Miscellaneous desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

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 5

Solar Energy in Deserts

If all the world's energy came from solar energy and all the world's solar enrgy came from hot deserts, how many percent of all the world's hot deserts would they occupy?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is unanswerable from the parameters given. Solar energy refers to a wide range of applications and technologies, without knowing what sorts of solar power generation you are talking about (photovoltaics? solar-heated steam turbines? etc etc) it is quite literally impossible to even begin to consider an answer. Furthermore, the premise seems flawed; it would be impractical and generally a bad idea to place the entire world's energy production capacity into a single technology or energy source. Even if you wish to consider converting the whole world to a "green" energy system which could run independent of fossil fuels or nuclear, a diverse system consisting of solar, wind, hydroelectric, tidal-force, geothermal, biomass combustion, hydrogen fuel, etc. etc. system would be required. Devising an energy system based on a single source or technology is a Bad Idea, for many reasons. --Jayron32 05:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you for a fact that no configuration of solar apparatus using only the worlds deserts as a stationing platform would supply the entire wolds power consumption needs. R12IIIeloip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Why ? A rough calculation shows that an area of 3 million square kilometers of photovoltaic panels operating at a very conservative 5% efficiency could produce 10²¹ Joules of energy per year, which is the same order as the world energy consumption. The area of the Sahara desert alone is over 9 million square kilometers. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there would be the energy losses from storing and transporting all that energy (especially if you need to transport energy from Africa to China) constructing all that infrastructure and all those solar cells, batteries, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but then the Sahara is only one desert. China has the Gobi quite nearby (ok, it's only hot part of the year ;-). India has the Thar Desert, Australia is a desert (modulo small rounding errors), and even the current oil-producing middle eastern states have the Empty Quarter. It's neither wise not plausible to rely on solar only, however, it's quite possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desert shows that each continent has a large enough desert to probably supply its peak energy needs, with the conservative assumptions of 5% conversion used by Gandalf. Unless some improbable worldwide East-West high voltage grid were built to feed power to the dark side of the globe from the sunlit side of the globe, efficient storage would be needed on each continent. Energy storage technology is not a whole lot better (maybe 1 order of magnitude )than it was 100 years ago when cities had large DC battery banks which could power the downtown during peak demand or a generation outage, and when electric boats and electric cars were in commercial use. A lack of advanced energy storage is a major barrier to an "all solar" energy economy. Edison (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that they don't consider Europe to be a continent, then ? You'd need to send that energy a long way to get to, say Ireland or Norway. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar panels in deserts of the world could make a large contribution to the world's energy needs. The sun provides about a kilowatt of energy input per square meter, or the equivalent of a 1000 megawatt nuclear plant per square kilometer. Reality check: the solar panel would need to track to sun to get the most benefit, and naturally there is no output at night and diminished output on overcast days or when there are sandstorms. The conversion efficiency to electricity has been increasing slowly over time, with 40% now attainable, but efficiencies around 20% are more common, since the cost of the cells must be considered. The solar electricity can go to the grid during daylight hours, which are peak load hours for many utilities when air conditioning and commercial loads are more important than electric heating or nighttime residential use. Electricity can be transported long distances at extremely high AC or DC voltages, but transmission lines are very expensive to build, and people have a "not in my back yard" attitude towards having them pass through their communities. They are also easily sabotaged, and the cost of guarding solar arrays and transmission lines adds to the cost, if the deserts or transmission routes in question are in regions of political turmoil. There are considerable losses in the long distance transmission of power. Solar has some things in common with wind, nuclear and hydroelectric: the initial capital costs are extremely high compared to a fossil fuel plant, followed by low costs per kilowatt hour generated during the life of the plant. These types of power do not contribute much to greenhouse gases during their operation, in contrast to oil, gas, or coal fueled generation. Hydro and nuclear have in common that they typically can run flat out for extended periods, compared to the off and on quality of solar and wind. Rather than solar arrays in the desert, I like solar arrays on south-facing or flat roofs right where the load is. Edison (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's method would be far more applicable in a suburban setting in Arizona then an urban setting in London or Vancouver. Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the failed outcome of the "real" Edison's promotion of DC for electric power distribution can user Edison show any example of electricity transported "extremely long distances at extremely high DC voltage"? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia: High-voltage direct current. Particularly relevant quote: "For long-distance distribution, HVDC systems are less expensive and suffer lower electrical losses" 131.111.248.99 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's DC distribution system suffered from needing to transmit the power at end-user voltages (DC voltage conversion hadn't been invented yet), leading to high currents and the resulting high transmission losses. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, you said solar panels "do not contribute much to greenhouse gases during their operation, in contrast to oil, gas, or coal fueled generation". While true, it's important to include the entire power plant life cycle, including production and disposal, in the equation. When judged in that manner, solar panels aren't so wonderful, as the power and materials used to create them and dispose of them is far more than that for a fossil fuel plant which generates a comparable amount of power over it's life. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a decent citation for that? It seems really unlikely. SteveBaker (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that ? As Edison said "the initial capital costs are extremely high compared to a fossil fuel plant". Those higher costs correspond with the greater effort required to set up all those solar panels and tracking mechanisms, from mining the materials to manufacturing and delivery/installation. StuRat (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covering huge amounts of desert would have an enormous impact on their ecosystems. I have spent much time in two different deserts, and they are subtly and wonderfully alive. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this image.--droptone (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question (sneezing when asleep)

Why don’t you sneeze when you’re asleep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetterindi (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article sneeze says "Sneezing cannot occur during sleep due to REM atonia - a bodily state wherein motor neurons are not stimulated and reflex signals are not relayed to the brain. Sufficient external stimulants, however, may cause a person to wake from their sleep for the purpose of sneezing, although sneezing occurring afterwards would take place when partially awake."

I did find one sleep expert who claimed that there's no research into whether people sneeze in their sleep.[1] However, most sources say no.[2][3] From the case reports I could find, even patients with intractible sneezing (who keep sneezing for weeks or months) don't sneeze in their sleep[4][5] --Normansmithy (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the title to make it actually useful. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh---Stu! You just woke me up!--79.68.242.68 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's certainly nothing to sneeze at. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

corporate killings in russia

I've heard that in Russia contract killings on executives are ordered by people who want to take over the job. But for the guy who ordered the hit and takes over, won't people be inclined not to deal with him? How does the system work.

Yesatomic (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be inclined to get on the bad side of someone who ordered a contract killing? Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if it's as bad as you're saying and they're all doing it, then I don't think it would matter, really. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's rare and done in secret, so nobody knows who, if anyone, ordered the killing. I'm sure this is illegal, although bribing the right officials might get them to look the other way. I've thought about this question in other fictional contexts, namely a Star Trek episode where people moved up by assassinating their leaders, and also with vampires. In both fictional cases and the (possibly) real case you mentioned, you essentially have a predator/prey relationship. In such relationships, the number of predators is controlled by the prey just as the prey are controlled by the predators. In your case, if the number of people engaging in assassination became too high, then the "prey" would take effective action, like living in a bunker protected by a squad of armed guards, and would also force the criminal justice system in Russia to do their job properly. StuRat (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has general articles on Politics and Political corruption. The article on Russia has sections about Government and Human Rights.The Russian Executive posts the OP mentions are posts that hold power in goverment, companies or media and their subordinates have little choice in dealing with them, regardless of their inclinations, Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They might not have choice if he is a big boss man they have to deal with him even if he kill their friends R12IIIeloip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Long night

Where is it nighttime for half the year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelopiclle (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place on Earth where the Sun is invisible for 365/2 days. See the articles Arctic circle and Antarctic circle if you are just interested in the Polar night of twenty-four hours continuous night time. I put a title on your question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the poles come closest. However, since sunset is defined by the passing of the entire solar disk below the horizon, the angular size of the sun and atmospheric refraction serve to lengthen "day" with respect to "night", preventing a scenario where "day" and "night" are both exactly half a year long. — Lomn 14:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wrong Lomn. You mean half a day 12 hours, not half a year. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I see nothing wrong with Lomn's statement. At the poles, day and night are each approximately half a year, but not exactly (for the reasons he gives). -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coneslayer, if one interprets Lomn as meaning by "day" the accumulated length of all days in the year, and by "night" the accumulated length of all nights in the year, and we limit the scenario to large flat areas such as seas and deserts then his argument holds true. If more conventionally we understand "day" and "night" to be divisions of a 24-hour period that are separated by the events sunrise and sunset then there is a day in the year when they are equal; it is shifted slightly from the Equinox for the reasons Lomn gave. I apologise to Lomn for my lack of insight into the first interpretation and strike my former comment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "day" as "the sun is above the horizon" and "night" as "the sun is not above the horizon"; the poles provide the only areas where you'd approach a single half-year "night" in this context -- though you're certainly correct that most locales will have a given midnight-to-midnight period that's half and half. I note, though that length of day mentions the Northern hemisphere having slightly longer days, on average, than the Southern hemisphere due to the Earth's orbital eccentricity. It's possible, then, that latitudes near the South Pole might have exactly one-half the year in night and exactly one-half the year in daylight, and that if really really close to the pole, might have a single exactly-half-year day and a single exactly-half-year night. Others are welcome to confirm or refute, but I don't like trig that much. — Lomn 16:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Lomn. Your definition of "day" is shorter than the time of daylight, which is strange when you are aware of the angular size of the Sun. That is not the "day" used to define the equinoxes. By "poles" you presumably mean within the (Ant)Arctic circles and you are wrong to claim a half-year night is ever experienced there. A 24-hour night is experienced there. It is incomprehensible to speak of a "single exactly-half-year day" or "single exactly-half-year" night" because neither occurs of the surface of Earth.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my definition is a reasonable paraphrase of that used at length of day, though certainly other contexts exist. What I find more puzzling is the insistence that the length of "day" or "night" under this definition is capped at 24 hours. Polar environments (particularly those beyond 80° latitude) experience periods far in excess of 24 hours where the sun remains entirely above or entirely below the horizon. The poles themselves experience (barring those niggling physical imperfections) a single sunrise and a single sunset over the course of a year. How then is it incomprehensible to say that the poles experience a roughly-half-year day and a roughly-half-year night? — Lomn 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lomn I tell you politely that you are wrong. You misunderstand what happens at the North and South poles. Please read the article Midnight sun. Your statement "The poles...experience...a single sunrise and a single sunset over the course of a year" is false. Having linked to length of day you should understand that there are alternate meanings of the word "day" but no scope for you to "paraphrase" (you mean redefine) it as anything else. If the subject confuses you please do not post here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly quoting from midnight sun, "the length of the time the sun is above the horizon varies from 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 186 days at the poles" (emphasis mine). An observer at the North Pole would see the sun rise some time around the Spring equinox, remain above the horizon for six months, and then set at the Fall equinox. You appear to be inferring too much from the "the sun is visible for a continuous 24 hours" line; while this is true, 24 hours is in no way the limit for how long the sun remains above the horizon. Alternately, please describe to me exactly how the sun is behaving at the poles. I don't believe I'm confused by the subject at all, but I'm confused by your stance on it. — Lomn 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lomn for your patient correction. I have struck my previous post. The poles are two point locations exactly on the axis of rotation of the Earth so that Earth rotation is not a component of those locations' movements orbiting around the Sun. Therefore the cycle of light and darkness at the poles is the year of 365.25 days. The light period is slightly longer than half the year because of the finite angular size of the Sun and atmospheric refraction. Those are noted as corrections in the article Sunrise equation. Some confusion arose because I wished to keep distinct day meaning calender day = 24 hours during which the observed elevation of the center of the Sun returns to any angle, and daylight time. At the poles there is only daylight time. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If as Cuddlyable3 suggests one interprets "night" as the accumulated length of all nights in the year, and if one disregards twilight and the points raised by Lomn, then the answer to the OP is "practically everywhere". —Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect local geography (whether you're on a mountaintop or in a valley) to make a huge diff on the length of the "longest day" and "longest night", near the poles. So, there might very well be one or more spots which meet that criteria. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether you're using "horizon" as the ideal reference (the sphere, the geoid, what have you) or the physical reference. I think most almanacs will use the ideal. — Lomn 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure almanacs do just assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere, but not because this gives better results, just because it's easier. I'm sure that someone living in a valley wants to know when the Sun really disappears from view, not "when it would disappear, if that mountain wasn't there". With computers and a detailed topological survey of the Earth, it may now be possible to give the correct times of sunrise and sunset at every location, rather than the very rough approximation we're used to. Does anyone know of such a program ? StuRat (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that atmospheric refraction makes the sun visible for longer than it would be if we had no atmosphere, and its finite radius again makes it visible when its center is below the horizon. The reference cited says that these can add about 34' and 16' of arc to the sun's visibility. PhGustaf (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a quiz question - I'd bet good money that the answer is the dwarf-planet Pluto. It rotates once every 366.73 earth-days - so it has almost exactly six months of continuous night followed by six months of what passes for daylight there. (Of course, it's kinda cheating because it's not dark for half of a Plutonian year - which is about 250 earth years long...but if it's a quiz question, they may not be that picky). SteveBaker (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignoring optics:) There's no trigonometry -- it's just subtraction: on any day, subtract the sun's DECLINATION (which moves from 23+ to zero to 23+ to zero) from the poles' LATITUDE (90) and the answer is the lowest latitude where it is always "day" or always "night". If you call daytime "when the center of the sun is above the horizon" and nighttime "when the center of the sun is below the horizon," and define "center of sun" and "horizon" ideally, the answer to "Where is it nighttime for half the year?" is: at the poles. For a moment twice each year, the sun's DECLINATION is zero. At that moment, the sun's center moves above or below the horizon at the north and south poles. From fall to spring, it is night at the north pole; from spring to fall, it is night at the south pole. At any distance whatsoever from the poles, however, this condition of "exactly half a year of night" decreases; finally, at any LATITUDE lower than that of the arctic circles, there is never any consecutive 24-hour period during which the sun is up or down ... because the arctic circles are latitude 90 degrees minus the sun's maximum declination of 23.45 degrees, that is, 66.55 degrees -- just as the poles are latitude 90 degress minus the sun's minimum declination of zero degrees, that is, ninety degrees. Anywhere between latitude 66.55 (90-23.45) and 90 (90-0), the sun will stay up or down longer than a day, and more days in increasing latitude, reaching to a maximum of 182.5ish days exactly at the poles. Again: this defines "up" or "down" (day or night) as when the center of the sun is above or below an idealized horizon at that latitude. It's all about this: 90 minus the sun's declination, expressed as latitude on earth; the declination is zero at the first moment of spring and fall, when the sun crosses the horizon at the poles (and then there's 182.5 days of day or night), and at maximum (23.45) at high winter and summer, when there is "one" 24-hour day or night at the arctic circles. 63.17.52.111 (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social life

Can you be cool without saying a word? In a way that you don't really iniate conversations or make up some crazy and funny stuff for others amusement but they still want to invite you to places and spend time with you? I'm an introverted person and my personality is really killig my social life (and even I need friends to spend time with every now and then) but they just don't seem that interested in spending time with me because I'm too silent and less outrageous. I tried to be all cool, talkative and spontaneus but you know how that ends, you come across as a phony looking only more awkward while getting extremely exhausted in the process. How can I be my silent self and still be accepted as part of the group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candercore1 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can read some biographies and ascribe to the personality types you read about. Perhaps projecting quality wit would be more productive than quantity content -- so find biographies of funny people, like Richard Feynman or Steven Spielberg. Also, the more worldly you become, the more worthwhile information you'll have to contribute to conversations, rather than just ranting. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt." While a few manage to be both laconic and witty (Calvin Coolidge springs to mind), it is only a few. It is, on the other hand, entirely possible to be a valued and valuable friend without saying much. You can be kind, compassionate, helpful, thoughtful, reliable and (top tip for scoring with girls) a really good listener, without saying much at all. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you can't. If you don't talk to communicate with people they will not communicate with you. You don't have to be the life of the party, you can be a quiet shy person and that's fine so long as your talk to people often enough. Otherwise they'll just think your a sad loner. Don't be afriad, you'd be surprised how many (by many I mean most) people are actually either insecure or idiots. Google brings up this great site http://www.succeedsocially.com/ --92.251.205.84 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Select a group with whom you genuinely have a shared interest (hobby, belief system, politics, lifestyle etc.). To yearn for acceptance and invitations from a group where one has only silent frustration to offer characterises the identity crisis that some experience as teenagers but I don't presume that is your state. Wikipedia has an article on the ambiguous word Cool (aesthetic). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the title "Halp"(sic). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from many years of experience, I'd say accept that you are never going to be the life of the party, but understand that there are more valuable and important things that you can offer. As BrainyBabe says, your best strategy is probably to be a solid and caring friend, someone who listens and goes out of his way to help others, someone people can turn to. This is a better basis for true friendship than the funny but superficial chatter that gets people invitations to parties. If you are truly an introvert, you probably prefer genuine one-on-one interactions to parties anyway. There are certainly chatty extroverts who will not value what you have to offer. But who needs them? Let them have their amusing but superficial babble fests while you concentrate on building solid lifetime friendships with people who really value you. As for cool, I think it is mostly a matter of self-confidence, at least appearing to be one's own man (or woman), and not letting frustrations get to you. Those are things you can achieve without saying a word. Marco polo (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a pretty quiet person with not a lot to say, and I've found it to actually be helpful sometimes for befriending chatty people because they can yak away and I just insert the occasional monosyllabic acknowledgement, or a quick question or comment to keep them going. I don't need to say much, and they're happy to have someone to talk to who doesn't keep trying to get a word in edgewise. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People change over the years, so you will probably become more chatty with time if you want to. Your quietness may be because you are in more mature settings that you were not so familiar with when younger. When you become more familiar with them, talkativeness will come. I have a personal hypothesis that peoples personality is kept stable over time by people staying in the same kind of settings with the same expectations for behaviour. When those change, your personality changes. You may be suffering something akin to stage fright which will wear off with time. 78.151.126.97 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Dots typeface?

Anyone know what the Dots typeface is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curvebill (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without the context that you're seeing it in, it's hard to give you a solid answer. Googling for "dots typeface" yields many results. This is just one. Dismas|^(talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A dot font is a typeface in which the characters are formed from dots. Example. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a little context, dot matrix printers once only worked with dot fonts. While screens and most modern printers also used dots, the difference is that they touch each other, forming a continuous line or curve, while dot matrix printers had visible gaps between the dots. Why use such a dot typeface when you don't need to ? Perhaps for nostalgia, maybe to make it obvious the info comes from a computer, or perhaps just because you like it. Also note that some modern dot fonts may use different sized dots, not necessarily aligned in a rectangular grid, unlike the original. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You imply that dot matrix printers are obsolete. While no longer used by consumers, they are still heavily used in industrial applications, report printing and transaction printing. GM tried laser printers on their assembly floor with very bad results. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? What happened ? StuRat (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The assembly robots seized the printers and used their lasers in a rampage. —Tamfang (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I mean the Dots candy typeface. Curvebill (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brand logo is usually drawn by hand. —Tamfang (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here. I have two examples that show that the typefaces are the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DotsCandy.jpeg and http://www.visittucson.org/includes/images/listings/Sun-Tran-Logo-color.jpg

School Uniforms

A lot of schools in the UK require students to ware awful, uncomfortable uniforms. If a school child refuses to ware a school uniform they can be expelled from the school. My question is; if the student is willing to go to school, and behaves in every way except waring the school uniform, what repercussions might they face from the government if they keep getting expelled from school for not wareing the uniform? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jortasan tenke (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeschooling is a legal option in many areas. It is apropriate for children with special needs. It should include basic language skills such as how to spell "wear" and "wearing". I removed an image that is irrelevant to school uniforms. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "awful, uncomfortable uniforms" is somewhat subjective; I never had much problem with mine (though the colour was just a little too bright/distinctive). From merely my own personal experience as a student (and not as one familiar with getting expelled) I would say that a) the situation is incredibly unlikely b) it would be interpreted as if one were expelled for another reason (e.g. truancy), except where that was combined with external aggravating factors (e.g. a criminal record). Thus I dare say they would experience no exceptional "repercussions" from the government other than those doled out to serial expellees. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They might live their whole lives without learning how to spell the word wear correctly. Our article on school uniform provides evidence that the situation isn't just part of the UK experience. As for the consequences, I'd guess they'd be the same as the consequences for anyone who won't obey the working rules of a school, such as kids who get kicked out for truancy or bullying or something. Matt Deres (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In England, it's up to the school what the uniform is and how they enforce compliance.[6] In England local authorities have a statutory duty to provide education to children, and there are a wide variety of ways this can be performed for excluded pupils e.g. transferring to another school, home tuition, in a special unit, or even in a secure unit.[7] Legally, parents might be punished if they are found partially to blame; social services may become involved and will probably try to find why the child is refusing to wear uniform, referring to a psychologist etc. However, it is impossible to predict what would happen in an individual case. --Normansmithy (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your uniform is uncomfortable it is almost certainly because it doesn't fit properly, or you aren't wearing it correctly. Both of those are relatively easy problems to fix. --Tango (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View

My dream job would be to operate one of Google's street view cars, driving around the country exploring every nook and cranny. I would love it! Anyone ever find any interviews or information on the drivers as to their jobs, what it is like, how they operate? God I want that Job! I am a realist, I know its not bloody likely, a very limited fleet but I'm just interested in it beyond what the article says.--98.116.22.3 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google contract out much of the work although they do have some drivers of their own[8] so you might be able to set up a company and get the contract for Street View in a certain area. A rival service, Everyscape, also has employed people for street photography; according to ABC they advertised the work on their website.[9] --Normansmithy (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that they need to drive slowly, which would lead to people honking behind them and maybe homeowners calling the cops because they see someone "casing the neighborhood". So, it might not be the ideal job you think it is. StuRat (talk)

When they were photographing around where I live, the trucks had logos from a couple of different companies on them - they seem to be able to do their work at the speed limit even along freeways. You can tell that's true because if you step along a street using streetview, you can see the other cars that were behind the truck. It's very clear that there isn't a long line of cars stuck behind a slow moving truck and you can look forwards and see the truck easily keeping up with people in front of them. The only oddity I saw was a sign on the truck saying something about it not making lane changes (which makes sense when you think about it). SteveBaker (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a blog of a brief informal interview with a UK Street View driver, check here. For an alternative, amusing, and completely fictional take on the desirability of 'Street View Driver' as an occupation, may I recommend this video. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding promotional offers on products

Often I have noted that in case of promotional offers on a product (for example, getting some freebie or an extra quantity of the same product that you are buying), the offer fine print generally includes a message of the form that the product is also available without the offer.
To elaborate, if a company is selling some product 'XYZ' with a 20% extra offer, the fine print of the offer also mentions the availability of the same product 'XYZ' without the offer.
Is there any particular reason for this ? I mean, why would anyone prefer to buy a lesser quantity for the same cost ? I am not sure if this is a general worldwide phenomenon, but this is quite a common thing in my country ( India ).

At the same time, in spite of the fine prints in question, I have never been able to find two versions of the same products in the market; one with offer and one without the offer (except for the case where there might be some old stock lying around). So, I was wondering if this had something to do with legal requirements.

Any ideas regarding this ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.210.207 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any specific laws for that kind of offer, but I know in the UK that there is a law that says something must have been on sale at the full price for at least 6 weeks (I think) before you can advertise a lower price as being a discount. It is probably something similar - you can't say that the "free gift" is free if actually it is just part of the product you are paying for, so that means the product has to be available without the free gift. It doesn't make any sense for it to be available concurrently with the version with the free gift, though... --Tango (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's definitely not the case in the US, where they throughly abuse the word "free". One common example is products which are "free, you only pay shipping and handling", or, as I like to put it, "absolutely free for $10". We do have some other similar oddities, though, like that any product which includes a sweepstakes ticket must also include instructions on how you can get one for free, without buying the product. If they didn't do that, they would be "running a gambling operation without a license". StuRat (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the most common way they get you. Since the value of the product plus the actual cost of postage is likely less than they are charging for "shipping and handling", they are still making a profit on these "free" things. In many cases, the objects involved are so tiny, you can't help wondering why they couldn't just pop the two things into one box! Very often they don't even tell you how much the shipping & handling charge actually is unless you actually demand to know it when you place your order. You see this same scam in offers to refund your money if you aren't completely satisfied - they don't refund the shipping and handling - so they make a profit whether you demand your refund or not. It's amazing how blind people are to this kind of scam. Don't get me started on how carefully worded those ~~counterfeit~~replica "gold" coin adverts are...or the ones where they advertise "for just $xx.99 you can find out just how good our product is" (meaning you are paying to 'rent' the thing for a week and it's gonna cost you an absolute fortune to either ship it back or buy it)...or where they tell you that you'll pay "just $19.99 a month!"...without ever telling you how many months you'll be paying for it for. You'd think that actually telling people how much this thing costs wouldn't be that hard! Then you get the "computer learning...just try my software" guy - who will indeed ship the first disk to you for free - then proceed to charge you hundreds to thousands of dollars for all of the subsequent ones he sends you whether you ask for them or not! Dishonesty in that kind of direct mail advertising isn't just common - it's actually universal. SteveBaker (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, the universe included more than just the USA. The UK doesn't have anywhere near the kind of misleading advertising the USA does (we do get adverts that I think should be illegal, but they aren't anywhere near as bad as American ones). --Tango (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there are all sorts of trading standards laws that make this kind of thing much harder to get away with in the UK. Also, the cost of TV advertising in the UK is very much more per viewer than in the USA - so the margins for these kinds of enterprise are much thinner. SteveBaker (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I was in the US I saw those ~~counterfeit~~replica gold coin adverts. It took me a couple of watches before I could pick when they stopped talking about the real one and started talking about the ~~counterfeit~~replica. Very tricky. :) FiggyBee (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - it's AMAZING how carefully they handle that transition. They spend a ton of time extolling the virtues of the real coin (it's purity and rarity) - which is pointless because that's not what they're selling you. The only slight hint is when they say "You can order your copy of..." - they are choosing that word "copy" with great care to make it sound like they are using the meaning: "instance of" or "duplicate of" rather than the other meaning: "facsimily of". They also carefully state the amount of gold in the real coin in ounces and that of the fake in milligrams - knowing full well that their target audience wouldn't know a gram from a kip. They go on to vastly exaggerate the increasing cost of gold (not that it matters since you're going to get about 50 cents worth of unrecoverable gold-leaf!). What you have here is a chunk of worthless cheap metal with a gold coating maybe a few micometers thick. I'd be quite surprised if they cost even $1 each to make - and they're selling for $20. Despite the ridiculous "limited to 10 copies per household" effort, I'm pretty sure they're selling these fakes in the millions...and they certainly wouldn't be worth even $1 on the open market. It's not even though you could pass it off as the real coin because it won't be anywhere near heavy enough to give it the obvious 'heft' of a solid gold coin. It's an out and out scam and it's quite outragous that it continues to air. SteveBaker (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Axioms of Modern Life that should be taught to all people from birth is that any product which cannot be handled before being purchased is a scam. Its the basic principle of informercials and other "not sold in stores" type commercials. If its not sold in stores, its because no one would buy it if they could actually handle the product. Coin collectors aren't interested in buying gold-painted knockoff coins, you can get a good set of knives anywhere, you can't make your wang bigger by taking a pill, and even WalMart sells nice, big toaster ovens with rotisserie attachments. They don't want their products sold in stores because if you could actually handle the product in person, you'd never buy that. If it was the sort of thing that handling it would make you think that buying it was a good idea, they would actually sell it in stores. --Jayron32 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That axiom seems a bit extreme, to me, as there are other reasons why items might not be available in brick and mortar stores. One is that they are just too specialized of a product to have the sales volume a retail store would require to stock them. This is especially true is you live in a rural area, but even an urban area with lots of stores may not find some rarer items. For example, I buy my socks over the Internet, because I can't otherwise find the combo I want, which are cotton tube socks that are both calf-length and black. The closest thing I find at stores are gym socks, white with colored stripes at the top. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I agree, "Jaron's Axiom" is a bit extreme. I buy lots of things from places like Amazon.com where I can't handle the item. The point being that when you buy a book or a CD from a well-known seller, you have some confidence in what you're going to get. A better axiom is to not do business with strangers...companies whom you don't know and which friends have not recommended to you. When you buy something from a TV ad, you not only don't know the company - but in all likelyhood, you'll never know who they really are. If the product is horrible (it almost certainly will be) then you may decide never to buy something from them again - but since you don't know who "them" is, then how can you avoid them when the next TV offer comes along? Without the need for reputation to sell their product, and in the absence of laws to prevent what they do - they can get away with anything. SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its not that you couldn't handle those socks or that CD. They sell that brand of socks or that CD or Book in stores even if YOU can't find it in a store convenient to you. The two are different situations. The fact that it is, in general, sold in stores means that people are availible to handle the merchandise, which is a check on the bullshittedness of the seller. The axiom is not "Any product which you don't handle you shouldn't buy". Its "products that cannot be handled before purchase (by anyone) should not be bought." I by lots of things I don't handle first, but I don't buy stuff that is "not availible in stores" anywhere... --Jayron32 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still say there are many items which are too specialized to be offered in any store anywhere. A brick-and-mortar store needs to have a certain turnover rate to cover their costs, and items below a certain level of popularity would simply never be profitable for them, even in the midst of a huge center of population. An Internet store, on the other hand, has much lower stocking costs, as that just means having boxes in a warehouse versus displayed on shelves. They also have the advantage of having customers from all over the world, which can result in more sales than at any single retail store. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what I miss by not watching teevee. —Tamfang (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest museum

Which is the largest museum in the wold in terms of floor space or capacity? (not talking about the number of exhibits, but the actual volume or space the building would take up or could be filled with.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyCrayon.name (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This says the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg is the largest single museum, and the Smithsonian Institution in DC is the largest museum complex. However, neither of these claims appear in our articles. Our Hermitage article says it's "one of the largest". If it’s not the largest single museum, what would be larger? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that claim being made about the Louvre, and our article states right in the first sentence that it's "one of the largest museums in the world", though it's unsourced and it doesn't say whether it refers to number of works of art or actual size. Belisarius (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History encompasses 1.5 million sq. feet (but only 325,000 of that is exhibit and public space), while the Louvre article claims 652,300 sq. feet of exhibition space, and a blacklisted site pegs the Hermitage at only 418,230 sq. feet. (156,714 for exhibits). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only figure I could find for the total Louvre footage is 1.6 million, but the source is a bit iffy. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican collection has to be up there. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]