Miscellaneous desk
< November 4	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 6 >

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.

November 5

Sources of news from Germany - in English

I am looking for an English language website, newspaper or other source which reports domestic news stories from Germany. I'm talking about general interest stories such as politics, crime, entertainment, sport and so on. There's a few stories on the BBC website but nothing very much. Does such a thing exist? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Welle was the first thing that came to mind, and Der Spiegel has an English section. It doesn't seem from a cursory search that there is an English language German Daily newspaper, but I didn't try too hard. :) FiggyBee (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Deutsche Welle site is great, exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time was when the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had an English site (or at least English pages on its home site), but I think those days passed a few years ago. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels policy

Can I book and use a hotel room in the United States if I am exactly twenty years old and I am not a US citizen? In particular I am asking about hotels in Washington, D.C. and the following states: Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut. Thank you. --88.203.248.164 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something which makes you think you couldn't? --Tango (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, having done some research apparently some hotels don't let under ~~18's~~ 21's stay because it's too difficult to regulate the minibars. That isn't universal, though - many seem to set the limit at 18 (younger than that would cause problems with credit - you would probably have to pay cash in advance). --Tango (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the person is saying they are 20 years old. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I typed the wrong number - corrected now! --Tango (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many actually require credit cards no matter what—for fear of damages. Anyway, I suspect the age policies are set by individual hotels. I would call them ahead of time, if possible. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe we had to be 98 to have a drink. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some rental car companies insist on the person being at least 25 but I haven't run into any that have an age limit higher than 18. I could see the argument for 21 if the rooms had a mini-bar. But then, unless you're staying at a high priced hotel, you don't need to worry about having a mini-bar in your room. Dismas|^(talk) 03:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 19 and I stayed in a variety of hotels in a variety of states this summer. (None of the ones you mentioned, though.) But generally, as long as I had a credit card and acted mature and responsible, nobody had a problem with it. Nobody even checked my age. Still, I recommend checking ahead with the individual hotels to make sure if you're concerned about it. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm not a US citizen either, although I'm not really sure if that even makes a difference. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't ask about that stuff - what they are mostly interested in is your credit card. They typically won't let you pay by any other means - including cash. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the minibar is an issue, the OP can always ask the hotel to empty or remove it, or to allocate a room without one. This is quite a common request, one made by people with children, and people who (for one reason or another) aren't comfortable with alcohol in their room. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about the other states, but I got a hotel room in Maryland several years ago when I was only 17. If it is a rule, it is not universally enforced. Googlemeister (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you pay for it? --Tango (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cash. Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some places will let you pay cash—but many won't. It is one of those "call ahead" sort of deals. It's not just minibar; in my experience, what they care about are potential damages, theft, etc., and want some sort of obvious line of insurance ready. (Or maybe that's just how they are around me!) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The desire for a way to claim damages explains a limit of 18, the minibar explains a limit of 21 (in that strange land where you can't drink until you are 21...). --Tango (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation: 'wishes for truth'

My apologies if there is a more relevant section of the reference desk for this question, but recently I was presented with a situation in which I wanted to use an expression 'trading wishes for truth', which I think must be a quotation, but cannot find it on Google - i.e. searching using no quotation marks produces a plethora of irrelevancies, and with quotation marks, nothing.

Does anyone recall this, or a similar quotation I may be mis-remembering? --Neil (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the kind of idea F A Hayek might have [1], but it doesn't sound like a quote from him, because it's pithy. 81.131.15.153 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "taking your wishes for truth" was posted by a user here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. I had taken it to mean "truth is a goal pursued by the act of trading". 213.122.67.223 (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are shrunk to the height of a nickel...

I was reading this article[2] about Google interview questions and this question in particular has sparked my curiousity: "You are shrunk to the height of a nickel and your mass is proportionally reduced so as to maintain your original density. You are then thrown into an empty glass blender. The blades will start moving in 60 seconds. What do you do?" I did an internet search and found a number of answers[3]. But what's the correct answer? 12.165.250.13 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be pedantic, if the blender is truly empty then you will die of thirst in a fairly short time.Froggie34 (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duck? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(After E/C)

I'm not sure there is a "Correct" answer, but the three obvious answers are to either to 1)attempt to press up against the sides of glass so that the blades can't reach you. This will work well for certain designs of blenders, but very poorly for other designs. Or 2) Attempt to jump on the blades and hold on for dear life. This would be tremendously difficult, but if you could center yourself as close to their axis of rotation as possible you'd have a chance. or 3) Get under the blades. They don't always scrape the bottom of the glass. Again, this depends on the design of the blender. APL (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reduced in height to the diameter of a nickel, or thickness? I am assuming that it is a US nickel, as dimensions for a Canadian nickel are slightly different I think. Either way, the point is moot since being thrown (presumably by a malevolent regular sized human) would most likely kill the shrunken victim simply from the impact. Googlemeister (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air resistance would be increased - the effect of air resistance is roughly proportional to cross sectional surface area and inversely proportional to mass, so it will be increased by the scale factor. That might well be enough to avoid injury. Also, the strength of bones compared to mass will be greater by the same factor, since the strength of bones is roughly proportional to cross sectional area of the bone. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you are shrunk your mass is reduced by the scale factor cubed, but the cross-sectional area of your muscles (and thus your strength) is reduced by only the square of the scale factor. That means you would be somewhere around 100 times stronger (it terms of strength to weight ratios) than you were before. Therefore, you should have no difficultly jumping out of the blender. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - that's my answer too - it's an interesting fact that almost all land animals are able to jump vertically by (very roughly) 12 inches...elephants, fleas, humans, mice. OK - maybe there is a spread of a factor of two either way - but it's a pretty solid rule that's a consequence of that mass to muscle-cross-section thing. So there is no reason to imagine that jumping out of the blender would be difficult. (Of course, if the lid is on...) The other thing about blenders is that the blades actually propel the material inside the center of the blender upwards and material around the edges downwards (or vice-versa) so that unchopped material can't lurk on the sides. So I don't think leaning against the sides of the glass will save you - and probably, hiding beneath the blades won't help either. If this is the kind of blender that pushes chopped material up through the center of the mix and pulls it in and under the blades from the sides - then yours best chance could be to hold on to the UNDERSIDE of one of the blades so that the pressure of the circulation would push you tighter against the blade. However, centrifugal forces would still likely spell your doom. My blender has a nut that holds the blade in place - perhaps I can unscrew that and remove the blade? SteveBaker (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it says right there in the article that there isn't a correct answer. It's to test your imagination. APL (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. The 'answers' article has at least one obvious error. It claims that the egg-drop problem requires 101 drops, which is obviously false. So I guess it shouldn't be trusted. APL (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked to say it will take 19 drops. Their explanation only proves 19 is an upper bound on the maximum required, although it seems plausible that it is optimal. --Tango (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is optimal, unless someone can think of a completely different scheme. You're wanting to divide the 100 floors into sections, dropping an egg at the top floor in each section working up from the bottom section until the egg breaks. Then you are going to start at the bottom of that section with your second egg and work your way up until that breaks. The floor before that egg breaks (or the same floor if you reach the second-to-last in the range and the egg still doesn't break) is the highest non-breaking floor. The highest number of drops required will involve dropping the first egg once in every section, breaking when dropped from floor 100, and then dropping the second egg from every floor in the top range. So the question is, what is the optimum number of sections to minimise the number of drops? Or, in other words, minimise a + 100/a where a is the number of sections. We can picture the function, and the minimum point can be found by differentiating to find a point with a gradient of 0. a + 100a^-1 goes to 1 - 100a^-2 which must equal 0. So, 100a^-2 = 1, a² = 100. So, number of sections (a) is 10, giving a maximum of 19 drops as described. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that the sections do not have to have equal numbers of floors. You can do it in 14 drops: instead of taking the first egg up ten stories at a time, start on floor 14, then go up 13 stories to floor 27, then 12 stories, then 11, 10, 9, etc. Should it survive, the 11th drop will be from floor 99. If it survives that, make a twelfth drop from floor 100. If it breaks at some point, start with the second egg on the lowest possible floor - so, if the first egg breaks on the second drop, from floor 27, start with the second egg on floor 15. You then have a maximum of 12 drops of the second egg - 14 in total, and the logic holds all the way up - for example, if the egg breaks on the 11th drop, from floor 99, you need only go down to floor 96 to start dropping the second egg; you then have a maximum of 3 drops of this egg - 14 in total, again. Warofdreams talk 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I think I failed the initiative test - I worked that out, before looking at the comments and noticing other people came up with that answer earlier today! Warofdreams talk 01:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed the initiative test, but passed the honesty and sportsmanship tests. --Tango (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking - you're reducing the number of unused drops when the egg breaks early, so are using the drops more efficiently. Can you prove 14 is optimal, though? --Tango (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This method is based on triangular numbers, as you could solve the problem for 1 floor in 1 drop, 2 floors in 3 drops, 3 floors in 6 drops, etc. You can solve it for up to 105 floors in 14 drops, but only 91 in 13 drops, so it's the optimal number for this approach - but I can't prove that it would be impossible for a different approach to produce a lower number of drops. Warofdreams talk 01:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, but why would you need 3 drops for 2 floors, 6 drops for 3 floors? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, the other way round - 2 drops for 3 floors, 3 drops for 6 floors, etc. Warofdreams talk 20:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've updated it now. It used to say "The number of stories plus one". APL (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any of this kind of 'trick' interview questions have a correct answer. Interviewers are not looking to find out how well you read the "interview questions" websites, they are looking for how well you can think. For the ones that do have correct answers, if you give it in a way that makes the interviewer think you already knew the answer they will just ask another until they find a way to make you think. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After awhile you might think that you want to work elsewhere. I can think of any number of wise guy answers that wouldn't get me the job but could be entertaining. For example: Advise the interviewer that the job of turning the switch on has been sent offshore, and now it will be several weeks before it gets done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever one answers, it should be followed up with that idea that if you do get out of there alive, you convince whomever shrunk you and put you in there to stop wasting time trying to kill you, and get this shrink ray on the market! Think of how much the military would pay for that baby! There's money to be made, gobs of it! --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, perhaps that's part of the screening process. To weed out anyone who thinks they're too good to answer a few brain teasers.APL (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I work (a computer game company in Austin, TX), we're pretty much continuously recruiting programmers - we ask three of these kinds of questions during the second of three rigorous interviews that all successful candidates undergo. The questions we ask DO have definite, solid answers - and we expect all of the candidates to get the answers right eventually - with enough prodding, hints, suggested solution techniques, etc. But that's definitely not the point. If the candidate kinda looks up into space for 20 seconds - then gives the correct answer - then we're going to immediately ask "How did you arrive at that?" - and then try again with a harder question. If they struggle a bit, that's much more interesting. We're going to suggest lines of inquiry and ask the candidate to work on the white-board so we can see how he or she is getting stuck. The thing we care about is how they get there.

For example - when we interview computer programmers, we sometimes ask: "You have 8 identical-looking billiard balls - one is very slightly heavier than the others - but too slight to be obvious when you pick it up. All you have a balance-beam with two pans which can each hold up to 8 balls. What is the smallest number of weighings that will allow you to determine which ball is the heaviest? This isn't a trick question - the answer involves nothing more than weighing the balls with the balance beam."

Any halfway reasonable candidate will more or less immediately say "3"...put 4 balls in each pan, discard the 4 from the 'light' side - then put two of the remaining balls in each pan, again, discarding the two on the lighter side - then compare the two remaining balls to find the heavy one...3 weighings...EASY! Then we ask what name they might give to the method they used - they'll usually say "Binary search" - or something like that - which is a "programmer thing" that we'd expect them to know. Then we ask them if they can do any better? Is it possible to do this in just two weighings? (Yes, it is) That's when things get interesting - how will they figure this out? It's really quite revealing - you can clearly see who are the "lateral thinkers" - who are the "analysts" and who are the "systematically try all the possibilities until something pans out" types. Sometimes, it's obvious that the candidate knows the answer already because they go straight to the "2" response without first suggesting "3"...so we just pick another question from a list of about 20 or 30 of them until we find one that they haven't heard before.

The point is that it might seem arbitary and unrelated to the task at hand - but it really tells us more about the person than any number of "programming tests" (we save those for the second interview!).

SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are doing that experiment in a virtual reality, but in the real world, wouldn't you have a really hard time getting the balls to sit nicely in the pan, without rolling around, and to have them in the exact same location in the pan on each side of the beam? If you were allowed to put something in the pan to hold the balls in place, that would be so much more helpful. Googlemeister (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can't work out the "2 weighing" method: First, put 3 balls on each side; if they balance then it's one of the other two, so compare those for the second weighing. If one of the sets of 3 is heavier, then weigh two of those 3 against each other; this will either show which is heavier, or they balance it's the other one. FiggyBee (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you obviously knew that, one may ask you the same question but with 64 balls and only 4 weighings allowed. Hint: Steve's balls are round not square. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does I "obviously knew that" mean? If you're implying that I heard the puzzle before, or looked up the answer, I didn't. And that's a bit personal about Steve, isn't it? 64 is just 8*8, so you use the same technique but with 8 times as many balls in the first two weighings to narrow it down to 8 (weigh 24 (8*3) vs 24 first time, then 8 vs 8 the second). And yes, I am a computer programmer.FiggyBee (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you made the problem look too easy. In Steve's interviews they want to see how you squirm. However in MY interview you would win the job. I apologise to Steve for squaring his imperfectly matched balls. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the Square-cube law#Biomechanics take effect?Civic Cat (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accountants in Saudi Arabia/Dubai

Hello i want to know the Salaries of ACCA qualified with one year experience in Saudi Arabia and Dubai,Please tell me if some one know.Thank You all of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.9.35 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor of the King 1953

At lunchtime, the 1953 UK/US film "Sailor of the King" was on TV. I thought that the German cruiser "Essen" was likely to be HMS Cumberland plus some dummy turrets; however I have been unable to find any reference to it on the web. There are plenty of notes about the Cumberland's role in the 1956 film "Battle of the River Plate", but nothing about an earlier movie career. Can anyone help?Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Manxman, according to a few sites.—eric 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I was looking at the three funnels and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Many thanks, I knew someone would know.Alansplodge (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotism or game spirit

My country playing another ina cricket match and absolutely everyone supporting the national team but i am the only irony supporting my favorite team and at the cost of some enimity.does this happen to many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The 2009 World Series ended last night. Pitching for the Phillies was Pedro Martinez. Martinez, due to his prowess while on the Red Sox, is not generally well-liked in New York (he's generally hated, really). New York has a strong Hispanic population, and the Yankees have many Hispanic players, such as Alex Rodriguez, who is Dominican, so the two go together. However, Martinez is also Dominican, so many people often feel torn, and would like to root for Martinez but would also like to root for the Yankees. This was easier when Martinez played for the Mets. The New York Times had an article on this very phenomenon today[4]. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this article about the Cricket test...Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rodriguez was born in the United States. He is an American. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although not really the same thing, it's not uncommon that citizens who are immigrants will support their country of birth rather then where they've made their new life even if they've been living there for many years Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very common. My partner lived the first 22 years of his life in Sri Lanka, then moved to Australia and quickly became an Australian citizen. But whenever Australia plays Sri Lanka, he's happy because he figures his team can't lose. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can root for individuals or you can root for teams, and when or if you decide to resolve that conflict is a function of how much you care. There's a corollary to this issue. I once knew someone who had grown up in New York City in the 1940s and 50s, where the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants had a rivalry whose intensity was at least as strong as the Yankees and Red Sox. He was a Giants fan. He moved to the midwest as an adult, and those teams moved to California. He lost interest in the Giants and became a St. Louis Cardinals fan primarily. But he still hated the Dodgers! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels

What are the different kinds of hotels on the bases of star? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.102.42 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume they mean, what qualifies a hotel for what star rationg i.e. what differentiates a three star from a four star hotel. The system will differ by country. We have part of an article on this. Fribbler (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's so much a "differ by country" approach as a "differ by rater". In many cases (as our article notes), this is one and the same. However, neither the US nor the UK have official national ratings (among many others) and there are numerous cases of hotels self-assigning their star rating. — Lomn 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may differ in other countries, but the German classification has *=tourist, **=standard, ***=comfort, ****=first class and *****=luxury. This site [5] (click the UK button for the en version) lists the relevant criteria. PS: There are also links which describe the paramaters of other European countries. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, *=fighting the cockroaches, **=broken furniture, ***=soap in the bathroom, ****=room service, *****=24h service. Astronaut (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star gazing near London

I was wondering where would be the closest place to London which would have the least amount of light pollution so that you could see stars, in particular it would be nice to see the Milky Way, this is considering a clear sky. MedicRoo (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert (having not lived in London in decades), but I would suspect the North Downs close to the Kent/Surrey boundary would be one likely place. It's possible there are closer places in the Green Belt. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Google Earth overlay, the area with the least light pollution nearest London is in the Rother District of East Sussex, particularly the area around the village of Iden just north of Rye. According to that map, there is a fair amount of light pollution everywhere in Surrey. Marco polo (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad - as a kid I learnt some of my astronomy basics in the Hadley Common/Hadley Wood areas around Barnet. Seems that light pollution has made that impossible now. Mind you, some of that may have been during the big power cuts of the early '70s. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nice overlay. As one who has lived in many different "colours" - I would say the "red" and "orange" are bad, the "yellow" is reasonable (I'm in yellow now). The closest place would depend on where you live now - if you are N to E London, then it might easier to go up M11 or A12 into Suffolk, or maybe a quiet beach (with no street lights) in Essex (ISTR Church of St Peter-on-the-Wall, Bradwell-on-Sea is pretty remote, and very dark). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm thinking yellow areas might be more realistic, especially as before I saw the overlay I was thinking I could go on a leisurely jaunt on the bike there, so somewhere like Mark Beech (I'm in the southern side of the city)might be okay.MedicRoo (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Bortle Dark-Sky Scale, you're looking for a sky that's class 1, 2, 3, or maybe 4. According to the map at [6], there are some small parts of Wales and large portions of Scotland that could meet your needs. Alternatively, you could borrow a boat and go about 50 miles out into the North Sea. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. If you can get a trip to NW Scotland, then the skies are much better than anywhere in England. I stayed at Culnacraig near Achiltibuie a couple of years ago, and when there is no moon, it is very, very dark Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC story confirms that parts of Scotland are very dark at night. FWIW, this forest is competing with the Omarama region not far from where I now live for this status. Grutness...wha? 08:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of rural areas of England are a 4 on that scale and you can definitely see the Milky Way. It is more dramatic with darker skies, but the OP just said he wanted to see it. --Tango (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am from North America, and based on the map of North America from the same source, I think the Milky Way would be very faint if you could see it at all in a sky that's class 4. You'd need to know where to look, and I don't think it would be impressive. In a class 3 sky, it stands out and starts to be impressive. The area of East Sussex that I mentioned is the closest area to London (especially South London) with a class 3 sky. This area also includes places such as Brede and Three Oaks, which can be reached by rail from Hastings or Brighton on the Marshlink Line. Obviously you want a very clear night. Carnildo is right that for a really stunning view of more stars than you've ever seen before set like bright jewels in a black class 1 sky, you will need to travel to the coast of Wales between New Quay and Cardigan, to the Scottish Highlands, or to the area around Boscastle and Tintagel in Cornwall. Marco polo (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, Bortle Dark-Sky Scale, says you can see the Milky Way in class 4 skies and that map shows where I am (rural area on the West Sussex/Hampshire border) in yellow and I've certainly seen the Milky Way when we've had really clear skies here. --Tango (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By English standards, none of those places are that near to London. If you can accept fairly bad light pollution, I'd head for a large open space in London that also has the advantage of height - Hampstead Heath comes to mind, but beware its notorious reputation after dark. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty hopeless if you can't go far from London, may I suggest the planetarium at Madame Tussaud's? Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're a student or academic, you can try getting access to UCL's Astronomical Observatory in Mill Hill, London NW7 - it's located right on the northbound A41. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article on the observatory - University College London Astronomical Observatory --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sadly the London Planetarium is no more.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that- that's incredibly sad. It was always one of my favourite places to visit in London. Wonder what they did with their wonderful old Zeiss projector? Grutness...wha? 23:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Near London, I would say it is impossible. I live within 25 km of the centre of London, and from home I cannot see stars below 2nd mag unless I use binoculars. I remember the first time I really noticed the Milky Way was on holiday in mid-Wales. Since then I seen it better still, many times, but always from very dark locations: Scottish Highlands, rural Eastern Europe, Outback Australia (the best I've seen). Astronaut (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]