Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 8

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 8

Tattoos aging in the short term

Are there visible differences between a tattoo which is recent (say 1-3 years) and one which is around 10 years old due to the passage of time? If so, what are the differences you noticed? I looked up tattoos and aging but most of the resources only discussed longer intervals of time. By the way, I am not planning to get a tattoo myself. I am just curious if you can tell by looking at a tattoo if it is recent or older. 65.190.207.110 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Google spit out a couple of links you might find interesting [1] [2] [3] They don't give precise data, but do say that there are notable differences. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The biggest diff I notice is that the bright colors fade rapidly, and the dark colors stay around for life. So, a rainbow ends up with just blue and green parts after a while (and eventually just dark blue). So, knowing this, here's a hint, tattoo the name of your "one true love" in red, because "red is the color of love". It just also happens to be the color that will fade away as soon as the love does. </romantic_skepticism> StuRat (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bowling too fast in cricket

How fast would someone have to bowl in cricket in order to render the batsman impotent? How about baseball? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you know that bowlers do not aim for the batsman/batter's crotch. And that crotches are usually well protected in case of inadvertent contact with the ball (no pun intended). The protective device would have to be extraordinarily deficient for such an outcome to occur. But if that were the case, there could be a number of medically undesirable outcomes, not necessarily involving impotency. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

 *ahem* Impotent can also mean helpless/powerless, as in "unable to hit the ball". – 74  02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, yeah that's what I was going for. I meant "how fast would the ball have to be bowled so that after bouncing the batsman would be incapable of defending his wicket?" rather than "what velocity of cricket ball will break a batman's genitals beyond repair?". Sorry for any mix-up. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A baseball can be thrown at speeds up to 100 miles an hour or more (160 km/h), and batters are still capable of hitting it, so the answer must be significantly faster than that (and significantly faster than it would be physically possible to throw). But remember that in baseball, the batter is "impotent", as you say, usually 70% of the time (if you take "impotent" to mean not being able to reach the base safely, because obviously they hit the ball more often and it is caught or thrown to the base before they get there). I have no idea about cricket but from very casual observation the ball seems to be thrown much more slowly, and seems to be hit more often; is there a cricket equivalent of a strikeout? The ball also has to hit the ground first, which would greatly reduce its speed. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The cricket ball doesn't have to hit the ground first; that's just usually the best strategy. See full toss. But you can't put a full toss above the batsman's waist, and there are restrictions on the delivery, about extension of the elbow or something incomprehensible like that, that may make it difficult for bowlers to reach the velocity of MLB pitchers. --Trovatore (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, a pro batter can start his swing when the pitcher is releasing the ball, so the upper limit is probably not very much more than the current top speeds of pitches. Any higher and the batter would have to start swinging while the pitcher is in his wind up. Dismas|^(talk) 03:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated did an excellent article about a year ago on Tim Lincecum and the science of pitching, and cited several studies which indicated that the current upper limit of 100 mph is probably the absolute upper limit the human arm can throw a baseball without literally coming apart at the seams. There have been studies done on the stresses at the joints in a pitchers arm, and if they threw any harder, the materials in the arm literally could not withstand those stresses. So 100 mph is probably a practical upper limit to throwing a baseball, and baseball players do hit these. Seeing as a cricket ball is bowled, and not pitched, it is bound to be going much slower due to the physical limitations placed on the bowling motion, which is fairly innefficient. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed your spelling of Lincecum for ya... Dismas|^(talk) 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Our article says that cricketers can bowl the ball at up to 90mph - so evidently bowling is only a little less efficient than pitching. SteveBaker (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The fastest ball on record evidentally is 100.2 mph from Shoaib Akhtar although this is obviously very rare (Brett Lee's fast ball is 99.9 mph). Types of bowlers in cricket has some info on other very fast bowlers. This compares to possibly 104.8mph for baseball [4] Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

From listening to Test Match Special commentary, it would appear that cricket fast bowlers regularly reach over 90 mph, and so the article needs fixing. However, in cricket the ball actually hits the wicket and bounces most of the time, and it's not necessarily speed that "renders the batsman impotent" but trajectory after pitching. That's why cricket has slow bowlers who are very effective in taking wickets. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was going to mention this. If you look at the Shoaib Akhtar article it has a link to the delivery and while I probably should delete it since I suspect it's a copyvio, you can easily find it online. While a decent delivery, it's hardly spectacular. While being able to bowl very fast is obviously an important skill for a fast bowler to have, as the article and the types of bowlers article explains, it's more then just bowling as fast as you can. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, a fast ball is not the only effective pitch in baseball, where having the ball move in unexpected directions due to spin and drag after it is released can be more important than its speed. Rmhermen (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the speed of a cricket ball which makes it impossible to face. A spin bowler will typically bowl at about 50mph, yet the movement of the ball can be unpredictable. A leg spin delivery is particularly hard to read, and can leave a batter looking foolish, if not impotent. In terms of fast delivery (pushing 100mph), an inexperienced batsman would feel rather impotent. A good batter, however, can use the speed to their own advantage (for example, hit boundaries easily). Thus, a good fast bowler will mix their deliveries, a yorker a bouncer, a full toss (etc), hoping to surprise a batsman, or get them in the wrong position (each different delivery requires a different response). The ultimate in impotent batsmen (ie unable to respond) would probably be New Zealander Ewen Chatfield, who was hit by a bouncer in a 1975 test match: his heart stopped and he was only saved by the quick intervention of the English physio: [5]. It was delivery which almost killed him, not speed. Gwinva (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Addit, in reply to AdamBishop: no strikeout in cricket. You can miss the ball as often as you want. You would only be out if: the ball hit your wicket (known as bowled), or your leg before wicket, or you were outside your crease and thus stumped or run out, or if you hit your own wicket with your bat or person, or you obstruct the field, or..... Gwinva (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah the glorious game of Cricket ^_^ 125.21.183.72 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is the First Indian IAS OFFICER

Who is the First Indian IAS OFFICER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.57.87 (talk • contribs)

Google identifies "IAS" as "Institute for Advanced Study," 'International Accreditation Service," Internet Authentication Service," "International Accounting Standards," "International Association of Sedimentologists," "International Association of Scientologists," "International Association of Sufism'" and many other organizations. If you would be so kind as to let us know which of these "Institutes" or "International Associations" or "Services" you had in mind while you were typing, we would be better able to answer your ill-formed question. Edison (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would guess either Indian Administrative Service or Indian Academy of Sciences - but since the Academy of Sciences doesn't have people called "Officers" and the Administrative Service does - I'll assume the former. In that case, the IAS was formed from the British colonial ICS (Indian Civil Service). But there were Indian officials in the ICS prior to the name change - so I would assume that on the day the name changed, a whole bunch of Indian officials would have become IAS officers at the exact same time - making this a somewhat meaningless question. If our OP is really asking about which Indian first became an officer in the ICS - then that would make more sense. If all of this guesswork is true then the answer is in our article Indian Civil Service: "Gurusaday Dutt was the first Indian to stand first in one of the two parts of the ICS examination, in 1905." - our article on this fellow is quite long and detailed. SteveBaker (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys Gym Showers

How come most of the time in men's locker rooms or changing rooms at gyms and other similar places have showers that are all together in one room without separation or curtains for privacy? Are women's changing rooms built the same? Is it simply a matter of conserving money/space? Or is it something else? Stuffs80 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's because men are supposed to be less "bashful" than women? Honestly, I have no idea. By the time I got to school, showers were no longer required because of privacy concerns. However, my school's locker room had no curtains to separate the (unused) showers, too. The only public shower I ever had to use was at a hostel in Helsinki, Finland, and that did have curtains. So, I suppose it depends more on the location than anything. --Ericdn (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, women's changing rooms have individual cubicles for changing clothes and individual shower booths. The less expensive the fitness-club membership, however, the less privacy. When I was in high school, in an era when girls were not permitted to wear trousers to school and we hadn't yet even thought about fighting the good fight for jeans, change areas and showers were usually multi-user and uncurtained. Privacy was not an issue then; supervision was. // BL \\ (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time, it's simply that if all people are doing is showering, that's not an activity that requires a lot of privacy, especially if that's what everyone else is doing as well. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the answer probably has more to do with cost than anything. It's cheaper. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. --Ericdn (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's both. Extra privacy is unnecessary, and costs more, so they don't provide it. If it didn't cost any more they would probably provide whether it was necessary or not, and if it was necessary they would provide it regardless of cost. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra privacy is unnecessary? Speak for yourself! :) --Ericdn (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Public showers at swimming pools generally don't have curtains, but many school changeroom showers do. Some people will also wear a towel when they are done showering. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One would expect a person to wear a towel, bathing suit, underwear, or a full set of clothes after showering, unless that person is a nudist or has some other reason to remain nude after drying off. --Ericdn (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You might expect that, but I wouldn't. Locker rooms are places where it is socially acceptable to be nude. People who don't like it should stay away. --Trovatore (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would expect it varies a lot depending on what country your talking about and even what part of the country in many cases. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lemme put it this way: If we're sharing a locker room and you don't want me to see your form as fashioned by the good Lord, I can respect that — everyone's entitled to his own hangups. But don't you dare object to mine. --Trovatore (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your original claim was that is universally (you didn't say universally but it was implied) socially acceptable to be nude in locker rooms. My claim is it likely varies from society to society. As for your more recent claim, it's largely irrelevant. You could make the same argument that you should be entilted to go around nude in public but in reality you're likely to be arrested in many countries including most parts of the US. (For that matter, I doubt you were nude when making your PhD defence.) The simple fact is, social acceptance of nudity including in locker rooms almost definitely varies (in some cases religious beliefs may have nothing to do with it) and your apparent idea that it is universally acceptable to be nude in locker rooms is not supported by any references I've seen and common sense suggests it is in fact not the case in quite a number of places and countries. Note that no one has suggested you shouldn't be entitled to go around nude in places where it is acceptable, simply pointed out that it is unlikely to be universally acceptable as you have implied. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think another infamous reason is that teenage boys, when given privacy, will tend to masturbate, smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, etc. (possibly all at the same time). My high school went so far as to remove the doors from the boy's toilet stalls. I don't know about you, but I don't much enjoy an audience when taking a crap (few outside of Catch 22 do). StuRat (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"teenage boys, when given privacy, will tend to masturbate, smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, etc. (possibly all at the same time)."   OR?   ;-)   – 74  00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL! :) --Ericdn (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was too busy enjoying all the fine bathroom wall poetry to engage in any of those activities. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A screen, a carpet and physical exercise

I have seen people on a carpet with squares(?) on it, in front of a screen that instructed them to jump forward, backward etc as a form of physical exercise. I don't know if my description is clear (also my memory of the whole thing is rather vague), but would anybody know what I am talking about - and what is the name for this thing?? Lova Falk (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution. --Tango (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

...and many MANY clones of it! I wonder though whether our OP is thinking of some non-dance software that uses the pad specifically for exercise? I'm not aware of anything like that - but I could easily imagine someone doing it. That said - you do get a pretty good workout from Dance Dance Revolution. SteveBaker (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a company that put out a pad and 2 games/exercise programs waaay before any of the others. It was launched to coincide with some Olympic games (I think it was the ones in Seoul but could have been earlier). The stuff didn't take off and ended up being sold by places like "Big Lots". Because it was a no-name company and they only had those two options people probably didn't want to spend that much money on a dead end product. Maybe someone picked one up at a garage sale somewhere. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your OP means Dance dance revolution. Thank you! BTW I know that I am the OP, but what does OP mean? Oblivious Person? Original Puestion-asker? Outrageous Problem-causer? Lova Falk (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Original Poster". --Tango (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The dance pad article discusses some of the different brands/versions, and Comparison of dance video games compares them in a way I don't understand at all. There was also the Nintendo Power Pad, back in the day. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Twister, but the 'screen' is a hand-operated spinner. —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kids in wells

It's a common trope in popular culture to depict huge news-stories centered around kids that fall down wells and get trapped in there for days, while rescuers are desperately trying to get them out (it's a plot point in 12 Monkeys and I seem to recall an entire Simpsons episode where Bart faked being trapped, for instance). Does this actually happen, or is it just an urban legend? Those stories have always seemed fishy to me, because it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to rescue a kid trapped in a well. You just fasten a line to a tree or something, and then a fireman can be lowered down the well and he can get the kid out. I mean, it'd take at most a few hours, not days and days. If it does happen, can anyone give me any examples? Belisarius (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It does happen, see for example Jessica McClure or this or this. Nanonic (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are also likely thinking of "well" in a very old-fashioned way. See the first few pictures on the article. Most wells now are drilled. (See the photos from the same article near the bottom on the left.) The pipe on ours, for exmaple, which goes down about 70 feet (24 meters or thereabouts) is only approximately 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter where it comes out of the ground. It is capped, of course, to keep out debris and small animals, and not even a very small child could get trapped in it. However, there are also pipes at 6 inches and 8 inches (15 and 20 cm) where a child could slip down and easily get stuck. I believe that is what happed with Jessica McClure, as linked above. A dug well might be a hole a foot and a half (45 cm) in diameter, but with a pipe of a size similar to those of the drilled wells. The opening of the hole is capped and so is the top of the pipe. If the cap on the hole were to be removed, a small child could easily slip down between the edge of the hole and the pipe insert. // BL \\ (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to Iowa's program for capping wells which mentions another such incident: [6] Rmhermen (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The most famous child down a well (as mentioned above, Jessica McClure), was a media event that changed the way such things are reported. The New York Times ran a retrospective article in 1995 on the impact of live video news, of which this was the first such story. CNN was there, and it made their name. "If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a moving picture is worth many times that, and a live moving picture makes an emotional connection that goes deeper than logic and lasts well beyond the actual event. 'Everybody in America became godfathers and godmothers of Jessica while this was going on,' Ronald Reagan told Jessica's parents [...] This was before correspondents reported live from the enemy capital while American bombs were falling. Before Saddam Hussein held a surreal press conference with a few of the hundreds of Americans he was holding hostage. Before the nation watched, riveted but powerless, as Los Angeles was looted and burned. Before O. J. Simpson took a slow ride in a white Bronco, and before everyone close to his case had an agent and a book contract. This was uncharted territory just a short time ago." So, in short, children have fallen down wells since time immemorial, but it became a vivid trope when CNN broadcast one live. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that I'm the one to bring this up since I never saw the show it's based on... The television show Lassie is often (mis?)quoted by people saying something akin to "What's that Lassie? Timmy fell down a well?!". I've never seen the show but I've heard this line used several times for comedic effect. So wells and kids seem to go back farther than Jessica McClure and CNN. Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Kathy Fiscus for the archetype. The McClure incident has merely superceded the earlier one in the public consciouness, probably due to the better outcome. B00P (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kids have always fallen down wells. CNN, by live round-the-clock video coverage, brought one example to public prominence. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another source was media circus around the adult caver Floyd Collins who was trapped down a mine, and partial inspiration along with Kathy Fiscus for the movie Ace in the Hole (film), itself an influence on the Simpsons. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Learning to dance

How could I learn to dance? When people go out clubbing it seems as if magic happened and everybody could dance (without taking lessons) besides me. :( I am not interested in salsa, tango or other elaborated styles. I just don't want to be an outsider at the dance-floor.

I'm not much of a dancer myself, but I imagine learning a specific dancing style, like salsa, would help. Most dancing I see on the rare occasions I go to clubs is very simple - as long as you have a basic sense of rhythm you'll be fine. Any kind of dance lessons should help you with that. However, before you try that, you may want to try having a couple more drinks before going to the dance floor - it may just be that you are too self-concious. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of dance studios teach social dancing. The important thing is "dance like nobody's watching"; it's easier, though, if you know a few steps so it looks like you're doing something more than wiggling your body in rhythm. (Though that also works!) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution? (I'm not entirely joking). SteveBaker (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

JPGordon is correct. A lot of dance studios have classes designed for people who are a bit shy on the dance floor. Classes are often called something like "Dancing for pleasure" (don't get this mixed up with pole-dancing though), "social dance", "Finding your inner dancer" or something like that. Much of it is just learning to find the strong beat and being comfortable enough with it and your body to move it smoothly. This, of course, is easier said than done.

If this isn't your thing, then asking a friend who knows a bit about it to help you in private can be useful. Dancing alone is less worrying than dancing in front of everybody. Of course, according to Hollywood, it probably means you'd end up dating whoever you ask to help, but it's less likely in the real world. :) Steewi (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course, in a club, most other people will likely to be too tipsy to care what your dancing looks like. And usually (in my experience, anyway), it will be packed enough that you won't have room to do much more than "wiggling your body in rhythm." I'm not much of a dancer or social animal either, and I was terrified the first time I went to a club (I got dragged along by my friends), but it turned out I looked stupider not dancing at all than dancing badly. So the bottom line is not to worry too much. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't dance in those clubs. I mean, de gustibus and all, but really, there's so much better available. My personal passion is swing (East Coast and Lindy Hop, but West Coast is also a fine dance though the music is kind of weak). The demise of the Second Swing Era has been greatly exaggerated — you can find it in any decent-sized urban area in the US and Canada, and lots of places in Europe, and there are always new young people getting into it, so it's not going anywhere. --Trovatore (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just try moving your body around to the beat of the music. Move your arms, legs, and spin your torso and yourself around. However, if people around you are doing a slow dance, well, that's not really a dance, and you don't have to learn it, the only thing that matters is getting someone to dance with. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, different people are different, but honestly I think you'll do best at dancing "naturally" if you first learn some defined styles. Preferably lead-and-follow rather than choreographed. Do them long enough and frequently enough that your mistakes start to be actually interesting moves. Then figure out how the mistake happened and incorporate it. Learn several different styles, observe their commonalities, incorporate aspects of one into another. My main social dance is swing, but I throw in elements of blues and tango. Salsa has large overlaps with swing as well, especially with six-count swing (in salsa you're not really doing anything on beats 4 and 8, so the other six beats just translate into a swing move).

Remember that Picasso was a classically trained painter. Improvising works best when it builds on something. --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stimulated pork...

My question is about a US$250 million project called "Main Street Signage including Gateways, Way Finding & Displays" in Orange, NJ. Is this an approved part of the US economic stimulus package ? This site says they will only employ 5 people: [7]. Needless to say, $50 million per job seems excessive. So, is this a mind-boggling piece of pork, or is there some justification for spending so much money (over a dollar per US taxpayer and $7,600 per resident of Orange) on road signs in one small town ? Can anyone find a breakdown of the items which total this sum ? StuRat (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea about a reliable source, but with most of these things it's important to find out who's saying it and why. Two things that came to mind here: The place you linked looks to be somewhere in the Newark area. That would still sound like "Where?" to me if I hadn't had the displeasure of taking a couple of planes routed via the airport there. Now I could think of a long list of "if" conditions that would making pouring millions into anything making changing planes there more sufferable a worthwhile endeavor. Tourism is a part of the US economy that took a big hit during the previous administration. There's a poll where foreign visitors ranked countries they had been to. While the US ranked among the top for "people" and "sights" it ranked somewhere near the very bottom when it came to entering the country. Millions spent making foreign visitors think US = yeah! instead of Newark = groan could cause more money than that to flow in. Second there is hopefully going to be a snowball effect from most items in the stimulus package. So the city hires 5 government officials that will probably start off by getting an office equipped, then hiring a couple of companies to study what should be done (- which will then in turn get their offices equipped.) They may decide on programmable signage which means they'll need programmers (- who survive on lots of coke, coffee and pizzas :) They may want multi-lingual signs and may need translators (- yes, here, here, slobber!) etc.. Plus such budget labels rarely tell the whole story. Lots of little projects get thrown into the pot when funds are available. I contracted for a "tunnel construction office" which it turned out was building a bridge. A technical workshop I attended was financed out of a pot labeled "women in agriculture" among others. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone else have any info on this ? StuRat (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of tv footage

How long till it is in the public domain? I'm interested particularly in George VI coronation footage which is 1937, I believe. Thanks for any help. --217.227.87.60 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this, TV broadcasts are covered for 50 years and Films are covered for 70 years. But copyright law is tricky and you really should consult an expert because we're not allowed to give legal advice here on Wikipedia's Ref.Desks. SteveBaker (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) According to our article: "Copyright in broadcasts subsists for 50 years from the making of the broadcast if the broadcast is made in an EEA country." So it would be public domain. There is one possible exception to that - it might be Crown copyright (which lasts forever) if was somehow official footage made by the crown, but I don't think it was (I think the BBC owned the copyright). --Tango (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's copyright in the film as a work, copyright in the actual broadcast, and there may be an argument for performer's rights. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WP does have its very own Media Copyright Questions page, where someone may be able to tell you more, or point you in the right direction. Gwinva (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

if I recall. 79.66.56.21

An urban legend - "if I recall". Please provide the provenance for your insipid response to the Cruzcampo question above. I find these self-opinionated and sardonic responses to be distasteful, arrogant and unhelpful to the OP. Is he or she to accept your supercilious answer as informed, reliable, helpful, or a load of bullshit? Please advise, but please, give us an informed and referenced answer, and not something you may have just recalled. Thankyou in anticipation. 92.9.235.173 (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's a picture of Gambrinus. That should suffice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This:[8]? Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it would be better if 79.66.56.21 had given a reference for discounting the origin given for the different direction of fastening. But it would be better still if 92.20.17.211 had given a reference for the claimed origin. Indeed, if 79.66.56.21 had said "I don't believe that story. Please give a reference', this would have been unexceptionable.

I haven't found an authoritative reference either, but the two discussions I have found ([9] and [10]) agree that the conventions did not become standardised until the 19th century. They both give several reasons which have been advanced, including the one suggested here, but are dubious about them all. I am dubious for the same reasons as I am dubious about many supposed origins of phrases (see http://worldwidewords.org, passim): an ingenious theory about how something could have arisen is not even close to an assertion that it did arise in that way - especially if there is a significant gap of time between the supposed origin and the first recorded instance of the explicandum. --ColinFine (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the theory I've heard most commonly is the maid thing. I've never heard the sword theory before. And I would have to agree with ColinFine here, it's hypocritical to get annoyed with someone's unreferenced recollection when they were responding to your unreferenced recollection Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested that you read it as self-opinionated and sardonic. It was intended as neither. The OP gave a rather nice urban-legendy just-so story for why buttons are the way they are, and I felt my response was more likely to lead them to consider and think than starting a whole thing on the complicated and unclear history of the practice, which I felt would hijack the thread. The only bit that was 'if I recall' was the 19th century comment; it could have been early 20th, but I was fairly sure it was 19th. I see others confirm it was 19th. I als#o thought this had been covered enough in these places that someone else was quite capable of providing more info if asked for. 79.66.56.21 (talk)