Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 January 5

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.

January 5

Explain to me how 2010 is the start of a new decade. Please???

If there was no year zero, then a decade must be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. I read the Wikipedia article on the Gregorian Calendar and it says "There is no year 0; AD 1 immediately follows 1 BC." So why is everybody thinking that we just started a new decade? Why can't everyone see that the year 2000 was the final year of the 20th century? January 1st, 2001 was the beginning of the current decade we are in. When I read or hear "the start of a new decade!" in the media I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world. I need to hear from an INTELLIGENT source whether I've got this correct or not. I eagerly await your answer. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndukane (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Two responses that are really one:

People perceive it as a new decade because of a change in 2 digits instead of just 1.

There is no real need to begin counting from the origin of the counting. You can say you've been working at a particular office for a decade, and that decade doesn't necessarily coincide with a decade of history (the 80's or the 90's). While 2000 may have belonged to the 90's if one begins counting the 90's from 1991, most people don't care that, technically, from the origin of the numbering, year 1 was the first year. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're on the subject of how to refer to time periods... It's the "80s or the 90s" with no apostrophes since you are not suggesting possession or using the apostrophe to substitute for some missing letter(s). You're referring to 1980, 1981, and so on which is simply the plural and thus simply "80s". Dismas|^(talk) 02:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a rule or merely one side of an opinion? If I wanted to say that the letter q should never appear without being followed by the letter u, I would tend to write, "Q's shouldn't appear without being followed by u's," and that's because single letters are not often used in a sentence, and to indicate that I'm not making a typo or something like that, I would place an apostrophe in a non-possessive form. That is what I was doing for above, because numbers are similarly not often used in sentences in the manner in which I used them, and to avoid confusion, I used an apostrophe in a non-possessive, non-contraction form. Does such an informal form not extist? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is like deja vu. It's like deja vu. The first day of the 21st century was January 1, 2001. The first day of the "two-thousands" was January 1, 2000, by conventional usage. Hence January 1, 2010, is the first day of the "two-thousand tens" or "two-thousand teens" or whatever it eventually gets called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, the "twenty-tens". One thousand and sixty-six and all that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Millennium article has discussions of this debate (over the course of 1000 years rather than 10; but it's the same debate). Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter if there was no year zero? You can start a new ten-year period whenever you want. We start them in years ending in zero. All it means is that two thousand and ten years ago was 1 BC, not 0. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually 2010 years ago would have been 5 January 1 BC/E. 2009 years ago would have been 5 January 1 AD/CE. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another point to keep in mind is that it's not as though the years mark time from some notable event, from which only 2009 years have passed. The current calendar dates from the year that Dionysius Exiguus believed to be the birth of Jesus. (Well, more precisely, January 1 of that year would have been the date of his circumcision, if he had been born on the traditional date of December 25 and circumcised on the eighth day, as specified in the Jewish law, with his date of birth counting as the first day).

But Dionysius almost certainly got it wrong. So January 1, 2010 is 2009 years after nothing in particular. --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's about time that they readjusted the calendar to make the solstice fall on the 25th, as it did at the time; and to add about 5 years to the year to make it coincide with the more recent guesstimate of Jesus' birth year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And of course - some media outlets are apologetic. Nanonic (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 is the last year of the first decade of this millennium. The next decade begins January 1, 2011. Didn't we go through this 10 years ago? Edison (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Was wikipedia around then? The first decade of the 21st century runs from 1/1/01 through 12/31/10. The first decade of the 2000s ran from 1/1/00 through 12/31/09. That's as per conventional usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You foolish fool; Wikipedia has been around forever! HalfShadow 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No wonder those stars they hand out are tarnished. They're just not aging well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

January 1st to December 31st is a period of one year. So is the period from February 6th to the next February 5th. Or November 12th to the next November 11th. Any ten years can be a decade; don't get too caught up on them. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 is the last year of the first decade of this millennium. The next decade begins January 1, 2011. Sure, and the 7th decade of the 20th century began in 1961 and ended in 1970. But the decade we call the 1960s began in 1960 and ended in 1969. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well explained, Pfly. As long as it is called the 2010's, the off-by-one pedants don't have much of an argument. If people ever said that last week was the beginning of the 201st (or is it the 202nd?) decade, I too might think about correcting them. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my thing: there's exactly ten different numerals in our numeral system, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. 10 is not a numeral, despite what the OP thinks. 10 is where it starts over, starts fresh. Of course 2010 is the start of a new decade. The last numeral is 0, which is the lowest numeral! Last year, it was 9, which is the higest numeral!

Also, every computer programmer knows that if you allocate a vector with 10 items in it, the first item is 0 and the last item is 9. Listen to the computer programmers! Belisarius (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I challenge you - I dare you - to publish a book about this issue, in which the first chapter is called Chapter 0, and the first page is numbered 0. No, I thought not. See, despite what computer programmers say, natural people count things starting with 1. They're able to distinguish between naming the set of numerals we use (which, as you say, are usually specified as "0 1, 2, ... 9"), and starting with 1 when it comes to counting things. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you could consider the inside cover or the back of the title page to be page 0, but since nothing is written on it, writing page 0 sounds pretty dumb. But of the hundreds upon hundreds of books I have read, I can not recall a single one that had page 1 be on the left and page 2 on the right, implying that the publishers do start their numbering with 0. Googlemeister (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is already (correctly) answered by the excellent individuals above, but I wanted to add the example Stephen Jay Gould quotes in Dinosaur in a Haystack, namely that the first decade just had 9 years instead of 10. Elegant, if not exact. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, let's say you're reading a book that's exactly 100 pages long. The story starts at the tippy-top of page 1 and ends right at the very bottom of page 100. Would you say you'd completed the book (i.e. read 100 pages) at the top of page 100 or at the bottom? Counting means counting the ends of things, not the beginnings. Just being devil's advocate. :) The year zero thing is kind of red herring, or at least a somewhat over-simplified version of the real problem (if you can call such a thing a problem in a world where there are people starving). The year 2000 did indeed mark the turn of the millennium, it's just that the important date was on December 31, not January 1. Why? Because that was the bottom of the 2000th "page". You can celebrate that you're on the last page or the 100th page or the 2000th page, but the book, page, and millennium aren't over until you reach the bottom. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning 100%, Matt. Which is why I disagreed with Belisarius's Of course 2010 is the start of a new decade. 2010 may be the start of the "twenty-tens", but the 2nd decade of the 3rd millennium doesn't start till 1 January 2011, the day after 31 December 2010. Only on that date have we got the "bottom of the page/decade". 1 January 2011 turns us over to a new page/decade. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who started counting from when and whether they counted from zero or one - people like to celebrate nice round numbers. 2000 was a nice round number...The End. SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is the Jesus you speak of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.170.108 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You disappoint me, Steve. There's enough material in the history of our calendars for a quite substantial scholarly book. One might take a leaf out of Stephen Hawking's book and call it "A Not So Brief History of Time". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry not to come up with something more profound - but it's true. It really doesn't matter a damn what the ultimate truth is - people would celebrate on Jan 1st 2000 no matter whether there was a year zero or not. Atheists and other non-christians celebrated the millenium even though they don't believe that the event that the calendar was started on even happened! Bear in mind too that the calendar was totally screwed up for the first 1752 or so years BC and a somewhat arbitary 12 days dropped in an effort to fix it. Nobody on the opposite side of the international date line worried whether they were celebrating a day early (or was it late?). Nobody worried that the presence of a leap day in a year that's divisible by 400 means that the calendar was almost an entire day "wrong" by Jan 1st 2000.

But absolutely none of this matters. People are celebrating the round number and nothing whatever else. No amount of clever arguments will change that. People celebrate things like the Dow Jones index breaking 10,000 or Wikipedia having exactly 2 million articles. They don't concern themselves with the fact that in hexadecimal it's not a round number or that they're celebrating a round number of years or that it was impossible to know exactly when the 2,000,000'th article appeared because articles are deleted at close to the same rate that they are created. When celebrating anniversaries we look for round numbers of years - but what about round numbers of months, weeks, days, hours or minutes?

It's nothing more profound than: "Woohoo! There is a nice round number on my calendar today! PARTY!" SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I generally agree with you here, but I would point out that being an atheist or non-Christian does not imply that you deny the historicity of Jesus.

However, I think almost all observers do agree that, if Jesus existed, he was probably not born in the year that was retrospectively labelled AD 1 (or late 1 BC, as would be the case for the "circumcision" theory I mentioned above). Maybe the followers of Hal Linden Hal Lindsey would disagree — I looked through his book once, and his timeline seemed to assume the AD 1 theory. --Trovatore (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that the current situation gives us the opportunity to celebrate a new decade (or new millenium) twice Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they worked out that the calculation of Jesus's birth date was only off by about four years. Next to 2,000 years, four is virtually insignificant; why can't we cut everyone a little slack and count January as 2010 (or 2009) years from the birth/circumcision of Jesus?

Also, the winter solstice actuall falls on Dec. 21. We can't just arbitrarily move it... can we? JJohnCooper (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 is the start of the 2010's, but the second decade of the third millenium starts with 2011. It's two different things, two different decades, they only have nine years in common. The Great Cucumber (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

craigslist

what section of craigslist do people put a request for tickets in exchange for services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're offering the tickets, probably the "tickets" section; if you're offering the service, the "services" section. Remember that the "service" must be legal. Xenon54 / talk / 02:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indie fans

Why do some indie music fans not want to see their favorite artists get huge? I mean, they bitch and moan constantly about how mainstream media sucks because it promotes music that they consider to be bad, but when one of their own makes it, then they turn on them. I don't get it. If you really like an artist, and they're not getting the recognition that their less talented peers are getting, then shouldn't you want for that artist to be just as popular so the public can be exposed to what you consider to be great yet underrated music? It's like as soon as a certain artist becomes known outside a small circle and starts attracting national attention, then all of a sudden they're "selling out". Don't artists make music with the intention of getting it heard by as many people as possible? If they only wanted to play it for a couple dozen of people, then why would they bother getting record deals? They would just continue toughing it out in local bars and clubs. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Several things

1. There is the perception that when a band signs to a major label, the band loses some creative control. Major labels tend to push certain things that will "sell", and thus bands which sign with major labels often have to change in ways that the original fans may not like. Thus, the band you used to like stops playing the kind of music you liked them for.
2. Many independent types of music have a DIY ethic which places a value on self-sufficiency. Depending on a major label to book studio time, find a producer, release singles, promote the album means surrenduring a lot of control that runs counter to this DIY ethic in many independent music scenes.
3. Some fans feel "ownership" of bands they follow, and if more people are fans, then it dilutes your ownership, just like more people owning stock in a company means your shares are worth less. For some people who are emotionally invested in a band, this can be a significant effect.

Just some ideas. --Jayron32 05:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I understand point 1 & 2, but point 3 just sounds crazy. I mean, you can't really "own" an artist, they're not like birds you can keep in a cage. Even then, every once in a while they must fly out. The Beatles are the most massively popular band of all time, but I've never heard anyone complain that the fact everyone knows their music means they're worth less. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because that is all true does not diminish the psychological feeling of ownership in this way. Emotional investment of this type is very real for some people, even if you yourself do not feel the same way. The real feelings of other people exist even if we don't think they should. Being silly and incomprehensible doesn't make it go away... --Jayron32 05:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Jayron re: point 3. It's not that they really beleive they 'own' the band, but when you love a small less-heard-of band it brings great joy to be able to 'tune' people into that band. Once the band is big then you lose that 'joy' (can you imagine saying "i've uncovered this great band - The Beatles"?). It is a little 'silly' that people lose interest in a band they love because it has become big, but some people are keen to be 'different' from mainstream-culture and so will leave that band and chase the next up and coming one. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they like a certain band before it was mainstream signals some information that the person deems important (e.g. that they have good taste, that they are open to new experiences, that they take their music seriously). When the band becomes mainstream the cost of that signal is diminished, thus they are upset.--droptone (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another factor can be access to the bands: for some people, it is important to be able to see bands close-up and perhaps talk with them. This becomes more difficult as a band becomes more popular. Warofdreams talk 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I still find it absurd... I mean, for me, the joy is in discovering the artist when they are new to people, then watching them grow over the years and gaining more fans along the way... I actually find it pretty cool when I'm not the only person in the world that knows that band, I don't understand how getting the response of "who?" when you tell a person about an artist you know can make some people feel "cool". And I understand that the artist has worked hard to get where they are, it's stupid to begrudge their success. Sure it sucks when they start moving up from small venues to stadiums and arenas, and therefore tickets become harder and more expensive to obtain, but even I'm willing to let go of that and be genuinely happy that my favorite band has come out on top. Well if these type of selfish fans are what one risks attracting when one decides to work in the indie/alternative scene, then I'd rather not make music at all and pick another career.24.189.90.68 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above. Being absurd doesn't mean it isn't real. You're perfectly free to find it absurd that others feel this way; it doesn't make them any less likely to feel that way. If you want genuine answers to "why", you were given them. If you want to belittle people who have these very real feelings, thats fine too, but Wikipedia's reference desk isn't the appropriate place to do that. --Jayron32 03:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Used bookstores -- urge to defecate

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a strong urge to take a dump after being in a used bookstore for more than a few minutes? What causes this? This happens to me literally every time I go to a used bookstore. Thank you for your help. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a strong urge to not answer questions like this and instead leave a snide, unhelpful remark which mocks the OP? What causes this? This happens to me literally every time I read the reference desks. --Jayron32 05:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is just you. Both of you. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with libraries (which I visit far more often than bookshops), but it takes more than a few minutes - perhaps half an hour. I have absolutely no idea why this happens. Using a toilet before going to the library doesn't make any difference. 58.7.188.135 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking a huge measure of AGF, I'll answer seriously. It's a well-known phenomenon that when people relax, they often find they need the toilet. Second hand bookstores that I know are usually extremely calm environments. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnes & Noble stores typically have restrooms. Maybe that helps account for the store's popularity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A common aggravating factor is the tendency when at a book store to have recently downed a cup of coffee. --Sean 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Borders bookstores all have signs in the restrooms saying, "Staff Must Wash Hands". I've waited and waited, but no staff have ever shown up, and I've had to wash my hands myself. PhGustaf (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If the paper towel dispenser says on the front "Pull down and tear up," do you leave it a heap of mangled metal on the floor? Edison (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you just give it a yank and then start to cry. Steewi (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, if you lunch at the Taco Bell next door, you might have to make a run for the Borders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"...when people relax, they often find they need the toilet" - perhaps, but the problem is apparently unique to bookstores/libraries, not other forms or places of relaxation. "... recently downed a cup of coffee." - This would cause an urge to urinate, not defecate. 220.235.12.32 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee acts as a laxative for many people. --Sean 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is because used books are dog-eared. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My thesis professor said long ago that whenever his Dad said he was going to clean out the garage, the kids knew he would shortly be running to the toilet to defacate. Maybe walking around in a used book store is for some like cleaning out the garage once was for others. Maybe standing up and walking around (in a bookstore or elsewhere) stimulates peristalsis of the colon, in those who would be otherwise sitting inertly on that part. Edison (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've experienced similar urges myself, whenever my parents go out for a walk or something, but that is mainly due to the excitement I feel when I think about all the online chats I'm gonna have for the next one hour or so..... La Alquimista 12:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a brilliant question because we have anecdotal evidence that this phenomena is shared by several people - I too sometimes get this feeling, but wouldn't confine it to second hand book-stores, I also get it in the parking lot of a casino I regularly go to. I wonder if we'll ever find an answer to this, and what type of researcher would ever investigate this? A sociologist perhaps? Gastro-ontorologist? Proctologist? Rfwoolf (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

Actually, from what little I know, getting excited for whatever reason releases adrenalin, which in turn makes us want to poop. (That is actually one of adrenalin's "side-effects")La Alquimista 16:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

IS ENGLAND A COUNTRY?

Is the following true, when our Prime Minister John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty back in 1992 under a little read section on regional funding, England was abolished and replaced with nine Euro regions. (Look up English regions on You Tube) England can no longer be found on any official EU map. Try putting English on your passport application and it'll be returned as UK citizen. Read the latest Encyclopedia Brittanica where England is stated to no longer exist. Next time your putting software on your system and it asks you to state a language, it may allow you to put English but when asking for your home country it will have no 'English' option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FRANKIE THE BULLET (talk • contribs) 08:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, England has not been "abolished". Within the UK, citizenship and nationality is that of the UK as a whole (with special considerations applying in Northern Ireland). It has not been the case since the formation of the UK that one's official nationality could be described as either English, Scottish or Welsh - officially we are all "British". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The question "Is England a country?" has been much discussed at Talk:England. Basically, it depends on your definition of "country". It has not been a sovereign state since 1707, when it combined with Scotland to form the UK, but it is still defined as a country within the UK and by some international bodies (such as FIFA). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

...and "England" still seems to exist in this current version of EB - albeit not as a "political unit" - but then it hasn't been that since 1707, or before the 13th century if you mean current boundaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

England, of course, exists. But the nation has long been the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Even as far back as 1951, to my certain knowledge, one had to declare oneself British. But one could use British/English (or Scottish, etc.) Citizenship, however is of the UK. (And has been since Scotland and England formed the United Kingdom.)86.219.165.70 (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The EU maps myth has been going around for years. You can check their maps out yourself, at http://ec.europa.eu/publications/maps/index_en.htm. As you will see, many have very little detail and just mark the outline of the UK. More detailed maps show the regions of England, but also mark England (although not very clearly). You can find out more about the regions of England in our article on them; they are not European creations, and were instead created by the British government to standardise the regions used by their various departments. They bear a striking similarity with the civil defence regions created around the start of World War II. Warofdreams talk 11:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When you apply for a passport, you have to state your nationality. Whether you consider yourself English, Scottish or Welsh, the passport will come back with "British citizen". Astronaut (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what the OP said already. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though the OP doesn't say so, I read into the question that if they were to put "Scottish" or "Welsh" then that is what would appear on the passport and that the rules were somehow different if you were to put "English". I don't think the rules are different. Astronaut (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The rules are indeed the same for Scotland and Wales. However, since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, people born in Northern Ireland, who are automatically UK (that is, "British") citizens, are also entitled to Irish citizenship. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here between nationality and citizenship. I consider my nationality to be English, but am a citizen of the U.K. Also now of the E.U. And, to add further confusion, in most cases nowadays official forms ask for ethnic details as well! But - bottom line - the citizenship is of the U.K.86.219.165.70 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way... The sovereign state is that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When someone wants to deal the English or Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish on an international level, you deal with the government of the UK. However, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is composed of 4 different "nations" or "countries" that are United as one single Kingdom. The 4 Home Nations as they are called are England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which internally operate semi-autonomously, and are historically different countries, but which compose a single sovereign state known as the UK. Many countries operate whereby the nation = the sovereign state, but the two are not always synonymous. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of two different "countries", the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. As far as dealing with the outside world, they work like one sovereign state, but internally they operate even more independently than does the UK. --Jayron32 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Jayron32: It is true that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland operate "semi-autonomously", to different extents, but England does not - there is some regional administration, but essentially England's administration is an integral part of the UK administration - not surprising in the sense that England has some 84% of the total UK population. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not true. The Regions of England, which the British government chooses to use for administrative purposes, have been around in various forms and used in various ways, for various different reasons, since about the 500s. That the current, penultimate, and antepenultimate administrations chose to continue using them, including now as constituencies, is nothing remarkable.

As regards your other assertions - England hasn't been a Sovereign state providing citizenship for hundreds of years, and when you next put a Britanica disc into your computer, unless you're using a particularly odd disc there's no 'may' about it, it will allow you to use it in English. --Saalstin (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indopedia?

is this a wikimedia foundation project? When did it take off? Why does it have "Ads by Google" at the bottom of every page? I always thought .org sites were non-profit or run by donations.Read the third sentence → trademark?. I am planning to start a article on www.indopedia.org.Any information would be forthcoming.ADI4094 09:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indopedia is not a Wikimedia Foundation project. We are not aware when it took off. It probably has ads by Google to make money. Traditionally .org sites were non-profit, but the distinction between .com, .net, and .org has been muddied, if not completely dissolved, over the years. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi#indopedia.org, Indopedia was launched in December 2004. Although the information on that page is now quite old, it appears to be substantially correct. Warofdreams talk 10:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no vetting process when someone purchases a domain name. So anyone can set up a .org. Dismas|^(talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is not substantially correct at all—they've taken the Wikipedia About page and replaced a bunch of references to Wikipedia with Indopedia. It's a fork/mirror for cash, that's all. One of many. Hooray for open source encyclopedias, helping ad-mongers everywhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Our mirrors and forks page is substantially correct, not the pages on Indopedia. As you say, there have been many mirrors of Wikipedia, and a few forks, but none have seen long-term success, and I really doubt that anyone has made significant money from them. Warofdreams talk 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, we were referring to different pages. Okie-dokie. As for money—I wouldn't know. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they have jurisdiction?

Hey, Say in the UK, someone directly outside their work, school or other organisation they were to say they didn't like the work/school/etc., would the work/school/whatever be able to legally fire/expell/ban that person or would that be going against freedom of speech laws. Thanks. ت ت ت ت 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a freedom to protest in the UK. Don't surprised if the police try to "move you on" - especially if you are on school/work/private property or are blocking the highway/footpath. As for whether you will be fired/expelled/banned, you should ask a lawyer since the ref desk cannot give legal advice. Astronaut (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent UK case of someone saying uncomplimentary things on Facebook about their employer, for which they were sacked. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In my state in the US, you can get canned for whatever the employer wants (with some exceptions for stuff like discrimination etc...), So they could toss you for rooting for the wrong football team if they wanted. Hopefully, the UK is a bit more civilized. Googlemeister (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In Britain the right of free speech applies. But not to the extent of libel - i.e. you can express an honest opinion, but not lie. So a student saying he did not like school or a teacher may well be called in to explain the comment but could not legally be expelled for expressing a view. That said, people are sacked (etc.) for expressing a view, they then have to take recourse through a Tribunal - probably claiming wrongful dismissal.86.219.165.70 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One quibble with the above: In Britain, "libel" does not have to be a lie. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I strike my claim because our article English defamation law notes that my claim is only true in one very narrow case (if you defame a political candidate with a truthful claim, but you didn't know at the time it was truthful). Anyway, this is beside the point of the OP's question, and I'll close this sad post by pointing to the article Freedom of speech by country, particularly the "European Union" and "United Kingdom" sections. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One more quibble: LIBEL is only written defamation. SLANDER is spoken defamation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless the spoken defamation is recorded, when it becomes libel (in the UK). Warofdreams talk 10:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be helpful to remind you what the etymological root to '"libel" was. Assuming you are curious about that sort of thing, it traces back to the Latin word for book, liber. And it doesn't even have to be a big book, it can be a small book, libellum (hence "libel"). This word also happens to denote the notebook or ledger that all the cases were docketed in, so there are two meanings to libellum, just in case you were perusing an old copy of the English Reports, where published opinions were once in Latin. Slander, on the other hand, is spoken, and not written down. It's connected to the English slur. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A reason can sometimes be given for a sacking which is not the real reason. This sometimes allows employers or schools to punish speech. Some transgression which would normally be overlooked could be cited as "cause." Employee: Made a mistake filling out a timesheet? Came in late a couple of times? Took sick days? Turned in work which was not perfect? Some customer/coworker complained about an off-color joke? Took home some things from the supply cabinet? The recession creating a need to "rightsize" a company, resulting in job elimination? Students: Some little hint of plagiarism on an assignment? Drylab the lab report when the data were too far off? 2 students with the same unlikely mistakes on an exam or take-home quiz? Violate any petty rule? Edison (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if you do or say something to "damage the image" of your employer, including anything from breaking a law to badmouthing them (whether you're on duty or not), they could be within thier legal rights to administer "disciplinary action" -- particularly if they have a written policy to that effect.63.146.74.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Too many folks think "freedom of speech" means the right to say anything, anytime, anywhere. That ain't it. It's the right to stand up to the government for a "redress of grievances". If you go and badmouth your employer, the libertarian view would be that you're "biting the hand that feeds you", and that there's nothing stopping you from finding work elsewhere if you don't like it there - or possibly from working to improve the situation from within, if you decide to stay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of speech laws usually stop governments from taking action to stop you saying something, they don't apply to private employers. There have been plenty of cases in the UK of schools and employers taking action against pupils/employees for things they did outside of school/work. I don't know the legal details, but it must be legal in some cases. --Tango (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, freedom of speech is not simply about talking back to the government, at least as the U.S. courts have interpreted it. Advertising, blasphemy and even erotic dancing have some degree of protection under the First Amendment, even though they don't necessarily have anything to do with the government. Secondly, some states do protect employees against workplace retaliation for engaging in political activity off-hours. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to protest outside their own workplace, then they do risk losing their job. There is some statutory protection in the UK for picketing, and in that case I believe that non-union officials are required to limit their protests to their own workplace. There are numerous hurdles in order for a protest to be consider a picket, partly addressed at [1]. Warofdreams talk 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Survivable fall?

I don't know whether this is a science, mathematics, miscellaneous, or perhaps entertainment for the sheer comedy value, so I'll ask here. Suppose you were to fall from a great height (say 300 m or 1000 ft) holding a large, flat sheet of a rigid material. Assuming you are able to keep the sheet horizontal, how large would the sheet have to be to reduce your velocity such that the fall is survivable? By survivable, I mean that you would be able to recover from your injuries - I don't necessarily mean without injury but nor do I mean surviving the rest of your life connected to machines.

This is inspired by a real life incident when I leant against the windows of the Stratosphere Tower, Las Vegas, and a person behind me let out a loud gasp! I then wondered what would happen if the window was to come away from the frame, resulting in me and the window falling to the ground. Of course, you would never be able to maintain a grip on the window, and it seems obvious it would tumble in the air, but let's ignore those issues for now. Astronaut (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of a true story - not an urban myth - where a man in a skyscraper ran up against a window to prove they were safe......and fell out and died. 92.24.115.153 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you hadn't had clarified that "was not an urban myth" I almost wouldn't believe that was a true story.Cander0000 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, falls from above 30 feet are much more likely to be fatal then falls of 20 feet, so perhaps a good place to start would be to determine how fast someone hits the ground from a 20 foot fall. Then we need to induce drag so that the terminal velocity is equal to that speed. If we assume that the material does not greatly change the density of the system (human + drag object), then it can be simplified to V,t=90*d^(-1/2) Unfortunately, I am not sure how to assign a d value.

If my math is correct then the speed an object would hit (without wind resistance) from 20 feet is 7.9 m/s I will assume that drag at those speeds for a human is fairly small and results in an actual speed of 7.5 m/s. Googlemeister (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mythbusters took this one on, and found that it is indeed impossible to make this work. Even if you could hold onto the metal all the way down (which doesn't seem likely), it wouldn't slow you down enough. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is our description of that episode. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had to use the more complicated version where things do not get simplified to d, and resulted in a required area of 10.7 m^2 for an 80 kg human (ignoring the weight of the flat plate). This seems pretty large, and if true, it would not do to ignore the weight of the sheet of that size unless it is something like a real parachute. Googlemeister (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's no real height limit, given the proper circumstances. People have (rarely, I admit) survived falls from aircraft without parachutes. Once you hit terminal velocity (and that takes less than 1,000 feet as I recall), there's no upper limit to how much further you could fall with the same expected survival rate. — Lomn 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this appear as a risible plot device in a Dan Brown novel? --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One which recently had a movie. Oh, and for the record, basejumping with a large sheet of plywood is not likely to have favorable results. Googlemeister (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was preparing a different reply, but got sidetracked by the very interesting terminal velocity article :-) That article provides all the necessary formulae and now seems much easier to understand than when I first read it. The Drag coefficient article provides a figure of 1.28 for a flat sheet perpendicular to the flow. The Barometric formula article suggests the air density near the Earth's surface is 1.225 kg/m³. In terms of a survivable velocity, many people survive being hit by a car travelling at 13 m/s (~30 mph), so let's use that as our desired terminal velocity. Also assume a total system mass of 100 kg (either a little guy with a heavy sheet or a big guy with a lighter sheet). Plugging all that into:

$A={\frac {2mg}{\rho V_{t}^{2}C_{d}}}$

...yields an area of ~7.5 m² - too large to get your arms around, but strangely doesn't seem big enough! Anyway, it's just a thought experiment, and full of so many unreasonable assumptions that I certainly won't be basejumping (with or without plywood). Astronaut (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call, I read the line for a 2D flat plate, not 3D. Googlemeister (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to survive during a fall but the end of the fall can be uncomfortable. Here is Otto Lilienthal gliding down elegantly. Ski jumpers routinely survive landing at their terminal velocity which is limited only by their body profile and two thin skis (but they are thankful to land on a slope so they don't have to stop immediately). Another unconfirmed method of retarding velocity. If you seek comedy, jump from the Stratosphere Tower and show everyone that you have guts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In Angels and Demons, Dan Brown states that a square yard of drag will slow your body down by 20%... I don't know how true that is, but apparently, Robert Langdon was hale and hearty after that tumble....La Alquimista 12:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GSM Services

what do you mean by GSM service??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.246.112 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See GSM — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Glow in the dark

i saw my friend wearing a band in his wrist. when i asked him about it , he said it glows in dark??? is it radium which makes it glow in dark or something else ???

Far more likely is a non-radioactive form of luminescence. I'd guess it's some form of photoluminescence like a phosphor compound. — Lomn 14:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Radium is no longer used for such purposes. Sometimes tritium still is. But it's probably just a phosphor—the yellowish/green bits are exposed to the light, and will then glow (weakly) in the dark. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tritium is rarely used because of its very high cost. Some other common glow materials are zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate. Googlemeister (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

These tritium-illuminated exit signs are about twice the cost of regular exit signs, but don't require batteries or electricity. The price margin doesn't seem prohibitive. --Sean 16:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They must use absolutely tiny amounts of it then since tritium costs are on the order of $10,000,00+ per kg. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they use on the order of 1-10 curies of tritium. I believe tritium is something like 10,000 curies per gram, so that's not a lot of tritium—maybe 100-1000 micrograms per sign. Which isn't that expensive. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can get tritium keychains as well [2]. From some of the reviews, I don't think these are particularly bright so I doubt they use much Nil Einne (talk) 9:20 am, Yesterday (UTC+13)

Googlemeister is probably aware of this, but a note that the phosphorescence of (just) zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate is significantly different than the glow-in-the dark obtained with tritium and radium. Zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate aren't energy sources - they won't glow unless "charged" first, most commonly by exposure to light. You see this most commonly in glow-in-the-dark toys for children. After turning off the light, they glow, but that glow slowly fades until there's nothing left in the morning. Turn the light back on for a while and they are "recharged", ready to glow for a few more hours. Things like radium watches didn't need to be "charged" externally, and didn't fade if kept in the dark for a long time. They produced their own energy via radioactive decay (radioluminescence). But even then, it wasn't the radium that glowed, the radium merely served as an energy source to charge the zinc sulfide that was included in the luminescent paint. Recently there has been a number of products which work with electroluminescence, where it is an electric current which "charges" the phosphor (again, usually something like doped zinc sulfide), and induces it to glow. -- 128.104.49.12 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Glowstick type chemoluminescent wristbands are very common, and generate light for a few hours from a chemical reaction, without radioactivity , batteries, or the need to "charge" them by exposure to intense light. Numerous online sellers offer glow in the dark silicone wristbands, but do not say what makes them glow. They do not appear to have liquid in them like chemoluminescent ones, so I'm guessing the glow for a bit after exposure to bright light, and perhaps they glow under blacklight illumination. Edison (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do USB Cords require a UL listing?

Do USB Cords require a UL listing? Are there any U.S. regulations requiring USB Cords to have a UL Listing?

EMM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.160.55 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. UL listing means a product has been independently tested against the safety standards of Underwriters Laboratories. UL listing of a product is not required by law but can be demanded by some local authorities and insurance companies. AFAIK there is no safety issue concerning USB cords for which a UL test is relevant. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Google shows many USB cables advertised as "UL listed", "UL approved" or just "(UL)". So it appears that they do test them. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)