Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 March 26

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.

March 26

Hairy

I am suffering from hair loss( may be crossing my first stage) and consulted a trichologist in a homeopathy clinic. He blasted a bomb saying that hair cannot be regrown by medicines and the dead roots are dead and cannot be opened!! He said that the hair loss can only be stopped but cannot be reverted.My hair is not so scanty that I need a major transplantation. Is it possible to have a transplantation in some areas on scalp especially on sides of my forehead?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. See hair transplant. Also, dying thinning hair darker can make it appear thicker. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy is pseudo-science - it's complete and utter bullshit. Can we really trust the diagnosis of someone who is dishonest enough to promote this junk-science? No, we can't. So ignore this so-called trichologist and seek out a proper diagnosis. SteveBaker (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly not true in all cases. (Drugs like Minoxidil or Finasteride have been shown to regrow hair for some people.) But only a real doctor could tell you about your specific case. You will not find a real doctor in a homeopathy clinic, you'd have just as much luck getting your palm read. A homeopathic placebo might make you think your cold is cured, but it will not regrow your hair. (In fact, It sounds like the quack was trying to prepare you for his eventual failure to solve your problem!) APL (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Elton John is known to have had hair transplantation treatment in the early 1990s. Bear in mind though, he was a successful and very wealthy entertainer who could afford the expensive treatment. I'm not that rich, so I would probably choose to shave my head or at least keep the hair very short. Astronaut (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I am suffering from pattern balding and he said that regrowth is possible for alopecia totalis and not for male pattern balding. And Homeopathy is not bullshit dude!! It takes a lot of time but is effective and the clinic I go (I live in India) is famous throughout our country!! It is not definitely not a Pseudo Science!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Was it ayurvedic medicine or homeopathy?--达伟 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever. The answer to your question is that your doctor is giving you false information. Both the drugs I mentioned above have been proven effective at treating male pattern baldness. Not 100% effective, mind you, But if you talk to a practitioner of a modern scientific medicine he'll be able to tell you what your best bet is. APL (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I once knew a homeopath who shared an office with a chiropractor. Fittingly, their signboard was illustrated with ducks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

People will complain, but... supply photographic evidence :) --Ouro (blah blah) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but homeopathy most certainly is pseudo-science. But let's examine why that is - so you don't just have to take my word for it:

According to Wiktionary, the word "pseudoscience" means: "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.".

Homeopathy certainly claims to be science - Google for the phrase "The science of homeopathy" and you'll find 1.9 million links - the first gazillion of which are books, magazines and adverts put out by homeopathists.

There is literally zero scientific evidence behind homeopathy. This is hard to prove because you can't look up the lack of something. But homeopathic "cure" suppliers do not rigorously test their products and measure their efficacy - they do not have a solid explanation for how they might work - there are ZERO successful scientific trials of homeopathic treatments that have been independently verified and reported in peer-reviewed journals. Our article on Homeopathy has links to dozens of papers where homeopathy has been tested under the scientific method and failed. In proper science, if some medical treatment repeatedly fails to produce positive results when double-blind tested against a placebo, it is abandoned. Homeopathicists continue to peddle their little bottles of plain water despite the mountain of evidence that it doesn't work. Ergo they are NOT "following the scientific method".

So, homeopathy claims to be a science and does not follow the scientific method (and indeed rejects the results of the scientific method. With the dictionary definition of pseudoscience and these two notable facts about homeopathy, a reasoning person should have no choice but to accept the statement "Homeopathy is pseudoscience". There is no arguing that point.

I strongly suggest you read the third and fourth paragraph of the introduction to Homeopathy - noting the LARGE number of supporting references for the statement: "The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery,[25][26][27][28][29] and a "cruel deception".[30]" - those references are all from well-established scientific sources.

Furthermore - it is irrelevant whether it's "famous throughout our country!!" - fame does not equate to truth (please don't make me back up that statement!).

The truth is that homeopathic remedies are nothing more than plain water. They only work (if at all) by the placebo effect and the people selling the stuff are laughing all the way to the bank as they sell you tiny bottles of plain water for between a hundred and a thousand times what they cost to produce...when you support those people - you're supporting criminals who are dragging you and your fellow believers back into the dark ages - you are being a gullible consumer of fraudulant product. SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Only a hundred times what it costs to produce ? I bet bottled water in the stores is close to that. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy seems to call itself a "science" in the same spirit that Marxism called itself a "science"—it is a system of answers. This is however a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what "science" really ought to mean—real science is a way of asking questions! Homeopathy (and Marxism) utterly fail to ask questions in a way that produces reliable answers. They may occasionally be useful, or provide meaningful inspiration... but they aren't scientific at all. I think with homeopathy the amount of b.s. vastly outweighs any insights it has provided. It is extremely telling that all homeopathic remedies I have seen always advertise that there are absolutely no negative side effects whatsoever... anything that actually has the power to effect major changes in your body should have side effects in a number of people, especially if taken in larger doses. If it doesn't—it's just water. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I could quibble with that last part. For example, if you're suffering from a vitamin deficiency, then supplying the adequate amount of the missing vitamin could effect major changes in your body, and isn't likely to have appreciable negative side-effects. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My bottle of vitamin E, which is pretty safe stuff, has a long disclaimer of potential conditions in which you should consult a doctor before taking it. Presumably this is because there have been some real or theorized side-effects, presumably because the vitamin does take some biological action on you. I'm just saying, the big signs that homeopathic medicines have on them proclaiming to have no possible ill side effects is a big sign off the front that they are probably not real medicines! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Those would be the effects from an overdose. Drinking huge quantities of water would also have harmful effects. And even normal dosages "may cause more frequent urination". But, I agree, in general, that more helpful drugs also are potentially more harmful. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the point tho innit? The only effects from overdose of homeopathy remedies are those from excess consumption of water. There are no other potential (non entirely psychological) effects because they are literally just water Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

But, of course, priests have believed in the power of holy water for thousands of years. (Whether that's the power to heal or just to line their pockets, will be left to the reader to decide.) StuRat (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

whats with Steve Baker and his love for profanities? He calls peoples questions rubbish and bullshit? Dont we have guidelines on etiquette here? Whether a personal beleives in holistic medicine or not, in allopathy, homeopathy, ayurvedha or whatever is his business, we come to this reference desk asking for medical opinion not rabid outbursts. I have seen this trait in Stever baker heaping verbal garbage on several questioners, pretty pathetic I should say. While he has all rights to his opinion, so are other people. We would want him describing a well established brach of science as bullshit. shows how myopic and shallow his knowledge is... remids me of teh cat which closes its eyes and presumes the whole world is dark... grow up baker... barker would be a better surname for you cos we constantly see you barking here.

We certainly do have an obligation to treat each other with respect, which includes other's beliefs. However, we can point out which practices are scientifically proven and which are not, but, of course, without being insulting. It does seem like Steve crosses that line, at times. (If you have a complaint about this, I'd take it to the talk page.)

Also, the "well established" argument is rather weak, if that doesn't include any scientific testing. There have been many "well established" ideas we now know to be completely wrong, like that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. StuRat (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks StuRat for respecting my sentiments... lets get one thing clear, Wikipedia is a place for knowledge sharing, not to tomtom one's (assumed) excellence in any subject and ridicule or insult others. While SteveBaker could be a highly decorated Wikipedian that doesnt automatically give him/ her rights to call others opinions/ queries bullshit. While I am not the OP, this trait of scientific arrogance doesnt reflect well on Steve. Secondly, even a noble prize winning scientist's theory today could be thrown out tomorrow that's the beauty of science. Only extremely ignorant people would start making sweeping statements about things they don't knowFragrantforever 08:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulu

I saw him on a commercial for TV sets (Sharp). At the end, in a close up he looks into the camera and enphasizes the words "Oh My!". I am supposing that this is a catch phrase of his, that has some origin. Is it from Star Trek, some other performance of his, or am I just imagining a past relavance of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llort I. Kcos (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's George Takei. I don't know of any significance from Star Trek or from Heroes (TV series), where he plays Hiro's father, but perhaps you'd do better to post at the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you google it, it does seem to be a catchphrase of his. A pretty lame one, but beyond Kirk and Spock, the dialogue on the old shows often wasn't especially memorable except for its triteness, "The warp engines'll never hold, sirrr!" That kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulu: "I shall save you, fair maiden !"

Uhura: "Sorry, neither." StuRat (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This[1] goofy parody of several things at once includes a number of Sulu's non-descript "catch phrases in the audio, including the "oh my" part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you try googling for this along with "Star Trek", you see the same question popping up, and it seems more to do with his Howard Stern connection than anything. I would think if it were Trek-originated, the Trekkers would be all over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not from Star Trek. Probably from Howard Stern. He used it in the Comedy Central Roast of William Shatner and You Don't Mess with the Zohan. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Does George talk like Howard does when he's on the show, or does he keep it to ultra-G-rated comments like "Oh, my!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is meant to sound gay,as he came out quite publically..88.96.226.6 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Banking Practices

I am doing a project on Banking and need informationon "holding of funds". I am told that banks sometimes "earmark" or "keep aside" funds in a customer account. I want to know 1. when it is done 2. how it is done in the systems 3. what happens if the hold is of no use? 4. Internationally do practices differ in this area? 5. Does the law regulate these procedures? 6. Is interest paid to customers on such funds held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugmiyer (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless the money belongs to that account holder, or is legally deposited or transfered into the account, the bank won't put other money into it. Do you have a source on this? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If a person calls ahead and notifies the bank he will be withdrawing a particularly large amount of cash, perhaps they will arrange to have extra cash available at that branch, if that's what you mean. StuRat (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Banks do keep funds 'held' in customer accounts. About a year ago, I paid a big insurance check into my checking account and we were not allowed to access those funds for a couple of weeks (eeek!) while they did "money laundering checks" or some such bullshit. I strongly suspect that they use any excuse they can to earn from your money by preventing you rushing off and spending it. After all, how much effort does it take to note that the check came from a major insurance company? Sadly, I don't know enough about the practice in general to answer our OP's questions adequately. SteveBaker (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Holding it for a short period of time has more to do with verifying that the check is valid, hence why Nigerian scams work. As the length of the hold increases, I'd increase the suspicion that they are holding it to earn interest on the monies.--droptone (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, Thanks for all the responses.I will be more specific in my question. The money belongs to the account holder no doubt on that. When can the bank "hold on" to this money. When will they not allow the customer to use his funds? Is it legal? Will the customer still earn interest on the funds held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugmiyer (talk • contribs) 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The usual reason that a bank has 'frozen' all the accounts a customer's may have is because it has received a court judgement ( for debt, money laundering etc.). Exact details (interest freeze etc.,) depends on which country/ small-print / etc.,. Then there are ad hoc decrees. Example: The Bretton Woods Resolution VI of the 1940's prevented refugees that fled from Nazi Germany from accessing any bank accounts they held (but fortunately for the fleeing Nazis at the end of the war fascist Spain just took a very long time to get round to implementing it).--Aspro (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And also, as mentioned above, for the short period of time (a few days) that it takes to verify that a deposited cheque is valid, that money cannot be withdrawn. Yes, this is legal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US (and, I suspect, elsewhere), banks can suspend all transactions for a period (30 days for checking accounts, and 90 days for savings, I believe) to prevent a "run on the bank". I would think this would require approval from the various regulatory agencies. This is sometimes euphemistically called a bank holiday, a term which has other meanings, as well. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Y'all are talking about a couple of different things here. The OP is referring to a hold (a noun, note) applied to newly-deposited funds. Such funds are credited to the customer's account, and do earn interest from the date of deposit -- because the great majority of such deposits are of course completely legitimate.

This is spelled out in the bank agreement, usually under the heading of "Availability of Funds". Get a copy from your local bank and see what they have to say. [edit: For your project, go get one of these from a smaller, neighborhood bank, and one from a large, regional or national bank, and compare them!]

The hold varies depending on the media that is presented. Personal checks are subject to the greatest ("longest") hold; cashier's checks less so; and electronic transfers to a smaller (but not always zero-day) hold. The only "new monies" that are not subject to holds (in the personal banking system) are wire transfers from one bank to another -- because the sending bank guarantees the funds to the receiving bank (which is why there is almost always a fee for this service).

It is legal, and it has a practical value to both the bank and the banking system. Recent legislation has shortened the maximum hold that banks may place on new funds. At the same time, holds have popped up where there were none before, not only due to the increasing prevalence of the previously mentioned Nigerian Bank scams, but also due to the downright paranoia imposed by the PATRIOT act and its Anti Money Laundering provisions. Witness: in the financial planning industry, any licensed staff (Registered Investment Advisors, stockbrokers, even licensed assistants) must (re)take their broker-dealer's AML course every single year as part of their continuing education requirement. Another: you want to stop by your broker's office and contribute some money to your retirement account? Don't take cash -- they can't legally accept it. You might be assisting terrorists and not even know it.

Hope this clarifies the original questions. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC) (Edited response. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Paul Quinn College

Question removed. Please don't use Wikipedia as a soap-box. Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides which, it called for crystal-ball gazing, which we don't do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Peace lily

How often does a "peace lily" flower if indoors in a pot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.99.34 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, it needs plenty of water and sunlight in order to bloom on schedule. The linked article may provide further information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience Spathiphyllum does not like direct sunlight on leaves (certainly not outside, and usually not even through the window). It needs a lot of bright diffuse light to bloom regularly, and some cultivars bloom more-or-less continuously; but direct sunlight may burn the leaves. On the other hand, Spathiphyllum (along with Aglaonema and Aspidistra) is among the most low-light-tolerant houseplants. Spathiphyllum won't bloom under low lights, but it can survive for years in a windowless office as long as it is properly watered. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indirect sunlight. It seems like the plant I had would bloom only when it got sufficient light. But you could practically drown it and it was happy (unlike with philodendrons, for example). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

More Original Research, but my own experience with Spathiphyllum (bearing in mind that there are various species and cultivars, so your herbage may differ) is that they tolerate short spells of soil dryness well and the temporary stress may induce flowering, and they don't like very wet soil, so err on the dry side. An often overlooked factor is that they like a moist atmosphere (often not found in air-conditioned offices), so either mist the leaves every other day or stand the pot on a bed of wet pebbles. I kept one - actually 4 in one large pot - thriving through several office moves and retained them after our plant factory closed, but in my mother's centrally heated spare bedroom (where it went to live for space reasons) they got too dry and gradually died.

Re flowering: if kept healthy but regularly given a little stress to encourage flowering, and if the dead blooms and leaves are promptly removed, one plant can maintain blooms with, say, one developing, one well out and one in decline, for months on end if not indefinitely. Multiple individuals in one pot naturally multiplies the blooming potential. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

International ships in landlocked nations

I know this isn't technically a question, but I was just curious about the fact that two landlocked nations, Mongolia and Bolivia are in the top 25 of countries with foreign ships registered domestically (see: flag of convenience). If anyone had comments on this, that would be welcome.Feel free to delete this question if it's not up to standards--达伟 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking why there are foreign ships registered in Mongolia and Bolivia, the article on flags of convenience says that ships register this way to avoid various regulations or fees, so perhaps Mongolia and Bolivia have desirable fees and regulations? That's just a stab at it! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And the reason their regulations are likely to be lax is that they don't have to worry about unseaworthy ships sinking and blocking their ports, ships leaking oil along their coast, diseased crew members spreading epidemics in their port cities, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolivia has an international border on Lake Titicaca, and also patrols tributaries of the Amazon on its borders, for example here. It also has a historic claim to part of the seaboard of Chile. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Admiral Horthy was ruler of a Kingdom without a King, and an Admiral in a country without a navy. It happens. --Jayron32 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

stamped, addressed envelope

How would I go about sending a stamped, addressed envelope, I'm not sure I could fit one envelope into another of exactly the same size? And would people actually appreciate the effort, don't most businesses already have some system of paying for their mail beforehand, such that they don't need stamps and have to send their own envelopes?

148.197.114.158 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To the first part of your question: Fold the envelope so it fits inside the other one. To the second part: How badly do you want a response? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fold the SAE so it fits inside the other envelope. Certainly, for many charities asking for SAEs helps keep costs to a minimum, and for businesses sending out application forms to potential recruits it can both keep costs down and weed out non-serious applicants. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, I believe the acronym is "SASE", for Self-Addressed, Stamped Envelope. This also keeps to Society of Automotive Engineers off their case. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were getting fed up with being stuffed into envelopes. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And aren't aeronautical engineers the ones known for "pushing the envelope" ? :-)

This was once covered on "Miss Snark's" blog. (She's a literary agent, who deals with self-addressed-stamped-envelopes a lot.) If you're going to be sending a lot of these she recommends "Very very smart and savvy [readers] understand that biz envelopes come in two sizes: #9, and #10. You put a #9 inside the #10 for your SASE. You mail the #10." She goes on to say that neatly folding an envelope so that it fits in another envelope of the same size is also perfectly acceptable. APL (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The main point of the SASE is to make it as easy as possible for your recipient to comply with whatever you're requesting, and to improve your chances of a reply. For example, if you write to a celebrity asking for an autograph, being thoughtful enough to give them an SASE might encourage them to respond. This is why, for another example, solicitations for subscriptions (and sometimes for renewals) come to you pre-stamped. Why? Because they want to encourage you to buy. Bills typically don't. Why? Because you're expected to pay, so no "enouragement" is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaborating slightly on APL's point above: The US's #9 envelope is not only small enough to fit inside a standard #10, but it's also big enough so it still holds a standard 8.5x11 page without refolding it. Thus, the "outbound" package (some form or document for the customer to sign, plus the #9 return envelope) is still fairly flat, doesn't have unnecessary bulges in it, and still feeds through a postage meter easily.

Truly, a wonderful invention. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Canada Revenue Agency sends out envelopes with preprinted labels so taxpayer will send in tax filing package in them. We are pretty much EXPECTED to file our taxes. --Kvasir (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You're expected to file your taxes? Why is this worth mentioning? Are there other major world governments that are pleasantly surprised whenever a citizen decides to send them some money? APL (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Filing a tax return is not the same as sending money. The Norwegian authorities send tax returns to their taxpayers who are not obliged to return any document at all if they tacitly agree with the information that has been collected. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Well then. I've learned something new. It didn't occur to me that it might work that way. APL (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's hit the second question, so I'll take a swing at that, too. In my business, "ease of customer response" is EVERYTHING. Every single document that goes out to a client, is accompanied by a postage-paid return envelope, either #9 as above or half-sheet for larger volumes. But, in either case, we ALWAYS run those envelopes through the meter.

Business reply mail does exist; in the US it requires preprinted envelopes, special layout and franking. It's relatively expensive per piece returned, however, and you need a permit, and there may be mininum volumes (not sure on that). It's practical where you don't know what the response rate will be, so mailing out 1000 pieces and getting 300 of them back can cheaper than prepaying first class postage on 1000 pieces in advance.

If you expect to get all your envelopes back, a stamped or metered SASE is easily the more cost-effective option.

Ask again if this doesn't cover it for you! DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I spoke to it, more than once. The OP assumes that he could ask for something and that the recipient would gladly pay for the postage. That's only true if there's something in it for the recipient, that is if the recipient might make a sale. But you're trying to get the recipient to do something for you that's of no apparent tangible benefit to them, an SASE is a must. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See the article about International reply coupon which is more practical than sending stamps to a correspondent in another country. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A word of warning. International reply coupons do not really serve the same purpose as a SASE. A SASE is more than a way to save forty-some cents, a SASE is a labor-saving device. The recipient already has the return envelope, it's already addressed, and it's already stamped. All that's needed is to stuff it and drop it in the outgoing mail. International reply coupons don't do any of those things. Sure, they still save you a stamp, but they're not labor-saving at all. In fact, they're labor-wasting, because they need to be physically taken to the post office to be redeemed.

Miss Snark, the literary agent I quoted above, says that she treats queries that come with a IRC the same as all other queries that don't include a SASE. (ie: They mostly wind up in the trash.) Instead she recommends simply buying some stamps from the target nation over the web and making self-addressed-stamped-envelopes with them.

Perhaps it's unfair to foreigners, but it's hard to blame her. If I was expecting a SASE, and instead got a coupon for a free stamp, I'd be pretty irritated. APL (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The primary purpose of a SASE is to make life easy for the person you are sending it to. As Bugs says above, people are more likely to do what you want if you make it easy for them. The cost of a stamp is rarely significant (for a simple letter, which is all IRCs are for - if you could use them for packages, they would be more useful). --Tango (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Packages can be delivered COD (Cash on Delivery) which will include postage cost. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They can if you have an appropriate contract with a courier service. A member of the public can't just walk into a post office and send a package that way. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting in the UK

I'm a student studying in England but still nominally living at home in Scotland. There's a general election coming up, possibly on the 6th May, possibly not. I'm 18, and this is the first election that I'm eligible to vote in (and I think I'm already registered to vote). How should I arrange to vote? I'm finding the 'About My Vote' pages confusing.

1. Can I vote both at home and in my university's constituency? I imagine not, but just in case!

2. If I'm voting at home, then I'm likely to need a postal ballot (since I'll be away from home from mid-April to mid-August) - but what if there's a snap election called before I'm back down?

Thanks :-) 94.168.184.16 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can only vote in one constituency, even though as a student you can be registered both at home and in the constituency where you live while studying.

As for a postal vote - you apply for this from the council for the area where you are registered. Contact Electoral Services at the council to find out how to do this. As I recall, you can register for a postal vote in advance of an election being called, so the forms will be sent out on time. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the general malaise about British politics and corrupt British politicians at the present time (think second homes allowances; duck-houses; wisteria pruning; family employees as researchers etc.,foreign sponsored visits to the Maldives etc.,availability for £5000 per diem for post ministerial hire for "introductory fees" think taxi cab for hire; and subsidised food allowances even when Parliament isn't sitting), I am surprised to learn that an intelligent person such as the OP is even contemplating the democratic right to vote in the imminent British Parliamentary elections. Me? At 63, and having watched the recent disgraceful behaviour(s) of the current Members of Her Majesty's Houses of Parliament - I have no confidence in either party or House, and as such, I would urge the OP to exercise the strongest mandate possible which is NOT to vote at all. Go to the pub, I say, and watch the pathetic result on the TV the day after. You will not be able to tell the difference. 92.30.75.4 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You could always go independent (or lib dems just to make a point, no matter how bad you think they are)--92.251.201.60 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a gesture that's more powerful than simply not voting - and that's to go though the process of voting but "spoil" your ballot by not voting for anyone - or writing "None of the Above" over it or something similar. This says "I'm not voting for any of these people - but I'm not apathetic or too lazy to vote". However, in the end all you're really doing is leaving the choice to people who are more fanatically enthusiastic about one party or the other than you are. In a sense, you are leaving the decision to the very people who you despise the most. Perhaps you should do what my sister's husband did and stand for office yourself - that is perhaps the ultimate statement of discontent - and if everyone is as upset as it sounds, you might stand a good chance to kick at least one of these people out of office. SteveBaker (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you don't vote, no one knows that you think somethings wrong. If you write in Mickey Mouse, of vote for the fascists, or whatever, people can at least see that you don't like the current state of things. Buddy431 (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Some of the lowest turnouts happen when people are mostly happy with their government - so failing to show up to vote could be interpreted as "I'm not voting because either candidate is fine with me." I like the US system of allowing "Write-in candidates" (WHAAOAA!) (I like the bit where the citizens of Picoazà, Ecuador elected a brand of foot powder as their Mayor). SteveBaker (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how often have you seen a western democracy which actually reported the number of spoiled ballots as part of regular news coverage? It's the sort of thing that only attracts any attention at all if it represents a substantial fraction of the total count. (Or if the spoiled ballots are part of a very close U.S. presidential race...but that's a decidedly pathological case, and it didn't involve deliberately spoiled ballots.) Spoiling your ballot is a symbolic gesure, sure — but pragmatically speaking it's also a very personal gesture that no one else is likely to notice or care about. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I lived in the UK - but I thought they reported that number when announcing the winners and losers of the election? SteveBaker (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That is true - but it's also true that no-one takes any notice of those figures (although they might if anyone significant campaigned for people to do that). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Agent 92.30, they're not "Her Majesty's Houses of Parliament". It's "her" government, but the Parliament is not in any sense controlled by her, not even theoretically. Remember what happened to Charles I when he tried to exceed his authority? Monarchs ever since have been well-advised to let the Parliament do its own thing without any regal interference. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a very good reason why everyone should vote in any election they are eligible to vote in, and that is because people died so you could vote, and not voting is disrespectful to their sacrifice. I agree with the sentiments above: spoil your ballot paper, vote Monster Raving Loony Party, leave it blank - but turn up and vote! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I received a somewhat mixed message from that, Tammy. Turning up but spoiling your ballot paper or leaving it blank is tantamount to staying at home, for all the good it does. Just turning up is not voting. You have to cast a valid and formal vote while you're there, for your turning up to have had any benefit, value or point. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As was said above, casting a spoiled vote still ensures your vote counts - at least in the UK as the number of spoilt papers has to be declared. Just staying at home sends the signal that you consent to whoever other people decide gets in: in a very real sense you are giving your power away. It's the political equivalent of the shoulder shrug and "whatever". Making the effort, registering your vote by spoiling a ballot paper sends the signal that you wanted to vote but nobody could persuade you of their merit. Having seen the political fallout from a 15% turnout (virtually nil) and comparing it with a high percentage of spoilt papers (lots of enquiries as to why this happened), I can see that spoilt papers definitely count. And of course, Jack, if you are under compulsion to vote as the Australian system, there is only one way to protest legitimately! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that people who don't vote and then complain about whatever the government does are pretty low in my opinion - they chose not to take part, so they don't get to complain about what the people who did take part decided. If you really cannot bring yourself to vote for any of the candidates then spoiling your ballot is a legitimate way of expressing discontent. If you disagree with the whole process then you need to start a revolution, not stay at home grumbling. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This sub-thread started with a TammyMoet's dramatic assumption that martyrs who defend democracy do not endorse the freedom not to vote. DuncanHill you are not compelled as you claim to make your condemnatory statement. In a free society the human right to hold and express opinion neither starts nor finishes at a ballot. It is disingenuous to walk away from a mark you made on a paper while implying that anyone who seeks a different involvement with society is merely a grumbler or subversive. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem whatsoever with "subversives", and I haven't got a problem with grumblers so long as they do something about whatever is making them grumble. It's the grumblers who don't do anything about it I can't stand. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of whether spoilt votes are reported in the UK as mentioned by Steve Baker, yes they are. But they are not analysed to discover why the voters chose to deliberately spoil them. So that gesture is an empty one. Secondly, my vote in Central Scotland will be wasted whatever I choose to do. The reason? This area is a traditionally industrial one which has always returned a Labour MP since the working masses won the vote. And that is despite this area now having NO industrial base on which to justify that complacency. But the Labour candidate will be keeping his Westminster seat warm for many parliaments yet to come, safe in the knowledge that his eventual successor might just as well be a scarecrow wearing a Red rosette. The only effective vote in this system and this country is one which is located within a marginal seat and which can therefore result in a change of Member, Party or Government. So it doesn't matter what I choose to do with my vote on 6th May next. It will still be a wasted vote. 92.30.141.81 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Space saver spare wheel

I've just taken delivery of a brand new Kia Picanto which comes with a space saver spare wheel. The book in the glove box says Australian models have a normal size spare. Why do the UK ones have a skinny wheel, when there is clearly enough room in the boot well to accommodate a full size wheel? I was told it was an "EU regulation". (I think that this reason is probably in the same vain as those EU regulations, such as the one which banned straight bananas, and are regularly written about in the press here in Blighty). --TrogWoolley (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The boot well is large enough to handle the Australian requirements, otherwise you'd have to have a different car as well as a different tyre!

Plus, when the spare is on the car, you need a place to put the full-size flat, right?

But, the real reason is that the smaller spare costs less, and weighs less, so you'll get significantly better gas milage with the small one. (Or not...) DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Your little car has a small "limited use" spare tire, also known as "spacesaver" or "compact" spare tire — in an attempt to reduce cost, lower the vehicle's weight, and/or to save on the space that would be needed for a full-size spare tire. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I searched the EU's laws and regulations website and I couldn't find any requirement for a car's spare tire to be the temporary-type (a/k/a limited-service spare or "Mickey Mouse tire"). Of course, I didn't search every rule in the book, mind you. That said, any EU laws/regulations requiring a vehicle to have a certain minimum fuel efficiency may well have driven Kia to mandate the limited-service tire for deliveries in Europe in order to boost said efficiency. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more likely an Australian regulation requiring full spare tires. That is a justifiable law, the opposite isn't. Does anyone know if they have limited use spare tires in Australia? --Tango (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of such a thing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of the mini-spare tire or the law forbidding it ? If you mean the tire, then you Aussies have it right. I don't know how such an obviously dangerous tire as those ever got approval for road use in the US or elsewhere. I also question the environmental benefit. Any fuel savings must be tiny, then you add the wasted energy and material to make a "tire" which can't be used for more than a few miles. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the fuel savings could be substantial since it is always in the car. If you total the fuel saved over the life of the vehicle, it will probably be a big number. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispensing with the spare entirely and using all run-flat tires would likely both improve fuel economy and be good for the environment. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not going to go into the cost of making the tyre (although of course the extra cost of making run flat tyres has to be figures in to it), can you provide some citations for your 'fuel economy' claim? It's true there's been no citations so far, but it makes sense if the weight is less the fuel economy will be improved. However according to the very article you linked to "Self-supporting run flat tires typically carry a 15% - 27% weight penalty over similar standard tires, or additional 2-3 kg". From [2], a space saver for a BMW is ~12.25 kg, so for example if each is 3.1 kg more it seems unlikely the weight will be reduced unless you also take out the jack and other such equipement. Obviously if the weight penalty is 27% it's the same thing, in fact since a space saver is obviously going to be less (it's the issue which started this whole discussion), it sounds even worse although the jack may help make up for it. If you have some reason to believe run flat tyres are going to improve economy even with the same or greater overall weight then as I've said some citations would be good. I came across [3] which mentions that even with the weight tradeoff, it's not necessarily so simple since the extra weight of the tyres is unsprung mass although it's not something I understand much, the pages and [4] suggest to me that even with a equal weight tradeof (and everything else being equal), things come out worse for the run flat because the tradeof is in unsprung mass. All this adds up to your idea that run flat tyres are definitely going to improve fuel economy as being speculative at best. I did come across this BMW site which does claim a weight saving benefit although being BMW they may be talking about fancy weight saving tyres (I appreciate my earlier ref was for a BMW but it was one of the first refs for the weight of a space saving tyre I found, the other being a Mini which sounded somewhat unfair). Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When I do the math, 2-3 kg × 4 = 8-12 kg. That's LESS than 12.25 kg, already. Also, I don't see any point in having a jack if you don't carry (or need) a spare, and there's also the weight of the tire iron, the tie-down bolt, and wing nut. That all adds up to considerably more than 8-12 kg. Also, 4 run-flats is better than one spare, since you're now covered if more than one tire is punctured. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

2 - 3 kg is clearly intended as a general range, so 3.1 kg is a resonable number considering that range and 3.1kg * 4 is 12.4kg as I hinted at above. As I acknowledged, taking out the jack and other associated equipement will help (I initially made the claim I wasn't sure if that was a good idea but withdrew the claim before you posted although I don't know if you noticed). But as I also pointed out, if the weight differential is 27% meaning that with 4 we have 108% compared to a normal tyre and given that we're discussing a space saver wheel which would I at a random guess, at worse be 75% of a normal tyre, meaning we have 33% diffential in favour of the space saver I could easily see that being enough to make up for the addition of the jack and associated equipement. In addition there is also the unsprung mass issue which you haven't addressed (although again, I'm not sure if you read this only one of my changes came after your edit [5] which clarified what I was saying but didn't make any substanial changes however since you were likely composing your response, automatic conflict resolving may have meant you didn't read some of my changes). I would note that one of the reasons why I'm using very rough estimations is because these are fairly random figures we have here, I have no idea how representative the BMW space saver is of space savers in general, the Mini I came across for example was 9.07kg although as I acknowledged being a Mini it may not be a fair example. Since you're the one making the fuel efficiency claim, I think it's somewhat intrisic on you to support your claims. (Note that the only actual citations in this whole discussion, including one from BMW claiming a weight saving benefit have been from me.) In other words, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying fuel efficiency will never be improved rather that the rough evidence I'm seeing is not convincing me that there is definitely going to be a fuel efficiency benefit in all or even most cases. While I acknowledge there are other benefits of run flat tyres, that's somewhat irrelevant to my point particularly since it wasn't something you initially mentioned. P.S. I have no great knowledge of this area in general (although I have heard of spacesaver tyres before unlike JoZ below) the only reason it came up was because I read the article I linked to and noticed the mention of extra weight which in my mind quickly called into question your claims of a fuel efficiency, I recognise you may not have read the article in detail while linking to it many of us don't & apologise if this came across as too harsh Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was reading one of the earlier links because my internet connection was down while I was testing something and noticed it mentioned

Some run flat tyres have a 20 % higher rolling resistance, in part due to their added structural material and mass; this can worsen a vehicle's fuel efficiency

which as I understand it is in addition to what they also say on

a heavier tyre could translate into reduced engine performance, increased fuel consumption – or lower fuel efficiency

(the above of course is directly related to the unsprung mass issue which they mentioned later). There's also

the excess tyre weight is around the perimeter of the tyre, which increases inertia/momentum of tyre rotation, slowing acceleration and increasing stopping distance

although I'm not sure how this will affect fuel efficiency (it may even be beneficial).

I gather that these issues are being addressed although it seems difficult for me to ever get around the fact you need more mass unless you use some other design, you could compensate by reducing weight in other ways (e.g. the rim) but those would usually also be possible with non run-flat designs the only thing I guess is if you get the weight low enough then perhaps the jack will become too big a burden although you could potentially make a 'super jack' as well. These things may come at a cost, so it's possible you'll reach a level where no one will bother to go to that level for a space saver spare tyre. (Of course all these fancy advances may affect the environmental cost of both systems.) There's also a bunch of confounding factors like car design which may need to be modified if you want to fit a spare tyre.

One thing I concede, I initial thought keeping the jack may be useful for example, for a quick repair of a punctured tyre or some may prefer the ability to buy the tyre and then fit it themselves OR get someone else to buy it. I withdrew the suggestion about the jack after finding many sources mention not needing a jack if you had run-flat tyres (but it still remained in the back of my mind) but reading that ref tells me there's really little point since run flats are more difficult to repair & it isn't recommended (which does have an effect on the environmental issue) and the need for pressure sensors makes changing them a job for the professionals.

As I said earlier, I accept their are other advantages particularly the space saved, not needing to change tyres (including the security/safety risks thereof) & being able to suffer multiple punctures; these unsurprisingly seem to be why people recommend them, not any alleged fuel effiency benefits which as it may be obvious, I'm rather unconvinced are there in many cases.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're spending way too much time on this. With the exception of skipping the Mini spare, in every other way you seem to be picking the worst possible scenario for run-flats in your comparisons. First, you chose the worst type of run-flats, the self-supporting type. I'd go with the auxiliary-supported type (rubber rings around each side of the rims): run-flat tire#Auxiliary-supported. Then you take the 15%-27% weight increase for the worst type, and decide to use the 27% figure instead of the 15%. Then you talk about increasing rolling resistance 20% for some models but neglect to mention that "internal bracing in some run-flat tires reduces deformation, with the opposite effects of reducing rolling resistance and improving fuel efficiency". See run-flat tire#Performance characteristics. Finally, consider that I only mentioned fuel savings in the context of total environmental impact. Thus, even if there was no net fuel savings, you'd still have the environmental benefit of not creating a disposable "donut" and jack and tire iron, etc. So, if you choose the worst type of run-flats, they may be worse in fuel mileage alone, but, if you choose the best type they should be better, especially when total environmental impact is considered. StuRat (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Stu: I'd never even heard of a limited use spare tyre before reading this thread, so by extension I know of no law banning their use. But Qq. 29 and 30 here are relevant. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself lucky to not have these inflicted on your nation in a big way. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US we call them "donuts", but don't like them nearly as much as real donuts. Homer Simpson would never drool over one of those. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They're also called "baby spares". Dismas|^(talk) 06:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My car (not a Kia) has the same thing - a crap spacesaver and a note in the manual saying Australian versions have a full-size spare. I too imagined it was a specifically Australian regulation rather than EU regulation (especially since other cars I've had in the past have always had full-size spares). It works OK in my car so long as I don't have a huge journey ahead of me, and I don't have a large and heavy alloy wheel taking up a lot of space in the boot. Astronaut (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is complete hearsay, but I did hear that Australia has a law about spare tyres hence the AUS models always have full-size spares. The latest Subaru Impreza was launched in South Africa with a full-sized spare which severely compromised boot space, a fact mentioned by almost all the reviews; however most of them concluded that the lack of space was worth having a "proper" spare. The reason for these "marie biscuit" spare wheels is as explained above, to save the company money. It is of course an absolute pain to suddenly have to find space to store a spare wheel, for example the boot of a Honda S2000 isn't big enough in ANY dimension to store its 17" tyres! Another disadvantage is if you get a puncture on on a back road in the countryside far from any major city. Driving at 80km/h with a tiny tyre at one corner is no-one's idea of a good time. Zunaid 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Space saver tyres are left in new cars in Ausralia, and I have seen them on the road (sometimes with bright red rims). Usually have a max speed of 80 kph. This annoys people, and also there is a older tradition of using the spare tyre until it is convenient to get the other repaired or replaced; which can take a long time in rural areas. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)