Miscellaneous desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24

Petraeus Still Commander of CENTCOM?

Will General David Petraeus still remain as the commander of CENTCOM if he is confirmed at Gen. Stanely McChrystal's replacement? If so, will he be working two jobs at once? Acceptable (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source indicates that he will be replaced as commander of CENTCOM if he is confirmed as commanding officer in Afghanistan. Marco polo (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't this mean that Petraeus is being demoted? Acceptable (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly; his rank shouldn't change (so technically, no demotion). However, it might be perceived as a less-prestigious posting (an unofficial demotion). I suspect that "less prestigious" is offset considerably by "personally requested by the President" and "being a favorite of the President, likely to get another top billing in the future". — Lomn 21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, but per Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman is considered the high-ranking military officer in the US military, while the Vice-Chairman is considered the second-highest ranking officer. If the Chairman was to be "demoted" to Vice-Chairman, then his rank does change per the article even though his rank in terms of like General, Colonel, Captain, etc... does not change. Applying that to this situation, wouldn't this mean that Patraeus is also being reduced to a lower "rank"? Acceptable (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening to McChrystal, BTW? Will they give him another post, or is he now required to retire, or even just flat separated from the military? If he's retiring, does he get to do so as a four-star? --Trovatore (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard no mention of a court-martial, so I guess he can retire in the usual fashion. --Tango (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4-star Generals require a specific post to retain their job, AFAIK. There are no "4 star generals at large". So its likely he's out of a job, as far as the Army is concerned. Also, according to General (United States), even if he stays in the Army, he loses a star, "Four-star grades go hand-in-hand with the positions of office they are linked to, so these ranks are temporary. Officers may only achieve four-star grade if they are appointed to positions of office that require the officer to hold such a rank.[9] Their rank expires with the expiration of their term of office, which is usually set by statute.[9]" He's not going to be destitute, however, there are lots of job prospects for a former 4-star general, even one who was "defrocked" in the manner that McChrystal was. There are private military schools that need comandants, think tanks that need consultants, that sort of thing. --Jayron32 05:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He will also get a very good pension, I imagine. --Tango (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might Gen. McChrystal be placed in charge of Camp Swampy until he decides to actually retire from active military service? Edison (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming world cup NZ vs Paraguay

Hi all,

The (stupid stupid stupid!) country I'm living in isn't showing this match on TV (I think). Does anyone know where and how I can watch it for free? Thanks heaps!

Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaadddaaammm (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the country is Germany. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try this site, not sure what restrictions it has though. Let me know if it works for you, I'd be interested. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 07:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Germany's not on their list: "2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™ video content on the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) streaming video portal may only be viewed in certain EBU territories as noted below:

Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia And Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Kazakstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.

As we cannot confirm that you are accessing this service from within these territories we regret that you will be unable to view the content." Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your in Germany it's either on ZDF or ZDF infokanal, a live stream should be on the ZDF Mediathek 194.39.218.10 (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Thanks 194.39.218.10! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also try CBC's live streams. I'm not sure if they are blocked outside of Canada, but I know their radio content isn't. Cbc.ca -> Sports -> Fifa World Cup. Vranak (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Car badging – Mazda, Kia, Ford

Could anyone familiar with the subject look at the talk page Talk:Badge engineering#Ford Fiesta? and clarify the car models correlation? --CiaPan (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain a little more. I don't understand. Do you want someone to identify the cars? I'm not sure. Chevy monte carlo 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA jackets

Why non-playing players, who sit on the bench, wear jackets with FIFA caption during the current WC? Can't they wear for example their national team colors? 83.31.91.87 (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they're wearing their kit under the FIFA tops. As to why, see brand and marketing. Zunaid 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does FIFA need to advert itself? 83.31.99.51 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's to help the officials make sure there is only the correct number of players on the pitch. I seem to remember that during a recent cricket international match, one side played with 12 on the pitch for part of an over. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely to be to indicate who is a legal substitute and entitled to enter the game. If the eligible players have been pre-screened and identified beforehand, there is no need to do another check before they enter the game. Too many men on the pitch is an extremely rare occurrence in football, but accidentally letting an ineligible player on the pitch has happened a number of times. Measures that make it less likely are understandable, particularly in a tournament as important as the World Cup. --Xuxl (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TammyMoet - as an amateur footballer of many-years it is extremely irritating when subs hang around in their kits without a jacket over their top. It is very difficult to tell whether or not they are 'on' or not when they're stood by the sidelines and you're playing a ball from one side of the pitch to the other. It will certainly help make it clearer who is currently 'playing' and who isn't. I suppose it'd help in terms of legal subs but doubt that having a jacket is necessarily any type of worthwhile security (if you can fool the officials into switching a registered sub to another non-registered sub I doubt you'll struggle to get hold of the necessary jacket). ny156uk (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Khalifa bin Sultan Al Nahyan

Under the picture of Sheikh Khalifa bin Sultan Al Nahyan it says "Liverpool Football Club Owner". Is this true? No press reports link them to a takeover. And nothing has been mentioned by the club as well. Is this information accurate? Has the takeover been done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.189.43 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed mention from the article (which you seem to be one of the ones adding). Until a reliable source is reporting it, it should not be in the article. In future, discuss it in the article talk page or use WP:BLP/N and if no source is provide and you have doubts about the information in a BLP feel free to remove it on sight Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Record and a Job

Talking to a friend of mine who was applying for a job in an airport, customer service, when she was filling out the online application she was faced with a couple of routine questions such as are you over 18? Do you speak English? Are you available for a face to face interview? Then the big one do you have a criminal record? She answered yes to all and on the the next page of the online application she was told that she wasn't eleigible for the job. I can only assume it was because of her conviction. So how can it be fair that her application for this job can not be processed for a motoring conviction she got 22 years ago. At no time was she able to explain her conviction is this standard practice for people with convicions? Thanks Mo ainm~Talk 16:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot will depend on what country your friend is in. In the UK there are provisions for some convictions to become "spent" (Rehabilitation of Offenders Act), but there are exceptions to this. Also, in the UK a traffic offence may not count as a criminal conviction. Your friend should consult her trade union, a Citizens' Advice Bureau or similar, or an employment rights service. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Ireland, what I find strange is that just by answering yes she couldn't even proceed with the application, I told her she should have lied I would have for a very minor offence 20 odd years ago. Mo ainm~Talk 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't told us what the "motoring conviction" was, exactly — was she cited for speeding 10 kph over the limit, or did she run down 20 pedestrians at a zebra crossing whilst drunk? — but if it was indeed minor then she needs to determine whether the offence counts as a "crime", and whether the police would indeed answer "yes" if asked whether she has a "criminal record". Can she call the local police and ask to see her own criminal record? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was driving without a licence or insurance in her brothers car. Mo ainm~Talk 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a motoring offence, that's one of the more serious, and would likely not be an "exempted" crime. (The harsh side of me says, "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime!") ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principle behind having convictions become spent after a certain amount of time is that people who have already done the time shouldn't have the crime held against them indefinitely. --Tango (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did know that, actually... ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 17:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That probably does qualify as a criminal offence. Did she have to go to court? What was the sentence? I've been looking for an Irish equivalent to the British Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and can't find out - there is a proposed bill for one in 2007, which suggests there isn't one currently (the bill doesn't seem to have passed). In the UK, the question will always say "Do you have any criminal convictions that have not been spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?" - does the question on this website say anything similar? --Tango (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd that they would reject someone just because they have a criminal record. Usually they would want to know what the offence was and when it happened. The security requirements to work in an airport are very high, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean the mere existence of a criminal record should disqualify you. It is possible she was ineligible for some other reason - lacking the necessary qualifications or something. I would suggest she ask the employer for clarification. --Tango (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly the conviction here is a link to the questions she was asked click next and you will see them, she replied yes to them all, I just did it myself and answered no to the conviction and I was allowed to procede to the next step where if I answer yes it won't allow me. It then states that "Yours answers to the questions listed suggest that you don’t currently meet the current requirements necessary for consideration." "These criteria are in accordance with the National Civil Aviation Programme 2004 and are required of all staff working in Terminal Buildings." Mo ainm~Talk 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, they are automatically rejecting anyone with any criminal convictions. That's odd... Once again, I suggest contacting the employer. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even more oddly, Google can't find anything called "National Civil Aviation Programme 2004". [1] (the results shown there are without the quotes, since it couldn't find any results with the quotes). --Tango (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT possible that they checked her criminal record while applying online. 83.31.91.87 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. You don't even have to give your name by this point in the application process. --Tango (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most motoring offenses in the USA (at least) are not "Criminal" offenses - they are civil. That being the case, one should not mention them when asked about strictly criminal stuff. Stealing a car is criminal - driving one at 80mph in a 70 limit isn't. SteveBaker (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, people occasionally come up with the phrase "civil offence", which is pseudo-legal nonsense. Do you have a reference for its being meaningful in the US? --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Michigan's Traffic and Nontraffic Civil Infraction Matters Another site with further explanation (in the What is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony? section: [2] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP says this was driving without a license or insurance, which I think probably is a criminal offence in most countries. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this might seem harsh, but my understanding is that places like airports and maybe embassies have a zero tolerance policy regarding that sort of thing because of their special jurisdiction. it's not like just going for a job on the high street. This is a requirement regardless whether you're in customer service or customs security, or a toilet cleaner, you're employed by the airport so you have to pass the checks, it's like a "security clearance".. I don't have a reference for that, that's just my understanding. Vespine (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true, but it the mere existence of a criminal record doesn't usually preclude you getting security clearance. Here is the FAQ on MI5's careers website saying you can get a job with MI5 even with criminal convictions: [3]. --Tango (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cooking chicken

If you want chicken breast cubes, is it better to cube the chicken before cooking, or to cook the chicken and then cube it? Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be faster if you cube then cook, as cooking generally goes faster with a higher surface area to mass ratio. Whether that's "better" is more subjective, though for my money, it's absolutely better. Cubed first means more tasty brown bits on the surface of the meat. — Lomn 21:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only advantage of cubing afterwards I can imagine is that the chicken might be easier to cut. Handling uncooked chicken isn't pleasant to some, so there'd be less of that. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I usually put the chicken in the freezer for a bit before I cube it to aid the process. — Lomn 23:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you want. Cooking cubes of raw chicken will result in pieces of cooked meat that only very vaguely resemble cubes; the corners will all be rounded but not necessarily in a uniform way, and the whole piece will have shrunk, but again, not necessarily in a uniform way. This may not bother you if all you want is something roughly cubical. Cutting cubes from a larger piece of cooked chicken will give you nice uniform cubes of cooked chicken, but they may not be as caramelised and tasty as smaller pieces cooked separately. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking a chicken whole will give juicier and more tasty meat, as the skin and fat will saturate the meat with flavour. Chicken cubes would mainly consist of the meat alone, which can have a tendency to go dry and with little taste. --Saddhiyama (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I decided to conduct an experiment with a blind study (I knew which were which so it wasn't double blind). I asked my 2 house guests which they preferred and they both liked the pre-cooked cutting better then the post cooked. It also cooked like 3x faster. Good enough for me. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many mountain bikes could I fit in a Citroen Berlingo van?

Just seen one of these vans in the newspaper at a good price, but not sure if it is long or high enough inside. I need to carry two fully assembled adult mountain bikes, ready to ride. Help please? :-) 86.143.231.213 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This brochure gives the internal dimensions of various Berlingo models. Bikes can also be carried on an external frame. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I found another site] with a review that gives the dimensions, and I should be okay. Still, if anyone reading this owns a Berlingo then please comment! 86.143.231.213 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take them apart then you will be able to fit many more in. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also put the bikes on the roof. There you would be able to get at least 2 on the roof I should think. Thule is a company that produces racks for vehicle roofs. Chevy monte carlo - alt 12:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it roofs or rooves? :D Chevy monte carlo 16:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either, apparently, though I've never heard anyone say, or seen anyone write, "rooves" - as noted, it's uncommon and usually considered incorrect. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught (in northern UK many years ago) that the plural was rooves ( - the older British plural), but this is one of the few bits of my education that I rejected almost immediately in favour of the more modern roofs. Is it true that rooves is still the standard plural in New Zealand? Dbfirs 16:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but you might want to ask at WP:RD/L. Chevy monte carlo 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Loaf - loaves. Calf - calves. Elf - elves. Perhaps Vimescarrot would like to declare all these English plurals that follow the pattern of -f changing to -ves as "considered incorrect" while at this noble crusade to demolish the consensus of English dictionaries and centuries of English speakers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus of English dictionaries" - maybe British English ones. American Heritage, Merriam-Webster and Random House all say roofs, with no mention of rooves at all. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner Chevymontecarlo is from Loughborough, in the UK. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between loaf, roof and elf is that I've never seen roof pluralised as rooves, and indeed was taught that was wrong (by the sound of it, I'm not the only person in the UK to have been taught that either). Besides, I was only quoting the Wiktionary article. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm from the North of England, and I say both 'roof' and 'rooves', though, admittedly, a distinction is upheld depending on when I am saying it and to whom. Vimescarrot's original answer of 'either [is correct]' still stands in my opinion. The questioner's whereabouts are irrelevant, as (s)he did not ask which was appropriate in his/her particular town, nor did he/she specify any place, in fact. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoofs and hooves... Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoofs and spooves? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beef and beeves? Reef and reeves? Fief and fieves? Fife and fives? Going off in various huvves? Tough and tuvves? Rough and ruvves? Enuvves! -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also taught to use "rooves" (in south east UK) and winced when I saw that some proles had named their house "The Roofs". 92.28.242.168 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim and Keanu see nothing wrong with reeves and nor do their many relatives. This film plot summary has the text "While rescuing the crew of the ship "Julliete", wrecked on the reeves by the First Mate Mathias Widgeon, Loxi falls in love.... @KägeTorä a questioner's whereabouts are relevant if the answer depends on their location (as in the question What time is it?). Telling a person in England that omissions in upstart US dictionaries should constrict their mother tongue is an impertinence comparable to misrepresenting what Wikitionary really says about rooves. Only a thief would steal the word rooves that is good enough for Dickens, Shakespeare and the BBC[4] - STOP THIEVES! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, Cuddlyable, Vimescarrot didn't say that. He said both 'roof' and 'rooves' were OK. He then went onto say that he had never heard 'rooves', and that it was usually considered incorrect. Not one of these statements even implies that 'rooves' is actually incorrect, whether in the US or here. By the way, Vimescarrot is a Brit, too. Furthermore, not only are Dickens and Shakespeare written in a form of English that has since been updated many a time, <soapbox> one look at anything of what the BBC writes on the internet makes me ashamed to have it regarded as our national flagship news agency, with spelling errors, grammatical errors, and pure laziness on the part of editors who seem to think that merely changing a few words in a sentence without making sure the rest fits with it to make it make any sense is good enough for us. They could certainly learn a thing or two from us </soapbox>. Oh, and, sorry, I forgot the 'small' tags in my last post. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volume

Cuddlyable found a good link giving dimensions for varieties of the Berlingo. I noticed, however, that a lot of car websites and magazines give the loading space dimensions in form of volume (cubic meters). Why? It is less information than giving height, width, and depth. To me it's a useless number, as I'd be more interested in being able to load bulky objects than as many egg cartons as possible. Anyone know why this number (volume) is considered useful? ---

It is certainly less useful than height, width, and depth. It is a "quick comparison" value, that is sometimes useful when looking at different cars. It allows you to rule some out quickly, and then look at the further details in depth for a few. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have fitted 3 mountain bikes into a Berlingo Multispace. The new Berlingo seems to be a bit bigger. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]