Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 16

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.

July 16

AP courses

Is it true that if you take enough of them, and go to the right college, that you can skip a year or two of college? --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, no. Selective colleges, such as the U.S Ivys, do not care what you did in high school. They demand four years of exorbitant tuition paymnts. You might get to take advanced courses instead of introductory courses. At a lesser college, you might get to save college tuition. Edison (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, generally yes they do. Most schools offer credit for high scores on the AP exams (usually 4's or 5's; sometimes only 5's). Not just higher placement in a course sequence, but actual credit towards a degree. You should check with the admissions office of the schools you are interested in attending; but the OP is right. With the right combination of AP exams, depending on your major, you may enter college with enough credits to qualify as a second-year student. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

At Harvard, for example, AP scores can allow "eligible students to graduate from Harvard College after only six or seven terms of enrollment in the College or, if accepted, to enroll for their fourth year in one of the master’s degree programs."[1] I personally received course credit (at a slightly less prestigious state school) for my AP scores in Physics and Calculus. It would take a very motivated and smart high school student to get enough high AP scores to skip a whole year, but it's definitely doable for most colleges. —D. Monack ^talk 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit on the claims that US Ivys allow you to graduate early with high scores on APs, per recent experience of a family member. They will do anything to get the 4 years tuition payments. Edison (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, There are 4100+ colleges in the U.S., and 8 Ivy League schools. Your family's anecdotal experience at a single one of these Ivy League schools notwithstanding, AP exams do get you credit at nearly all U.S. colleges. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to AP courses, I had enough credits to enter college (a state university) as a sophomore and wound up graduating in 3.5 years. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I can vouch that Princeton also allows students to graduate in 7 or 6 semesters if they have enough AP credits (4 and 8 respectively, although I don't remember what the required minimum score is). See the "Advanced Placement" and "Advanced Standing" sections here [2]. I don't think many people do this even if they qualify, since it makes it much harder to fit in all your major requirements and still take other classes that might interest you, but I do have a friend who graduated in 3 years. Rckrone (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My son (who is at UT Dallas) will be able to graduate a year early as a result of AP courses he did in high school. (He actually graduated high school a year early - so he'll be done with his degree TWO years early!) However, he's having to pick up some community college courses during the summer vacation - which don't count for credit hours but do allow him to gain the prerequisites needed in order to take some of the more advanced courses that he needs for graduation. So, yes, it's definitely possible in at least ONE college! However, that's certainly a question you'd want to ask the college before enrollment/admission. My kid went to one of the best high schools in the USA - and it's possible that AP credits from that school are somehow "more valuable" than those from other high schools - but I kinda doubt that. So check with the college - they are usually very approachable when it comes to questions like that. SteveBaker (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As of last year, Yale University didn't give you course credit for APs. Good scores (5's) can let you skip introductory courses, but that just means you take more higher level classes. Presumably that hasn't changed. However, most schools do give you course credit, and (with enough AP credit) will let you out in 3 years. Plasticup ^T/C 12:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to counter, Edison's rant. Here are the policies for the Ivys: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Penn, and Yale. Some classes you do not receive credit for (merely a waiver) and since students can receive credit for some AP test results it seems unlikely that the schools are merely trying to gouge students out of extra tuition monies. But to get back to the OP's question, yes, most schools give you credit if you receive a high enough score (usually a 4 or 5 at better schools). Whether you can parlay that into graduating in 2 or 3 years depends on many other factors, including your major (graduating with a degree in engineering is likely to take longer than a degree in psychology on average), the schedule of your required classes (some schools have unwieldy prerequisites which hinder your progress), how flexible you are in your class scheduling (do you want to merely fulfill the requirement or take a class that interesting and/or useful), your willingness to overload/take full semesters, etc.--droptone (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you for the incredibly detailed response. Its definitely more than I could have asked for. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the specific requirements of the school. With my APs I was able to skip a few otherwise mandatory courses at my non-Ivy-but-very-well-known school, but they were all very general (e.g. basic "can you read and write" courses, and my SATs let me skip my "can you add" math requirement). There's not a WHOLE lot of benefit in doing so in my opinion. College isn't a race, and graduating early doesn't actually impress anyone. (I did it and now feel it was pointless and that another semester of courses I just was curious about in would have been a whole lot more interesting, fun, and useful.) The real advantage to APs is not that you get to skip college courses but that colleges want you to have taken them — they help you get into school more than they help you get out of it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter updates

Social networking websites are a minefield. I've heard that it is bad form for your Facebook and Twitter updates to mirror each other, but why? And if it is indeed advisable to make them distinct from one another, what kind of content best suits each one? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirrored updates being inherently "bad" is baloney. Even if your livelihood depends on social media, there's a very good argument that you ought to have all your content available in as many places as possible rather than requiring a consumer to hunt around. "Check Facebook and Twitter" doesn't sound so bad, but what happens when it's "Check Facebook and Twitter and MySpace and LiveJournal and LinkedIn and Flickr and YouTube and ThisThing and ThatStuff and OverThere...."? Lunacy.

However, for 99%+ of users, the correct answer is "put content where you like." — Lomn 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it's bad form at all. There are apps specifically designed to update both statues simultaneously. I suppose that if your Twitter status has lots of Twitter speak (@username, #hashtag) it may be confusing to your Facebook friends who don't tweet. At worst, it just seems like it would be redundant though.

Facebook doesn't have a character limit so it lends itself to longer posts (although that may also be considered bad form) whereas Twitter is more succinct and set up for conversation. In the end though, if someone has such a problem with your status on whatever site, screw em. It's easy to unfollow someone on Twitter and it's easy to hide updates from specific users on Facebook. 164.156.231.55 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

are common law and case law the same?

or does common law include case law and something else? would that explain how wikipedia has two different articles on both? i don't understand the differnce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.48.51 (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Case law exists in all legal systems, it merely refers to the body of legal precedent established by court rulings. Common law refers to a legal system unto itself which places "Case law" as legally binding. Other systems, like Civil law such as Code Napoléon, do not count case law as "legally binding" and instead only hold "codified law" as legally binding. It should be noted that almost no system is purely based on "common law" or on "civil law" but exist on a continuum between the two extremes. That is, even civil law systems base their codes on long-standing legal precedents and traditions, and even common law systems do write things down which codify expected legal norms. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Even the U.S. Constitution makes reference at some point to "suits at common law". I'm no lawyer, but as I recall, case law can be overridden by legislation, just as legislation can be overridden by constitution interpretations and new federal laws. That gets into the states rights issue, which is still a significant can of worms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you also explain to me the difference between civil law and statutory law? 117.0.48.51 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the same difference - statutory law is law written down in statutes, civil law is the legal system based primarily on statutory law. --Tango (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The confusion might be that "civil law" usually refers to laws covering suits, vs. "criminal law" which refers to laws covering crimes. Civil cases are usually Person A vs. Person B. Criminal cases are usually Government Entity (whatever level) vs. Person C. Also, in the USA, the term "statutory" seems to be used more in connection with laws passed by the states. Federal laws are theoretically also "statutes", but the term doesn't seem to be used that way. That again goes back to states rights and constitutional law. There are only certain things the federal government can legislate, i.e. the things that are defined in the constitution, which is admittedly a pretty broad list, thanks to the interstate commerce clause and the equal protection amendment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point - civil as the opposite of common and civil as the opposite of criminal are completely different things. --Tango (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to summarise:

1. Legal systems can be divided into civil law system and common law system. The first comes from the European continental/Roman tradition, the second comes from the English tradition. There are other types, such as "socialist legal systems", but civil and common are the main ones.

2. Within any legal system, there are case law and statutes. The first is legal principles developed on a case-by-case basis, the second is laws set down by a public authority, such as parliament. Whether one is in a civil or common law system makes a difference as to the roles played by case law and statutes.

3. Within any legal system, all the laws can be divided into civil and criminal. The first deals generally with private relations between people, the second is about offences against the public or the state. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

civics

what makes the government nondemocratic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.123.97 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How about, disenfranchisement, corruption, and gerrymandering for some examples?

The Economist publishes a Democracy Index. You can look at the references to that article to find the questions they ask to determine how democratic a country is. Note the four big questions they ask:

1. "Whether national elections are free and fair";
2. "The security of voters";
3. "The influence of foreign powers on government";
4. "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how picky you are, republican (not "Republican") governments circumvent a great deal of direct democracy. Living in the state with the longest constitution in the world, much of which is composed of amendments passed via referendum to settle what ought to be legislative matters, I'm in favor of many "nondemocratic" government concepts. — Lomn 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not picky at all. The word "democracy" is often used to describe the U.S. and other countries with similar government structures, but generally we are a "representative democracy", or "republic", meaning that we elect legislators to make most of the laws. In a true democracy, every law would be decided by direct popular vote. A referendum is an example of pure democracy. The other extreme is dictatorship, in which the laws are decreed by the dictator. The problem that starts arising with republics is when the minority party feels disenfranchised (e.g. the Republican part in America) and begins to cry "taxation without representation", which is a falsehood, but it sounds snappy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The various root words provide some clues. Democracy = people rule. Thus, a republic qualifies because we elect the legislators. Technically, the legislators rule, but they can be voted out, so they are ultimately accountable to the people. Monarchy = one person rules (i.e. dictates). And so on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's that diagram showing how republic and democracy are unrelated concepts? (edit to add) From Republic: "A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy." All becomes clear. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What diagram? The two are related. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence my added comment, where I realised that you were using 'republic' in the exclusively American sense to mean 'representative democracy', rather than to mean 'not a monarchy'. Here is a version of the chart, as created by Mwalcoff in 2007. Some of the countries may be out of date.

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Nepal

Mwalcoff 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

86.139.232.168 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nepal is a democracy. It's also no longer a monarchy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought at least one country would be out of date. Could you suggest a replacement? 86.139.232.168 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(Deindent) Brunei? 94.168.184.16 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Our article on absolute monarchy has Vatican City, Swaziland, Brüno, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia and Tonga. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Liechtenstein. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, the infobox in the article says it is a parliamentary democracy. Does that need changing?

New version of chart:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Vatican City

How's that? 86.139.232.168 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy says Unusual in a time when many nations are moving towards decreased monarchical power, Liechtenstein has moved towards expanding the power of the monarch; the Prince of Liechtenstein was given expanded powers after a referendum amending the Constitution of Liechtenstein in 2004.. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be stated that popes ARE elected, not by the "citizens" of the Roman Catholic Church, but certainly by the cardinals present. After all - technically - the US president is elected indirectly. Only a lunatic fringe would argue that the USA, therefore, is a non-democratic entity. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The pope isn't elected by the citizens of the Vatican, though. Algebraist 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If Liechtenstein voted the Prince more powers, I'd say that is democratic. After all, what is democracy if you can't vote to give away power? Prokhorovka (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It means you were democratic, not are. Hitler was "elected" as well but that doesn't mean Germany continued to be democratic under his rule. Duh. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. In this hypothetical, they were democratic up until the point that they ceded power to a monarch. At that point they would become a monarchy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is the Vatican City doing in that last table? The very idea that the papacy is hereditary is patently absurd. Googlemeister (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about being hereditary? See our article on Monarchy "A monarchy is a form of government in which supreme power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, who is the head of state, often for life or until abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state."[1] The person who heads a monarchy is called a monarch. It was a common form of government in the world during the ancient and medieval times." Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kings of Poland were elected, but they were still Kings, and it was still a monarchy. Same with the Holy Roman Emperors. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The monarchy of Malaysia is elected to this very day. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Elected or rotating? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

green architecture

can anyone tell me from where did this green architecture concept and sustainable building concept originated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.129.8 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The earliest buildings were intrinsically sustainable - ie pre-industrialisation - mud huts etc. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[3] suggests that the movement has its origins in the green movements of the 1970s

The origin of the green architecture movement stems back to the green political movements during the 1970’s and 80’s.

Though there have been 'back to basics' movements before such as the Arts and Crafts Movement 83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of these concepts go back to vernacular architecture. Your library may have a copy of the classic "Architecture without Architects" by Bernard Rudofsky, a great book 45 years after its publication. Unfortunately, the pictures are in BW. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DTC partiticpant number of TDWaterhouse.co.uk

Does anybody know what the DTC participent number for TDWaterhouse.co.uk is please? 5036 is the number for TDWaterhouse (Canada) but I am not sure if it is the same for TDWaterhouse.co.uk. Thanks GreenBlog (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They would probably fall under the European subsidiary's care [4]. See if you can find them there. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

touring Hudson bay

Dear Wikipedians:

Do you know of any traveling agencies offering economic tours of the Hudson Bay area in Canada?

Thanks.

70.29.25.172 (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article, Tourism in Canada, which states that Churchill, Manitoba is a popular tourist destination on the Hudson Bay. Wikipedia generally does not give commercial endorsements of any kind. However, WikiTravel has some free free information on the topic. (WikiTravel is not affiliated with Wikipedia). You can also consider commercial search engines, which will have a dearth of advertisements to help you out. Nimur (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A dearth? You mean, a shortage of adverts?DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh!! My vocabulary is not up to par! Clearly I meant a plethora of advertisements [5]. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone that he has a plethora and find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora! Nimur (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The cheapest, simplest way to get to that area is to go to Moosonee. It's technically on James Bay, rather than Hudson's Bay, but it's cheaper and simpler to get to than Churchill. Here is a link to the town [6]. It's only accessible by train by Ontario Northland out of Cochrane. (If you are rich you can fly in). Ontario Northland will organise the whole trip, out of Toronto, for you if you like. If you are looking for the true wilderness experience there are tour companies that will drop you and your canoe off in the wilderness (usually some place where a rail line crosses a river) and let you paddle to Moosonee. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the ever-reliable wikipedia, the Hudson Bay Railway runs passenger trains directly to Churchill three times a week. (My dad used to go there to shoot rockets off. He said it was cold and dark.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Travel to sub-Arctic Canada is generally expensive. The train fare to Churchill, Manitoba is not cheap, and there are no discount airfares available. It's possible to drive to some towns, but it's a mighty long drive. When the aim is to actually "tour Hudson Bay", i.e. see more than one location along its shore, it quickly becomes prohibitively expensive. There is no land transport or roads between coastal cities, no regularly-scheduled maritime travel during the brief season when the waters are navigable, and distances are great. Your best option is chartering a small plane (a bush pilot) to take you around, which is relatively easy but quite expensive. Everything is generally quite costly up north, including food and lodging. --Xuxl (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR - My experience with hiring bush pilots in the far north counter-indicates you on price. It's often easy to get a one-way flight for $50 to $100, depending on your location and destination. If you're going to a place with a semi-regular scheduled flight, it can be very easy to set up a flight on-the-spot in exchange for cash; a 24-hour notice seems to be standard; and a telephone call a week in advance is almost always sufficient if you have special schedule needs. Nimur (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. They are quite helpful and I know now why almost no travel agencies offer any tours up there. 70.31.155.202 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Why not just go to The Bay?  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Confidence??

What does a customer service or a sales agent needs to do while servicing the customer over the phone to sound confident and gain maximum rating in the customer survey sent..is it knowledge, politeness/courtesy/positive words etcetc? anyone please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A lack of shame in doing something patently absurd, I suppose. See drinking the kool-aid. Vranak (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes customer service "patently absurd"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with the phones. Telephones are absurd. Vranak (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vranak, that's sort of a silly mentality. The overwhelming majority of issues can be solved with a simple telephone call. This saves time, fossil-fuel expenditure, and money, for all involved parties. Of course, certain customer-service issues do need an in-person visit; in that case, a telephone call may be an unnecessary, mandatory first-step; but to service the maximum number of people more effectively, that is an acceptable tradeoff. Regarding the original-poster's question, I think the crucial issue is that teh service representative must actually be able to address and solve the issue. Courtesy is helpful; effectively solving problems will trump just about everything else. I did a google-scholar search, and found some articles: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes, (1991); and Delivering quality service (1990). Because this is an economically interesting topic, a large body of industrial and academic research has been performed; you can search it with Google Scholar. According to the latter source, the crucial element is understanding the gap between customer-expectations and the realistic things the service representative can actually accomplish. Nimur (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that makes me silly then. Vranak (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand your comments. Are you saying someone should be ashamed for trying to help their customers? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If they're a sales agent:

Sell the product that the customer needed/wanted - not some crap.

If they're a service agent:

identify and fix, or arrange for the problem to be fixed.

Question for the OP- if my house is on fire and I ring the fire brigade - what do you think would make me more likely to rate the service I received from the fire brigade telephone response teem more highly?

a. Confident manner, b. well spoken, c. sounded knowledgeable about fires, d. got the fire put out.

welcome to Bullshit Castle.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think you sound confident, the traditional way of improving is to take some public speaking classes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Servicing" is what a bull does to a cow. Edison (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm and clarify the above point to the original poster: a person can "service" a machine (perform maintenance on it) and a male farm animal can "service" a female farm animal (have sex with it) but I cannot think of any context in which a person would "service" another person. A sales agent "serves" a customer. (NB: The noun form is correctly "service", so you could also say that the agent is *providing* service or *performing a* service, but the service must always be a thing, not an action.) This is meant as helpful advice to improve your already very good English, not as criticism. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As a jokinging pointed out above ie "welcome to bullshit castle" in the world of business you can indeed service a person, or any other sort of nonsense, I would guess that the poster is already aware that an alternative non-standard dialect of english is used in business talk (see Business speak)83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So, dear pedantic (and incorrect) 93 and 83, what is the sales agent serving? The customer? "I served the customer a chicken dinner". "I served chicken to the customer". However, before criticizing someone for using a term which, according to Google gets 114,000,000 hits, and which is the official term for vast number of jobs and offices, you might want to read what the term means. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you what would make me highly rate a customer service agent: Taking each call like you are the individual human being you are and not an automaton reading from a script. Nothing is so sure to alienate me as when you call up customer service and the people literally sound like there is an overseer with a whip standing behind them ready to flay their backs if they deviate from script that must be followed to the letter on each call. One of the funniest Saturday Night Live skits I can remember (David Alan Grier (guest host) with Will Ferrel and I think Cheri Oteri was in the skit) was where they were the news anchors on a nightly news broadcast and when the teleprompter breaks, they are so lost they descend into savagery in minutes and ultimately end up cannibalizing each other. I feel like that's who I'm talking to when I ask some customer service agents a question that's not predicted and answered in their booklet of answers to read from. There's always this ominous long pause and then there's the absurd (also stock) speech they give when they don't have the answer before putting you on hold to go talk to someone who actually knows something.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My two bits. I have to deal with something over the phone about every week. For me the first thing to do when I call a customer service line is to get past the automatic system and talk directly to a real person. If that person is able to answer my question, solve my problem or perform the service I am looking for with confidence and speed, then they are a good agent. I usually prefer the agent to be spunky and lively rather than brain-dead and bored with their work, and if they don't stutter and squirm and don't have a clue as to what to do (or whom to forward me to) then they should probably be doing something else.

Another thing: using scripted conversations with customer service is still a rarity over here - however scripted calls are usually the matter when people call you to advertise services or goods.

An example: I was calling a transport company with a rather unusual affair about a month ago. I called a general number I found written on the facade of their building, and the lady I talked to patched me through to another one, who then gave me another number. I was patched through or given further numbers four times. Each time it was a woman, and each one of them was fairly confident about what she was doing and who I was supposed to be connected to. I liked that. However in the end, when I reached the person who could have helped me (I was denied help, albeit in a friendly manner), she sounded bored and basically pissed at life. That left a bad impression overall. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

tallest US buildings

I just read an article about Sears Tower. The article states that the Sears Tower is the tallest building in the US at height of 1450 feet. I was curious about the height difference between Sears Tower and the Empire State Building, so I downloaded the Wikipedia reference article for the Empire State Building. In this reference article, the height of the Empire State Building at the tip of its tower is listed as 1453 feet which is 3 ft taller than Sears Tower. To what height is the Empire State Building measured to arrive at a number that is less than the total height of the building, and thus make it shorter than Sears Tower (now Willis Tower)?

Thanks for your help.

Patric Monteleone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodiexpl (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the image to the right suggests that comparing the height of the Sears Tower, not including the aerials, with the height of the ESB, including the spire/aerial, would yield similar numbers, and is probably the problem here. Our article says the Sears Tower is 1730 ft at the pinnacle. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The rankings depend on the criteria applied. This article List of tallest buildings in the world shows the different 'criteria' it uses and the ranks accordingly. You can see that the Empire State is smaller in all criteria applied. The difficulty comes about with 'spires' - some are considered integral, some are seen for the height-gaining hunks of metal that they so often are. ny156uk (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) When comparing structures, it is always important to see which height is actually being measured - free-standing structure; human-occupied building space; tallest physical object attached to the building; etc. These different definitions of "building height" are the source of much confusion; to some extent, they are intentionally obfuscated, as building designers are jockeying for "tallest something" while imposing the minimum architectural constraints. Nimur (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such building as the "Sears Tower." Edison (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe everything they tell you. Next you'll be saying there is no such planet as Pluto and no such street in Manhattan as Sixth Avenue. Bah, humbug. --Anonymous, 04:53 UTC, July 17, 2009.

Edison is correct. The Sears Tower has just been renamed the Willis Tower. Just Google "sears tower rename" - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there is an attempt to have the building known by the moniker "the Big Willie". Big Willie--SPhilbrickT 16:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not likely to be used in legitimate news sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous and Sphilbrick know that; they are objecting, Chicago-style, to the renaming. A renaming of Soldier Field was famously defeated recently — though it is apparently not a famous enough defeat to be mentioned in the article. Tempshill (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If only they could have been as successful with Comiskey Park...or should I say, US Cellular Field... ugh. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Moby Dick

what specis was the whale in moby dick? please please answer my question. it has been driving my poor stroke ridden brain crazy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.5.169 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Our Moby Dick article suggests - reading between the lines - that it was an albino sperm whale - in part based on Mocha Dick. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gas Leak

Does natural gas show up on gas detector machines like other gas would since natural gas is odorless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.250.112 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gas detectors for combustible gasses don't work by "smell" they work by oxidizing the gas using some kind of catalyst and measuring an electrical resistance change in the catalyst when that happens. So, yes - they work just fine with Natural Gas. SteveBaker (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know which would best pick up a natural gas leak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.250.112 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect a gas leak, the best thing you could do is to call the local gas company. Dismas|^(talk) 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of natural gas leak are you trying to detect? Any natural source like s.th. leaking through rock, accumulated in a cave or welling up a lake would be odorless. But as you can see in Natural gas#Safety a leak in a house should be detectable because of the smell of the additive. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Combustible gas detectors are used to find out in methane from natural sources, such as decomposing plant or animal matter is present in a place, as well as to find out if "natural gas" from the utility is present. The latter has mercaptan added to make leaks easier to detect. (O Captan! Mercaptan!) Edison (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)