Miscellaneous desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 15

check in question

When checking in on southwest.com and you have 2 passengers on the same reservation are there 2 check in boxes for 2 customers so you get a boarding spot separately or is there only one box to get your boarding spot all at once. My browser has been acting up lately and i am not sure about weather this airlines page works right. This question is for the American airline southwest.--logger (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your browser has been acting up, I suggest downloading Firefox or Google Chrome. Sorry, I can't help with your question though. NByz (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Management

Today in our class there was a discussion whether manpower was important in sales management and i got totally lost in the whole conversation as people said its important but no one could explain how and why. Can you please help me with the whole concept by giving some examples as to why is manpower so important in sales management? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.42.113 (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at our article or your textbook a couple of factors should appear through common sense. (I assume we are talking sales force manpower, not sales management staff). Lets look e.g at a couple of things your sales staff should work on:

Managing the Buyer/Seller Relationship >> you obviously want to have enough sales people for the number of clients and the type of product lines you have. The channels you employ also factor in here. (E.g. brick and mortar, mail order, BtoB, internet based etc.)
Sales Call Planning >> you want your sales staff to be able to visit your clients without causing disproportionately high travel expenses. 2 regional sales reps will most likely come cheaper than one "frequent flier" rep. For staff only doing phone contacts you'd have to figure in data maintenance and call planning time.
Questioning Skills >> you want to have sufficient staff to allow them to attend training courses and meetings.
Presentation Skills >> dry runs and peer review can make a huge difference. Your reps will need sufficient time to become familiar with the products they are selling and to follow up on faqs from previous presentations.
Gaining Commitment >> the biggest factor. Most accounts still prefer dealing with only a couple of reps. from your company in a given time-frame. That is more cost efficient for them because they don't have to repeat certain basic terms and information. Regular clients also would expect "their" rep. to be available whenever they have a question. So your reps will need a certain amount of "downtime" for inbound business. One of the biggest threats in sales is an established rep. leaving the company and either abandoning the clients they cared for or taking them with them to a new company. Having two sales reps. sharing each account can safeguard against that. (Mandatory account data recording has been suggested as another remedy here, but is a lot harder to realize in the field.) If you run your sales force ragged they'll leave as soon as they find s.th. else.

If you add up all the time requirements, multiply them into man-days/client, get a map and separate your sales area into sales regions and then multiply the regional number of clients times your man-day/client figure you should get a good starting point for the size of your sales force. (Don't forget to account for holidays, vacations and sick leave). Hope this helps. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes.. thank you so much....starting to get an idea about te whole discussion now..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.42.113 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, that is a pretty bad article, with a strong flavour of Spam. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most of our business articles are pretty good. This isn't really one of them. One could work with what's there, but it could stand some TLC. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18th century

Who was the last known person to have been alive in the 18th century? Nadando (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that several people probably lived through the end of the 18th and into the 19th - what precisely do you mean? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Michel Eugène Chevreul, a French chemist who died in 1889, aged 102. seems a reasonable candidate, implying he was born in 1779 and reached a grand old age.~~ scratch that and try Margaret Neve 1792 - 1903. haha my first answer on this thing and i bet someone proves me wrong!--Monomath (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger! proved myself wrong, serves me right for trying to emulate the great wikipedians. my new answer is: Sophia Wijnberg 1799-1905, as found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_people_by_year_of_birth --Monomath (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 18th century lasted until 31 December 1800. (Pedants unite! All your refdesk are belong to us!) Our List_of_oldest_people_by_year_of_birth gives us Johann Roeder, a German man born on 21 January 1800, who lived until 23 July 1909, giving him a total life of 109 years, 183 days. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a silly definition of 18th century. Also, if you look in the body of that article, you'll see events that occured in 1700, but none in 1800... 77.12.14.73 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is a silly definition, please be bold and edit Century to conform with your views. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find a definition of centuries that requires the first centruy to have only 99 years to be silly. -- Mad031683 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm struct

How do we respond to people who are always sarcastic in the way they talk to us with an intention to demean us and our credibility, as i do not know the art of it,but do certainly get offended.is there some tricks we ned to learn to reciprocate with bigger intensity in the similar style? please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that one of the most successful techniques is to simply ignore the sarcasm as if it was never said. The lack of response can often be enough to make the individual stop using it so much around you. ny156uk (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find responses along the lines of "Shut up you sarcastic fuckwit!" are sometimes the best way to make the person stop doing it. ;) 89.242.157.102 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A swift right hook will also do the job, but you may not like the consequences... --Tango (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to have Oscar Wilde's wit, you can feed it right back to them, but few are able to achieve such heights. Unless you know you can outwit them in that way, you stand to lose a lot by battling wits and drawing a sword broken at the hilt.

Ignoring the sarcasm is probably best. If there are other people about, dryly (and subtly) drawing attention to how little it contributes to the conversation might draw some wit-blood, but if you do that, you can't dwell on it. You must move the conversation straight on and pretend it never happened. Steewi (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're ok with the possibility of coming across as a bit thick sometimes, you can often manipulate the situation by pretending you have no concept of sarcasm. Every time a troublesome individual gives you a sarcastic retort, act as though they just made a sincere statement. This sincere statement will probably be nonsensical, redundant, idiotic, or absurdly enthusiastic, and you should react accordingly. If possible, ask an off-putting followup question. The response will probably be something along the lines of "I was just kidding," to which you can respond with a sarcastic: "Yeah, funny joke." Voila, the tables have turned! More aggressive people might confront you with a line like, "Wow, you just don't get it," to which the stock response is, "No, you're just not funny." After going through this a few times, some people will learn quickly to stop being so sarcastic. Others will become more obnoxious. Your mileage may vary. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Produce a manifestly false laugh, something like this: "ah ha ha." (spoken slowly, without excitement). If more responses are necessary, try extending and elaborating it, perhaps stating "my sides are splitting" or "the hilarity is unbearable". At no point sound actually amused. 213.122.39.235 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people (adults anyway) use hurtful sarcasm directed at people only when they don't realize they are being hurtful. They may perceive their relationship with you to be more chummy or informal than it actually is. If that is the case, I would think usually a couple of icy receptions of their jests would clear things up. Of course if you're in highschool or below, human behaviour is very different, and them just being dicks is a possibility. I would suggest ignoring them in this case. TastyCakes (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario sidewalk bicycle laws

Hi. First of all, I'm not asking for legal advice (or illegal advice, for that matter :P ). I'm looking for, say, an online list of the municipalities in S. Ontario and whether or not it is prohibited for bicycles to be ridden on the sidewalks, etc, and whether this varies with the age of the cyclist. I know that in the City of Toronto, for example, cycling on sidewalks is generally prohibited. However, in many smaller towns it is not. I don't want to know the municipal laws in your area, unless you live in S. Ontario (GTA area specificly) and are positive about your knowledge of your municipality. Some links to websites regarding this (S. Ontario only!) would also help. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally honest, bikes should be on the road. See [1] for an example of what can happen if they are on the pavement/sidewalk. Exxolon (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there are a lot more cases of cyclists killed by cars than of pedestrians killed by cyclists, but that's one of those interminable inappropriate-for-the-reference-desk debates and doesn't help answer the OP's question. --Fullobeans (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this isn't a debating point, but a straight question. In Canada, we have a law against "criminal negligence", which says that "Every one is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons." If someone dies as a result, you can be sentenced to as much as life imprisonment. Running down a pedestrian when you could have stopped sounds to me like it meets that description. Does Britain not have such a law, or was it not applicable for some reason ~~(I do note that the cyclist was under 18)~~, is it just that the prosecution in the cited case chose not to use it? Thinking of parallel cases, I looked at Gary Hart, who fell asleep while driving a road vehicle and caused 10 deaths in a train wreck, but I see he was sentenced sspecifically for a driving offense. --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, March 15, 2009; corrected 09:38, March 16.

If the facts are as described in the article, I'd say it's beyond "negligence", which usually means an accident that happened because you were reprehensibly careless. Deliberately plowing into a pedestrian is not any sort of "accident" in my book, even if you yell at her to get out of the way first. This sounds more like voluntary manslaughter to me.

I agree though that bikes should generally not be on the sidewalk, also because if cyclists start driving on the sidewalk, motorists will come to expect that they ought to. Motorists need to learn that bicycles are part of vehicular highway traffic and to respect them as part of it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Londom the by-laws are on this page. It is generally prohibited but the bicycle path system in London is pretty good so it's not a problem. Toronto's is not so great because you usually have to ride on the road. Mississauga has bike lanes and paths but I can't find any specific bylaws. (Mississauga is behind on transportation in general, I have noticed. There have also been a couple of recent incidents where people have fallen over bridges because the bicycle lanes are so inadequate.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a cyclist runs over a pedestrian while riding on the sidewalk, then the cyclist was riding too fast! In many places bicycles are allowed on trails (even those a few inches wide), something that cars cannot do. I think I read somewhere that municipalities in Ontario with populations under 100,000 do not have the right to prohibit cycling on sidewalks, but maybe this isn't always the case. I think where I live, I've noticed more people riding on sidewalks either in neighbourhoods with paved sidewalks or along large urban streets which do not experience a large amount of pedestrians, and more people riding along roads in more rural areas, especially if there are no sidewalks. Along more rural roads, I usually see people cycling on the side of the road, either on the lane not occupied by motor traffic (where cars may "pull over"), or sometimes in the gravelly region just to the side of it, and usually in the same direction as the traffic. I have yet to see cyclists riding within traffic, but maybe that's just due to my location. Also, if a cyclist crosses a road (not a busy intersection), they're crossing it the "pedestrian" way. There are also bicycle locks in places which would nessecitate utilising the sidewalk, even for a short distance. Are there any searchable websites on this matter? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the specifics of the Toronto no-sidewalk rule. It's also illegal in Ottawa, apparently, as well as London. In Hamilton, only children may ride on the sidewalk. Couldn't find anything for Kingston or Kitchener, and that's all the cities in southern Ontario I can name. The Ontario road laws for bikes don't mention sidewalks, but do specify that bikes may not be operated in crosswalks, and face an $85 fine for doing so. This site does say "no cycling on sidewalks in Ontario," but the site looks... questionable. So, the rules do appear to vary between towns, and there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive list. You could contact the Ontario Cycling Association, though, and see if they have more information. --Fullobeans (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just noticed Adam already provided the London link. Now you can read it twice, it's a nice website. :) --Fullobeans (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, but what about South Simcoe, York, Northern Durham, and Northeastern Peel in particular? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that was unclear from the above article is whether the cyclist was even on the footpath (the article only mentioned the road). This [2] makes it clear it was Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that some Clementine oranges are sweeter than others?

Why is it that some Clementine oranges are sweeter than others? Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on clementines indicates - in the box on nutritional values to the right - that the sugar content is somewhat higher than that of oranges (but less than that of "proper" mandarin oranges). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quality-control problem that is being addressed. We much apologize for the inconvenience, and are working to ensure that every individual fruit of a given denomination is identical to every other one, as you, the customer, have a right to expect. God forbid you should ever be surprised. Apologies again -- Nature

Because some are more darling than others? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: in a given bunch of Clementine oranges -- say, a box, or a bag -- why are some more sweet than others? What factors could account for that? I'm not saying that no factors could possibly exist to account for variations in sweetness. But I am asking if we have any information that could explain that. I would even be curious if there is any information as to why any fruit that is understood to be of identical botanical type might have variations in sweetness among individual examples. For instance -- would some apples on the same tree be sweeter than others? Supposing degree of maturity were accounted for, since obviously unripe apples would unlikely be very sweet? Are any other factors besides maturity contributing to perceived sweetness in fruit, such as apples and oranges -- or other fruit? Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect small variations in conditions can produce large variations in resultant fruit (see butterfly effect). Some potential variations: rainfall, sunlight, temperature, plant age, plant genetics, amount of fruit on the same plant, amount of fruit on the same branch, etc. – 74 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, Vidalia onions get their well known taste due in large part to the soil in which they grow. (and while checking my link, I see that the article confirms this) I'd suspect that the same thing could play a part in apples, oranges, or clementines. Dismas|^(talk) 05:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far from every fruit from a particular tree being the same, it has been shown that each fruit is slightly genetically different. That way trees manage to stay ahead in the battle with bugs. In ripening the brix acid ratio indicates sweetness. [3]. Tree ripened fruit show more variation than artificially ripened ones, but the latter are often reported as less sweet overall. (Our ripening article really needs a biochemical expert to put in some work. The relationship between sunshine, nutrients and chemical changes needs to be explained better IMHO.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting...thank you for these responses Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also - because your oranges are in the same 'bag' doesn't mean they are from the same area of the plantation/farm/orchard/whatever you call orange growers (orchard?). I suspect they are all transported back to a central place where they are sorted/dealt with and either boxed-up on-site or sent elsewhere to be packaged together. Either way in all that intervening happenings i'd suspect that it means your bag could contain fruit from all over that place - be it some that has more sunlight or whatever. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True...good point. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General interest magazine in comic format?

I'm looking for magazines that cover daily events, science, or history, but are presented in a comic-style format. The magazine should be targeted at teens. Kayak magazine is a good example, except it is for younger children. Muse Magazine is close, but it's too text-heavy. Are there any magazines with the criteria I've specified? --Munchkinguy (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Magazine?
Phil_burnstein (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]