Miscellaneous desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

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 3

Locomotive (U.S. or Mexican)

Would someone please identify the locomotive seen on the pictures? It's for Wikimedia Commons purpose (file description). Thanks, --Scriberius (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look mommy!!It's a train!!!!! 117.194.224.126 (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, after much searching, I think I've found it. It's the Kansas City Southern de México (formerly TFM) 1407. See pictures here and here. Fribbler (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's now in the file descr. --Scriberius (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Market availabilty for teaching jobs?

Hi, I need help finding the market availabilty for a teaching job. I'm doing a paper, and I need help. Thanks, bye!--24.26.56.214 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of teaching job? Teaching a specific subject in your own country or a country that speaks your language or teaching ESL/EFL? There's always a demand for teachers, anyway. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

insulation resistance of heater

why a heater not burnt on low insulation resistance (400v, 50 kw, having 0.001Mohm insulation resistance) while a motor burnt at low insulation resistance.(according to IEEE standerd insulation resistance will be = operating voltage in kv + 1 answer will be in Mega ohm that will sufficient, but this only follow in case of motor not in case of heater. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.7.44 (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that by 0.001Mohm you mean 1000 Ohms. Calculate how much power will be dissipated in the insulation with 400 V aplied (0.4 amps x 400 V = 160 watts). Can the insulation handle this much heat? In a heater, the whole system will have been designed to produce heat and move it out of your machine. In water it has a high specific heat and convection can occur, so the heat can be moved away from your bad insulation. In the motor it may heat it up, particularly if there is one spot that has most of the conduction. I would expect that a 50kW motor has some sort of cooling system in it though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn Shop in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

Was there/is there, a pawn shop on the corner in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania and if so, why did it feature in the song of that name - and which corner was it/is it on? 92.8.99.255 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that there is a pawn shop on a corner in Pittsburgh but without telling us which corner you're referring to, we can't give you a more precise answer. Also, what song are you referring to? Basically, if you could just break your original question up into a couple smaller sentences rather than one long run-on sentence, it may improve the chances of us being able to answer your questions. Dismas|^(talk) 09:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (song) by Guy Mitchell. I don't know the answer, btw. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It would have helped if the OP had pointed that out instead of assuming everyone would know the song. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it either, I just googled pawn shop corner Pittsburgh. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that we've got that established, according to a lyrics site, the first line is "There's a pawnshop on a corner in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania". So no specific corner is mentioned, although a subsequent line indicates that the singer is walking underneath a clock, which might help narrow it down, if indeed this was something one wanted to pursue. Me, I'll just assume that the songwriter made up the story, and chose a location that fit the rhythm and rhyme scheme of the song he was writing. --LarryMac | Talk 14:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OQ contains the phrase "in the song of that name"; what more do you want? —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there may well be a song “Pawn Shop on the Corner”. —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Pittsburgh.cityseach in conjunction with Google maps you find two pawn shops which seem to be located on corners (there may be more in suburban areas). As the lyrics mention a clock some OR on site would be required. For me, this takes about 15 hours via Heathrow and Kennedy Airport, so I give it a miss. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were a specific pawnshop in mind, and even if it were on a corner under a clock (though that detail more likely was added to enable the rhyme with "hock"), bear in mind that the song was written over half a century ago. The details will have changed. John M Baker (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I heard this song, I thought he was singing about a Pornshop! :-) Butcherscross (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe reffering to Kaufmans(Maceys) clock....a famous and easy to find location to meet someone back in the day!! yes it is on a corner in the burg. Doc

Why don't black boxes have parachutes, and exist in duplicate?

Why aren't the "black boxes" automatically ejected from a plummeting plane, to parachute safely down, and made to float upon the surface of water? Why don't such information recorders exist in duplicate, to be subjected each to a different fate -- say, one remaining within the aircraft wreckage, and its twin being ejected to seek its fate by a different means. This would seem to increase the likelihood of one of them surviving, and being recovered. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we like them to stay with the plane untill literally the very last split second. Even the data recovered then is useful to somebody. They can be recovered from just about anywhere anyway. Don't worry about getting the Air France ones. They were ven readable after long times at extreme depths in South African Airways Flight 295 (for the FDR to be unrecovered is highly exceptional) and more recently Adam Air Flight 574. That first one is about the only accident I know of where they were never recovered, and technology has moved on since then. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, from what I recall, there are more than one on each plane. Dismas|^(talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This news report indicates an unlikelihood of recovering flight data recorders in this particular tragedy. That is why I ask the above question. But I should add that I have little previous knowledge about this subject. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen similar reports (although on BBC News, not Fox News, I would recommend you go there too, they are far more reliable). It seems that due to the high depth and large search area that it may be difficult to locate them. They do have features to aid in discovery, though, so I think there is still a good chance of finding them. --Tango (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are usually two, but they hold different data. One if the data recorder, which holds data about where the plane was flying, what the controls were set to, what malfunctions occurred, etc. The other is the cockpit voice recorder which records everything that is said in the cockpit so investigators can work out what the pilot and co-pilot were trying to do. I don't know why they are separate and why there aren't redundancies, it would seem to be to be sensible to have all the data in several boxes, but perhaps the added benefit (which is minimal - generally if you can find one box you should be able to find any others) isn't worth the extra costs involved. --Tango (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there is indeed a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder and nothing else. I did once recently here of a combined one, though, where both compnents were rolled into one. Key systems are supposed to be triple-redundant, but legislation deals seperatly with the black boxes and simply says a CVR and an FDR must be present. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Flight data recorder#Future devices which mentions self-ejecting devices, multiple installations and emergency locator transmitters. Nanonic (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ejecting a data recorder would require you to know when to do it. The pilot and co-pilot will be far too busy trying, until the last possible moment, to save their aircraft, so it would have to be automated. I'm not sure how that could be done without significant risk of ejecting it too soon for it to have all the information required. --Tango (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navy submarines and surface ships have this amazing sonar technology to detect distant enemy vessels. The "black boxes" have acoustic signals which send out recurring signals intended to be easily located. Why in hell would it be doubtful that hydrophones towed in a search grid over the debris zone would not "hear" the honking of the black box, or "see" the underwater debris field from a giant airplane? How far from the box is its audio signal supposed to be detectable by hydrophones? [1] says an "underwater locator beacon," which clearly has the same intended function as the beacon on the flight data recorder, is detectable at one statute mile, sending out a 37.5 khz signal. Edison (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the range of the "pinger" on the boxes, but the search area is vast and rather deep. They really don't know where the plane went down with any accuracy. After edit conflict: The water they are searching in is more than a statue mile deep, so that probably rules out surface ships finding it. A ship with mini-submarines is on its way, so that might stand a chance, but it has a wide area to search. --Tango (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget minisubmarines. Surface ships are way faster and should be able to lower tuned hydrophones close to the bottom and run a search grid. Various sources quote a range of 1 to 1.5 miles. The sighted flames and wreckage on the surface provide a good idea of where to look, unless it blew into fragments at high altitude. The plane itself should have automatically triggered beacons beside the FDR beacon, like many small planes and helicopters do. They knew the ocean was deep when they bought the beacons. The chorus of lowering of expectations sounds really lame, considering the need to find out why a plane with all those redundant systems crashed. Edison (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if that seems to be failing they can feed information about the weights, sizes, locations etc of various pieces and use computer wizardry to narrow the search down a great deal. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have hydrophones with cables about 5 miles long? (Which is what would be required, considering it would be dragged a long way behind the ship). That's a very long cable! --Tango (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chuckle when I read a CNN article yesterday that said they found a few pieces of debris from that crash, including an oil drum. I don't really see a plane flying around with an oil drum on board. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cable-laying ships routinely carry thousands of miles of cable. --Sean 19:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do, but that's not really the same thing as dragging a piece of equipment several miles behind you. --Tango (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SURTASS boats drag a piece of equipment several miles behind them, but the hydrophones can only operate at a max depth of 1500'.—eric 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent): This article puts the depth at about 7km (or 4.3 mi, which makes it an unusually deep area according to the Atlantic Ocean article) and the area as "very mountainous". The French official quoted says he was "not optimistic" about finding them because of this, the crappy weather and a limit of 30 days before the locator beacon runs out of power. I guess time will tell if they're lowering expectations with good reason or not. TastyCakes (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News stories have said "2 to 4 miles." There's no reason, other than Murphy's Law, to assume that the FDR would perversely find the one deepest spot in the ocean. If it were 2 miles down or 4 miles down, with a 1 mile range, my math questions the need for a 5 mile cable, unless you feel the need to dig a 1 mile deep trough for some reason. In the 1860's they were able to lay a heavy cable on the ocean bottom across the Atlantic. In the 21st century they should be able to tow a hydrophone at a depth of 3 miles. Again, they know that planes will crash in the ocean on occasion Why would they be allowed to use black boxes with an inadequate range for the beacon? Subs are tracked at far greater distances, without intentional transmission of beacon signals. Edison (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cable isn't going to hang straight down. The boat it is attached to will be moving so the cable will be dragged behind. Since they have a lot of area to cover I expect the boat would be moving pretty quickly, so the cable will be at a pretty shallow angle going down, hence the need for greater length in order to get the necessary depth. --Tango (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note is that hydrophones do not operate well if they are moving quickly, and they do not operate well at great depth, so it will not be an easy thing to find. I don't know why they don't just make those things so that they can float. I would think that might aid location. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would need to get free of the wreck of the plane in order to float. --Tango (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I was thinking in those situations where the breakup happened at altitude which is a major cause for a large search area. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what form is information of this sort recorded? I would guess that it is recorded in digital form. Would that be on digital tape? Optical disk? Solid state drive? Hard drive? I know little about this, but aren't solid state drives among the most dependable? If information of this sort were recorded on a bunch of little USB flash drives, there could be a multitude of them ejected from a plane any time it underwent serious distress, in which possibility of catastrophic event seemed a distinct possibility. It seems to me that such little devices could be made to float easily, could be reinforced against destruction to a degree, they could be inexpensive, and they could be encrypted. Maybe I'm missing some understandings of what's involved, but there seems to be a possibility of technology that could make reconstructing the final moments of an aircraft disaster such as this most recent one more easily done than what we see now -- the searching of depths of the ocean for a device that may stop giving off signals after a certain period of time. I don't know if this would work, but perhaps such "floating flash drives" would merely have to be surrounded by a relatively small, but distinctively colored floatation device, to be detected visually. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles don't seem to specific what the recording medium is, but I would guess it is tape. Hard drives would never survive the impact and flash drives didn't exist when most of these things where designed. Flash drives would probably be better and would allow for more redundancy while remaining cheap and light, but they have only been an option for the last few years. Perhaps new plane designs will (or even do) have them. There are environmental concerns with ejecting lots of flash drives when there isn't actually an accident (if there is an accident then the flash drives would be the least of your concerns environmentally), but if you work out a way to decide when to eject them fairly reliably then it could work. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howstuffworks suggests they are switching to use Solid State memory but many still use magnetic tape. Nanonic (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would think the use of flash drive type devices could provide for redundancy. Even better than the redundancy of an identical copy though might be a sort of partial redundancy. It might be best if these things ejected sequentially over a period of time during the unfolding of an event, such that maximal recording time were obtained. If another one ejected every 15 seconds or so there might be a good chance of retrieving useful information.

Also, if data can be transmitted wirelessly, it might be possible to eject a receiver for information that continues to be generated aboard the aircraft. Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The USB idea has merit (as there's two ways of cheating

F=mg

, and it's way simpler to decrease

m

than to decrease

g

. However, how would you identify the occurrence of an event that triggers the ejection of the devices without spurious ejections? And more importantly, how can you ensure that the devices will eject in a catastrophic event like this? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second and more important question first, the mounting place for the USB devices could be on the exterior of the skin of the aircraft, where they could perhaps only be loosely attached, making ejection almost automatic under many circumstances, including explosion or breaking up from sudden and completely unexpected impact with another object. As far as identifying a less traumatic event but one that nevertheless warrants the release of small data recorders, I should think that there are many identifiable sequences of activities performed by pilots as well as detectable conditions in systems that could fairly reliably portend potential disaster. Included in any ejection should be the automatic deployment of the simplest, most fail-safe mechanical means of enlarging a surrounding to the device that is buoyant, visually conspicuous, protective, etc. It should be large enough that it can't be eaten by any inhabitants of the oceans or the sky above. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your local aerodynamicist will have a fit if you put objects that disrupt the flow characteristics of the freestream at Mach 0.7–0.8 (which is extremely easy to screw up... they switched assembly procedures to prevent the effect of rivets on the airplane!). However, my other question was more geared as to how do you identify when not to release the USBs so you have them in case the airplane gets really screwed up later on in the flight. And remember that the larger the device gets, the closer it becomes to essentially being another FDR/CVR black box... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have lots of USB black boxes you can release only some of them at a time so you can deal with multiple apparent emergencies, or one genuine emergency multiple times so you balance releasing them as soon as you realise something is wrong in case it deteriorates rapidly and keeping them on board long enough that all the necessary information is on them. --Tango (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things can be made to lie flat to the surface, and in an area least likely to mess up aerodynamics, although no such area comes to mind. They can be placed symmetrically opposite one another on the starboard and port sides of the plane and released two at a time simultaneously, this, to least likely interfere with fight characteristics. Upon release, another spring loaded USB device could be fed up to the surface, thus quickly restoring good aerodynamics to the skin of the aircraft. Bus stop (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the lame black boxes presently in use are only detectable at 1 mile, why not increase the transmitted acoustic energy such that they are detectable at 4 miles? Would the power required increase as the square (16 x as powerful as at present) or the cube (64 x as powerful?) If batteries are a consideration, how about a transponder beacon which sends out a beep of high power only when it detects a probing beep from a search vessel, where power limitations would not be a factor? How many millions will be spent on a possible fruitless search, and how many millions would be the cost of possible additional aicraft crashes if there is a problem not identified for lack of an adequate beacon? This has a high level of "Duh!" as an instance of an essential device which is not designed to perform its basic function, i.e. letting the FDR and wreckage be found when it crashes in the ocean, except under ideal conditions, such as crashing in shallow coastal waters. Perhaps if planes were restricted to flight paths over water depths where the transponder could be found, they would make the things capable of transmitting a more powerful signal. Edison (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking all the above as being based on more technical expertise than I could ever aspire to; why all the bother of trying to retrieve a physical object from anywhere it might land on the planet, when surely, relevant in-flight data could be contemporaneously transmitted via satellites to a network of receiving stations around the globe? 92.20.39.1 (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBS News (US) today discussed the possibility of continupus satellite monitoring of flight parameters, since many planes offer internet access for passengers via satellite. An industry spokesman said it would be "too expensive,' i.e. we do not want to spend the money. The flight crews said they do not want their activities to be monitored (Yeah, better to crash in total privacy). Edison (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a trade-off. You could make the black box have more batteries, but that would make it heavier, which means it costs more money to fuel and operate the airplane, the airplane's range is reduced, and that you need to perhaps redesign parts of your plane to fit the larger avionics (yes, it's negligible space, but these things add up...) Also, you could transmit at greater power, with the same amount of batteries, at the expense of having less time to detect the signal. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

splinter cell chaos theory >>moved to entertainment

in the displace int. level, i hafta upload tracers in the three servers. but, i need to hack the first server in the operations room to do that. and unfortunately, i seem to get only three chances not the usual minimum of four. is this a bug? should i reload the mission, or just let it be and dont care for the mission rating???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.136.57 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you must be asking about some sort of game. But since you can't be bothered to give us any hints what you're on about, I can't be bothered to go looking for an answer. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your question to the entertainment desk. You'll have better luck finding gamers there. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have..

Does wikipedia have a like, open discussion chat box, kinda like Mibbit.com but only on here..?

I could have sworn I saw one..

If so, where can I find it? Gothrokkprincess (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. There are Wikipedia IRC channels, however. TastyCakes (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the Wikipedia IRC channels from Mibbit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US jury duty

Why is it that the pay to the jurors in the US court system, usually people who have been involuntarily pressed into service, are paid in almost every case far below the minimum wage? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You get paid to be on a jury? I thought it was an unpaid civic duty. Or do you mean the amount you get to go and eat and such? TastyCakes (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay varies by state. I think the most any state pays is $50 a day, while the state I am in pays $10 a day. I can't even drive to the courthouse and park for that amount. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, bummer. TastyCakes (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In MA you don't get paid anything for the first three days. I forget how much you get paid for any remaining days.

The answer to the original question is that jury duty is considered a civic duty. Like paying taxes. APL (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also don't really want to make it lucrative. You don't want people showing up for jury duty excited about earning something. (It could also add incentives to dragging things out, I imagine.) But it $10 a day is ridiculously low—might as well not pay anything if you're going to pay that. They should at least compensate for the cost of travel to the courthouse. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California is $15 per day and 34 cents per mile from the courthouse to your residence. Both payments start only on the second day of service. The courts I've served in also had their own parking structures with free parking provided to jurors. Dragons flight (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did jury duty three years ago and got a check for $40, if I remember. I never got called for a jury and wasted an entire day. --Blue387 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is basically a form of involuntary servitude, equivalent to compelling someone to clean city hall for 1/4 of minimum wage. Some employers pay their employees while they're on jury duty, but most minimum wage employees just have to suck it up and do without 3/4 of their income, and hope they are not replaced in their fulltime jobs. Minimum wage or better for jurors or jury pool standbys only makes sense. Edison (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I did mine in the UK (many years ago) I was paid at my regular job rate but they paid my tax/NI contributions so I ended up ahead by 25% or so on my salary. They also paid a daily food allowance. At the time I didn't drive but I believe their were petrol/parking payments too. Exxolon (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many companies pay their employees as if they were at work while serving jury duty. --Nricardo (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A relative of mine recently served on a jury. She got paid by her company, as if she were at work, for the first five days. After that, the state paid her $50 a day. Again, far far less than what she actually makes at her job. Dismas|^(talk) 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bring in another country for perspective, here in Ontario, Canada, people called to jury duty are paid nothing for the first 2 weeks, then $40/day (Canadian dollars) for the next 8 weeks, then $100/day if they have to continue beyond that (i.e. due to a very long trial). For comparison, the general minimum wage in Ontario is $9.50/hour. Jurors' travel expenses are covered only if they live more than 40 km (25 miles) from the courthouse and they actually serve on a jury rather than just being in the pool. Employers are not required to continue paying the person while they are on jury duty, but some do; I have no idea how many. --Anonymous, 04:25 UTC, June 4, 2009.

So technically, is this not a violation of the 13th amendment of the US Constitution?

"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Jury duty sounds like involuntary servitude to me, especially if they are not going to pay you decently. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to look up what wiktionary:servitude actually means. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jury duty (clue there) isn't any form of servitude or poorly paid labour. It's a civic duty, a responsibility which one incurs in exchange for the privileges one enjoys by virtue of being a citizen of one's country. If you must think of it in terms of a transaction, consider that all citizens get paid for it in kind, in advance, even though many will never be called upon to render the service.

As another comparison for the OP, I performed Jury Service in the UK about 9 years ago. I was paid travel expenses and a modest but adequate lunch allowance for every day I attended, which was most of a six-week period (as the trial I was eventually selected for lasted around five weeks). My employer continued to pay my salary in full over this period: in the UK this is expected of employers though not compulsory, but if one's employer does not comply, one can apply for civic recompense.

In the UK, one can when summoned for Jury Service apply to have it deferred (if, for example, it conflicts with an already booked holiday, or if one has previously served in the last ten years), or be excused from it altogether. Grounds for the latter would include one being indispensible from one's employment, often the case for small businesses who would otherwise have to hire a replacement. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

top mba colleges in delhi

can anybody tell me about top 50 mba colleges in new delhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant101 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know New Delhi is large, but are there really 50 coleges there?! It there are, wow. (Of course, Cleveland has half a doze if you count community colleges, so maybe...)

As for an answer, a Goodle search got me this - a blog, so take it for what it's worth. http://mbacollegesinindia.blogspot.com/ There is also this: http://www.indiandost.com/delhicollege.php (Sorry, I tried in the sandbox to figure out how to turn these into links some time ago and couldn't; I'll giveit a hirl again when I have more time.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the question means "colleges in Delhi which are among the top 50 in <some wider domain>". —Tamfang (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-proft org

What happens if a non-profit goes bankrupt? What I mean is, say it had payment obligations outstanding and someone was able to smuggle most of the money out of their accounts. Is the chairman of the board of directors personally liable, or is this question more complicated? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is smuggling money then that's fraud and there would be a criminal prosecution. In a more common situation of a non-profit simply going bankrupt (due to spending more than it makes for too long), the answer is "it depends". In the UK (other countries are probably similar) there are two main types of non-profit (there are sub-types within them, but that's not important). Incorporated non-profits and unincorporated non-profits. An incorporated non-profit is just like any other limited liability company - the board of trustees are not personally liable for anything (barring exceptional circumstances). Unincorporated non-profits have no legal personality of their own and are really just the trustees personally doing stuff (but as a group), so if the non-profit goes bankrupt the trustees are liable for any outstanding debts (since actually it is them that have the debts, the non-profit being little more than a name). --Tango (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photographing police cars is illegal in France?

My father told me years ago, when he visited France, that it is illegal to photograph police cars in France. I've never heard of photographing police cars being illegal anywhere else, at least within Europe. Is there any truth to this? JIP | Talk 20:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about France, but in the UK there are laws against photographing police officers. I think it says "in a way that could aid terrorists" or something, but it is worded so vaguely that it basically bans photographing them at all (it's not actually enforced, it's just there for when the authorities feel they need it). --Tango (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the UK, see [2] and Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 Nil Einne (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Legality of recording by civilians nor Photography and the law say anything about France unfortunately Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the cars carry a nocturnal image of the Eiffel Tower? —Tamfang (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it has recently been enforced in London. Tourists had their films blanked by constables. It caused an uproar in the tabloid press, so it is (until now?) unusual. But the powers are there. I know of no bans on photography in France.86.194.123.14 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]