Miscellaneous desk
< February 15	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 17 >

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.

February 16

LHC

Why has all talk of the LHC died down? JCI (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately on 19th September a fault developed on a small number of superconducting magnets. The repair will required a long technical intervention which overlaps with the planned winter shutdown. The LHC beam will, therefore, not see beam again before spring 2009." says the site LHC links to. almost-instinct 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Earth didn't implode into a black hole? – 74 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't even have a chance to—it broke before it even got up to speed. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which means, when they do get it working again, we get to go through having every other question on the Science desk be about the end of the world again... I can't wait! --Tango (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just imagine if it doesn't go online until 2012. Then we can have two crazy theories merge into one. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They already were merged - there were plenty of people that thought it would take 4 years for a micro-blackhole to destroy the world. (For, as far as I can tell, no reason other than that 2008+4=2012.) --Tango (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they had yet another problem - they are now predicting that it'll be offline until September. SteveBaker (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They probably realized that they'd destroy the universe if they ran it and are trying to look for a way out without admitting they were wrong. Pesky scientists, always up to no good. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking said he would have hosted an End of the World Party when the LHC was turned on, but he was sure the press would pick it up, thinking he had been serious, and cause a panic. Tempshill (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have December 21st, 2012 marked down on my MSN calender as the end of the world. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind writing me a check, dated Dec 22nd, 2012? Just leave the amount blank, but include a letter authorizing your bank to tell me how much money is left in the account. Thanks! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, you've misunderstood my intentions. I plan on having a good laugh on December 21st, 2012 (and the 22nd, 23rd, etc.). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy

I'm sure I asked this question yesterday, but there must have been an e/c or something. Anyhow: I remember an MP in the House of Commons causing an incident by calling another member a "hypocrite" whilst in the house. The word was apparently considered very bad form and he had to apologise to the speaker. Is there a list of such words? Is "hypocrite" considered offensive in any other situations in the world? Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Unparliamentary language has some information on this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the perfect article. Hypocrisy must fall under the dishonourable/lying clause. Cheers! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this explains how the MPs try to insult one another without seeming to do so. This is always amusing to watch. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4511352.stm :

Yet the former Labour MP Tony Banks escaped rebuke for accusing Margaret Thatcher of acting "with the sensitivity of a sex-starved boa-constrictor".

He also once described - with impunity - the former Tory MP Terry Dicks as "living proof that a pig's bladder on the end of a stick can be elected to Parliament".

Ha! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a line in The Millionairess (not linked, because the link is only to the film, and I don't know if this line made it into the film) by George Bernard Shaw: "If I questioned your solvency, that would be a libel (sic). If I suggested that you are unfaithful to your wife, that would be a libel. But if I call you a rhinoceros--which you are: a most unmitigated rhinoceros--that is only vulgar abuse." Apart from GBS's confusion of libel and slander, a lovely line. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly the case in the Australian Parliament (which adheres to many of the Westminster traditions) that members can't call one another "hypocrites", "liars", "bastards", and so on. Not even "she is a stranger to the truth". That's describing the member themself, and is an insult to their assumed honour. But they can usually get away with describing their behaviour or their words - "what the honourable member said was a lie", "that was a hypocritical statement", etc. That's why Banks got away with it. Paul Keating was a master of this - he's famous/notorious here for referring to our Senate as "unrepresentative swill", and on another occasion he said some members were "like dogs returning to their vomit". But if he'd said they were dogs returning to their vomit, he'd have been made to retract. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I may say so, they're quite right in finding descriptions of behaviour - no matter how unsavoury or lurid (up to a point) - far more acceptable than attacks on people. Wikipedia has exactly the same philosophy, for good reasons. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keating was making a Biblical allusion (or quoting Kipling) with "dogs returning to their vomit". It's Proverbs 26:11 (I think) or The Gods of the Copybook Headings for the Kipling. I doubt even the Australian parliament would prevent a chap quoting Kipling or the Bible. DuncanHill (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, Duncan. I guess that's where the words ultimately came from, but I doubt he was quoting the Bible or Kipling as such. He was simply applying a juicy epithet to his political enemies. I'm sure you could find expressions in the Bible that would be unparliamentary if used other than as quotes. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "league table" of generating phrases which have passed into speech (that is, are used by people who have no knowledge of the source), it goes 1) Bible, 2=)Shakespeare & Kipling, and the rest nowhere. If someone uses a phrase that sounds both particularly choice, and like it's a "standard", chances are you can find it in one of them. DuncanHill

(talk) 17:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If you can find it, then I remember reading a list of words declared 'unparliamentary' in a journal published by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association intended for those working to support the Speakers and Presiding Officers of commonwealth legislatures. It was on the last page and appeared to be there partly for light relief of the officials at the expense of the Parliamentarians. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember, as mentioned in our article on Unparliamentary language is that Parliamentary privilege applies in most Westminister style of governments. Hence the reason that parliament needs to be self regulating and amongst other things, one of the reasons why calling someone a liar, bigot, et al is generally forbidden. In most other circumstances, if someone repeatedly calls you a liar or bigot without good reason you could likely sue for defamation. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try, but might not stop them. Of course, it all depends on how you define "good reason". - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is Southern California So Sunny?

The header says it all.--A.z888?z.a (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty low latitude and no large hills/mountains to the west of it, I think. Low latitude means the sun is more powerful, making it nice and hot, the lack of hills means you don't get clouds forming as the air is forced to rise to get over them. The west bit is because the prevailing winds are (south)west to (north)east. --Tango (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking. Right now we're having a massive storm. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean climate Pfly (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long do royalties last?

In the Screen Acting business, how long do trailing royalties last? For example, in my television market, Hogan's Heroes (now forty years old) still plays two episodes a day in the afternoon. Is Richard Dawson still collecting a check off them? If yes, anybody have the straight poop on how much he gets from each one?

Thanks! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Residual (entertainment industry) for some (although I think not enough) info. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]