Miscellaneous desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

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.

February 17

Crossword confusion

Tonight I did a crossword and there was a clue that I didn't understand. The clue was Pre-coll. catchall and the answer is elhi. Can someone tell me what this means? What is the "coll" being referred to? If I knew that, then maybe I'd know what elhi refers to. Dismas|^(talk) 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"elhi" is US jargon for "Elementary and High School". "coll." is an abbreviation for "college"; note the the x-word convention that says an abbreviation in the clue suggests an abbreviation in the answer. PhGustaf (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I knew about the use of abbreviations in clues and answers but without knowing that coll meant college in this instance, I was at a loss. Not that I would have gotten it though since I've never run across the abbrev. "Elhi" before. Dismas|^(talk) 03:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Will Shortz would allow such a dubious clue/answer... --Mr.98 (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortz uses "elhi" at least once a week in the NYT puzzles. Eugene Maleska might have gagged at it, but he's been dead for seventeen years. (Which is likely before "elhi" was coined.) PhGustaf (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh-huh. "Elhi" dates to 1948, at least according to M-W. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

If I got ELHI as the answer, I would probably figure some of the crossing words were wrong, or that somebody messed up and it was missing NEWD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? "elhi" is US jargon for "Elementary and High School". - this USian has never heard that term. Woogee (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I had never heard of it till I worked it out whilst doing a crossword puzzle. PhGustaf (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is undoubtedly a tiny place somewhere near where one of Mr Shortz's authors (he edits more than writes crossword puzzles, I believe) once lived that uses some very obscure definitions. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of "elhi" either and we don't have an article about it yet. --Thomprod (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should we, since it's just a word and I can't see what encyclopedic content an article on it would have. It should (but doesn't) have an entry in Wiktionary. It's in the OED with quotes from Publishers Weekly, The Wall Street Transcript and a publication of the American Educational Research Association, which suggest to be that it's a piece of technical jargon rather than local slang. Algebraist 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ramp girl?

In Bangladesh, they have these models being called ramp girl. What is a ramp girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.89 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site[1] the 'ramp' is the walkway or catwalk used by models to display new clothing from fashion houses. The term appears to be used largely in the Indian sub-continent. Thus a ramp girl would be a model who walks the ramp. Of course there may be another colloquial or 'street' meaning of which I am unaware. Richard Avery (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another kind of 'ramp' is a strong-tasting wild onion. I don't know whether they have they have those in Bangladesh. PhGustaf (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they know, or if it's coincidental, how close "ramp" is to "tramp"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See[2]. PhGustaf (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. I especially like the part where they've apparently branded "Indonesia" into her lower back. Barbie the Sado/Masochist. Career Number 37. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're far from the first person to be excited by the prospect. (See [3], [4], and many others. Possibly NSFW.) The first time I remember Mattel^TM getting their pants in a twist about this was maybe 1997. PhGustaf (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China's Foreign Policy

As per your references I noted that China has maintained very good relations with all it's neighbouring countries ,then why it is that china even after entering into peaceful pact with the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru it entered a war with India ia 1962.Is it not it's foreign policy is corrupt......!!!!!!!!!!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.230.3 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our article says nothing of the kind. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article Sino-Indian war which gives an overview of the causes? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "its neighbouring countries" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back up a step, DJ Clayworth. The OP states very clearly, “that China has maintained very good relations with all it’s neighbouring countries,” which is not part of our article on Chinese foreign policy. So, when I say “[a]ctually, our article says nothing of the kind,” you might want to look at the cited article before spouting off about whether China and India had a month-long border skirmish 47 years ago. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOR, have you considered that DJC might be responding to the OP rather than to you? —Tamfang (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, possible, but generally indenting means "this is a response to what's above," doesn't it? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes, but I'd like to have a nickel for every time I've seen it done wrong, including your unindented first comment above. And a dime for every time I've commented on it and been told "it happens, don't sweat it". —Tamfang (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I attract a girl ?????

How can I attract a girl ????? --Jemycool007 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)--Jemycool007 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)--Jemycool007 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)JEMY[reply]

Can you be a little more specific? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having money helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Represent something with yourself. Have a hobby. Be smart. Know how to usefully spend free time. Be charming. Travel. Don't be emo. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to attract an emo girl. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pickup artist. Shadowjams (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ew. Creepy. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creepier than asking wikipedians? Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One suggests ignorance and a willingness to learn (although potentially a willingness to learn creepy things). The other is creepy women-as-objects-to-fuck behaviour. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be yourself, be light-hearted/fun to be around, put yourself in situations where you'll meet the opposite se, engage in your hobby or interest in a social-manner (e.g. if you like photography join a local group). Be keen but don' be desperate. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried putting food out? They like chocolate. Seriously, though, a friend is your friend; focus on making friends.--Sir or Madam (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, right. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having money and a job (especially a well-paying job) will work much better than any cliched pickup line. Unless that line is, "Would you like a ride in my Ferrari?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To kick it up a notch, replace Ferrari with yacht or jet. Googlemeister (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good read first. As is this. Honestly, if you absorb and understand these, you're ahead of the pack. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being kind and nice yet having high status too, good earner, slim, fit. Friendly, informal, sense of humour. Being popular with other women. Do not be an egoist. Be attentive to other people, especially the group the girl is in. I read somewhere recently that women prefer men who have a feminine side rather than being totally masculine, not sure how true that is. 89.240.100.129 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the woman. But most women are attracted to a man who is confident but not arrogant. And the stronger the woman is, the stronger the man needs to be. Most women don't like men that are "weak". The ones that do, are to be avoided. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, get the assumption out of your mind that all girls are attracted by the same thing - they're not. Second, since the answer to the question is not clear cut, you are basically asking for opinions. Third, we don't even know your motive or your personality. If you're looking for a long-term relationship, you should provide more details about the type of person that you are, your hobbies, your interests, etc.. If not, then the above advice probably will help you.--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. the obvious (and difficult) answer is to not try. Trying to 'attract' women will usually come off as desperate or vain, which few people (make or female) find attractive. If you're looking to get laid, make yourself into something with cultural currency (get money, be stylish, be handsome, athletic or muscular, become a philosophical rebel or a more conventional leader); if you're looking for a relationship, be yourself, and be comfortable with who you are (because when you're comfortable with who you are it radiates honestly, trustworthiness, and other qualities that women will want to see before they'll even consider taking you seriously as a relationship). mostly, relax and be confident. it's the hardest easy thing in the wold. --Ludwigs2 16:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any real women here? 89.240.100.129 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "To thine own self be true". Respect yourself, respect others, and especially show respect to the women you would like to have a closer relationship with. Be kind. Be aware of your weaknesses, and work to overcome them. Be proud of your strengths, and use them to help the world around you. I could go on. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, loads, although many editors seem oddly unaware of this. Honestly, the two links I provided contain some of the best advice I've seen for a guy who needs to ask this question: this is why I linked them. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm any expert in the art of attracting girls per se, but a couple of people have mentioned having money. Just having money. As if it were enough for a girl to know that you have money to make you instantly attractive to them. That is extremely demeaning to women, making them out to be a race of golddiggers. It's what you do, or could potentially do, with your money that might make some difference. But you can still attract women even if you're living hand to mouth and have very little left over after you've paid the bills. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the question was "how do I attract a girl", it wasn't "how do I attract MOST girls" or "what is the thing that most girls look for". Having a lot of money means you are almost 100% certain to attract at least a single female. Same with being extremely attractive, or extremely powerful. Does this mean all women are golddiggers/shallow? Of course not. But if you're suggesting that absolutely none of them are, well then that's just silly. Chris M. (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then, how do these girls become aware you have money? Do you walk into a bar with a sign on your head "I have plenty of money", and wait for them to flock to you? Why hasn't anyone ever tried this before? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You show your wealth by having an expensive car (or yacht or jet), wearing expensive clothes, an expensive watch, etc. Conspicuous consumption. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, "having money attracts women" isn't any more or less demeaning to women than "looking good (strong, handsome) attracts women". Both are statements that women are attracted to fit men -- money being taken as an indicator of one's fitness in modern society. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much "having money" as it is about being financially stable. The divorce courts are littered with ne'er-do-wells who can't hold a job and may otherwise be unstable. Women in general like men who are strong and stable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jemy, will having asked with exaggerated punctuation !!!!! a bunch of strangers about how to manipulate the feelings of a target female to your advantage, and signing yourself "cool007" three times, be the sort of mature behaviour that you will be proud of if a female gets to know you intimately? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question could also be, What kind of a man do I want to be? That may sound sexist, or reeking of machismo, but I think the bottom line is that girls or women are attracted to masculinity. I am not addressing the question of other types of sexual attraction; I am just addressing the question of attraction between male and female. Getting back to what I was saying, I think the most efficient route to addressing your question is to inquire of yourself as to what type of masculinity you would most like to be the embodiment of. I think this is going to be an intangible thing. But nobody is a "cookie-cutter" person (like everybody else). I think a male needs to take his masculinity seriously, in all its subtleties. To some this comes naturally. But for others a lot of thought is involved. Obviously this is not a thought process alone. How one acts is a large part of how one expresses oneself. If finding a good relationship is important, mindfulness of the quality of your own masculinity within that relationship is important. I think that the bottom line is that the only currency you have that matters is your masculine personality — but that can be defined any way. Bus stop (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. And it covers a lot more ground than just techniques for "picking up chicks". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to be somewhere where a) girls are, and b) where they may be looking for partners. So join a dance or art class for example - men may be in the minority there and in demand. Or do some evening classes / night school or join a club of some kind. Joining an online dating site would help put you in touch with girls looking for partners. Going the masculine route of just socialising with other men is not going to introduce you to many girls. 89.243.151.96 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally,I'm always intrigued as to how I have not yet managed to attract a female when I am hard-working,clean-living,of good moral conduct(apart from a propensity to whizz down supermarket aisles on a trolley yelling Yee-hah),and yet on watching Judge Judy and similar, Cletus the Yokel who has several children by various women,paying nothing to them and whose main activities are either illegal or drunken has three or four ladies fighting over him.

I'm assuming you want some sort of a relationship and not just physical action-if that's your scene,then the clubs on a Friday or Saturday night would be a good place to start.Come round our town's harbour on a Friday night and there are many young ladies staggering around who would happily be attracted to you.They won't remember your name or any details about you the next morning though...

I'd look at the interests you have and follow them.If you're a quiet bookish stamp-collector,then it's unlikely that you'll find your dream girl at the Metal Thrash Night.Evening classes is a good idea- you're more likely to find someone of your type if you share a common interest.i.e I do drama and writing because I'm creative-chances are the other people there will be creative types.Plus,you have a guaranteed topic of conversation to break the ice,even if it's just 'I liked your story'.

Let them find out more about you-this comes up quite naturally-your background(eg born in New Zealand,moved to England when little,lived with mum/dad/sis,had cats/fish/deranged hamster),what sort of hobbies you enjoy(for instance F1 racing/drama/linedance/collecting cool souvenirs)and see if any of those spark something.

Be yourself-girls will appreciate you if you're honest,warm and genuinely interested.Are there any girls at work or uni that you are friendly with?Sometimes that's the best way to start-chatting to them,smiling,asking how their day went,lamenting the awfulness of the boss/lecturer with them. Being slightly eccentrically fun can be good,worryingly creepy is not.If they like what they see,you can move it up a bit (you seem nice-would you like to come for a coffee with me.)If it doesn't progress to romance,you'll have a really good female friend which is a super thing to have gained.

And don't forget,we have some delightful wikipettes(or should that be Wikipedettes?)here who are charming and friendly,happy to help with advice and not too likely to bite you(unless you so desire). I'm sure if you are genuine and pleasant,they will notice and maybe venture over to the Talk page to just say hi or leave a nice message :) I'm hoping so anyway. Here endeth the lesson Lemon martini (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was talk awhile back about having a "Wikipette of the Month" feature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to a Wikipet of the Month which is entirely different-wikipets are small cute things you keep that snuggle up on your lap,keep your feet warm at night and like being stroked whereas a Wikipette is... hmmm maybe not so different Lemon martini (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try yahoo answers OP. This is not the right place to ask for personal advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Flash' of electricity when I plug something in

Hi everyone, just wondering, I have a plug socket with no on/off switch (Which I assume must mean that there's always power running through it). When I plug something in sometimes there's a 'flash' of electricity coming out from between the socket and plug ends. I just was wondering why it sometimes does this and whether it's dangerous for me, the plug or the appliance. Thanks for any answers. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what causes it, but as long as you don't touch the spark and your hands aren't wet, you're cool. Hell, I plug appliances with wet or damp hands all the time, sometimes I even get a little shock, and nothing happens to me, lol. But I don't recommend anyone else doing that. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and nothing will happen to the appliance, either. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparks like that mostly happen if you're plugging in an appliance that draws a heavy current and it's already switched on. When the resistance through the appliance is low, the electricity can jump across a very small gap between the plug pin and the socket contact, creating a spark. This is especially likely if the current was already flowing, which can happen if the pin touches the contact and then moves back a little, as it might due to the uneven motion of your hands.

The only problem this is likely to create, I think, is that the spark overheats the metal (both the plug and the socket), which can damage its surface. Then you may get a poor contact when you use the plug and/or the socket thereafter, which can lead to overheating or poor performance of what you're plugging in. I suppose it could even become a fire hazard. --Anonymous, 10:43 UTC, February 17, 2010.

Seems like you desperately need a BS 1363. 89.240.100.129 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arcing/sparking problem definitely seems to me to be something that happens with US-style plugs and particularly with laptop chargers. Even without the laptop plugged in to the charger, I can't plug in the charger to the mains without a spark. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS 1363 plugs still arc if the appliance and socket are on. Even if the effect is not as pronounced. --Phydaux (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know any sparking would be within the socket box, and particularly with not-old plugs which have prongs which are only metal at the end, you would not be able to touch a live surface at any time even when putting the plug in. The plug sockets always have a switch as well. 78.146.206.38 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To minimise electric arcing erosion at the mains plug and socket terminals, try to ensure that the device you are plugging in is switched off before plugging in. Plugs/socket are not really designed as electrical switches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.229.198 (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had an electric grill that did that. Terrible design since there was literally no on-off switch, and a large heating element draws a lot of current. My experience with that device is that such sparks are not good as the electrical system on that grill wound up tripping my circuit breaker and frying the electric lines in the grill itself. Googlemeister (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EV1 Car ads

I have a question. Why were the EV1 ads so weird and creepy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck Norris roundhouse kick (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably to attract people's attention. That is the function of advertising.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the GM EV1 that was only available for lease for 4 years and only in 6 towns in the U.S.? Perhaps the ads were carefully targeted for their limited audience. Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare some creepy(?) EV1 ads (1) (2) (3) with an ad that is quite informative (4) (all videos). There may have been resistance within GM to the impact of the new electric car on their existing investment, dealer network and marketing that led to its unclear profiling and short life. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)corrected EV1[reply]

New Bike

I'm looking to purchase a new bicycle. I've bought one in the past but it was a cheap piece of crap and it was worthless in a year. I'm looking for a bike I can use basically just to ride 1/4-1/2 mile to a busstop and back every day. There isn't a side-walk or bike lane on this road so I'm going to be going with traffic so I want to make sure I can keep up a respectable pace without an excessive amount of effort. This isn't going to be going through dirt or anything like that if that matters. Basically I'm looking for an idea of exactly what I need for the what I want to accomplish, and also I'm looking for some suggestions of brands or locations to buy such a bike. I'd love to spend no more then $200 if that's at all possible. Thanks! Chris M. (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to ride on pavement and the pavement is not too rough, I recommend a road bike and not a mountain bike or even a hybrid. You can go faster on a road bike with the same amount of effort, since they don't have fat tires creating friction and resistance. If you really can't spend more than $200, then you may need to consider a used bike. Try to find a reputable bike store that doesn't sell stolen bikes. The staff at a good bike store will be able to offer advice on the best models for your needs. If you want a new bike that is well built and fast, I think you will need to spend at least $400-$500. Marco polo (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way you say it was "worthless in a year" might suggest that you don't spend much time maintaing your bike; ride quality really shouldn't deteriorate that rapidly. My town bike was bought almost ten years ago for less than £120 but thanks to regular oiling, careful gear changing and keeping the tyres in good nick it rides as well as the day it came out of the shop. I've seen student bikes that were shiny-new in October but are rusted up by the start of January because people don't look after them — they must be really tough to get moving.

I'd definitely recommend avoiding knobbly mountain bike tyres, since these will slow you down significantly. It might be worth going for a fairly solid second-hand bike with hub gears if you don't mind sacrificing a little speed, since these are much less prone than derailleur gears to physical damage, wear through usage, going out of index etc etc. My university bike is an old £40 shopper thing with a three-speed Sturmey-Archer dynohub, which provides lighting (admittedly only while I'm moving) as well as gearing. All it needs is oil on the chain every month, a couple of drops in the hub and pumping up the tyres when they go a little soft. An old bike that's in good nick might be more cost-effective than a brand new one for what you want to do.

If you can only click one link in your quest for bike advice, I wholeheartedly recommend the website of the sorely-missed Sheldon Brown. Brammers (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a <$100 bike from Target though, so I don't think it was entirely my fault. But I think you are right that I did not maintain it as well as I should have, and intend to with this new bike. Thanks for the great advice though, and using this bike is an attempt to avoid doing a car payment or getting a used car, when I can do bike + public transport instead. I suppose I just don't have an idea of what bikes actually cost. But I appreciate the help and suggestions. Chris M. (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a bike that cheap probably wouldn't be too solid to start with — and I apologise for the accidental insinuation that you deliberately neglect your bike; it wasn't intended. I don't drive, biking anywhere within about five miles of my home (or the 13 to my grandmother's house) and train and bike wherever feasible for anything further afield. If you have a library nearby, a good book to read on cycling in general is Richard's Bicycle Book (any version) by Richard Ballantine. It's a useful read for a introduction to bikes, accessories etc, so probably worth taking out on loan. It also includes a (if I recall correctly) balanced chapter on whether to wear a helmet or not. Personally I don't, but it's massive flamebait so I shan't go into why here. Happy cycling! Brammers (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Chris M. (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my interfering response but if you're short of cash and you need to ask this basic advice, and you don't sound too "up" on maintaining a bike, and are going to have to oil the gears and chain and hub and keep the bike clean, might I respectfully suggest that all of that expense and effort to bike just a quarter to half a mile twice a day may not actually be worth it. And by the time you have purchased a thief proof lock and a tyre pump and lights and batteries and a puncture repair outfit and a crash helmet (essential) and insect mask and gloves, you will probably spend twice your bike budget. And what about the time and inconvenience of unlocking the bike and locking it up every time you park it? Doesn't seem worth it to me when a nice brisk 10 minute stroll will get you where you want to go twice each day. The most you would have to spend in that circumstance would be on an umbrella. But I repeat - forgive my intrusion - maybe pedestrians aren't allowed to walk to your bus stop. Good luck. I shall now await the flak.92.30.75.11 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the extent of my bike accessories to probably be a pump and a lock. I hardly think an insect mask and gloves are even remotely useful for what amounts to a relatively minor use. Locking and unlocking is a minute or so (max) affair each, and only happen once a day, hardly a problem there. It's possible my estimate on distance is a little off but a walk would definitely take longer then 10 minutes. Also, the aforementioned lack of sidewalks makes walking to the stop a seriously bad idea under less-then perfect conditions (like if there's mud). I appreciate the comments though :).

I agree bikes with hub gears would be better than deraullier gears. Unfortunately hub gears are harder to find. But, if its only 1/4 to 1/2 a mile why don't you walk? It should take between five and ten minutes. I'm curious what happens to the bike when you get to the bus stop. For such a short distance any bike will do. The first time I read it I thought you had written 14 miles. 78.146.206.38 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my estimate was off. I realized I have no real concept of distance. I checked yesterday and it's 2.1 miles. The buses here (Charlotte, NC, US) have bike racks on the front so it rides with me to downtown and I have a place I can lock it up there at work.Chris M. (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guy is saying there is no sidewalk (pavement in UK lingo), so he'd have to walk either in a dangerous and busy street or through people's muddy lawns (UK: gardens). (There are areas like this in the United States.) Also, he thinks it would take more than 10 minutes to walk, so it is probably really more than half a mile. Considering all of this, I can see why he might want to take a bike. However, the point about mud raises an issue: Leaving your bike out in the rain repeatedly will damage it. During my days of bicycle commuting, I walked and took transit on days when heavy rain was expected. If walking really wasn't an option, I'd try to find some kind of plastic covering to shield the bike while it is locked outdoors on rainy days. Marco polo (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no pavement/sidewalk on the way there. and it's 2.1 miles, my mistake. And the bike won't be in the rain at work, or at home, so it's less of an issue. Chris M. (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may actually be half a mile and he may be misestimating the walking time. I've found that many people who don't walk regularly will often greatly overestimate the amount of time that walking takes. As if they've subconsciously accepted the idea that you need a vehicle to get anywhere. APL (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1/4 to 1/2 mile? that's a 10 minute walk (less at a brisk pace). save the money, make the walk; less hassle and better exercise over that distance anyway. --Ludwigs2 03:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People here are recommending $400 and $500 bikes - but you have to ask whether such a beast would indeed last 4 to 5 times longer than a $100 bike under similar conditions and maintainance regimen? I strongly suspect not. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt the greater danger be of having the bicycle stolen rather than it wearing out? You'd be better off with a cheaper bike. Although the cheaper adult bikes can be physically small in my experience. A better bike would encourage the OP to do recreational cycling and get some exercise. 89.243.151.96 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me interfering again - so why provide bus stops on a road where pedestrians can't walk?? 92.30.74.189 (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suburb with no sidewalk/pavements must be terribly isolating for children. Not only would they find it difficult to go and see their friends and play and explore, but they have no opportunities for exercise. So poor social skills and obesity. 89.243.151.96 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not, do not, do NOT buy a bicycle from Target or (God forbid) Walmart. In the cycling community, what they sell in the "Bikes" sections are often referred to as "BSOs," or Bicycle-Shaped Objects. The problem you've had may very well be the bike you bought. In any case, though, paying two hundred dollars to avoid walking less than a mile a day sounds a little odd to me. AlexHOUSE (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a moment...let's think carefully about that. Suppose our OP gets paid for working overtime at (let's say) $12 an hour. Saving even 5 minutes morning and evening would allow our questioner to work an extra 10 minutes each day without affecting leisure time - earning $2.00 per day in the process. A $200 bike would pay for itself in just 100 working days - about 5 months. If (s)he earns $24 an hour and saves 10 minutes morning and evening and buys a $100 piece of junk - then it pays for itself in a little under 3 weeks. SteveBaker (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, lots of additional comments. This road is a more major road and there aren't a lot of houses on it, there are a lot of side roads into little neighborhoods with their own sidewalks (like mine). I'm not worried about theft because it will be in a secure location at both ends. the closest stop to me is 2.1 miles away, but after that there is some sidewalk, and a busstop every quarter mile at least. But a lot of people do park and ride things to save gas, and some do just walk on the grass I suppose. And I know I gave a crappy estimate before, but it's really 2.1 miles, not a half mile, sorry! :) Chris M. (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a good bike shop in town, ask the owner about used bikes. Or, post a want ad near the local high school. Saving a bundle on the purchase price by buying something used seems like one solution to your problem. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bike for a mile and back every day and the bike cost around $150. It needed a lock, and eventually needed fixing but it is still usable. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little bicycle primer: there are two main types of bikes: road bikes, which are made to go fast and have skinny, smooth-ish tires which are about 27" in diameter; and mountain bikes, which are made to ride on unpacked dirt and have fat, knobby tires which are usually 26" in diameter (hybrid bikes strike a balance between the two, but they're pretty trendy currently so there's a lot of junk out there). Road bikes were big in the '70s and into the '80s, and mountain bikes were big in the '90s and continue to be popular because they're perceived to be more comfortable to ride for short distances. When you're riding on pavement, though, all those knobby tires do is create friction and make it harder to pedal the bike.

Since you know you'll be riding on pavement and you want to cover ground quickly and easily, what you want is a road bike (or a "touring bike", which is essentially the same thing). Well, you're in luck. People are constantly selling decent road bikes from the '70s and '80s for rock bottom prices. You can probably find one at a yard sale or on craigslist for $50 or less. Bike stores will often take bikes like that, fix them up, and sell them as "commuter bikes" for $400+. These bikes are steel-framed, meaning they're fairly heavy and not nearly as light and fast as today's racing bikes, but they're sturdy, absorb shock fairly well, and are perfect for taking you a few miles to the bus stop at 18mph. They're certainly better than the junk they sell at big box stores.

My suggestion would be to find one of these yard sale bikes and take it for a spin. Listen and feel for clunking sounds coming from the bottom bracket, which is the mechanism that connects the pedals together. As long as the bottom bracket is fine, the bike isn't rusted through, and the ride feels good, the bike is probably fundamentally ok. Now look at the tires. If they're popped or threadbare, you should be able to replace them, the inner tubes, and the tape which lines the wheel rim for $50-70. Hate the seat? You can probably find one you like for $15-30. Are the brake pads worn down? New ones can be had for $5-10. Grip tape for the handlebars will be <$5, a new chain will be $5-10 if the current one is slack or rusty, and new brake and shifter cables should be about $5 a pair if those are rusty. You can find plenty of tutorials online for how to change all that stuff, and the only equipment you'll need is an adjustable wrench or two, plus a chain tool ($5-10) if you need to swap the chain and some tire levers ($4) for the tires. It's even easy to swap out the handlebars if you want a different style than the one that comes on the bike. If you buy a fixed-up older bike from a store, all of this will have been done for you, but you'll pay a premium for it. The most cost-effective tactic, in my experience, is to buy a sturdy older bike, fix what needs fixin', and then fix other stuff as it breaks. You'll learn as you go, and basic bicycle maintenance is certainly not rocket science. Being able to perform basic maintenance like patching a tire and adjusting brakes will pay off in the long run. As a side note, always, always, always oil your moving parts, especially when they get wet, and give your bike a good cleaning a few times a year. That'll prevent a lot of problems before they start. Also, if you don't have a bike pump with a pressure gauge, get one. Keeping your tires at the right air pressure will deter flats and keep you moving fast. - Fullobeans (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good info. The only caveat I'd have is that while a skinny/smooth tyred street bike is undoubtedly way faster and smoother than a mountain bike or a BMX bike or something - the tyres are much more prone to getting punctured. If your are cycling over distances that you could comfortably walk - then getting an occasional flat isn't a disaster, you can walk home and fix it at your leisure. But if you're biking several miles then this can be a major pain (especially if it makes you late for work) and you might want to consider those chunky, knobbly tyres just because they are less prone to getting punctured. SteveBaker (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One way to minimize flats on road bikes it to use some "Slime" inside the inner tube, a product that includes some Kevlar good & tends to make small punctures self-heal. - Jmabel | Talk 18:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

How is it that there can be such a widespread debate in the USA concerning weather or not evolution should and could be taught in scvhools and weather or not it is correct? Do they not follow a curiculum that states Teacher need to teach XYZ. I really dont understand this, if a teacher choosed to teach his pupils that 1 + 1 = 7 this would be wrong. so how cabn teachers and schools decide to teach what they like or what they personally beleive. And does teaching intelligenmt design not go against the seperation of schools and religion in such that I was told that one was not allowed to pray in American schools for this reason. Please explain this to me. PS, I have read the articles associated with the subject but they fail to address these questions in my opinion. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean whether not weather, nor wether.

Thanks. Much appreciated, twas bothering me.

78.146.206.38 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One complication is that the USA does not have a nationwide curriculum. The curriculum is set, usually, at the school district level; there are a lot of these; this page says there were 14,841 school districts as of 1997. Policy for the school district is usually set by the school board. There's one school board for each district. A few of these thousands of school boards are full of creationists, some of whom are bent on, as our Intelligent Design articles state, promoting Christianity in the schools, and destroying atheism; some of these people see evolution as an atheist evil trick to turn people away from Jesus Christ, and therefore they are bound to fight this trend. Certain school boards have therefore introduced creationism (with its new name, "intelligent design") into their curriculum, and/or have mandated that the teacher stress to the students that evolution is speculative and unproven. As you imply, there is a separation of church and state in the US, and these controversies are around public schools (in the US, "public school" means government-financed). In 1968, the US Supreme Court struck down a state law forbidding the teaching of evolution, in Epperson v. Arkansas, and it wasn't until Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that the teaching of creationism in US public schools was actually declared unconstitutional — the reason being, this advocates a particular religion, which is not something that any government in the US is allowed to do, because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Anyway, many of these creationists also fight the separation of church and state itself on an ongoing basis; they think proselytizing is more important, so the separation is unimportant to them. Kansas evolution hearings and Intelligent design in politics are relevant articles. As a side note, few people in the US care if a US private school — most are owned and run by churches — teaches that evolution is false, despite the laws that require private schools to provide a thorough education for their clients. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those same creationists also argue that mandating the teaching of evolution violates the separation of church and state as well, as it is similarly advocating the particular religions that don't have a problem with it. —Akrabbim^talk 19:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my paragraph above to mention the two SCOTUS court cases, and removed "government-run" from my brief definition of public schools, because a technically correct explanation would be too wordy and probably beyond my comprehension. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attitudes to school teaching of evolution in the USA are often ambivalent as in the statements of a recent candidate for vice president who "supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no national curriculum, there may be state curricula that mandate the teaching of one thing or another. That's what led to the above-mentioned controversy over state science standards in Kansas. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's worse is that large school districts can push the textbook publishers to write books to fit their curriculum - but small school districts pretty much have to take what they can get. So this is by no means a reasonable process! SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is "such a widespread debate" not because teachers are overly autonomous but, on the contrary, because state policy is centralized by its nature. (I use 'state' in the broad sense, rather than 'member of the USA'.) If there were no state schools, it would not be an issue; children would go to the schools whose teachings best approximate what the parents want them to learn. But taxpayers naturally are concerned about what is done in their name and with their money; and when a tax-supported entity has a stated mission to indoctrinate all the children, the parents also are naturally concerned about what is done with their children. So, as you say, an official curriculum is adopted at some level – and it inevitably offends some faction with a legitimate interest. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respectfully take issue with the OP's contention that prayer is not allowed in US public schools. Anyone can pray at any time anywhere. What's not allowed as unconstitutional are group prayers initiated by a school official.Chief41074 (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. It's the coercive nature of group prayers that's unconstitutional. I think they make an exception for the Pledge of Allegiance, as that's not really a "prayer". Individuals (silently) praying would be just fine - and I would guess there's plenty of that going on at Final Exam time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those against teaching evolution in schools are often evangelicals. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyones know the name of this movie??

The movie is about a girl who is with this guy who used to be amish and he went back to his amish community to visit. and he was drving in his car with his younger brother and wrecked the car and his brother flew from the car and lived but his brother didnt. Now the girl of the guy that died had to marry his younger brother who was like 13. And she got him to run away from the Amish community. Does anyone know what movie im talking about and know the name??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myra10193 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps For Richer or Poorer (1997). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one died in that movie. Googlemeister (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above replies. For Richer or Poorer was a Tim Allen/ Kirsty Alley comedy. Movie as described does not sound familiar. Entertainment Ref. Desk may be a better place to ask? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5] has some movies and TV shows in some ways involving Amish people none of which sound like the above description. [6] has something similar including some which I don't think were in the earlier link and I checked out some of those but didn't notice anything similar. Amish#Portrayal in popular entertainment also lists stuff besides moviews and TV series. You may want to look more carefully since I didn't look that well. Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the plot, but it could be Deadly Blessing. Not memorable— I found it only because I remembered it starred Ernest Borgnine . ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Matrimony? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a good candidate. I was wondering if the OP remembered wrongly and the movie didn't concern the Amish but some other isolated community and did a quick search but didn't find anythign Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airline seat width history

Following the recent flurry of coverage regarding Kevin Smith's ejection from a Southwest flight and ensuing ranting, I've seen a few people on message boards say matter-of-factly (and of course without a reliable source) that airline seats are narrower than they once were. Is this true? 71.161.59.15 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have some information on the subject (more specifically, about the number of seats crammed into aircraft of the same size, and how this figure has changed over time, but it's obviously related!). ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narrower seems unlikely; on most aircraft (including the Boeing 737s that comprise Southwest's fleet) there's not a lot of leeway for width. What does vary (and has generally become more compact) is seat pitch, the distance between seats in the front-to-back direction. That hurts tall guys more than fat guys, though. Note that there is width variance between different types of planes, but this argument is a complete non-starter when it comes to Southwest. — Lomn 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch is a function of how the airline chose to set up the seats. Airline seats are bolted to track(s) on the floor (and, in some models, along the outboard wall) - the track looks like this. Seats can be positioned to a granularity of about an inch. New airliners are almost always furnished by the maker to the specification of the airine buying the aircraft. It's not uncommon for buyers of second-hand airliners (such as charter companies) to replace the first class seats with regular ones, and to tighten the pitch so they can put in a few more rows. There isn't very much an airline can do about width; economy in 737s is a standard 3+3 layout, and always has been. The isle width is fixed, so they just divide up the remaining space. There's no way they could cram in a seventh seat, and running 2+3 would be such a huge revenue hit that a normal airline isn't going to do that, except for a few higher-priced rows. So really 737 seats in economy are the same size they've always been (the article TreasuryTag found notes that 737's competitor, Airbus' A319/A320 is a few inches wider, giving every ass an extra inch or so). The seats might feel narrower, however - if the pitch is small, people are more likely to want to sit with their knees apart. And there's clearly been a move, over the last couple of decades, toward budget shorthaul airlines that pitch tight because they know you'll only be there an hour or two. cf this terrifying (and possibly true?) photo. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are fatter than they used to be too. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR obviously: I disagree; I think in the way old days, plenty of highly successful businessmen were massive in size, mainly because they could afford to eat. It's just that they had no reason to fly. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 737 is probably a poor example due to it's size but for larger aircraft there usually is some leeway in how many seats go into a row of the economy class. For example, the Boeing 777 can fit 9 or 10 in the economy class, 9 is by far the most common (usually 3-3-3 o 2-5-2 I think) but a few do fit 10 (3-4-3 I think). Some have suggested 9 as a theoretical possibility for the A340 which usually fits 8 although from a quick search I didn't find anyone actually name an airline confirmed to use such a config. Somehowever do do it with the A330 apparently (3-3-3 instead of the normal 2-4-2). There may be similar examples on other large aircraft although do note that these configs may not be through the entire aircraft and from what I can tell they're generally quite rare even when they do exist. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Some of the refs have some mention of specific seat widths as well. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that seat width has not significantly changed within the use of a single airplane model. Perhaps I should have stated my question more clearly. I was wondering if the width of an airplane seat from the 50s, for example, was wider than they are these days. -the OP 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable on the surface (when jet travel was a real luxury), but again, that's not really the issue that's being discussed. The 737 has been in service for forty-two years. It's based on the fuselage (thus having the same width and 3-3 seating plan) of the 707, which entered service in 1958. "Seats narrower than they used to be" is only barely more interesting than "I walked uphill to school both ways". "These days" encompasses a much larger stretch of time than you'd think at first glance. — Lomn 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up with data: the de Havilland Comet, the first jet airliner, was indeed more spacious. It had a fuselage width of 117 inches, and the early models seated at most a 2-2 plan (the very early ones list some 36-passenger models, so those were probably even less). That's 29 inches per person (though naturally, seat width is less -- there's the frame, the aisle, etc, but I think those can be generalized out for comparison). However, the latter models went to 5-across, for 23 inches per person. The Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, both introduced in 1958 and ushering in modern jet airliner service, were 6 across and 148" and 147" wide, respectively. That's 25 inches per person, both wider than the late-model (i.e. modern-capacity) Comets. Those numbers have not significantly changed in the 50 years since. Mass-market commercial air travel has always had the same seat width. — Lomn 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it a different way, this was all long before Kevin Smith was even born Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall at least some standard jets that were 2 + 3. I can also recall 1970s ads for Continental, "The Proud Bird with the Golden Tail", which said, "Pride took a seat out." I wonder which model jet that was? I would have thought it was a 737, but it's been awhile since I've flown on a 2 + 3; all the planes I've been on in recent years were 3 + 3. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are still 2-3 jets; Delta's flying the MD-88 with them right now. The MD-88 is also a narrower aircraft than the 737 and many others. It's 26 inches per person -- slightly wider, but within normal variances. If anything, you need to narrow the per-person estimates of the smaller planes more to get to your actual width, as fuselage curvature becomes more significant. The ERJ-145, for instance, is 90 inches wide in a 1-2 configuration (30 inches per person! More than the early Comet!) and I can vouch that they're certainly not giving you Lay-z-boys in those. — Lomn 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not historical, but here's current data for seat widths (and pitches, and lots of other stuff): seatguru.com The de facto standard for US-based airlines is 17"-18" actual width. Only one aircraft (Delta's extremely tiny prop plane) goes below 17", only one type of plane (the aforementioned Embraers) goes over (and only to 18.25"). — Lomn 17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wider seats do exist. I flew a few times on a private jet fitted out with large leather armchairs facing across the cabin. All very James Bond, but not usually available to the general public. It was pretty weird taking off with my back to the window. Astronaut (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need I point out that this is a highly American-centric discussion? Asian airlines have narrower seats in economy class than do European or American airlines, but there is also (IMHO) more width in business and first class. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}? Some of the refs I provided included Asian airlines, e.g. [12]. I don't see any evidence Asian airlines are particularly abnormal. Also since they're using the same commercial aeroplanes it's not entirely clear why their seats are going to be a lot narrower unless they're fitting more seats which is something we've already discussed. The budget airlines may use the narrow configs/more seats, e.g. AirAsia uses the 3-3-3 I mentioned above in their A330s [13] but then so do some budget airlines in Europe and the US. The more high end airlines appear to generally use the more standard configs. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chuckling because I recently saw some movies circa 1940 – Foreign Correspondent was one – in which an air cabin looks like a lounge. —Tamfang (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]