Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 June 1

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.

June 1

Widows and widowers on family trees

I recently started building a family tree with some software. Among all the marriage status options is "widowed." Now, of course this would apply to a couple where one is alive but the other had died. But what about if both have died? I've been putting "widowed" for all deceased couples, but should I really? Should I perhaps put "married" if the surviving partner never remarried, but has since died?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It might depend on how complex your tree is. For example, if it showed people's status as at any particular point in time, then "widowed" might be an option, for the period after the first one died, up to the time the second one died (assuming they didn't die together). But if it shows only their status as at now, as most family trees I've seen do, than neither party of a couple both of whom are dead is widowed any more, but both are deceased. The fact that they may for some period in their lives have been widowed can be deduced from their own death date and that of their spouse. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. As far as I can tell, the marriage status is only the most current status. So, you'd stick with "married" if they have both died, but the widow/er never remarried?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. A dead person has no marital status as far as I'm aware. They're both simply "deceased" now. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but there's no such option under marriage status, only the options married, divorced, separated, widowed, engaged, partners, friends, annulled, unknown, and other. Yes, I'm being very nitpicky.--The Ninth Bright Shiner 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. If those are your only options, I guess the general principle would be: (a) If they're living, put their current status in. (b) If they're dead, put in their status immediately prior to their death. Therefore, for the couple we're discussing, for the one who died first, it would be married, and for the other, it would be widowed. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the idea to use that only to explain why someone remarried? SteveBaker (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd question in a way. A person throughout their lifetime could have a whole series of marital statuses: single (everyone starts out that way), married, divorced, (re)married, widowed, (re)remarried, separated, reconciled, separated, divorced .... The status immediately prior to their death is not necessarily representative of their predominant status (the one they had for most of their life). But I can't see how else to do it in this situation. It's at least a consistent basis, rather than cherry picking the status you think is most representative in each case. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In the family trees I've done, I've always put in married if they've been married (and to whom), and if there's a divorce, it really doesn't compute. Divorce won't affect any children from the union, genealogically speaking. If there's space in the program (there usually is) for 'additional information or resources' - it's where you cite source material - you can put in 'Divorce decree issued dd/mm/yyyy, Generic County, State of X.' All that about 'engaged, partners, friends, annulled' is BS, quite frankly, and doesn't affect the core genealogy in any way. Yes, it's nice to know Aunt Peggy and Aunt Sue were partners. It won't export out as a standard GEDCOM, although that could change for future standards. For right now, for ease of conformity through the program, I'd put in married when and if married, leave it blank otherwise. If there's children resulting from the union, those kids will get their own pages and their own step on the chart. 'Additional information' sections are really where to put information like: Aunt Peggy was engaged to Jack Smith in 1908 for a few months, then Jack Smith was killed in a mining accident. Her marriage to Tom Doe will be on the chart, with the kids, but her civil partnership with 'Auntie Sue' in the later years, since it's *not* legally classified a marriage, should go in as 'Civil union filed dd/mm/yyyy in Generic County, State of X', but only after putting in 'Divorce decree etc' into 'Additional' where applicable, otherwise you mess it up for future researchers.

68.47.208.67 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How was the fastest speeder caught?

Inspired by the above discussion about the fastest speeder. Our speeding ticket article claims: The fastest speeding ticket in the world [...] was supposedly 272mph in a 75mph zone. The car was a Swedish-built Koenigsegg, which was involved in the San Francisco to Miami Gumball 3000 Rally.[2] The cited reference isn't much of a reliable source.

My question: How was he caught? A cop car can't catch him. A spike strip would, I imagine, cause a spectacular and deadly crash. A helicopter could keep up, but as much as I'd love it if the local PD had one equipped with an electromagnet and lifted the guy off the ground, it sounds unlikely. Tempshill (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How many Koenigseggs are there haring across rural Texas at any given time? Given the local authorities would be well aware in advance that the rally would be passing though I'm pretty sure that, if it really happened, the cops could have set up a speed gun as the cars entered the county, and a checkpoint as they exited it to issue to the ticket. I don't see to much of a problem with mistaken identity. Rockpocket 06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

They don't need to stop the car, just read the license plate, they would have waited until he slowed down or stopped before arresting him. --Tango (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the things mentioned above, there is, of course, always the option of the trusty old road block. Even if you're speeding like crazy, when you see that the road up ahead is blocked and there's nowhere to go, chances are you're going to stop fooling around unless you're planning a particularly spectacular suicide. Of course, setting up an efficient road block when the speeder is moving that fast requires that the cops know what they're doing and are directed efficiently. (Not that the guy is doing a constant 272mph, of course.) And, of course, this assumes that the guy is actually evading capture. It's entirely possible that once he saw the flashing lights and heard the siren, he decided to give up, reasoning -- quite correctly -- that his chances of actually evading capture even if he manages to slip away are bad, and he'll get charged with all sorts of other unpleasantness if he doesn't surrender. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be one hell of a chase if he didn't reason though, wouldn't it. And one hell of a suicide if the cops did manage to roadblock him. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the cops have too many helicopters that can do 272 mph either, though I have seen signs in Colorado saying that airplanes do a radar check for speeders. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All rank speculation! I'd ask for cold, hard facts, but of course the event may never have occurred. One note to 65 immediately above: Those signs about airplanes monitoring car speed are pretty common, but the airplanes are not doing radar checks; an officer looks out the window and stares at your car as it passes a big stripe painted on the side of the road; he starts a stopwatch; when the car passes another big stripe, he does some math, notes that you're doing 90mph, and radios this fact to a squad car, who pulls you over. That said, I don't think I have ever talked to anyone who got a speeding ticket in this manner. Tempshill (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The helicopter wouldn't have to match the top speed, just be close enough to its average speed to stay close enough not to lose the car. A helicopter can cut corners, too, which would help a little. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that a car driving at 250+ mph does not encounter many corners, or you would only need to tell the hearse where to pick the guy up. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons the average speed will be significantly below the top speed. They could be fairly gradual corners, like those found on motorways/freeways, anyway. --Tango (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that it makes much difference - but the actual speed he was doing was 242mph - not 272. The Koenigsegg's top speed is 245 or so. I agree that he'd have to be going in a dead straight line to do that - the Koenigsegg doesn't handle all that well at relatively sane speeds. It's the only car I recall "The Stig" ever crashing on Top Gear...for precisely that reason. The show made a big deal over how adding a spoiler would fix that - Koenigsegg did that, and now offer it as an optional extra - but the extra drag knocks the top speed down to (IIRC) ~220mph - so we can be pretty sure that the speeder didn't have one. In all likelyhood, the Texas police could have followed him and pulled him over in the next twisty section - or perhaps someplace where the traffic built up a bit. I've done the Texas police driver training course several times now - and they make a big point of that. Their Crown Victoria squad cars can be outrun by many other street cars - but they're trained to keep their distance and wait for some corners where their (hopefully) superior training will let them catch up. Having seen one of their instructors drive a Crown Vic around their test track - and beat the crap out of my best time in a MINI - I have no doubt that they'd catch the Koenigsegg eventually. Also - failing to pull over when there is a cop on your tail is a pretty serious offense - once the driver saw the flashing lights (way, WAY back in his mirror!) he'd probably have stopped anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is off topic, but I'm pretty sure that failing to pull over for a cop with his lights on is a surprisingly minor offense. I have been unable to cite a source for this claim in the last five minutes of searching, other than noting that OJ Simpson was not cited for his low-speed chase; so I will close with some advice for the Koenigsegg's driver for when the police officer eventually pulls him over: He will not be reasonable at first ... but no matter. Let him calm down. He will want the first word. Let him have it. His brain will be in a turmoil: he may begin jabbering or even pull his gun. Let him unwind; keep smiling. The idea is to show him that you were always in total control of yourself and your vehicle -- while he lost control of everything. Tempshill (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How did he lose control of everything if he succeeded in getting the guy to pull over? Sounds like he won... --Tango (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the Texas penal code there's two things you could be charged with:

• Sec. 38.03. Resisting Arrest, Search, or Transportation. (Class A misdemenor - $4,000 fine - up to a year in jail)
• Sec. 38.04. Evading Arrest or Detention. (Class B misdemenor - $2,000 fine - up to 180 days in jail)

I suspect 'evading arrest' would most likely apply here because "resisting" implies more actively trying to get away. Dunno - is $2,000 and half a year locked up in a Texas prison "surprisingly minor"?

Indeed I would not, but you're going to have to cite a source that speeding without pulling over is any of the above offenses. The cop has not announced an intention to arrest you, for example. Tempshill (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

SteveBaker (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't he just have been caught by a speed camera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.196.62 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No - there are no speed cameras in Texas. SteveBaker (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Do you know the reason why? Rockpocket 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Because any politician who even briefly entertained the vague possibility of doing it would be voted out of office before he could blink? Well - maybe. We do have traffic-light cameras though. SteveBaker (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is the best bow?

I was going to put this in Science, but it seemed better off here.

I've searched bow and archery for a bit, and have found the composite bow of the Mongolian style absolutely stunning. At the same time, there're simply so many other bows of different qualities (the aforementioned being a wonderful asset to any archer on horse), I should ask a question hopefully not too alarming (!!!): Which is the best type of bow for field hunting? This with regards to range and to some extent sound, but with weight on draw weight enough to kill an animal of course, but also a man wearing plenty of clothing (though I am not prepared to ask for anything to go through kevlar), and a size that permits relatively swift maneuvering. I've ruled out the longbow, I mean. If you can help me with this before I have to turn to an archery site and forum, I'd be all sorts of happy. If anyone could sport links that detailed the use of bows in military special forces, that too ought to help. 62.128.252.85 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Will depend on what animal you are hunting. The ideal bow for turkeys will not be optimal for deer as an example. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The bow hunters I know use the same bow for turkey and deer. I'd recommend going to an archery shop and trying out different things. BTW not sure why you're asking about kevlar, but it does not provide good protection against pointed things like arrows. Modern compound bows are quite compact and are pretty much standard for any kind of hunting. Friday (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Brambles and guinea pigs

Does anyone know if it is safe to feed brambles (blackberries) to our guinea pigs? We are in the UK if that makes any difference to types of bramble. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On this site [1] it suggests giving them orange, melon and leafy vegetable as a source of Vit C. I guess bramble is not going to harm them but the fruit might be a bit acidic and cause bowel looseness. Richard Avery (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised if feeding them one as a treat once in a while would do any harm - but clearly that shouldn't be the majority of their diet. SteveBaker (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm only interested in some bits and pieces. I'm as interested in the possibility of them getting the leaves that are offcut as anything. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Try it and see. guinea pigs make great research animals. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

groan DOR (HK) (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered asking a vet?63.146.74.132 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"State Minimum" milk prices....

I'm hoping someone can explain my observation from this weekend. My confusion probably stems from the fact that I don't know the true menaing of a "state minimum" milk price, and its calculation and implications. I live in Pennsylvania, USA, and over the weekend, I purchased a gallon of skim milk at a local WaWa convenience store for $2.89. Later that day, I went into a grocery store, and above the milk display case was a sign proclaining "Milk sold at state minimum prices", but the price for a gallon of skim milk was $3.18. So, my question is, if the grocery store is selling milk at "state minimum" price, which apparantly was $3.18/gallon, then how was WaWa able to sell the gallon for $2.89? I did some googling, but all I got were statements of federal and state regulations, as well as articles proclaming that dairy farmers were either overpaid or underpaid, depending on who you believe, but no plain-English explaination of what the heck a "state minimum" milk price is. Any help would be appreciated! --Zerozal (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the state laws only apply to full-fat milk...but I don't know for sure. SteveBaker (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As a journalist who has covered the milk pricing situation in Pennsylvania for many years, maybe I can shed some light on this. (I'm not sure if this is considered OR or not since it was published under my name, but this is the RD so it doesn't matter.) Anyway, the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board sets the retail minimum prices each month. There is a whole table of prices based on the type of milk, the size of the container and the region of the state. This month's table is available "here" (PDF). (104 KB) on the bottom half of the first page. (The other stuff has to do with prices paid to farmers, and adjustments made to milk shipped out-of-state.) According to this month's pricing table, the minimum for a one-gallon container of skim (non-fat) milk is $2.67 (Northeast Pennsylvania) to $2.89 (Philadelphia area). Something seems to be wrong at the other store claiming "state minimum." I'm guessing you're in the Philadelphia area, because that's where WaWa has most of its stores. The whole milk price for that region is $3.17, so maybe someone at the other store doesn't know how to read the pricing regulations correctly.

There is an ongoing dispute over exactly what criteria the PMMB uses to set these prices, as well as the prices paid to farmers. Items such as production costs, transporation costs, product availability, mark-up to distributors and other factors are considered. (One thing that I think is important to mention is that, in Pennsylvania anyway, farmers get only a small fraction of the retail price. The last story I reported had farmers getting the equivalent of $1.39 a gallon. That was back in November, and isn't quite the same because that is based on unprocessed milk. I say "equivalent" because farmers' prices are calculated by hundredweight (cwt), not gallons.) — Michael J 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Another issue, and I don't know if this applies to Pennsylvania, is that some States mandate a minimum markup, rather than a minimum price. So the retailer takes the price it pays the wholesaler, and has to add at least 10%, for example. If one retailer can get the item cheaper through a different wholesaler it can sell the item for less, but the other retailer still can claim "state minimum price" even though the same item may be cheaper somewhere else. -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you. This certainly sheds some light on the subject! --Zerozal (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised they have government regulated pricing in the US of A, it seems more like something the Communists in eastern europe would have done. I was going to suggest that the cheaper milk may be a loss leader. 78.151.147.255 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We gotta protect the poor from low prices! —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Engine braking enforcement

On the US freeways, one can often see signs saying that "engine braking ordinance is strictly enforced". I've always wondered how exactly this is being enforced, as I can't imagine an easy way of detecting engine braking short of the police car immediately following the violator just at the right moment. So, how exactly does it work? Or is it just FUD?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:16, June 1, 2009 (UTC)

Could you mention what state you are discussing? I live in the US and can't remember ever seeing one of these. Tempshill (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

One could almost as easily say, "I can't imagine and easy way of detecting speeding short of the police car immediately following the violator...". Everyone here knows that, despite posted speed limits and warnings about strict enforcement, the vast majority of the time one can exceed the speed limit without being caught. So why not speed all the time? The one-in-a-hundred occasions when there is a police car around the bend is sufficient deterrent.

The jake brake ('compression brake', 'engine brake') on a truck has a very distinctive, very loud noise. In off-highway, municipal traffic, a large tractor-trailer sticks out like a sore thumb. If a police officer has a line of sight to the truck, and he hears engine braking, it's pretty trivial to identify the offender.

I suppose that – in principle – a police department could operate a 'gravity trap' (think 'speed trap') to try to catch violators as they descend a grade; in practice I've never heard of such a thing. Our article on the jake brake notes that attempts are being made to upgrade Australian traffic enforcement cameras to detect illicit engine braking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen signs requesting that truckers not use engine brakes in residential neighborhoods but never have I seen these signs on the freeways... Dismas|^(talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Jake brake#Legislation the signs are are freeway off-ramps, so refer to the residential area you are about to enter, not the freeway itself. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The ones I saw are definitely on the freeway itself; often placed right after the state or county border lines. The states I've seen these signs include Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and, if I remember correctly, Wisconsin.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:17, June 1, 2009 (UTC)

Converting Grades into equivalent Marks

I gave my plus two exams this year (ISC board, India), and while applying for admission to different colleges, found a few of them asking for my marks in Physics and Chemistry in the tenth standard board exams. The trouble is, in our board,for the class X exmainations, they give the aggregate percentage of science (I got 90%)and give grades for the individual subject (I got A in Chemistry, B in Physics and A in Biology). And now I have no idea how to convert the grades into marks, because with biology thrown in, I have no way to give them an accurate score. Also, it seems unfair to write 80% instead of grade B, when it can be anywhere form 81 to 89..... Googling this doesn't seem to help either... Can someone help me with this?? Thanks in advance! 117.194.232.197 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally you shouldn't do any conversions. Give them exactly the information you have and let them work out how to interpret it. If you are unsure, phone them and ask for advice. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, give them the table (sometimes written on the back of official documents) that says A=90-100%, B=80-90% or whatever, and tell them you got a B in whatever. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GM Bankruptcy

How a company like GM, which turns steel, plastic and rubber into cars, could possibly go bankrupt? I don't think recession is a reason.--V4vijayakumar (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: A massive drop in sales, due in large part to the recession. Longer answer: Due to the recession and lack of availability of credit, people stopped buying cars (although, I believe, there had been a long term decline in sales from before the recession, which didn't help). Their revenue dropped, but their overheads stayed about the same (I think they made some cost cutting measures, but obviously not enough), so they made massive losses. Due to the credit crunch and the recession in general, banks were not willing to lend them money to get through it, so they have no choice but to accept a government bailout to avoid them simply running out of money. Some of the bondholders rejected the bailout plans so they had to go into bankruptcy protection which allows the court to force through the plan. --Tango (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GM was buying large amounts of steep, plastic and rubber to make cars, but then they could not sell them all, so they paid for the materials, and did not get the revenues. They also had to pay their workers, and their electric bill, but their revenues were not enough to support it. They also owed a lot of money to lenders for money they borrowed earlier, much like a house loan. Their bills were so high, and their income so low, that they could not pay the lender enough, so no one would loan them money. This resulted in bankruptcy. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The big factor that hurt GM was "legacy costs" -- pensions and healthcare for retirees. GM used to employ 600,000 people, most of whom were covered under union contracts that now seem generous. Many of those people are still getting pensions and healthcare benefits from GM. But since the 70s, GM has shrunk dramatically. It now has less than half of the market share it used to have in the US. Each GM worker supports about four retirees and retiree spouses. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean the company is going to close down and not be there in a few months? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No -- it has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, not liquidation. It is restructuring under court supervision. It will use bankruptcy protection to get rid of expensive liabilities and should emerge from bankruptcy as a "new," smaller GM owned mainly by the US government.

This BBC News article gives the breakdown as: "[T]he US government is set to take a 60% stake in GM, the Canadian government is due to own 12.5%, with GM's unions having 17.5%, and bondholders 10%." The European and UK branches of the company are being bought by a Canadian firm, Magna International, so GM is certainly going to end up quite a bit smaller than before. The unions and bondholders are getting shares in exchange for writing off debts owed to them. Existing shareholders get nothing at all (which is normal for a bankruptcy that ends up with not everyone getting paid - the shareholders are always at the bottom of the pecking order). --Tango (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The 12.5% (or "about 12%" as I've seen it given elsewhere) to be owned by the Canadian government is wrong. It's 2/3 of that amount, or about 8%, with the ogovernment of Ontario owning the other 1/3 or about 4%. --Anonymous, 06:32 UTC, June 2, 2009.

Oil companies could try to bail out. don't ask me, why oil companies. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oilers love the gas-guzzling Hummer! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The recession was the final nail in the coffin - but too many years of letting the unions drive wages and benefits through the roof - plus too many dealerships demanding too many concessions in order to (essentially) compete with each other - plus car and truck designs that nobody wants to buy - plus increasingly serious competition from overseas. Take all of that grief - and dump a recession on the top - and guess what happens? SteveBaker (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Like a worrying number of major US corporations, their management subscribed to the theory (instilled into them in business school bootcamp) that their job, above all else, was to grow the company. So they borrowed very heavily, and used this money to expand (particularly internationally). This all works great until a) people stop buying cars and b) no-one would lend them more money (and want what they lent back). The weird thing about the credit crunch is that it's not just bad prospects that couldn't raise money - there simply wasn't much capital around for anyone. That alone isn't enough to drive them into bankruptcy, and there are still quite a lot of cars being sold. GM's particular troubles were its product line (heavy on recession unfriendly large vehicles, light on the smaller, lighter, and cheaper vehicles people buy when money is tight) and the burden of its healthcare and retirement schemes (wherein the company took on much of the burden of insuring its employees that in Europe and Japan are taken by the state - and did a better job of pretending those costs weren't so high than it did of actually keeping them under control). It's also fashionable to blame GM's problems on the poor quality of its product, but (while GM is generally rather far down in quality tables) their stuff is much better than it used to be (and Renault, Citroen, and Fiat usually score rather worse than GM for quality and reliability). In addition I've heard one commentator blame another factor - that GM and Ford compete very aggressively for the market share for fleet (particularly rental) cars in North America. They offer Hertz, Avis, etc. such steep bulk discounts that the big rental companies only offer their cars. GM and Ford hope that (in addition to this being a nice little earner, even with the big discounts) people will like their cars when they rent one, and will buy one when they have to replace their own. But the rental companies buy the dull nasty near-bottom versions, so the renters infact get the impression that GM cars are nasty sluggish plastic junk (whereas if they'd been rented a mid-to-top range one they'd have liked it much more). But, with all this analysis said and done, GM isn't the only car company in serious trouble, and that includes the Japanese manufacturers who do make small, reliable cars, run their employee benefits schemes much better, and don't run the company books like they're having a spree at Vegas. Maybe GM will be the largest to formally go either bankrupt or into chapter 11, but they're surely not the only large auto company that'll either be wholly or partially nationalised or dismembered altogether. 87.114.167.162 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

An oil company, or any corporation or investment group with deep pockets, could "bail out" GM by purchasing it — but nobody has wanted to do this for the past several years, presumably because of the very high costs that GM carries compared to its revenue (and the future trend of that revenue). Under US Chapter 11 bankruptcy law, a judge can authorize the canceling of any contracts and any debts that the company has with its unions, suppliers, dealers, anybody — and many of these contracts and debts are indeed going to be canceled, and the company will "emerge" smaller and more likely to be profitable. This comes at a cost; many suppliers are being left in the lurch with invoices that will never get paid, so they in turn are going to declare bankruptcy and avoid paying their debts to their suppliers, ad nauseum; and many workers of course are going to end up earning less, and earning lower benefits, than they used to get while working at GM. None of this shedding of debt or obligations could reasonably have occurred without a bankruptcy, and hence the conclusion that a bankruptcy was the only way out for the GM corporation itself. Tempshill (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe they did try and avoid bankruptcy by getting voluntary agreements to cancel debt, but some of the bondholders refused to do so and it was necessary to get a court order (whether those bondholders did end up getting more that way, I don't know). --Tango (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle

Why aren't we able to resolve the myster of Bermuda Triangle? In todays arena where we are able to reach moon and create our own spy satellite or even a syp plane then why arent we able to solve the mystery revolving around Bermuda Triangle ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahuldaroraa (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out Bermuda Triangle. It's unclear that there's anyting to be "solved" with respect to this area. Friday (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep - it's pretty clear that this is a case of observer bias. Anytime anything happens in the area of the triangle, people immediately yell "OMG! Another Bermuda Triangle Mystery!!" - but when something happens out side of that area - they don't see that as a proof of the contrary hypothesis. Also, the many authors of books concerning this "phenomenon" don't agree on what area is delimited by the "triangle"...they seem to adjust it's size and position however necessary to prove their theories. No - there is nothing to prove. SteveBaker (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As a point of interest, Flight 447 was not even close to the Bermuda triangle, but it has disappeared without a trace.

Even so, people are already talking about how Flight 447 is "proof" of the Bermuda triangle. (They don't know, or don't care that Flight 447 was thousands of miles away.) Fools. APL (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Shows what you know! The Bermuda Triangle is obviously just bigger than you think. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Various books and articles have made the "triangle" include most of the Atlantic Ocean, to include any mysterious disappearance. Edison (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that there are several spacecraft that were sent to Mars and never made it, I think the Bermuda triangle is far larger then previously thought, maybe even the size of the solar system. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you should include supernovae and black holes in your theory - because compared to a few ships and planes... SteveBaker (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That tells me exactly what exasperated remark to make next time a certain friend of mine asks me where her phone went, as if I'm the one who went and forgot where I put it... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

shopping

1 Any ideas what I can get my sister for her 19th birthday? I don't know what clothes she would like, or her size, and I think she has bought every book she wants, and has the next few preordered off the internet. I haven't been at home much recently, so I don't even know what she already has.

2 Also, where might sell a wire for plugging an ipod into a computer. Tesco, Curry's and WHSmith's didn't have any, and there are no computer shops around.

148.197.114.207 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're in the UK. I suggest you go to Lush [2] and get her something nice and smelly, and organic and handmade too! What's not to like! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(please excuse the massive sexism that follows, but when one is divining the personality of someone one hasn't met and who hasn't been remotely described, one must resort to type or stand mute) Chicks dig (for whatever reason I can't fathom) candles - particularly scented candles (which make their homes smell like Mexican brothels) and fancy candles (the kind with swirly patterns or glitter in them, that generally would look suitable only in the castle of an outlandishly camp vampire). So combine the two and get expensive smelly swirly glittery candles. You naturally don't think any local shops sell them, because your inferior male eyes lack the special cells necessary to see such things, but ask any woman of your acquaintance and she'll have chapter and verse on the comparative merits of a huge range of backstreet candle emporia (useless boutiques that take up valuable retail space that would be better used selling engine parts or jockstraps...). Failing that, repeat the above stuff with "chocolate" substituted for candle (Hotel Chocolat is expensive but well appreciated). Combining the two (chocolate-scented luxury swirly candles) does, however, run the risk of your sister spontaneously exploding. 87.114.167.162 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Word of advice. Those two-for-a-pound scented/glittery candles from your nearest pound shop (or whatever the US equivalent is) just don't cut the mustard - as I once discovered to my cost. Even though they (to me, at least) look and smell exactly the same. Likewise, flowers bought from a petrol station rarely make a positive impression with women, unless they're just for the vase on your nan's kitchen table or something... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did the OP ever claim to be male? 194.100.223.164 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe other people's families don't work like this, but I've usually found people like to be asked if there's anything in particular they want (unless you already know of something you want to get them). That way, you can get something that will be really appreciated. She might have something specific, or general, in mind that she'd like and cannot afford/justify buying. 80.41.123.51 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If she is at all technical, get her a Pico C USB key and a pretty necklace to put it on. They are available in chrome, nickel, or gold, and in 4GB up to 32GB, so you can spend as little or as much as you want, and they are so small they look like a pendant. Put a collection of family pictures or music on it. -Arch dude (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So, avoid the Pound Shop or Dollar Shop for the candles, but look in there for the Ipod cable. Some of these shops have a large range of cables and accessories. Look for a USB adaptor pack, which will have a USB cable and various different size USB plugs to use with it (around $7 in Australia). One should fit the Ipod.KoolerStill (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A gift is meant to reflect your affection for the person. She may like candles and chocolates, but the wrong kind just show you are getting her a generic present, as suggested not only by people who don't know her, but people who don't even know you. Ask someone she lives with for -- maybe your parents - for a hint. Buy, or make, her 19 of something. (19 homemade cookies!) I like the idea of the USB key, loaded with music and photos you have chosen for her. You might get more ideas from The Good Gift Guide, co-authored by Susannah Constantine. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re question 2: I think I recall seeing them in Poundlandin the past, but I do not know if they always have them in stock. 78.151.147.255 (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to give her something very unusual that will be remembered for a long time, how about a lama? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

why do restored historical aircraft often have silver shiny bodies?

Why is it that restored historical aircraft tend to have shiny silver metal bodies (like those on the right), and not the real camo paint jobs like the plane on the left?92.251.169.45 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When a gazillionaire spends millions of dollars for a shiny new toy, he likely expects it to be ---shiny. Museums also like shiny things to hang from the ceiling and attract visitors. Edison (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not be surprised to learn that both those paint jobs are authentic. Wikipedia has vintage photographs of both aircraft with their shiny aluminum finish. (And also photographs with other paint jobs, so clearly not all aircraft of a certain type had the same paintjobs.)APL (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For US aircraft of WWII vintage, you tend to find that later aircraft used bare metal instead of painted camo. In some cases this can be ascribed to overwhelming air superiority (particularly in Europe) -- late-model P-47s, P-51s, and B-17Gs (among others) abandoned camo because the Luftwaffe was effectively destroyed. Additionally, paint is heavy. A coat of paint on a B-17 weighed 500 pounds]. Paint on a B-29 might weigh double that. Knocking a half-ton off the takeoff weight of a bomber significantly improves the range or payload it can manage, factors of critical importance in the Pacific theater where the -29s operated. — Lomn 02:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)