's the Fourth of July death toll that seems to get the most news coverage, with Christmas/New Year's Eve in second place (probably because the latter carnage is spread out over much of the month of December instead of being nicely confined to a period of a few days). Deor (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it from the writer's point of view. If you've just got a document from the government that lists how many deaths occur in each state, you can fill up more column space if you mention them all. Better yet, you can just take last year's article and update the numbers. APL (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(A little off topic, sorry) Here in the UK, the BBC does seem to have a particular obsession with the number of deaths in any incident. Shortly after the recent earthquake, the first thing the studio asked their roving reporter was something like: "can you confirm the death toll is 57?" Seems that no matter the incident, the numbers make the news, and comparing them to another similar incident (or last year) gives people a way to judge how "lucky" they have been to avoid death and destruction. Astronaut (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada we get death counts like this for Christmas/New Years, Canada Day, and especially Victoria Day weekend, where it is customary both to drive long distances (to cottages or campsites) and to drink extremely large amounts of beer, and inevitably many people do both and end up killing themselves and others on the highway. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting details. I'm getting the impression that Australia has its own unique tradition about this. It's become so ingrained that we even have reports, usually on Good Friday or Christmas Eve, that "No deaths have been reported so far this Easter/Christmas period". Having people die in road accidents is the norm for holiday periods, so when the norm hasn't started happening yet, that in itself becomes news. That sort of suggests that there's such a strong focus made about the "holiday road carnage" that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Easter weekend road toll period began at 4pm on Thursday and ends at 6am on Tuesday morning. Last year nine people died over the long weekend. In 2007, the toll was six. EASTER ROAD TOLL * 6 in 2007 * 9 in 2008 * 5 2009 (by last night)" and Motorcycle death on SH1 lifts Easter road toll to three . An Antipodean pasttime? Gwinva (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe we lead such mundane lives down here that the media has little else to focus on. We need to get out more - while somehow keeping off the roads. That should present an interesting challenge. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But where to go? We still shut down over Easter. (Which is actually quite nice. One doesn't actually need a newspaper, or a shop, or a cafe - or work! - every day.) Gwinva (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]