Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 27

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 27

the pope

how do i get a message to him in this world ?from little paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.55.142 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to another world? Do you want to contact the Vatican? FisheatersDOTcomSLASHaddressesDOThtml (Wikipedia won't let me link you to it -- apparently, it's SPAM) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Except on Fridays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one wants to answer this seriously, I will. this website lists email addresses for prominent vatican officials. The address for the "Cardinal-Secretary of State" would probably suffice for official state-to-state type communications at the governmental level, there are also numerous email addresses listed for "Pontifical councils" which would likely deal with various issues; depending on the reason for contacting the Vatican, a specific council may be best for dealing with your needs. As far as directly contacting the pope; besides being the head-of-state of a tiny state occupying a few city blocks in Rome; he's also the Chief Executive and spiritual leader of a religion of some 1.147 billion people people; he's probably about as easy to contact as the President of the U.S. or the Queen of the UK or any other similar world leader. --Jayron32 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I take offense to that, Jayron. After Googling "contact the vatican," I was directed to the fisheater website, listing contact information for both conventional as well as email -- when I tried to link to it, though, I was told it was SPAM. My post was sincere as well as serious. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the process, but I do know it's possible for an ordinary citizen to arrange for an audience with the Pope, as I know someone that did just that. Perhaps that website would explain it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was impossible. It's also possible to meet other world leaders in person as well. I just said it was as likely. --Jayron32 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the person I knew who met the Pope, had that meeting with the previous Pope. Hard telling whether the current Pope's policy toward openness is the same as was his predecessor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Doncha just love anonymous name droppers. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? It was a non-notable acquaintance. Nuff sed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page "human interest" article a month or two ago that said it was far easier to get such audiences if you belonged to a group that had booked through the Vatican's own travel agency. But the original enquirer just wanted to pass a message on to His Holiness, and I don't know what's the best advice. It probably depends on the kind of message. I'm sure the Pope does read a few messages from ordinary people from time to time, but of course no matter how many he reads they would be a very minute fraction of all those that are sent. U.S. President Barack Obama says he tries to read at least ten such letters (picked by his staff) every day. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a powerful & important as the Pope. The problem is, I don't have as many people, who believe it. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you wear a funny hat? That's a requirement for being powerful and important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that having people believe that you are powerful and important is the main, if not only, factor in being powerful and important. Also you don't need, to put a comma, every time you stop to think, about what to write next. FiggyBee (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That could be a problem for God, assuming he exists and is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and all the other omnis he's said to be (omniomnious? panomnious?). If the world became entirely atheistic, would that mean he would cease to exist or to have the powers he's currently believed by theists to possess? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Applying the formula "seeing is believing" to the Bible verse Joh 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time" gives the conclusion that everyone is a non-believer or atheist. Paradoxically there are many who insist on the reversed formula "believing is seeing"[1].Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Small Gods (novel) is a jolly good read which deals with that exact question, Jack. FiggyBee (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, FiggyBee. I really must get up to speed with Pratchett. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Does everyone need anti-reflective coating on his glasses?

The Wikipedia article Antireflection_coating#Ophthalmic_use suggests there is indeed an advantage to it: its "decreased reflection makes them look better, and they produce less glare, which is particularly noticeable when driving at night or working in front of a computer monitor." However, do they mean modern LCD computer monitors or just the old CRT monitors? Would clean glasses without anti-reflective coating also produce glare?--Quest09 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Need? No... I think I have it, but that's a choice. Historically, plenty of people have done just fine without it. If you want it, you can get it. If not, you don't have to. Falconus^{p t c} 12:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's basically an upgrade that can be sold for an extra charge. You don't need anti-reflective coating any more than you need power windows or a sunroof -- do they provide greater benefit? Sure, but at a greater cost. Since anti-reflective costs about $10 extra, the cost-benefit analysis might seem toot rigorous to apply (for those for whom $10 is not that big a deal, of course). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and if we disregard the price, since it is only $10, what disadvantages would we find in a coated lens? Through some basic research I got the impression that coated lenses could get scratches easily, and get dirtier.--Quest09 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunroofs can cause great damage to a vehicle if left open in the rain, and it could also allow for easier burglarization. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<personal experience> I was talked into antireflective coating on the lenses I purchased previous to my current ones, and it made them nearly impossible to keep clean, far outweighing, for me, any possible reduction in glare (since it was immediately offset by having to peer through a film of grime). When I bought my current glasses, the optometrist told me that the coating created a mild static charge that attracted dust and oil. He also said he sold glasses to a few local TV news reporters, and they always bought one coated pair to wear on camera, and one uncoated pair to wear the rest of the time, because the only thing the coated lenses were any good for was looking good during the 6:00 report. </personal experience> Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The anti-glare coating gives you a weird greenish smear at the slightest provocation. When my normal lenses get dirty (=always), the smudges may appear as blurs, but basically my eyes focus past them semi-automatically. How many times have you seen a glasses-wearer remove his specs and remark with shock at the buildup of crap on the lenses? They don't notice it much because they compensate without thinking about it. However, you can't compensate so easily for a shift in the colour. On top of smudging more easily (personal experience) there's no ignoring the greenish rainbow that will end up covering a wide swath of your field of vision. Matt Deres (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<More personal experience> I've worn glasses for around 45 years, and adopted the anti-glare coatings when they first became available. About 15 years ago the coating on my new pair (acquired due to a change of prescription) began to delaminate in patches, which persisted after the opticians replaced (or possibly recoated) the lenses, so I asked for replacement uncoated lenses. With subsequent pairs I've not had the same problem, so whatever manufacturing glitch that was around then seems to have been overcome. As to other pro and contra-indications; the coatings do reduce reflections somewhat, particularly when further glass surfaces (CRT TVs and monitors, car windscreens, camera and telescope optics) are involved; they used to show smears a little more, but my latest coated pair do not seem to do so; as to dust attraction, I suspect this is as much or more down to the particular type of plastic that lenses are often made of nowadays (instead of much heavier glass): overall I'd say that the coating is mildly advantageous but not indispensible. For an extra £10 or so on top of glasses costing £100-200 (as mine do) the saving - for something that's part of my facial appearance and essential for most everyday activites - would be trivial, but your budget may vary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Economically, but not psychologically, £10 or so on top of glasses costing £100-200 is the same as £10 or so on top of glasses costing £50-75, by the way. But my preoccupation is less the cost than the utility. Actually, I tend to prefer clean glasses with a little glare than slightly dirty glasses without glare. Anyway, the anti-glare coating can be done as an add-on some time after buying and testing the glasses without anti-glare. So, I don't see any impediment to buying the glasses without it. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

buying a used semi pro digital SLR?

Iam thinking of upgrading to a digital SLR since I seem to like photography and point and shoot digital cameras seem to be restrictive. I have been doing some research on DSLRs and i found that Nikon or Canon seem to be the best choice. Im also open to less stellar brands such as olympus since the price seem to be lower. Due to the budget constraints, im forced to consider mostly "entry level" DSLRs such as canon eos 1000d. Luckily in ebay people sell body and lens in the same auction and therefore i dont have to buy lenses seperately. I have never used SLRs or DSLRs before and therefore have no idea about them. Iam scared that they, being complex machines, become less reliable with time. Could you please say what I have watch out for when buying them?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.25 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want quality pictures the most important hardware part is clearly the lens. So, if you are on a budged, read some reviews about lenses and spend the highest part of your budged on a quality lens.--Quest09 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you're located, but B&H Photo in Manhattan, NYC provides excellent customer service -- few can beat their prices. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP's IP is based in Bonn, North-Rhine Westphalia. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'd recommend checking out the largest retailer in your region -- the people who sell the most have the most experience in terms of customer demands and focus (no pun intended) for the product, and they would likely be the most appropriate to answer any and all questions. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the vast majority of modern DSLRs (like their film SLR predecessors) tend to be aimed at an audience with deeper pockets and higher standards – serious amateurs and semi-professionals on up – than the buyers of lightweight point-and-shoot pocket digital cameras. Consequently, these cameras tend to be solidly, carefully manufactured. Often the consumer and 'prosumer' DSLR models share parts, sensors, firmware, and other design features with their professional-grade brethren.

Just off the top of my head, here's a few things to think about when making the switch from point & shoot to (D)SLR. These cameras are bigger than the ones you've been using up until now. Bigger lenses with more glass. Bigger optical sensors. Overall larger bodies to accommodate more buttons. While all of these features will allow you to take better pictures under a wider range of conditions, they also mean that your camera is going to be heavier, and you're going to hold it differently from your point & shoot. Before you buy a DSLR online, I would strongly recommend visiting a shop and picking up a few cameras (with lenses attached). Find out if you can hold the camera steadily and comfortably. Are all the important controls (shutter!) in easy reach? Not everyone's hands are the same size, and not every camera 'fits' every person.

On a related note, is the viewfinder position comfortable, and can you see through it easily? This can be an issue for people who wear prescription eyeglasses.

Think about how you're going to use your new camera. Are you going to do a lot of low-light shooting or time exposures (night shots, astrophotography, caves)? Some cameras perform better in very low light than others -- though all will produce 'cleaner', less-grainy images than your point & shoot would. Are you going to do any rapid action or artistic shooting? Will you need the ability to take several photos automatically in rapid succession, and will you need very short shutter speeds? Will you be relying on the on-camera flash, or will you acquire a separate flash unit?

Finally, you might want to have a look at one or more reviews. I can strongly recommend Digital Photography Review as a very thorough and detailed source of information. Best of luck, and enjoy your new camera! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you buy a used SLR online, find some way to get a few hours or even minutes with a camera of the same model. Some DSLRs are fairly simple to operate but others aren't, and some operate in such a counter-intuitive way that it makes you want to throw them out a window (or sell them on eBay). I personally couldn't make sense of the Canon software so I went with a Nikon. (The Fuji was worse - the buttons were labelled only in Japanese and the text on the screen was so tiny I would have needed a magnifying glass to read it.) Also make sure that the model is still supported by the company with respect to firmware and software updates, and that you'd be able to download any updates without being the original buyer. --NellieBly (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tracing a UK Pension provider gone astray. Not looking for Legal advice though.

Sorry for probably wasting everyone's time - but here goes. About 35 years ago I was made redundant "let go" by an English Clothing company called (United Drapery Stores aka John Collier aka Alexandres Clothiers) that I had worked for for about 11 years. I was given a compensation package and a future pension at age 65. I built a new career that involved moving around the UK quite extensively and have now retired but am not yet old enough to claim the aforementioned pension. Trouble is, the company appears to have been sold, merged, incorporated, split-up and apparently, it's pension liabilities were also shunted around, to the point that I don't seem able to trace my pension. The UK Pension Tracing service have worked really hard for me, but with no luck. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR LEGAL ADVICE HERE!!! But if anyone had any clues how I might get over or around this brick wall I should be most grateful. Many thanks. But I won't be surprised or disappointed if no such clues emerge after such a long time. 92.20.20.220 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder if approaching the BBC might help you? They do regular features on pensions, and their personal finance journalists might actually be doing one at the moment. Radio 4 has a programme called Money Box. The BBC's website should have contact details. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)BB

Have you tried the major pension providers in the Uk? Approach the companies and ask around trying to find if they have you on their lists - it'll presumably be either a Group Personal Pension or a Corporate Pension Scheme. Failing that if you have any company-names (new or old) it might help in tracking them down, do you know who the original provider was? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that anything as obvious as that would have been tried by the "UK Pension Tracing service" - if there was anything that simple then they'd surely have found it. I suggest you start tracing that web of sales, mergers, incorporations and splits. There could be a couple of dozen companies still in existence at the ends of that web - it should be possible to call the HR departments of each of them. Another possibility: Can you recall the names of any of your co-workers? Perhaps you could find some of them and see whether they figured it out? Finding people is fairly do-able with the resources of the Internet these days. SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

steam

Do you need insurance and an MOT to drive steam powered cars in the UK? I assume you still need tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that they need tax: "All steam-powered vehicles must be taxed in the ‘steam propelled’ tax class." The Steam Car Club of Great Britain states that steam powered cars require MOTs. While I can't find a statement on insurance, it only makes sense that, if they are to be driven on the public roads, this will be required - they could be involved in an accident. Warofdreams talk 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Crown Prosecution Service says here that steam-powered vehicles count as motor vehicles and that insurance is required to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. So, yes on insurance.

Neither This Department for Transport site nor this Direct.gov.uk site mention MOTs for steam vehicles.

"All steam-powered vehicles must be taxed in the ‘steam propelled’ tax class.", however, this DfT guide says, "All steam powered vehicles have been exempt from vehicle tax since 1.4.01.". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This apparent anomaly might be (note might; I haven't actually checked) explained by a system similar to classic cars. They're still liable for tax in a particular class, but the rate of tax applicable to the class has been set at zero. So you'd still need to get a tax disk, but it would be free. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if you did need MOT, most steam vehicles are more than 25 years old - which exempts them from most of the tests - and for antique vehicles, they rarely require features that the vehicle didn't have when manufactured. So the test (if you have to take it) should be really simple - brakes and lights - not much else. I wonder though whether you'd fall under the same rules as steam locomotives and steam traction engines - for those, you'll need boiler pressure tests and a whole bunch of other stuff. That's only sensible though - if your boiler is corroded, it could explode and boiler explosions are NASTY accidents. SteveBaker (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Phone Line Activation in UK

I'm considering O2 broadband in my new flat but the phone line hasn't been used in more than 8 months so the greedy people at BT have disconnected it. That leaves me with a £120 activation charge.

Could I get another broadband provider to activate the phone line for me without signing on with them? If so, which UK company charges the least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.27 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would contact BT directly and 'haggle' them to waive the connection charge. I would be amazed if there is a broadband provider willing to pay BT to activate the line without locking you into a contract for their broadband. I would definitely contact BT and push for them to waive it - though your best tool for haggling would be claiming you will only sign up to their Total-broadband (or whatever it's called) service if they waive it, otherwise you'll go with O2 (but that obviously means if you succeed it'd mean going with BT). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Germany

I've heard that swastikas are banned in Germany. What implications does this have for Wikipedia there? Can English Wikipedia articles containing them be accessed? Can German Wikipedia articles have them? Am I misunderstanding the ban, is it only related to non-educational or commercial material or something? TastyCakes (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See Strafgesetzbuch § 86a ny156uk (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that, but it doesn't see to impact the de.wikipedia much. Given the restrictions on the publication of Nazi symbols, I could see much evidence of this at this page. I'm assuming they are just sensible and work within the grey area of non-supporting material. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to put a colon before the "de" to link to German Wikipedia. Like so. Also see de:swastika.

I knew it, but thanks for pointing my mistake out. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at an image of the Nazi flag you'll see this template which warns about the restrictions on its use. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha! I've found de:Wikipedia:Gebrauch nationalsozialistischer Symbole, which seems to cover it exactly. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention I don't speak German ;). The Swastika page above does include Nazi swastikas, is that part of the "gray area" mentioned? As in it's technically not allowed in Germany but they don't make a big deal out of it for Wikipedia's purposes? TastyCakes (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is no gray area. The ban does not cover all fields. The use in educational material, in news, or in art works is permitted. You certainly can see swastikas in Germany: just watch a documentary about the Second World War. Another different story is shaving your head and wearing a swastika T-shirt in a demonstration against immigration. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The "grey area" I meant was exceptions themselves (namely "[The law is] not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.") as you say. I'm sorry if that weren't clear. Basically the German page has a "fair-use"-type question system (more generally for the whole WP, than individual uses) to ensure use would fall within this. (I should note there is what I call a grey area, but not WP-related, "(4) If guilt is slight, the court may refrain from imposition of punishment pursuant to this provision."). 92.20.249.149 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC) - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I might sound too pedantic, but I wouldn't call legal exceptions "grey area". For me "grey area" are loopholes that allows breaking the "the intent of the law without technically breaking it." The intent of the law was that no association could identify with the Nazis and that no one would get the impression that Nazis are tolerated in Germany. Using the swastika for the purposes cited above is not infringing the spirit of the law, not even slightly.--No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think point (4) is more like a true grey area (I usually use it in that sense as well, but not above). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have to disagree with this interpretation. Many - perhaps almost all - laws have a legal threshold that you have to cross to be punished. Merely not punishing slight offenders doesn't mean that there is something unclear in the law. Specially regarding the use of Nazi symbols in Germany, you can rest assure that this legal threshold is very low and you can count on being persecutedprosecuted for any minor use of the swastika with the intend of defending Nazi ideas. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you meant to say "prosecuted", not "persecuted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Either word makes sense in this context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To call "persecution", the banning of the symbols of people who support the murder of other ethnic groups, is an oxymoron to say the least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is right. I corrected my post above.No one knows I am a dog (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, Banning symbols, ideas, and hats on the grounds that they represent oppression is the very definition of irony and hypocrisy. FiggyBee (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what Grey area (concept) says a grey area of the law is. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a grey area in Wikipedia about the definition of "grey area." The article grey area points to loophole and the article grey area (concept) points to non liquet. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)