Miscellaneous desk
< February 5	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 7 >

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 6

Does hard work pay?

There is a Chinese saying that says: "No one who can rise before dawn 360 days a year fails to make his family rich". Is it true?--88.0.97.125 (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a relationship between effort and reward? All things being equal, yes. All things are not always equal, of course, but that's not a good reason not to put in the effort, since it is still the most likely way of achieving reward. I think you should take it as a metaphor rather than literally. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a greater correlation between ability and reward, or focus and reward (i.e. focusing on overcoming the specific barriers to a reward) but some effort will probably be required. The saying seems to indicate that only effort will bring reward, this is certainly not the case. You can be very focused and have a certain ability that will get you a reward without much effort, and you can be unfocused and lacking in ability and all the effort in the world won't get you the reward. In depends upon what the reward and what rich mean, but effort itself won't do it. Also, you can probably get up at midday as long as you go to bed very late! Atom Eater (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A European proverb like that is "the early bird catches the worm". An aphorism or more literary version is: "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." So, early or late, stay enthusastic and not to give up. Agree with others that focus is important. I may be wrong because having trouble finding information, but Chinese founder of ~~Aladding online auctions~~ might not sleep much. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found him! It's Jack Ma of Alibaba Group. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say laziness can make people wealthy, too. Let's say that ancient Chinese man got up before dawn each day to get buckets of water for his crops. If he got sick and tired of all that work and instead figured out how to dig irrigation ditches for his crops, he may have gotten richer than carrying those buckets all day long. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That did it for ex-farm boy Henry Ford according to a documentary, but his career reads like he didn't exactly go back to sleep after the machines kicked in. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The early American diplomat and writer Benjamin Franklin published Poor Richard's Almanack for many years, and it was stuffed with proverbs. One that is commonly attributed to him (although previous versions exist) is "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise." BrainyBabe (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early bird catches the worm. But I don't like eating those. :-)76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the Gaelic proverb that says the man who's known as an early riser can afford to sleep late. --- OtherDave (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good sentiment, of course, but you asked whether it is true, and it almost surely is not. Another way to phrase it would be "every person who has ever risen before dawn for 360 days in a given year has made his family rich". Given that there are many farmers throughout the world who rise before dawn every single day, and that not every single one of them is rich, the statement is false. --Sean 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there a relationship between effort and reward?" Of course not, just look at the bankers!--Artjo (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there's still a relationship, it just happens to be an inverse relationship. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody told me once that there was a study that measured popularity of US presidents vs the amount of time they spent actually working and the relationship was inverse: the more time they put in, the less popular the president. Of course I don't have a copy of this supposed study so I shall leave it as hearsay ;) TastyCakes (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could easily have cause and effect the wrong way around there. An unpopular president may well work more/harder in response to try and rectify the situation, whereas a popular one may feel more able to relax. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the popular ones work on their charisma. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think George Bush may have thrown the whole relationship, if it ever existed ;) [1] TastyCakes (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The early worm gets caught by the bird? Mark Twain says that getting up with the birds is highly regarded, but if you train your bird well, you can get him to sleep as late as you want. Phil_burnstein (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the oldest country?

I understand that this question may be complicated by the definition of country, but using the current standard/layman definition (if there is such a thing), what is the oldest country still in existence? Was there an older country that no longer exists? Thanks DeoGain (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the definition as "countries with the earliest constitutions", there's List of constitutions by age, but there are definitely countries older than the San Marino constitution in 1600. China, for example, would be one of the older ones. Useight (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China is probably the country with the longest (though intermittent) history of existence as a coherent state. (Note that there have been several periods during which China was divided into a number of states and/or dominated by foreign powers.) If you are looking for the country with the longest continuous record of existence as a political entity, Denmark, probably dating back to the 8th century, is a good candidate. San Marino traditionally dates back to the 4th century, but there is no record of its existence before the 10th. There were of course many older countries (in the sense of political entities controlling a coherent territory) that no longer exist. Ancient Egypt is arguably the most ancient such country for which we have records. Egypt's history has had longer periods of foreign domination than China's, but if you don't mind breaks in the history, then arguably Egypt is the oldest country. Marco polo (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Ancient Egypt and History of India India wins. I think Iran would come in second. If you don't mind name changes the Sudan has probably been populated the longest. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? India has been a unified independent country for a grand total of 60 years now. Algebraist 11:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually consider France to be one of the oldest countries, having been in existance since the 5th century. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Ethiopia is one of the oldest countries in the world. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has records of civilization going back to about 7000BC, which would probably qualify for the oldest, although its difficult to qualify all of its exsitence as a politcal entity.Obviously a lot has changed since then. Livewireo (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not dig through the archives, but this question comes up all the time. The problem comes with defining what one means by "country". If we are just going on continuity of government then China and India and Iran are all pretty much out, as those states are less than a century old. Even as "this plot of land ruled as a single state more or less continuously" is kinda sketchy; as noted China and India are often cited as being really old; but India was actually quite rarely a unified state; and China (see Warring States period, among others) was frequently divided up into little states, or under foreign (Mongol, European) domination. I'd say that Japan (in Asia) may have as good a claim as any, and Ethiopia (in Africa) (noted above), since it avoided being colonized, has been a more-or-less continuous state for a very long time. In Europe, most of the modern countries didn't get going until the 9th century or so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburg concertos No. 3 - 2. Adagio - What key?

Anyone knows the musical key(s) of that piece? No info in the file or in the article is being provided... Thanks, --77.4.100.7 (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it's headed for E minor to me. That would correspond with the key of the concerto, G major. This little "intro" is meant to be the seed of an improvised passage. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article you linked to says, the 2nd movement is just written as two chords. These are A minor (1st inversion) folllowed by B major, so apparently leading to E minor, as Milkbreath says. However the 3rd movement actually launches off in G major (the relative major). The clip here has the harpsichord player improvising on each chord on turn while the strings play the sustained chords. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The digestive system

To what extent can the digestive system be damaged through poor eating habits? Like for example, not eating all day long and then eating a big meal at night to make up for the starvation. Will that have disastrous long-term effects on the human body? I'm not looking for medical advice, I'm just curious. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect that to have a negative effect on the digestive system, but it could cause problems elsewhere in the body. For example, blood sugar levels could drop to dangerously low levels during the day then skyrocket after the big meal. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is referring to the human digestive system, but in addition there are many animals, not only those that hibernate, that go for long periods without eating. Migrating whales, for example, go for several months without any substantial food intake, and then gorge on Arctic or Antarctic krill during their feeding season. The whale lives off its blubber and its metabolism is fine, but cetologists have not satisfactorily explained how the gut handles this feast-or-famine situation. Imagine a factory producing its yearly output in four months, and then mothballing the plant for the rest of the year! How do the gut bacteria survive with no digestive products moving through? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The human digestive system is an extraordinarily robust arrangement for the most part. Fasting for periods seems to have little effect on its long term function. Millions of Muslims seem to suffer no ill effects from the fasting during Ramadan. I'm not sure that gorging takes place at night, but it seems to be sufficient evidence that no major harm occurs. Richard Avery (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, breaking the fast involves a nightly feast for a month, as much food as the household can afford. Not great for border-line diabetics (those who have been diagnosed can get medical exemptions, but the pious don't always take advantage of them). BrainyBabe (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following EC: As our article malnutrition indicates you'd also be more prone to develop obesity. Your body will be unsure when to expect the next meal and will try to stock up for the next lean spell. Another problem may come from any latent undiscovered food intolerance. With massive amounts of e.g. allergens or offending components (examples Iron metabolism disorder,coeliac disease arriving all in one go instead of distributed all over the day you'd have a better chance to develop symptoms. Binge eating disorder lists several possible complications arising from this type of behavior. Even if you didn't start doing this as a result of an eating disorder you may and up with one as a result. There have been reports of Helicobacter pylori infections in patients with eating disorders. This site doesn't distinguish the type of eating disorder, but does list a number of effects on the digestive system [2]. GERD has also been reported as a result of binge eating. Ones Gut flora would certainly be differnt from normal and beneficial bacteria might be overworked by the overload and starvation pattern. Incomplete digestion due to food consumption before sleep may cause flatulence. Despite claims of health benefits by proponents of Intermittent fasting and other Dieting methods, a regular mixed diet of food in small to moderate amounts generally proves to be the healthiest option in the long run [3]. Adverse effects can take years or decades to show up and be devilishly difficult to diagnose. I remember a report on a senior patient diagnosed with Alzheimer's until a physician hit on vitamin deficiency brought on by decades of following a vegetarian diet. If you do go ahead with this type of diet you should at least move your big meal to the morning [4], [5], [6] 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying a building in Budapest

What is across the river from the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest 220.244.97.69 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As in any city, there are a variety of buildings across the river from the Hungarian National Museum, looking at it on google maps with the Wikipedia functionality turned on - you could be thinking of the Citadella or the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Nanonic (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What buildings are across the river from the Hungarian National Museum in New York City? – 74 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum is not on the river, so I'm having trouble understanding the question. Can you narrow it down any? --Milkbreath (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving planes around on the ground.

I was at an airport the other day and was watching a guy move a jumbo jet into a maintenance hanger. I was thinking, surely this guy can't be a trained jumbo pilot because if he was he would be massively over qualified if all he did was move planes in and out of hangers all day. So my question is, are there people who are licensed to move these things around on the ground (but not fly them), or would this guy have been a fully trained pilot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.90.100 (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. He's most likely not even employed by an airline, but rather by a handling/ground support operator. See Aircraft ground handling and Aircraft marshalling. See this ad for qualifications required [7]76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was he driving it from the flight deck, or was he towing it with a tug (small tow vehicle)? The people that tow planes around certainly aren't pilots. --Tango (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was in the plane, on the flight deck, he drove it across some open land then a tug hooked up to it and took it into the maintenance area. He stayed in there while the tug moved it. I watched him get out later and he wasn't dressed like a pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.90.100 (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he probably wasn't a pilot. If he's not flying anywhere, he doesn't need to be one; I'm sure he needs to be qualified to drive the plane on the ground, although whether that's a legal or practical requirement, I couldn't tell you. It's a little like sitting down in a parked car's driver's seat and turning the wheel of a car (making engine sounds is optional -- nothing illegal about that, even if you don't have a driver's license. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just moving a plane around on the ground isn't very hard at all. He would just need to be able to spin the engines up and direct it. Dismas|^(talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engines? Who needs stinkin' engines? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the way, the people who do the corresponding job for trains (moving them around in the yards, but not allowed to drive them outside of the yards) are sometimes called hostlers. --Anonymous, 03:55 UTC, February 7, 2009.

mortars

what are the latest developments in sighting systems in mortars??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhupendragusain (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked around at Janes? --Mdwyer (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life insurance exam

In the US, a medical exam is often required when applying for life insurance. I'd like to know if this exam typically includes a drug test. Speculation is welcome if you can't say definitively. ike9898 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect so, yes. Probably a urine test, but possibly also a blood or hair follicle test. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside - and possibly a cautionary note - forgiving that I live in the UK - where 20 years ago, during such a mortgage protection insurance medical test, I was found to have raised blood pressure, and subsequently raised cholesterol, both of which conditions have since been successfully managed by drug therapy, diet, non-smoking, low alcohol intake, active lifestyle and generally healthy habits - what a bore eh? The reward? Awareness that both conditions are now controlled, managed and monitored by my health professionals and myself. The price in insurance terms - pecuniary penalties imposed and extracted by insurance actuaries? Why - because I am now required to sign the Uberrimae Fideii clause whenever I sign up for health, life or travel insurance - and if I lie, I get cover, but if I am subsequently found out, I go to jail/gaol. My point is - what about the big fat slob who sprawls over 2 seats on the plane next to me and guzzles his way through enough food and drink to choke a pig, and who smokes 20 ciggies as soon as he's out of the terminal and heads straight for the bar for another bucketful. Oh yes I hear you say, he is sure to have had medicals these past 20 stones (years) and has been perfectly honest with his insurance questions about his healthy lifestyle - NOT. But he gets fully protected at a fraction of the cost I am made to pay. Whatever they find in your body will be held against you for ever. Good luck anyway. 92.20.48.243 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out it seems mostly irrelevant when you talk about health or life insurance since it is rather unlikely in most countries you're going to get either without one. The big fat slob next to you either doesn't have life and health insurance or pays for whatever effects his lifestyle has on his health in his premiums. Honesty doesn't come into it, insurance agents are not dumb and so rely on customer honesty as little as possible. It's only travel insurance where you usually are not going to need an exam if your are under a certain age. Also at least here in NZ, many insurance agents allow you to exclude a pre-existing condition from your travel insurance. So you're still covered for most other things, e.g. if your luggage gets lost, your flight gets cancelled, you are injured or unable to continue your travel due to anything unrelated to your high cholesterol etc and you don't pay extra. You're not covered for any problem your high cholesterol causes but in most cases they're only a minor proportions of things that could go wrong which is one of the reasons providers don't bother to screen for them (but they do raise the risk profile enough that if you have them and are aware of them, it makes sense for them to charge you more). And controlled high blood presure is automatically covered by most travel insurance in NZ anyway [8]. Besides personally if I was a fat slob like you describe, I would have regular checkup so would already be aware of most problems my lifestyle was causing anyway so it would be irrelevant. And yes, regardless of how you became aware of a health problem you would have to be honest about it. E.g. if you have a heart attack while travelling and your insurance agency is going to come after you if they find out you were already taking medicine for it and didn't tell them. It's not simply a matter of honesty but the fact insurance agents are generally not dumb and will make sure your were honest with them when you file a claim. So all in all, I don't really see why the exam is going to cause problems for you beyond the fact they are an understandable compulsory component of most insurance where your health makes a big difference to your risk profile. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for life insurance, but Australia seems to be one of the few countries where any pre-existing medical condition or lifestyle cannot bar you from getting private health insurance (it also applies in Ireland the Netherlands, and some U.S. states). We have a community rating system, under which it's illegal for a health insurer to refuse insurance on such grounds (and a whole host of other grounds). And it's even illegal to impose higher premiums for these reasons. The flip side is that there are waiting periods before you qualify for any benefits. It's 2 months for everything (except accidents that happened after you took out the insurance; those that happened before fall into pre-existing), and 12 months for obstetric conditions and pre-existing medical conditions. See Health care in Australia#Insurance or Health insurance#Australia (they're more or less identically worded; I wrote both of them). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]