Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 February 3

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 3

Golf

In golf, which is considered better: a lower aggregate score or a lower score relative to par? JCI (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your criteria, but almost certainly relative to par, as that adjusts for the variations in courses. Shooting a 70 on a standard course is quite good while shooting a 60 on a par-3 course is significantly less so. — Lomn 01:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A few inches of snow.............

(reverted question removal - discuss – 74  09:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Today we had about 4 inches of snow in the UK - decribed by the media at large as the worst in 20 years. Heathrow Airport cancelled all short haul flights and many others were cancelled or delayed too. London Transport failed to put ANY buses on the roads - railway crossing points froze and all "Spinal Train Services" into London were cancelled - major roads and motorway networks were totally brought to a standstill due to failure to grit and salt them despite accurate forecasts having been announced well in advance. Well - no surprises there then - I mean, which other country's rail bosses would dare announce delays due to "the wrong type of Autumn leaves falling on the lines" as they did a few years back? But the brightest star in the sky tonight was when the TV announcers proclaimed that the disruption today had cost the British economy £1.2 Billion????????????? I mean - the failure to anticipate and respond effectively is comical - but who on earth believes they can account for the resultant losses so accurately, and so timeously - and how?? No prizes for responses. 92.11.0.33 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This reference desk is for answering factual questions. Do you have one, or are you only here to rant? Algebraist 02:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually - and no offence intended - but if you had read my question properly you might have noticed that there is a factual question asked !!!92.11.0.33 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First question) It depends on the audacity of rail bosses which we don't have a measurement for. Second question) I don't believe it. Third question) They guessed. Dismas|^(talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S., in cities such as New York City, Atlanta or Chicago, they would not dream of shutting down the underground (Tube) system because up on the ground THERE IS SNOW!!!!! What justification for this abdication of responsibility was presented by the officials in charge of transit in London? Edison (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Abdication of responsibility", huh? Anyway, you may want to consider that more than half of the London Underground runs above ground. Assuming your statement on what other cities' transportation authorities dream about is correct, perhaps they have train and track technology that is better suited for running in snow, or have snow so frequently that it makes sense to invest taxpayer / passenger money in a large fleet of snow moving equipment, or they have fewer kilometers of track above ground, or have ground topology that helps wind blow snow off the tracks instead of onto them. Etc etc.

I live in a country with lots of snow, and cities have lots of equipment and employ lots of people to deal with it. Still, once in a few years there is a day with so much snow that there is not enough capacity to clear it immediately. It is hard to justify paying for that capacity standing by for the rare outlier events, even though it inconveniences people on those days. And it's not really a function of depth of snowfall alone; wind, temperature, and changes in temperature (first warm, then freezing = ice = bad for rail equipment) affect things too. 88.112.34.160 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make exactly the same point, this was the worst snow we've had in 18 years, I saw the gritters out in force days before it fell but the snow fell too quickly for them to cope. Far better to cancel the buses for a day than to risk serious accidents as they slid on icy roads. I personally would rather the capital's transport system came to a halt once every couple of decades than pay to have equipment and man power sitting round rusting in yards and twiddling their thumbs nearly every winter. As for the tube, only two lines don't go overground at some point on their route. Both were operating without problems. Oh yeah and I and everyone else I know got to enjoy ourselves for the day. Result! Theresa Knott | token threats 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Europeans may get snow days and enjoy their more leisurely lives, but we get the mail delivered on time. .froth. (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well first up you have to take into account that these days "The News" on the major UK TV channels is really all about entertaining and the accuracy of the news takes second place. It is also very selective in its output. The news that the London underground service was a blanket statement that required detail. It is possible parts of it were closed because the rails run above ground (bear with me US readers) but I would be extremely surprised if the parts under central London were closed. With regard to the financial estimate - this is completely absurd. How can anybody estimate, within a few hours, how much the disruption would have cost? I agree that it was a broad guess that will probably not be close to the truth but by the time someone has worked out a more accurate figure we will have moved on to the next episode of the worldwide doom and gloom, trivia show that is UK TV news and no one will update the accuracy of the reporting. Richard Avery (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The figure would have come from the Association of British Insurers who would use existing sophisticated modelling software and would cover insured and uninsured business interruption, building damage, motor damage, etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know very little about the London Tube, is it realisticly possible to run only the parts below ground? Reading a bit, it appears what tends to happen (which is what I would expect), it operates as lines. You would normally shut down an entire line. So if part a line is above groumd, this is likely to result in the closure of the entire line. Depending on the set up, it may be possible to only run part of the line that is underground, but if that is rare, it could be considered too problematic to do and they may not bother. Plus it may be questionable if running only that part is useful, even worse if the line changes from underground to overground relatively regularly (which part do you run?). If entire lines are underground, e.g. maybe the central line, then I'm guessing that line could be run, but it would be rather difficult for most people to get to the central line meaning even if it is running it may be of little use. I'm not quite sure when the problem happened, but if it was early in the morning then perhaps they didn't even have enouygh drivers if the drivers couldn't make it in and/or their trains were stuck in depots. Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A long time ago in Canada there was a quite popular magazine ad. A completely snow-covered landscape in early morning, a big snow-plow with the driver climbing into it. The only markings in the snow, a pair of tire-tracks leading up to a Volkswagen Beetle parked next to the plow. The caption, "How did you think he got to work?". Bugs really were good in snow too. :) Franamax (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The failure of the transport system in London was perfectly reasonable and is explained here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to BBC news yesterday, only the Victoria line was running normally yesterday because it is the only line that is completely underground. All other lines are overground for significant lengths and subject to the vagaries of the English weather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, since the soapbox is wide open here: maybe they can estimate the cost by comparing to the effect of previous transit interruptions? Ever had one of those before? Or per Kitty's only proper answer to your slightly incoherent actual question. And yes, snow is a factor on rail lines, even those Americans in Chicago will realize that, and any other American using a surface-rail system. And yes, when the "wrong kind of leaves" fall on the track, they form a slippery mat and you can't stop the trains - so yeah, there actually are some cases where it's smarter to shut down the transit system rather than risk killing a few hundred people on their way to work. The cost will be calculated in advance and the transit authorities will be well aware of the effect of their actions - they're paid to run a safe system. Franamax (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In more general terms, one thing to bear in mind is (as mentioned in a number of reports I've read) whether it's cost effective to spend all the money, time, resources and maybe land to prepare for a freak event is always an extremely difficult question to answer. To use a somewhat unrelated example, it's not unheard of for roads here in NZ to melt [1] [2] and evidentally the UK [3]. Coming from Malaysia, this obviously seems funny to me as it will to anyone coming from an area where high temperatures are relatively common (e.g. parts of Australia). Precisely why our roads can't stand such temperatures I don't know, but I'm guessing it's not cheap or easy to make a road which is able to both withstand and be safe in both freezing temperatures with ice, frosts and snow and high temperatures; and that also has good longevitiy. In Malaysia you obviously don't have to worry about making a road withstand frost etc. While it's probably possible to make a road surface that withstands both temperatures, the extra cost etc (evidentally the conditions [4] you lay the road surface also make a difference, it has to be warm and dry, the former obviosly being far less of a problem in Malaysia indeed the temperature 28C [5] which causes the Desert Road to melt could easily be the temperatures roads are commonly laid under in Malaysia) may be deemed not worth it. Bearing in mind as well you could easily make your road less safe in most conditions so even if it doesn't melt the tradeoff may be questionable. There is obviously always going to be argument about whether the right decision was made (isn't that what politicians and consultants are for?) but you have to remember it's nearly always a case of tradeoffs and they don't have the benefit of hindsight that you have when analysing a situation afterwards Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the London Underground, but the Washington DC Metro system has a great deal of track that is not underground -- nor are all the rail cars stored in covered areas. Snow and ice can clog the track, jam switches, cover the rolling stock, and make it harder for the Metro staff to get to work and remedy these things. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Living in Boston, where we typically get at least 4 inches of snow per week during January and February, this all seems quite comical. Today we will probably get 4 or 5 inches, in fact. Everyone gets to work or to school, the buses run just fine, the subways (also largely above ground) also run just fine. It is true that we have thousands of plows clearing the streets. Snow shovels await my partner, neighbor, and myself to clear the walkways and driveways after work. Still, the thought of a major city coming to a halt because of 4 inches of snow seems, well, comical. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't four inches that fell in London this week, it was at least ten. And, as noted below, London has not invested in massive fleets of snow ploughs, for very good economic reasons. All in all, there was nothing to condemn about the closure of the London transport system. And even if there had been failures, what of it? So you can't get to work one day – big deal. I would have thought that was a positive effect, not a negative. Take a day off, lie in bed, relax! --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Great Blizzard of 1888 snow and ice accumulated to 40-50 inches (102-127 cm), but the New York City elevated trains continued to run, even though horse-drawn surface vehicles could not get through. They did not have snow plows running on the elevated tracks. Switches require sweeping on any rail line unless they are heated. With 4 inches of snow the trains should be able to clear their own path with no problem, without any special equipment. In the deep south in the U.S. there is a snow of this size every few years, and they bring in road graders to clear highways. Many cities also have blades which can be put on the front of city trucks. It was comical to hear a BBC newsreader going on about how they didn't want to risk putting snow plowing blades on the front of buses. I have never heard of any city trying that, since a truck loaded with sand or something heavy is needed to have the traction to push a mound of snow off the road with the blade. Edison (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If 4 inches of snow fell where I live, Los Angeles, people would die. A couple million people with 0 experience driving in snow and absolutely no infrastructure to deal with it, believe me the city would come to a halt.-- Mad031683 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It snowed sufficiently (and at low altitudes) in Granda Hills and Northridge in the early 1960s to make a snowman, but 4 inches would be generous.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While some might consider it "comical" that London is struggling with a few inches of snow, it is quite understandable. No city invests in ploughs, gritters, sand supplies, workmen, shovels etc, to cope with worst-case-scenario once-in-twenty-years-events. People who have rarely driven in snow are not going to leap in the front of a bus and drive a hundred people round uncleared streets. The fact that other people on the world find your unusual situation normal does not make it any easier for you to cope with it. Unseasonable or untypical conditions always have an effect: witness the floods, fires, blizzards, heat waves etc etc which we hear about all over the world. Few places can prepare for every eventuality: just the likely. To Nil Einne: your comments about the Desert Road were interesting (but not too unusual on a smaller scale: Auckland tarseal melts all the time, hence steep streets are in concrete. See also Baldwin Street in Dunedin.) It won't be the 28° air temperature which is relevant, but the direct sunlight: the road surface reaches a very high temperature. (Something for the science desk?) Talking of the Desert Road: a good study in snow plough economics. Too much snow and they close the road. And National Park. And Napier-Taupo. Which, um, leaves only New Plymouth if you want to go from South to North. Gwinva (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about the surface thing indeed I think I read it somewhere but I didn't mention it because it didn't seem relevant, the primary point is, while there will be some differences, it's rather likely the surface reaches a similar tempature in a tropical place in Malaysia or parts of Australia a lot of the time. In general terms the surface temperature is likely to be fairly correlated with the air temperature when we're talking about similar conditions. Obviously the Desert Road has a more desert like condition however, it's not that uncommon to have fairly cloudless days in most tropical places so I would expect that of conditions that are relevant they are relatively common. (Also as we both mentioned, it happens elsewhere in NZ.) Note as well it wasn't me who said any surface temp over 28 degrees C is hot enough to melt the Desert road, it was the source likely because it's correlated so you can resonably guess if the surface temperature is over 28 degrees C then the surface will be hot enough for the road to melt. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right (I didn't mean my ramblings to come across as doubting you). There are different types of seal, and presumably they respond differently to temps and so forth. (In fact, my OR based on roads near me shows me that chipseal "melts" fairly easily, while other asphalt roads are more resilient.) What astonishes me is that the Desert Road seal is not designed to withstand hotter temps. (See also the science desk link.) Gwinva (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The figure of GBP 1.2 billion is calculated by multiplying the GDP for one day by the percentage of people not working[6] --193.172.19.20 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Last year it snowed in Jerusalem, (it snows there every three years or so) and being over 5 cm., it shut the whole city down. They don't know how to drive in snow, and most people don't have winter clothes. They used tanks to deliver food to the local grocery stores. Phil_burnstein (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable Africa event

What's some major conflict that occurred in Africa in the mid-to-late '90s? I just need a couple of suggestions. 75.169.200.40 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Second Congo War, the Somali Civil War the Second Sudanese Civil War, the activities of the Lord's Resistance Army, Allied Democratic Forces, and Uganda National Rescue Front. Algebraist 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Eritrean-Ethiopian War, First Liberian Civil War, Algerian Civil War. Of the above listed, the ADF and UNRF weren't particularly major, comparatively speaking. For more examples, see List of conflicts in Africa. - BanyanTree 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you both for the kind suggestions (and the great resource, this ref desk)! 75.169.200.40 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the big one, the Rwandan Genocide. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the relevant conflict there is Rwandan Civil War, since genocides aren't usually lumped in as a "conflict", though I take your point. - BanyanTree 06:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Civil War was in the early 1990's, and had ended before the Genocide began. StuRat (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Factual Information concerning Water Consumption

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/sci_nat_water_trends/html/2.stm

According to the graphic linked to above, number 2, the average United States citizen uses 600 liters of water a day for drinking, cooking, cleaning, etc. Yet the average citizen from the U.K. uses only 200 liters a day? Am I reading it right? Are we Americans that wasteful compared to other developed countries?

I hope not. Thanks in advance, The Reader who Writes (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If its in BBC its probably true. I wonder how much of that US consumption is for agriculture and livestock production and industry vs say for teeth brushing, toilet flushing etc.? hydnjo talk 04:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that watering lawns is the diff. In the UK, in places where they have lawns, it likely rains enough to make watering unnecessary. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a matter of dirty clothes, unbrushed teeth, dirty dishes, and stinky bodies in countries which use less water.Edison (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

An article which I unfortunately now can't find states that people in the US wash far more than people in other developed countries. In the US it is considered essential to shower at least once a day, and usually several times. In other places several times a week is fine. BUT there is no improvement in health and no reduction in odour brought about by the extra washing. In other words the 'cleanliness' is a cultural thing; we're taught to do it, like some sort of purification ritual, and feel unclean if we don't. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

People who feel that not showering and not wearing clean clothes does not affect their odor may be fooling themselves. You habituate to your own smell. Even in the U.S., a fair percentage of the people have a smell of dirty hair, dirty clothes, and plain body odor, if you are within a couple of feet of them. Edison (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on how the numbers are calculated. If we start with all the water that is treated and piped, and then subtract what is used in industry, business, and agriculture, we can choose to call the remainder "domestic usage". Divide that by population, and we arrive at per capita domestic usage. That will include car washing, toilet flushing, gardening, swimming pools, and no doubt other water-consuming activities I haven't thought of. The amount required for a healthy life (personal cleanliness and food preparation) is a bucket or two a day. The amount required to sustain a Western lifestyle is much higher. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But when you take out the industry and business to arrive at a "domestic usage", you are eliminating a lot of water that is used by a "citizen". You are taking out all the water that is used by a person to wash their car at the car wash, to flush the toilet at their workplace, wash their hands after flushing that toilet, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 09:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very suspicious of the US figure: another site gives 280 l per day PER HOUSEHOLD for the USA[7]. And I found someone quoting 367 litres per day per household for the UK[8]. The breakdown of usage looked fairly similar for both countries. I think the BBC figures must include industrial/agricultural usage, and are inaccurately captioned. It may also be the case that the USA, as an exporter of agricultural products, is effectively exporting water used in agriculture to other countries, water which may be included in these figures (using water in products which are then exported saves other countries from using their water in products). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My water company's bill [suburbs of Washington DC, July through September] claims that the typical daily consumption is 70 gallons per person, roughly 265 liters, though my household per-person use is lower. Note that this includes all usage ("water and sewer," as the bill says). There's a single meter coming into the house, so no good way to separate drinking/cooking from other use. We have virtually no lawn or garden, so the amount used for watering outdoor plants is nil. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether the figure includes water for (private) swimming pools; I know very little about their intricate workings but I guess they're probably more common in (certain parts of) the US than in the UK. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your responses; I had not thought about watering lawns. Many houses, particularly in suburban areas, use mini irrigation systems to water their lawns daily here in the States, while in the U.K. that is probably unnecessary.

Most people I know personally shower once a day.

Private pools is another area where water is probably used more. I will research it further.

I imagine that the USA being so extensive that the water consumption varies massively from area to area. For example im guessing that people use a lot less water in the south than the north due to varying precipitation and temperatures. Also i guess that whilst garden lawn watering things may be used a lot in places such a California they are probably used less in, for example, in the New England Area. Finally the lawn watering thingys are used a lot here in the UK as well, particularly in the late summer when the ground can become very dry during heat waves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.105.108 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, The Reader who Writes (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable interracial marriages

Loving v. Virginia, an American legal case, and Seretse_Khama, first President of Botswana, have inspired me to seek out other examples of historically significant inter-racial marriages. I am not looking for the children of such marriages (e.g. Barack Obama or Bob Marley), but for the partnerships that in themselves changed history. The more international the scope of the answers, the better! BrainyBabe (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How historically significant should it be? Kofi Annan is inter-racially married, but his wife is not historically significant. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The article on interracial marriage is a good starting point, it has some notable examples included. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I should have indicated, yes I read interracial marriage. It lists a few such marriages, but not many. I am looking for examples that set precedents, that changed the climate if not the laws, that stirred up international incidents such as the Khama affair (when Britain allowed apartheid South Africa to dictate its policy). We have an article on first white child. I am not exactly looking for first interracial marriage, but perhaps something along those lines. Desdemona and Othello, who risked all for love? I don't see the former leader of the UN in that category. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a borderline answer. Bob Carr's marriage to a Malaysian-born ethnically Chinese wife did not of itself make or change history. But John Brogden's tasteless comments about her (which came to light at the same time as a completely unrelated allegation of sexual harrasment) spelled the end of his political career, and almost cost him his life (he attempted suicide, but survived). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And Adrienne Clarkson, the Governor General of Canada 1999-2005, who is of Chinese ancestry, is married to John Ralston Saul, who I presume is WAS (but not necessarily WASP - he might be a WASC, WASJ or WASA for all I know. Probably not WASM, because that would have attracted particular comment, not that there's anything wrong with being M). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The current GG and her husband are also an interracial couple. I was also surprised to learn the other day that Roger Ebert's wife is black, although neither of these are particularly ground-breaking or notable. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat mythological level, there is the relationship between Virgin Mary and God. Both the parents and their offspring seem to be of encyclopedic significance. Of course, the label "interacial" may be inappropriate and the historicity of the event is debatable. There is no debate, however, that Christianity has profoundly influenced human history. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the point, isn't it: nobody cares now about the race of the spouse of a public figure such as a head of state or head of the UN. They might care about the race of a public figure, but know they have to express it in coded terms (e.g. Hilary Clinton admitting some of her followers wouldn't vote for a black person), but I cannot imagine anyone saying "Don't trust [member of my race, member of our country's majority race] because he/she married someone of another race." Yet such did happen, not all that long ago; it was called Miscegenation and there were laws agin it. The sort of examples I'm looking for are ones where someone who might have become head of state,or otherwise significant, was thwarted because of (or eventually triumphed despite) the opprobrium attached to an interracial marriage. (Jack of Oz's lead is intriguing, and just the sort of thing these refdesks can excel at: obscure international examples.) BrainyBabe (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Electronic keyboard stand/stool height

I've got an electronic keyboard here. I'd like to use to whilst sitting down as though it were a piano. However, the only stand I've got for it is meant for stage use, ie. standing up. So, what type of height should I be looking at for a new stand, do you have any recommendations for a specific stand, and what type of height should I look at for a stool? 24.76.160.236 (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just measured my Yamaha Clavinova, which is set up along with its stool to be played as you describe. The top of the stool seat is 48cm from the floor, and the top surface of the white keys is 74cm from the floor, so I'd guess you need a stand that can produce this effect. I'm 168cm tall and I can play it comfortably, as can my youngest daughter who is more like 150cm. Perhaps visit your local piano shop with a tape measure and conduct some experiments? Karenjc 15:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

These guys give a range of about 28 to 30 inches for the keyboard height - it looks like they're talking about to the top of the keys, so your stand would be slightly lower. For the bench/stool, I found results ranging from 18 to 20 inches - one article I found is at ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Choose-a-Piano-Bench&id=869072, but for some reason that site is blacklisted so I can't link. --LarryMac | Talk 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, why not get a stool which has an adjustable height, so you can tweak it until it's just right ? StuRat (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironing boards are often used for keyboards.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And, since they have adjustable heights, you could adjust the height of the keyboard instead of the stool. That does add a new wrinkle, doesn't it ? StuRat (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Film Effect

Sorry for the very poor adjectives but this was the best I could do. Viewing soap operas during the day, I noticed that the show looks as if it was "real' or 'crisp' whereas looking at a movie in a movie theater, it doesn't look the same. What is this effect called? Also, my friend recently purchased a very expensive plasma television and it appears to make every movie in HD appear as the same effect as the soap operas. It looks more 'real' and 'crisp'. Do you know the reason for this? --Emyn ned (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the US (at least) soap operas are recorded onto video tape as opposed to film. This definitely looks different than film when shown on a television screen. You can also see this difference in commercials for Sonic. As for the plasma/HD effect, I'm not really sure. Certainly any HD picture is going to look better than that on a standard def set. Are we talking about one of the high def DVD formats (HD-DVD or Blu-Ray)? --LarryMac | Talk 15:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also a movie in a cinema is a projection, you are looking at an image projected onto a surface rather than a monitor or television, quality will be lost to the increase in picture size. Lanfear's Bane | t 15:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This question has been asked before, there's a good set of answers here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Coaching

I have never met a coach that was worth a single second of my time. Do you know any coach that is somehow valuable? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is borderline: The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. Also, I am assuming that someone taught, or coached as it were, you to read, write and type. All pretty valuable. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the question was written in a way that would encourage debate. I am not against regular teachers. My question relates more to the phenomenon 'life coach' - communication coachs, intercultural coachs, relationship coachs, motivational coach... When did it start? Is that a new fashion? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, your question was written in a way that would provoke and argument, not encourage debate. Taking an extreme position pretty much always does that.

In answer to your question, yes there are many coaches I have known that have taught me useful things - how to row, how to do math, how to set up physics experiments. I've never had cause to use a 'lifestyle' coach so I can't comment there.

Let me bring up another point. Many of us have acceptable skill levels in dating, communication, motivation etc. For those a coach in those areas would be useless. But other people may not be as skilled as they would like. For those people a coach in those areas might be useful. Because those coaches are not useful for most people doesn't mean they are never useful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a Bullshit! episode on this. While there may be some valuable "coaches" out there, there are lots who will leave you with nothing but an empty wallet. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to find certain coaches worthwhile because they helped me get where I needed to go. Edison (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only a token amount are able to instill that type of drive. They are fleetingly few, in fact. And those who can help are often too busy. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A "life coach"? I've actually barely heard the term and don't know what it's supposed to mean myself, though I will say two things. 1. When you say things like "relationship coach," they can be very important for people with challenges, but only in specific areas - a mobility instructor, for instance, or for someone with an autism spectrum disorder, a person who can teach one how to interact with others. 2. I think a "life coach" sounds like just a fancied up way of describing a mentorship.

Having been in unofficial mentoring situations, as a mentee, I can tell you that a good mentor does teach one how to perform well in a profession, let's say (since that's where I've experienced it), but that's because there is a level of personal connection, where the person is *in* the field you are entering, and wants to help you to become as good as if not better than them.

So, in short, if I'm right that a "life coach" is a fancied up mentor, perhaps the problem is that the person you met didn't have the same interests or personality, and therefore you just weren't a good match. Good mentoring programs try to match people with common interests.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of a pair of tutors who were good enough to consistently score the highest percentage student results in the exams we worked towards I can say with authority that the number of good tutors/coaches, etc. is vey small. Lots and lots jump on the bandwaggon, but can't cut the mustard. (How's that for mixed metaphors!) Choose very carefully. Best is to locate past students - a good tutor will be happy for you to do so. And word-of-mouth is usually pretty reliable.90.9.82.22 (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)petitmichel

Thanks for the answer, but I have to clarify a point: life coaches are definitely not teachers that help you with some specific difficulty. They are also not psychologist or any other regulated profession. They are also not mentors that help you with the first steps in a profession. In the link coaching there are plenty of examples of " 'life' coaches": motivational speakers, intercultural training, personality development...--80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the examples, but I guess I'm still not too clear on where the notion comes from myself. I mean, motivational speakers? To me, that's a guy who comes in and gives a company a pep talk. And, if they draw from personal experience, may be able to influence someone to do better. Probably because I've never encountered any of these.

However, I will say this to close - if these people are truly going around caling themselves that and there's no licensing, or even organization, then that probably answers your question right there. There are some good ones around, I'm sure, just as some speakers have something to say while some just throw a bunch of cliches around. However, when a group is unlicensed and unmoderated, then it is logically going to be far easier for bad eggs to get involved. That doesn't mean there can't be good ones; it just makes the good ones harder to find.Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the inventors have to go back to school?

With education as it is it seems that theoretically the inventors/proponents of something that later is taught in schools would have to go back to school to learn what they thought up in the first place, because education doesn't seem to allow anyone be 'qualified' in something if they don't learn it strictly from educators (i.e., no self-teaching is possibly permissible). 212.183.134.208 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See also my question on the Ref.desk a couple of days ago: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Autodidact:_how_to_prove_that_you_learned_something here. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In short, this is generally false. Needing the proof of qualification (i.e. the exam or certification) is generally distinct from having to attend classes. Most such processes allow an applicant to simply take the final test if they feel qualified. — Lomn 16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a self-reference paradox, however you may invent something or come up with a good idea through a cumulation of teaching, experience, exploration and any other large number of factors. If you come up with a viable invention or idea, you don't necessarily have to prove your background knowledge or qualifications if the idea works. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Experience is often accepted as a substitute for qualifications. It is often difficult to get experience without the qualifications, but if you do have it (for example, by being around right at the beginning of a field before there were any qualifications in it, which would include the inventor) then you shouldn't have a problem. --Tango (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And what about getting grants without formal qualifications (degrees and the like)? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:42, 3 Feb

This line of questioning sounds like the questioner feels he is not receiving credit for his accomplishments and self education and blames the educational system. How about just going out and starting a companyor inventing things like drop-outs Steve Jobs , Paul Allen, Michael Dell and Bill Gates did in recent times or Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla did in the 19th century? Did anyone tell them they had to go back and get a college degree to be taken seriously? Their "self education" was self-evidently adequate for their needs. Grants? Phooey! Who ever gave them grants other than investors? Edison (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice the recent examples you gave are all businessmen, not technical experts. So, is it still possible in technical fields ? For example, if someone (let's make it a kid) lacking any formal education were to develop a Theory of Everything, and all the math and science behind it were perfect, would they be able to get it published in Nature or Scientific American ? StuRat (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

At least some of them started as technical experts. Bill Gates, for example, first got started with his skill at programming. His success from there is more due to business talent than programming talent, admittedly, but few people can make lots of money without business skills (and those that do often end up losing it all), regardless of their other qualifications. I'm not sure what Nature's requirements are, but I doubt they require anything specific about the authors of a paper - the paper should speak for itself. If it is significant, novel and passes peer review, then they should accept it. --Tango (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But would they even read a paper submitted by a "nobody" ? StuRat (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that the review process in many science magazines was anonymous.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is anonymous, but I'm not sure if every article is sent to peer review. I know in the humanities in many journals the editor decides whether it is even worth reviewing (to save the reviewers the time of reviewing totally inappropriate articles). If you submitted something totally bizarre with no credentials and nobody to speak for you, there's a chance that the editor might not really understand it his or herself, and not send it on to peer review. It probably varies by journal. --140.247.249.208 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. I think there is some level of screening before peer review (to decide if the subject matter is even relevant to the journal, if nothing else), and that may well not be anonymous. Peer review certainly is - if a journal doesn't do anonymous peer review, don't submit anything to it! --Tango (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A large number of kooks think they've got the next big thing when they're really just delusional. So if I was an outsider trying to "break into" professional science, I wouldn't just submit a paper, for fear of being put on "the bottom of the stack". I would go to a local university and try to convince a researcher there to sponsor or vouch for me.

That's a good idea anyway, If I couldn't find a single researcher that I can convince of my theory, it'd probably be rubbish. APL (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But how would you get a researcher to even listen to your theory ? StuRat (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Srinivasa Ramanujan comes to mind... TastyCakes (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But, again, his contributions were a century ago. I'm asking about today. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the process would have to be something similar to what Ramanujan endured. The person would have to find support from some noted expert(s) on the topic that could recognize and confirm the presumed brilliance. Indeed, I think it would be much easier to recognize someone that's made a scientific breakthrough than come up with a "million dollar idea". The former requires only the attention and recognition of experts, the latter requires the confidence of investors and customers, which to me seem much more likely to be impacted by a lack of education or experience. TastyCakes (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

About a decade ago, er, maybe two, a young girl got published in either Nature or Science for her experiments regarding remote healing. She performed double-blind experiments, noted limitations, etc. and so the paper was deemed worthy of inclusion despite her not yet being in high school. I doubt that's a typical occurrence, but I would be disappointed to find distinguished journals basing their publishing decisions on the background of the writer rather than the quality of the work. Matt Deres (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In almost all cases if you are some sort of prodigy and autodidact and want to break into mainstream science you need a sponsor—somebody that is respected (and not ancient) who says, "I've checked this guy out and he is worth your time." Otherwise people will put you in the crank pile. Even if you have a degree you need someone big at your back if you are proposing something totally unintuitive. Einstein probably would NOT have been taken as seriously as he was from the beginning had not Planck looked over his work and said, "dang, this is really interesting stuff, people should pay attention to this" and really acted as his big-name sponsor. --140.247.249.208 (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And there's also speculation that Einstein's wife, Mileva Marić, may have made significant contributions to physics, but wasn't taken seriously because she was female and had dropped out of college (to have Einstein's baby). StuRat (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You get Honourary Degrees being handed out to people who have shown they have excellent knowledge in a field but perhaps not formal education. There is a difference between being qualified and having the best knowledge in the world in a subject. The qualified person has passed formalised testing procedures - usually which exist purely to ensure that potential employers/consumers can verify that the person's proclaimed knowledge/skill-level is at a level widely agreed upon as being acceptable. The knowledge-expert does not have that formal testing/structure which business/consumers place such trust in, so the task of showing their knowledge to be equal is much harder. Sometimes such qualifications are required to ensure that the consumer is guaranteed a minimum level of standard, sometimes it is merely an aid to differentiating between individuals. After all a degree in Business does not make you (of itself) better at business than a non degree holder, but it does guarantee a level of education and formal-training for any potential employers - whereas the task for the non-degree holder will come down to proving their experience and skills show they are equally (or more) capable than a degree-holder in that field. ny156uk (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In Outliers (book), Malcolm Gladwell discusses how little academic support and acknowledgement Christopher Langan has received for his work, despite his obvious intelligence and comprehension of material. I don't know how valid any of his work is, but it does show that not having the qualifications can close a lot of doors. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To the original questioner : What situation are you imagining where it would be better to have "Took training course on operation and theory of (DEVICE)" on your resume compared to "Invented and hold several patents on (DEVICE)"? I can't imagine any situation where it would be better to have the training. APL (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for all businesses in all countries - but in the computer software business in the US and UK, your degree is what gets you your first job - your experience gets you every one after that. From that first job on until the retirement, people only really look at what you did in actual jobs SINCE graduation. When you are a complete unknown - your formal education is all that employers have to go on - it's really tough to figure out how good someone is will be at a job they've never done from just an interview. You need some kind of empirical test of their abilities - ideally, you want a test that let's you whittle down the 100 candidates who applied for the job to the three or four that you're going to interview. Hence, formal degree programs with recognised results are very worthwhile to the company doing the recruiting because they offer a benchmark. You may think that's unfair to the self-educated - but private businesses are not charities - it's about the highest probability of getting the staff you need. I'd rather have someone who is definitely going to be in the top 20% of people than someone who MIGHT be in the top 1% - but might be totally useless in practice. Everyone hates to fire someone for incompetance.

HOWEVER - once you get through the door and you have a few years of actual work behind you, it doesn't matter a damn what some silly piece of paper from a university says - we now KNOW whether you can do the job or not. Hence the idea of sending technologists back to school is unnecessary. Their skills are largely automatically updated as a part of the jobs they do.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Animals crossing from Spain to Portugal

What is the law in regard to taking an animal (more specifically, a donkey) from Spain to Portugal over land? Thankyou 80.35.203.22 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Just pointing out, so that people don´t think i´m breaking rules here, i´m not looking for legal advice or opinion, but just the law that exists.

I believe you asked a similar question back in October and didn't get a good answer. Have you considered simply calling the Portuguese immigration office and asking them? Here's their site. --Sean 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The immigration office typically regulates the entry of persons. Since both Spain and Portugal are part of the Schengen Agreement, there is probably no immigration control along their common border. However, there may be regulations concerning the importation of livestock, such as donkeys. The agency that typically handles the importation of goods, such as livestock, is the customs office. Here is the main web page of the Portuguese Customs Office. Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I did ask a similar question a while ago but not the same... The link is more than enough to get me started... Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.203.22 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just do it the Portuguese way: get in the donkey and cross the border. Who cares if there is a stupid law regulating that? Specially in the inland regions... laws are for the crooks in Lisbon. Replace Lisbon with Madrid and you'll get the Spanish view of the issue. 194.65.1.253 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A hell of a question...

(Moved to Science Desk.) StuRat (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Association of British Insurers who would use existing sophisticated modelling ....

In order not to offend Algebraist's sensitivity on the subject of only using this desk to ask factual questions, I will do exactly that, but first, to put this into factual context, the headline above is Kitty Brewster's response to my earlier question (the only one that actually attempts to offer a factual answer to my OP above) about HOW the figure of £1.2 Billion was so quickly arrived at yesterday in assessing the cost of the disruption to the UK economy following our few inches of snowfall. Thanks Kitty - but HOW could it have been "existing sophisticated modelling" when this morning, the media had the cost at £3 Billion - a big increase methinks? Do the modellers update their databases on a daily basis, and what criteria would be included? I noted that one newspaper reported amongst other losses, the lost sales of sandwiches around the country. I counted at least 2 question marks herein Algebraist. 92.20.131.1 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The insurers have methods which factor in (among other things):

• loss of productivity
• loss of business
• resulting loss of business contracts
• interest based ont he one day on debt that would have been paid off
• extra costs for heating, lighting etc.
• extra council costs (roads, rail etc.) & lost revenue
• damage to property
• childcare

I'm sure there are more. From another point of view, it is a simple calculation based on the cost of a bank holiday (which does include much of the above). It's very complicated, because it's hard to distinguish who has actually lost the money: if you asked Bob, he'd probably say he had a day off (perhaps) or took his holiday. Either way, he's not lost out. I think the 3 billion was for the week should the weather continue, rather then just yesterday, or hype due to effectively adding in losses twice (it's easily done). Here might be useful. I'm no expert though - there are people better qualified. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

£1.2b to £3b sounds like a pretty small revision to me, it's a factor of just over two. Just getting the order of magnitude right so quickly seems pretty impressive to me and would require pretty sophisticated means. --Tango (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think they've revised it at all - sources like here actually use the 1.2bn figure and then expand it to cover today and tomorrow, for example. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And that source actually says where the number comes from:

"It made the calculation based on the assumption that 20pc of the workforce or 6.4m people were off work on Monday because of the weather conditions, and that an average bank holiday costs the UK economy £6bn."

--Tango (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Having read that I added a short section to my original answer, but the fact is the 'bank holiday cost' is itself a complicated calculation based on many of the original factors. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, many of which aren't directly transferable to snow days - bank holidays are known about long in advance, that makes a big difference. --Tango (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Insurance is the management of risk. It is supported by the provision of capital and in the event of a massive loss, that capital will be eroded and therefore the price of insurance will rise following the loss. At the same time, because of the loss, it may be that the demand for that insurance product will increase (as for example, a bombing campaign in the city of London or the knocking down of the World Trade Center). So you ask whether the price is adjusted on a daily basis, and the answer is it might be taken into account if the loss is sufficient. £5bn however, is trivial in the context of insurance. Another factor that is taken into account by the businesses wanting or not wanting insurance, is their size, so that, for example, a small sandwich bar in leadenhall street will not buy insurance against the possibility of bad weather or business interruption or terrorism, and McDonalds is unlikely to buy such insurance because it is large enough to self-insure, ie to spread risks against a hit in any particular area being absorbed by the whole group. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on the similar question above above, the calculations for £1.2bn losses have nothing to do with sophisticated computer models; they can be done on the back of an envelope by a small child. They are done by multiplying the GDP per day by the fraction of people not working on that day. These figures are not from insurance damage caused by the snow.[9] --193.172.19.20 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually GDP per Annum for the UK is $2.13 trillion according to this site (2007) 0r $2.21 trillion according to Wikipedia, which equates to £1,445,439,740,000 or about £4 billion a day - the loss of £6 billion is at least based on the fact it's not a Sunday. You couldn't do that on the back of an envelope. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can work out how many non-Sundays there are in a year on the back of an envelope... I suspect the bank holiday figures (which is what they used) are calculated properly using all kinds of sophisticated nonsense. --Tango (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia backup

To what degree is Wikipedia formally backed up? I think most of Wikipedia's servers are still in Florida, and the wikipedia article seems to support that, but are offsite backups of the articles made every so often to protect against something catastrophic? If so, how far off site? Are they in different cities/states/countries? TastyCakes (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

*deep voice* We are protected. We are invincible. You will never destroy the Wikipedia. All your base... -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about official backups, but I do know that anyone can have a copy of the entire thing at any time (Wikipedia:Database download), although it is a bit large. So there are probably a couple hundred copies of the database floating around. Of course, if, in an emergency, WP had to use someone's database that they downloaded, you would permanently lose all the edits from when the person backed it up to when WP got it set back up. But you would have the majority of the stuff. flaminglawyer 06:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

With the kind of coin WMF burns on its servers I'm sure they can afford an off site backup or two. .froth. (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)