Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 24

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.

October 24

railroad conductor hats

what is the history of the railroad conductors hats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrascal (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which railroad, which country??? This site might help.Popcorn II (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this [1] sort of thing from the Santa Fe. It looks like it was copied from a military design to add some authority to the uniform and its wearer. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

MLM !!

Are the multi level marketing options really a viable thing to do and the incentives that they promise are delivered as one of my friends suggested me to do. Can this be taken as a sustained way of survival/earning..anybody associated with this ? please advise Seekhle (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think most MLMs have had aspersions cast on them in some way or another. My only experience was a friend that sold knives for Vector Marketing, he made some money, but it doesn't work out as lucrative as they might lead you to believe. He also had to push knives on his friends and family, which some people might not be comfortable with. Amway has had many detractors over the years, this article gives some information about them. I'd suggest you go search google for stories and opinions on any MLM you're considering. TastyCakes (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect that it would not be comfortable having someone push a knife onto you either! Mitch Ames (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Many websites quote the story that in the US, the FTC requires Amway to label their products with something like: "54% of Amway recruits make nothing and the rest earn on average $65 a month.". Most Amway products are ultimately consumed by their sales recruits. SteveBaker (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As for whether it's viable or not, it very much depends on the individual. I have met some people who have become very rich through MLM schemes, never have to work again, and will have loads of money pouring in for the rest of their lives without raising a finger. And I've met many people who made basically nothing, became very disillusioned, and got out. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While there's obviously some dependence on the invididual, I disagree that it depends 'very much'. While all business depend somewhat on, for lack of a better word 'luck'/'random chance' (or things beyond the control of an invidual that are almsot impossible to predict) with MLM takes this to more of an extreme. The truth is the only way you can be resonably sure you'll be successful with MLM is if you have the skill set, knowledge etc necessary to actually set up an MLM scheme where you can fool suckers into making you rich (i.e. as with many get rich scheme kind of things the only way it works is if you're the one who starts it). Otherwise you're very likely going to get very little for the effort you put in unless you're very 'lucky'. This is an important thing because if you present the idea it depends on the individual, you lead people to believe they just have to work harder and smarter then the average person and if they stick with it, then they have a resonable chance of success (or that the reason most people don't success is they don't apply themselve enough and/or aren't smart enough and/or give up too fast), which is not the case for most MLM schemes. Starting a business is never easy and always risky but despite what MLM proponents want people to believe, MLM is actually quite different from an average business and not in a good way and no you're not likely to make money even if you're 'better' then the other people involved (yes I appreciate this is some sort of Christian site) [2] Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who sets up a business on the basis of "fooling suckers into making you rich" is bound to fail, sooner or later. What goes around, and all that. There has to be something in it for the other people; at least some reasonable prospect that if you follow the instructions - all of them - for long enough, you stand a chance of being as successful as the guy ahead of you, or however you define your own success. Many people don't follow all the instructions, or don't persist, or have unrealistic expectations at the start (such as becoming millionaires after 12 months), or are just not prepared to pay the price asked of them in terms of the work required. And many MLM schemes are not set up in a way that gives people lower than the top guy much of a chance to begin with. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing is a barely legal version of a pyramid scheme. Do not waste your time on it, it is a scam. You will be buying a lot of stuff (and hence making money for the people you buy it off) that you will find difficult to pass on. Think of something else - like selling things on eBay, for example. 89.242.151.212 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The only way MLM is a viable way to make a living is to start one, and manage to convince people to join (sadly, too easy.) Seriously this is a scam - don't do it! Look, the reason why these sorts of things exist and will continue to exist is because someone decided to make a living by coning money from other people. From the early pyramid scheme, to the dirt cheap top of the line stereo scam, to Nigerian e-mail scam, to the latest "reverse funnel system" (which have a long time running ad up on facebook. I think that ad is still around last month.), they are all scams. And there is no denying the fact that yeah, some people definitely got filthy rich out of all this, but only for the guy at the top. They will take every effort to make the scam look tempting, authentic, respectable, and legitimate. Don't do it Royor (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well i m not sure what u are taking about but by the whole conversation i can make out something and wpuld like to suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a collegue working with me who also does this work with Oriflame (cosmetics products). He is gaining a lot of profit doing this work of selling its products and as more as he gets to sell the things, he gets more and more profit and benifits from the company, he is also suppose to be a manager soon as he has served his target and i just heard his manager has got a Honda City car by the company and she is only working for them now i mean to say that this is her sole earning right now and she earns aprox 2,00,000 a month, and her manager is getting more than that and last person i know from there group who is the manager of all these people and who started everything from the very initial stage is earning 40,000,000 per annum but i would say that all these people have already achived that level and there targets where in they do not have to work on anything else for thier living, but as my collegue is working with me and is also trying to achive his targets of Oriflame as he is still on the initial stage, if somebody has to try that then i would say work something else as well for your earning and then after few months or yrs u would see the results. If the company you are working for shuts down even then it would not effect u so much if u have some job in your hand.

But the main thing is that the product you are supporting should be renowned and reliable enough, as we know about Amway and Oriflame and many others.

I personnaly have not tried my hands on it as i know that i m very week in sales and selling anything is a impossible thing for me. As its rightly said by JackofOz|JackofOz that everybody can not do it, but who can do it can become very rich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for the rider in my last sentence. The scheme itself has to be designed to actually enable newcomers to profit handsomely; a lot of them are not. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are two ways to make money off an MLM scheme:

1) By selling the product(s). If the product is actually a good one and worth what they are asking for it, then this can be a legit source of revenue.

2) By recruiting others and getting a portion of their fees for joining. This is not a net source of income for the organization, as every penny made by one person in the organization is lost by someone else, so it's a break-even proposition at best, and even worse when the effect of taxes is considered.

So, the only way for everyone to have a fair chance at making money is the first scenario. If, on the other hand, they sell an inferior, over-priced product, then only the first few people to join, at the "top" of the pyramid, will benefit, and the vast majority will lose money. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You would be more likely to make more money by just buying some product(s) in bulk at wholesale prices, and selling them yourself at a retail price, and not wasting your time and money on MLM. The answer to the OPs questions are "No". 89.240.47.104 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the aspersions cast by some contributors to this thread. I have been an Amway distributor in the past, and though I decided not to continue, I will defend the scheme. It was made clear to me at all points that there were great rewards to be had, but that building a business is hard work (which I wasn't prepared to put in). And I saw some people's self-confidence transformed by the experience and the teaching that was provided in the particular organisation I was part of. --ColinFine (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says in the Amway article: "Amway was ordered to accompany any such statements with the actual averages per distributor, pointing out that more than half of the distributors do not make any money, with the average distributor making less than $100 per month." 92.29.91.83 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How is the information for the nutrition facts label determined?

In a US context, how is the information for the nutrition facts label determined? How is its accuracy determined? How do you figure out, for example, how many calories are in a given quantity of food? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

One way of measuring food energy is by using a calorimeter. However, this tends to overestimate the calorific value for humans (since not all the energy is extracted during digestion). Therefore adjusted values have been calculated for many constituents of foods. The makers of the labels consult charts that list these values. Rockpocket 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So they are calculated by ingredients? That's what I'm interested in knowing—if they just add up known values for ingredients or whether they calculate it from scratch for the whole thing. I would assume the former but am curious. Does the FDA double-check? That is, what's to stop someone from being misleading, or just wrong? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US, there are various options for calculating calorific content, but - yes - all are applied to the amount of food components (e.g., fat, carbohydrate, protein, or ingredients with specific food factors) actually present in the food. You can use the so-called "Atwater method" (Energy Value of Foods--Basis and Derivation, by A. L. Merrill and B. K. Watt, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Handbook No. 74.). You can assign the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for protein, total carbohydrate, and total fat, respectively. You can use tabulated data for particular ingredients approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Or you can Use bomb calorimetry data subtracting 1.25 calories per gram protein to correct for incomplete digestibility. All are permitted by the US government. Rockpocket 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

The continent of Africa is the birthplace of humanity, right? B-Machine (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See Recent African origin of modern humans vs. Multiregional origin of modern humans. Most scientists subscribe to the former hypothesis. Rockpocket 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So, Africa is the birthplace of humanity. Cool. B-Machine (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're reasonably certain that is so, because that matches our understanding of how genes and evolution works generally. It would be pretty impossible for two populations of the same species which were geographically isolated to simultaneously evolve into the same second species, as the second theory maintains (multiple populations of Homo erectus simultaneously and independently evolving into Homo sapiens). Still, there are a few reasonable points made in the second theory, so while we are fairly certain that humanity evolved once in Africa and then spread out, science is always open to changing its understanding of events based on new evidence, which is why the second theory is not dismissed entirely. --Jayron32 05:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

psychic detectives

I have seen the manny letters debunking this ability. My question is, how do you explain the TV programs on Sky3 of that name which purport to show many US cases where the police have been helped - often in a spectacular way. Are they fiction, as they involve apparently actual police officers? Donhin (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)donhin

That stuff is put out because people like to watch it, just like ET come home or free Willy or Toy Story or the X files or the many soaps that go on year after year. People watching means ads sold and money to Sky. That's the bottom line, not an impulse to educate and inform. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Even so, you never want to get a fortune cookie that reads, "A psychic will lead detectives to your grave." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest - that really depends on whether you believe in fortune cookies. People who do, probably already believe in psychic detectives. I once did lunch at a chinese restaurant with someone who believed in all that crap - she got a completely empty fortune cookie (ie, no fortune inside!) and totally freaked out that it was predicting that she had "no future". I tried to claim that I'd accidentally picked up the wrong cookie and that one was intended for me...but it didn't seem to help much. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The obvious question to ask them would be, "So how come you didn't drop dead on the spot?" That might turn the lightbulb on. Or, it might freak them out even more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The police have to deal with lots of cranks claiming special knowledge. If their predictions are sufficiently general, then at least some of them will turn out to be correct, and these are the ones that are remembered. There are two other logical explanations: some "psychic detectives" might be people who have some connection with the criminal, but don't want to reveal their source; some might just be good detectives who can put themselves in the position of the criminals and can imagine what they would do. Evidence for some supernatural ability is not statistically significant. Dbfirs 18:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with TV shows is that they feed you exactly what they want you to see. So if you see something that sparks even the slightest bit of skepticism, it's probably a load of phooey. They just drag you along in doubt. If they ever made any serious attempt to get to the bottom of some mystery, well their show would be over in two minutes flat. Vranak (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know about that particular show. But for example with Sensing Murder#Criticism and developments, as discussed there and in the references and other sites, e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6] neither the NZ version, nor the Australian version nor the Swedish version have provided information leading to cases being solved. I'm extremely sure it's the same for the Danish, Norwegian and US version too but haven't seen that specific claim made so won't say tha definitely. The dubious methods are partially discussed in the article sources and the sources I provided Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The psychics lie, the producers lie, and sometimes the odd rare cop lies. People love to lie. Psychics are also really good at pointing out the painfully obvious or the statistically likely (for instance, that a child victim was buried with stuffed toys - almost all are - or that the perpetrator was male) and making it seem that this would be absolutely impossible if they didn't have psychic powers. Remember too that if a psychic makes 1,000 predictions and one comes true, that's the only one you'll ever hear about - AND it's very likely that every prediction the psychic made had about a one in 1,000 chance of coming true. --NellieBly (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, many people with alleged psychic abilities are actually experts on reading people, and use this to scam people. For example, a police officer may take a "psychic" to a crime scene and ask them where the body might be buried. Meanwhile, the cop might furtively glance at some recently disturbed ground they had noticed earlier. The "psychic" notices this, then leads them right to the spot, where they dig up the body. This makes the "psychic" look like she performed a miracle, when in reality she just picked up on what the cop had already figured out. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You've described the basic premise for the TV series Psych, a detective who pretends to be psychic but is actually just a really good observer. As Yogi Berra said... well, I'm sure you know that one. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the TV shows in question, but shows of this nature are often wildly fictionalized. Usually they take a real case and then wildly exaggerate it. Probably they start by getting the psychic's side of the story. (These sorts of psychics are usually very good at self-promotion.) And then they'll "punch up" any parts of the story that are a bit slow. Bring in actors to play the parts of the people involved. Dramatize the parts that no one knows about, etc. They often wind up with something that is simply not recognizable as the original event, but they can still claim it's "based on a true story". APL (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)