Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 April 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 25

Introducing an adult to a child

In the US, it's rare for workers to refer to one another as "Mr. so-and-so" or "Ms. so-and so". People seem to address and refer to one another by first names. What is the norm when, say, you're introducing your daughter to a coworker or your boss? Do you introduce your coworker or boss as "Matt" or "Mr. Johnson" (assuming that the person's name is Matt Johnson)? I suppose when a child is very young you may want to teach her to address grown-ups properly and use a more formal address in an introduction. Assuming that you agree with that thinking, at what age do you think it's normal to introduce adults to a young person by first name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.98.127 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, the tradition was always to use Mr, Mrs etc for people older than the person you are introducing. This is gradually changing, and it depends on the context, but it would still be the norm here in northern UK for introducing an adult to children still at school. There is no rule on this. It's just whatever feels right to the people involved, and this will vary by country and situation. Dbfirs 07:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it depends on the age of the "child" and a number of other factors. As for references though... This Google Books page (starts on page 21) suggests that the child address the adult by Mr/Ms unless directed otherwise by the adult being introduced. Dismas|^(talk) 07:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Going back to my childhood back in the Stone Age, my parents' friends and the neighbours were "Aunty and Uncle" unless Mom and Dad didn't like them, then it was "Mr and Mrs". It came as a bit of a shock to me when, in later life I was researching my family history, to discover that most of the people I thought were related to me actually weren't! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to address people however they want to be addressed, whatever age you are. (Within reason, of course - I'm not going to address anyone as "Your Grace" unless they really are a duke or archbishop!) Formality in Britain is certainly reducing. I volunteered in a primary school quite a bit last year and the children addressed me as "Tom" (at the decision of the headteacher - I had no strong feelings on the matter myself). --Tango (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on age and a whole lot of unwritten and fuzzy social conventions. There's nothing incorrect about using a title, and it certainly won't be seen as unusual where there is a significant disparity in either age or authority. Your daughter can take her cues from the person she is addressing. Here's how it goes, in a nutshell:

• You: Matt, I'd like you to meet my daughter Jane. Jane, this is my supervisor/the head of the department/whatever, Matt Johnson.
• Jane: It's a pleasure to meet you, Mr. Johnson.
• Matt Johnson: Hello, Jane. Please, call me Matt.

Easy as pie. When in doubt, start respectful and work your way towards less formality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here in the U.S. it varies greatly by region as to the proper way in which children are supposed to address adults. When I grew up in New England, it was standard for adults to be addressed as "Mr. Lastname", "Miss Lastname", "Mrs. Firstname" or "Ms. Firstname" depending on the preference of the adult in question; usually Miss was reserved for unmarried women and Mrs. for married women. Here in North Carolina, the standard is "Mr. Firstname" and "Miss Firstname" for adults addressed by children, with Miss being used for both married and unmarried women of any age. Thus, while a 55-year old grandmother named Cathy Smith would be addressed as "Mrs. Smith" by a child in New England, the same woman would be called "Miss Cathy" by a child in North Carolina. --Jayron32 19:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You: I'd like you to meet my daughter Jane. Jane, this is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. Jane, what do you say to the nice lady?

Jane: You're smaller than I thought.
Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lovely! Wanderer57 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Where can one donate skin and fat tissue?

When it comes to donating organs, wouldn't there be any place where I can donate skin and fat tissue? After all, someone will need skin grafts somewhere, and fat tissue transplants after a burn injury.

So where is an agency that I can sell my skin and fat tissue to? Also, how much would I earn per ounce of skin and fat? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sell? To my knowledge, in the US you can't sell body parts. And I would think that the same applies for most other countries as well. See, for instance, Human Tissue Act 2004. Dismas|^(talk) 07:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the scales and I'm 21 lbs overweight. My metabolism has apparently fallen precipitously so if I could donate 35 lbs. of my skin and fat, I'd be satisfied. I suppose I don't have to get paid to donate; I just would like to get rid of all this baggage, fast.

Of course I was told to go exercise, but I was also told that my body will get sadistic and lower my metabolism just to negate the effects of exercise. I want to shortcut this process by simply getting my excess removed. Thanks. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You can pay for liposuction if you want. It won't be a good long term solution, though - you'll put the weight back on if you don't change your lifestyle. No-one else is going to want your fat or skin, though. Skin grafts are usually taken from other parts of the patients own body and I've never heard of fat transplants (a full-thickness skin graft may include some sub-cutaneous fat, I'm not sure, but I can't see why anyone would want to transplant fat itself). They are no shortcuts to weight loss. The only real route is to consume fewer calories than you burn, that is all there is to it. (It is advisable to consult a doctor prior to any major change in exercise or diet. Either can put significant strain on your body and you may have other conditions that could cause problems, so please don't take anything I have said as advice for your specific case.) --Tango (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that small amounts of fat are transplanted, during cosmetic surgery, from other spots on the patient's body, to fill in under wrinkles. Using fat from somebody else would increase the risk of rejection and infection. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Skin transplants from other people would also be problematic, because of the risk or rejection and infection. Burn patients already have a huge risk of infection, so administering the immunosuppressants needed to avoid rejection would likely cause infections to spread. StuRat (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Savory oatmeal

I got in an experimental mood tonight and decided to try something a little new for dinner. I set some water to boiling, and in a separate pan I sauteed some garlic and habaneros in butter, and then threw in some sliced brown mushrooms, and when they'd cooked a little bit I added red wine to the mushrooms and let them simmer. Then I put McCann's Irish Oatmeal (steel-cut, the five-minute stuff; I've never had the patience for the long-cook version), mixed with a bit of oat bran, into the water and let it thicken up good, roughly to the consistency of a fairly firm polenta. I mixed in the mushrooms and added some bits of sharp cheddar and let it sit for a couple minutes.

Not fooling myself that this is exactly health food, in spite of the potential cholesterol-lowering properties of the oats, but it was really quite good. Kind of like a risotto but much faster and easier to make.

So, question, I'm supposed to have a question. Is this a novel invention of mine, or is this some well-known dish? --Trovatore (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

While not being exactly "well-known", the use of oatmeal in savoury cooking is not new: it gets used to coat herrings, for example. I think it has been relatively ignored in the past because of its reputation as being quite coarse (in Scotland it feeds the people, and in England it feeds the horses - Dr. Johnson) and therefore not worthy of "proper cooking". Your recipe sounds quite yummy and I might give it a try! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, let me know how it turns out. --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Why is this not healthy? Aside from the butter, which doesn't sound like much in the quantity you elude to, I don't see anything unhealthy about this dish. Dismas|^(talk) 07:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of high-calorie, plus it's just carbs and fats, no phytochemicals to speak of except the soluble fiber. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

An oat pilaf is a dish made with oats, broth/stock, vegetables, and herbs/spices. Here's a recipe from Quaker Oats.[1] Googling oat or oatmeal pilaf will give many others. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It being Anzac Day, I can't let this go without mentioning Anzac biscuits, which use lots of oats. Yum-oh. And really healthy too (apart from the sugar, the butter, the golden syrup ....). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Porridge are usually a savory dish, as are many non-Oat porridges, listed in that article, including polenta and grits, corn (maize) based porridges familiar to the cuisines of Italy and the Southern U.S. respectively. --Jayron32 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Haggis also contains a lot of oatmeal. So I suppose the answer to your question is that there are many savoury dishes involving oats, though probably none exactly the same as the one you describe. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Food writer Mark Bittman has recently become a proponent of savory oatmeals (but specifically for breakfast). I'm not sure if he's ever done your combination, but he's talked about a number of variations, with the one he most often talks about is soy sauce and scallions. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen it with oatmeal before, but grain risotto is a well known phenomona, as a Google search quickly reveals. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Italian for oat is avena, so my dish is an avenotto, which does turn up a fair number of hits. At least, that's what I'll call it if I serve it to company. Sounds a lot more exotic than porridge. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I use oatmeal instead of stale bread or crumbs for making meatballs and the like, to generally appreciated results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ransom Money

This was inspired by a question above which was itself inspired by a question above.

So in films villains often demand money in return for hostages. This is sometimes requested in unmarked bills personally delivered, but also often to be transferred to a bank account for future use. My question is this: why can't the government just ask the bank to put the money in the account, and then remove it an hour later when the hostage taker has given up his hostages? Sure it would be cheating, but so what? Am I right and this is artistic license, or have I missed something? Prokhorovka (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the film. In general, the less-sloppy fictional kidnappers will ask that the money be wired to an account that is outside the jurisdiction where the kidnapping took place, and where whatever governments and police forces are involved won't be able to freeze the funds. Variations on this theme include immediate withdrawals or re-transfers of the ransom money as soon as it is paid, again to prevent the sort of problem you're asking about. And we can't forget that many fictional kidnappers will demand that the police not be involved (accompanied by dire threats); without such involvement it is very difficult to play games even with domestic wire transfers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but surely the world's banks could be convinced to agree to a global agreement about such things, what sort of objection would they raise? Prokhorovka (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, we're talking about real life here, rather than spy novels. However, I think the point is that shifty banks in the Bahamas and the Caymans (random examples) actually profit rather a lot from criminal money. Why would they enter into an agreement which would result in loss of business for them? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 14:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

... and modern savvy kidnappers will have already set up a series of accounts in various countries (preferably those not on good terms with that of the kidnap victim) and will use internet banking to move the money around within an hour of the deposit so as to make it almost impossible to trace where it ended up. It is only recently that the bankers in Switzerland have been persuaded to co-operate with international authorities to fight crime, and there are many countries where the banks are much less scrupulous than the Swiss. Dbfirs 17:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, Tag? Because banks, as everyone knows, have high morals and ethics and a deeply ingrained sense of social responsiblity, which govern all their activities. I am now heading for the bathroom to wash my mouth out for no particular reason, and may be some time ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The obvious and conspicuous evil and money-grubbing nature of banks notwithstanding, there are certainly at least a few legitimate reasons why all the world's banks don't have agreements in place to permit revocation of interbank transfers. In part, it is for the same reason that not all countries have mutual extradition treaties—country A doesn't always want to be involved in (or compelled to) enforce the laws of country B. (Suppose that a woman and her minor daughter flee an abusive husband in Saudi Arabia. Dad has arranged a marriage for the daughter, and Mom cannot get a divorce or legal custody. Mom wires money out of the country to herself, and seeks refugee status overseas with her daughter. Technically, she is now a kidnapper under Saudi law--can the Saudi bank revoke the transfer at the behest of the Saudi government or police services? If not, why would a bank in Saudi Arabia decide to respect another country's requests? It gets even messier when you consider the application of other criminal laws.)

Making large international interbank transfers revocable also has the potential for accidental or deliberate disaster. Suppose that large company (or a small country) transfers $100 million from accounts in Country A to Country B, then from Country B to Country C. The company then says, no, we didn't mean to make the first transfer, so we'll keep our $100 million in each of Countries A and C after all. Someone's left in the lurch. When it's one organization's accounts, it's possible untangle and trace back where the dollars are supposed to be coming from, but it gets very messy very quickly if there are multiple transactions among multiple parties. Somewhere in the middle, a bank fails.

In any event, even if such a system existed, it would still be susceptible to the sort of failure that Dbfirs suggests. If the first transaction is revocable, then the kidnapper will simply transfer the money to new accounts, or arrange to purchase negotiable goods, until there's no meaningful way to undo the transfer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of Date trees are around the Falcon Place in Baghdad in Iraq?

Hint: On the computer,look at the beautful Falcon Place pictures. If I remember right, they show some of those trees. My son who is in the Navy, brought some seeds back home, but I know nothing about Date trees, and if they will grow in Kansas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.25.198 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

date palms come in a few varieties, but I don't think any will be likely survive a Kansas Winter. It might be conceivable to grow them in a large pot, and take them inside over winter, but they may not get large enough to produce fruit. If you like palm trees, some varieties are hardy enough to survive in Kansas, see hardy palms.

SemanticMantis (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It might also be pertinent to consider whether those seeds might harbor some insidious species of microbe or bug which could decimate food production in your country. That may sound a little dramatic but the truth is that countless billions worth of damage has been and is still being caused by "innocent" transportation of species to countries where they don't belong. suggest checking out 'alien species' on wiki. It's no joke. Many imported food stuffs are irradiated fo import for that very reason.190.56.115.128 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC) oops sorry semantis. don't know hoe I did that.190.56.115.128 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They need arid climates to produce fruit. Even if you managed to keep it alive through the winter, it would be next to impossible to produce any fruit. Also, I strongly agree w/above. A body of water near my home has been inundated with a foreign species of microbe that, when it excretes, promotes the growth of an invasive algae that is decimating native fish and plant species. To the point where local officials are spraying our water supply with toxic chemicals to control it. And all b/c someone dumped out their tropical fish tank bowl. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely the seeds of a date tree are dates (or at least the stones inside). Don't you import those into America? We get them here in the UK from all sorts of middle-eastern countries and we're all still alive! Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What is an Auditor?

Is an auditor a person who has specifically trained and qualified and been recognized as an Auditor by some official body,

OR is an auditor simply someone employed or contracted to perform audits?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This probably varies from country to country, but in most places there is some form of industry body that handles auditing qualifications and recognition from it is required either legally or otherwise to perform them (as companies simply won't pay someone who isn't recognised by them, and the audit may not be accepted by others as valuable). Prokhorovka (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

An Auditor can be someone with formal qualifications (e.g. http://www.icaew.com/en/technical/audit-and-assurance/gain-audit-rights) or purely someone that is asked to perform audit work. The level of qualification/experience required will depend on the nature/level of the audit. E.g. I have performed 'internal' audits at a very low level but have no audit qualifications (I was merely an knowledgeable independent observer of processes). ny156uk (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An auditor is someone who performs audits. In many jurisdictions, they may require licensing or certification in order to be a practicing auditor, but that makes auditing no different than most professions, including physician, lawyer, accountant, teacher, dentist, etc. etc. One thing that makes a "profession" different from a "job" is the existance of professional standards; and usually a body (private or government) that is charged with maintaining those standards among members of the profession. --Jayron32 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To further confuse the matter, many counties in the United States have an elected auditor who may or may not have the appropriate professional credentials, above. That's what a staff is for, I imagine. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, we have all assumed (probably correctly) that you mean business auditing, not the more recent kind. If you did happen to mean the latter, then anyone can do it, so long as they have been trained by a high level Thetan and stick to the "Auditor's Code". Prokhorovka (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. (Prokhorovka - our organization does not pay well enough to attract high level Thetans. Perhaps just as well.) Wanderer57 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the first book of Dianetics that predates Scientology the term auditor "is used in dianetics to designate anyone skilled in the practice of dianetic therapy" (p.165 Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health 1950-1966)). At that time the only qualification was to have read the book. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And then there are the Auditors of Reality. Bielle (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Appliance - Repair or Renew?

Hi, I am not asking for advice about the above - but I am interested to read any responses to my rationale for posing the question. I bought a new well reputed domestic dishwasher in the UK 18 months ago, and today, it failed, due to it not drawing in water, though the extraction pump seemed to be working hard. I cleaned the filters, checked the water pipe inlet wasn't blocked or kinked, but no joy. So I rang around a few local repair shops who all told me they would charge £60 call out fee, plus VAT (20% extra) plus any parts costs (plus any VAT on the parts). I calculated, perhaps suspiciously, that my repair was going to cost in excess of £120+, with no guarantee that the machine wouldn't suffer another breakdown in short order at similar punitive costs. So I ordered a new machine online, like for like model, delivery included, recycling included of the old machine, plus installation and packaging taken away, plus a 3 year comprehensive warranty, all for double my estimated repair cost to the existing machine. And now I am puzzled as to how the local appliance repair industry might be suffering due to like-minded customers being hostile to such punitively high call-out repair charges - for a dishwasher. I mean, waiting for a new dishwasher, or waiting for a repairman, is hardly life threatening is it? Are there any reference statistics to illustrate how local economies might suffer as a result of such practices? And surely, specialist trade associations must be alert to such damage in their sector(s). Thanks. 92.4.37.253 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a repairman come to my house once, look at my refridgerator for five minutes and say "Buy a new one". I have since used this repairman for literally everything I can, since I know he's not trying to screw me, and I recommend him to all of my friends. By being good and honest, he's probably generated himself at least as much cash as being unscrupulous could. The solution is to find a good repairman and throw him as much business as possible. You can find a good repairman when he tells you to keep your money and buy a new appliance... --Jayron32 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Either that, or he's invented a new business model. Without having to get his hands dirty, order parts, or even know how your appliance works, he picks up sixty quid every time you call him out. (Maybe he just knows how to fix stoves and dishwashers; he gets to charge an arm and a leg to repair those, since he has the reputation for being 'good and honest'. Meanwhile, every time someone with a broken refrigerator calls, he gets a nice payout plus a bonus to his reputation. It's brilliant!) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, on the refridgerator call he charged me no money at all. I offered to throw $50 his way for the trouble of coming out, and he resolutely refused several times. He has since fixed items of mine for which it was economical to fix it, including once where he showed me how he fixed the problem, and said "Next time, just buy this part here, and put it in like this. Much cheaper than getting me to do it". His business model is being good and honest I appreciate that. I have also had auto mechanics and others that work on that model, and I continue to use them frequently because of that. The whole "honey vs. vinegar" standard for catching ants, I suppose. --Jayron32 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(I was kidding, of course....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They probably all quoted about the same price. Therefor it does the local tradesman no harm at all since it maintains the pricing structure.190.56.108.137 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure it does. If it no longer makes economic sense to have appliances repaired at the rates they charge, since ever cheaper Chinese-made appliances are now available, then repair shops will close down. This has happened to a great extent in the US. Unfortunately, this is ultimately bad for local economies as well as the environment. StuRat (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is his price unreasonable? You're trying to hire a skilled independent contractor. Figure it takes him fifteen or twenty minutes each way to get from his workshop to your house. He spends another ten or twenty minutes making sure you've got clean electricity, taking apart your appliance, checking it out, and putting it back together. Between your initial call and his visits, you're going to soak up at least another ten minutes or so in conversation, filling out paperwork, and processing your payment. Altogether, we're at between fifty and seventy minutes you've taken out of his day; that sixty quid for an hour's work.

Before you protest that that's an awful lot for a handy man, remember that he has to pay rent on his workshop and storefront; purchase, maintain, and insure his truck and tools; pay the apprentice who minds the store while he's on a service calls; and pay his accountant and the taxman before anything gets to his pocket. I would be stunned if the overhead didn't eat up at least half of that call-out fee. And if he is able to fix it, the pricing scheme you quoted suggests that he isn't going to charge you any extra for the labour when he completes the repair; it's a straight cost-plus quote.

You've just discovered that crappy, cheap consumer goods aren't worth repairing; this isn't news. His market isn't the people who bought the cheapest item from the store; it's the ones who bought the premium stainless-steel £500 dishwasher. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is kinda silly, since the £200 dishwasher and the £500 dishwasher are likely next to identical in terms of operating parts. The £500 dishwasher is just a £200 dishwasher with a £300 brushed steel plate on the front of it; people are thus paying the repairman to fix the dishwasher to preserve a piece of brushed steel. The owner of the £200 dishwasher gets dishes cleaned the same way, and when it goes belly up, doesn't feel the need to pay a premium to preserve a piece of decorative metal. --Jayron32 22:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

ALERT! ORIGINAL RESEARCH! I had a dishwasher which quit admitting water adequately. It was not clear that this was the problem, but dishes were dirty when the cycle was over. Checking on the Internet, I found advice that the fill valve was likely bad. I tested the solenoid controlled fill valve and found that its coil had not burned out, and that it opened to allow water through when line voltage was applied to its coil, but measured the flow of water and found that when it was energized it only allowed in a pint of water during a time it should have admitted many quarts (for the metric crowd: it was defective, but not grossly so). For $20 or so I purchased and installed a new valve and lived happily everafter with clean dishes. The internet is your friend, and fora can advise you on how to fix the dishwasher, range (hob), washing machine, or clothes dryer. Edison (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, buying the parts for your own repair can be quite difficult. Manufacturers can be quite reluctant to sell to someone who is not in the business of repairing appliances. None the less, some years ago I did manage to repair my TV for £5 rather then a £60 + parts + VAT for a professional repairman. I concur though, many consumer appliances are so cheaply made, it is pretty much the same price to replace than pay for a repair. Astronaut (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Darn those cheaply made consumer "alliances" ! StuRat (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I too repaired my dishwasher with a problem like this. Before it was repaired the work around was to open the door just after the pump had pumped out the dirty water and put in two saucepanfuls of hot water. The repair was a new valve, wich connected differently to the old one, but there were detailed instructions included on how to do this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Visiting London, UK during layover

I will be traveling to Lebanon from Canada, but will be making a 10 hour layover at Heathrow Airport in London, UK. I have never been to the UK before and don't have any immigration papers or visas; would I be able to leave the airport and visit the city and then come back and catch my connecting flight?

On a similar note, if my itinerary requires me to make a connection in Washington DC, where the plane arrives at the Reagan National Airport and my departure and connecting flight leaves from Dulles International, would I be able to leave the Reagan airport to catch my flight at the Dulles without any visas? If so, then hypothetically, what's stopping me from just missing my departure flight and just staying in America illegally? ThanksAcceptable (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the ins and outs of leaving the airport to tour with just a passport (which I assume you have some form of, or you wouldn't be able to get on an international flight), but as far as remaining in the U.S. illegally, the long term problem would be supporting yourself by finding a job and/or housing without some legitimate form of work Visa or proof of residency. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 22:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage says that you're Canadian, so this page and this page should be helpful. I don't think you'd need a visa to get into the U.S. Once you get in, there's really nothing stopping you from staying illegally (except the logistics of working and supporting yourself). I guess they figure that Canadians are usually pretty content with their own country. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on your citizenship. Citizens of Canada as well as citizens of the Visa Waiver Program countries don't need a visa when entering the United States for short periods of time for tourism purposes. Individuals from other countries will need a transit (usually C-1) visa: [2].

Even if you don't require a visa to enter the United States, the customs and immigration folks can get very grumpy if you get caught lying about the purpose of your trip, and they can bar you from entering the country for an extended period of time.

The UK Border Agency offers this helpful page to aid you in determining whether or not you need a visa to enter or transit the UK. Again, if you're a Canadian citizen then you don't require a visa for brief tourism stays. I can't comment on how readily one can escape Heathrow for a short break. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually did leave Heathrow for a short tourism break during a 7ish hour layover once. I took a taxi but it's not that hard to get downtown from there on the London Underground I think. Taxis are much more expensive I think.

Oh, and you can probably expect the U.S. customs and immigration folks to be grumpy no matter what. There are some nice ones, but there sure are a lot of gruff ones in my experience. Also, after I got Arabic language stamps in my passport I noticed an increase in the scrutiny I got from Customs and Immigration whenever I re-enter the U.S. So be prepared for extra attention on your way back from Lebanon. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A little off topic, but another thought I had is that you might want to consider renting a locker inside the flight terminal near your departure gate to store any unnecessary carry-on items. They're a bit pricey, but better than accidentally leaving a laptop in a NYC cab. And it'll save you a bit of hassle on the return through the security check. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 01:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the 10 hours in London, I'd have to ask which 10 hours? If you are arriving in the morning, it would make sense to travel into London to see the sights, but there isn't much point in turning up at 2 am and expecting much to be happening (or at least, much I'd recommend a tourist getting involved in). Personally, I'd suggest that if you are in the middle of a long trip, you may not feel over-inclined to cram in the usual tourist spots anyway, and might do better to just relax. Actually, if the weather is at all reasonable, you can do a bit of both. Windsor is conveniently close to Heathrow, so you could head there, grab an overpriced cup of coffee, and then wander along the riverbank for a bit (I'd go upstream, on the north bank - wear sensible shoes), after taking the obligatory photo of Her Majesty's over-ornate pile of masonry. You aren't exactly in the wilds of England (there aren't any, unless you travel a lot further), but it is pleasant enough apart from the aircraft noise. Much less stressful than the usual crowded tourist traps... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't recommend a getting a taxi from Heathrow to central London. Just one way, it is likely to take around an hour (or more if you hit heavy traffic) and cost an eye-watering US$ 100 or more. The Tube may be 150 years old, hot, crowded and reportedly the most expensive in the world, but a one day travelcard is still very good value at 15 pounds and will get you almost everywhere you want to visit quicker than above-ground transportation. Astronaut (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The British Consul in Lebanon should be able to advise on whether you will be allowed to leave Heathrow Airport at all on your passport and visa. If you are allowed to get out, then I endorse what Andy says about not necessarily needing to get to central London. Other great places to visit, quite close to Heathrow, are Kew Gardens and Hampton Court. The gardens at Hampton Court are free to visit. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, it cost me about £50 each way to take a Taxi from Heathrow to Trafalgar Square. Someone told me to take the Tube, but for some reason I really wanted to take a taxi. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you don't state your citizenship, I don't know whether you can leave any of the airports you mention without a visa. I think that if you are a Lebanese citizen, you would need a visa to leave any of those airports (other than on a return flight to Lebanon as a deportee). Regarding Heathrow airport, understand that it is a large airport located a fair distance from central London. Also understand that getting through security at Heathrow can be very time-consuming. So, if you leave the airport, you have to take into account, 1) the time to get from your gate to public transportation or a taxi stand, 2) waiting time for public transportation if you take it, 3) travel time by taxi or public transportation to your destination in Greater London or the nearby Home Counties, 4) travel time by taxi or public transportation from your destination back to the airport, 5) time to get from your taxi or public transportation to security, 6) time to get through security, and 7) time to get from security to your gate. Getting through security alone has taken me more than two hours. To be safe, you should allow three. Even if you travel by taxi, getting to central London can take more than an hour each way in traffic. This is why people are recommending destinations closer to the airport than central London. Then getting from security to your gate can take a good 20 minutes of quick walking depending on your terminal and gate. If you take a less expensive form of public transportation, such as the underground, allow 90 minutes from many parts of central London to the airport. If you know you will be near a stop on the Piccadilly line, which goes to the airport, you can allow just 80 minutes for your trip. Adding all of the travel time up with the security wait, you will need close to 6 hours to travel to and from central London and to get through security and to your gate. That would leave you 4 of your 10 hours to look around. Cutting your travel time and staying close to the airport would give you more time to look around and relax. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Heathrow: I did this last year on a six-hour layover, no problem at all as long as your passport lets you into Britain without a visa. There's Heathrow Express train which is quite fast (15-20 minutes to London Paddington), and last year at least they had a special offer of round trip ticket plus free Tube travelling in central London for a reasonable price. The Heathrow Airport web site has a recommendation for how long they think your layover should be to get into London, but as long as you are at Paddington station ready to return to the airport at least two-three hours before your flight leaves you should be fine. Jørgen (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're travelling on a Canadian passport, then there's no problem about you being admitted to the UK for a touristic visit. If you're travelling on a Lebanese passport with a Canadian permanent resident permit, then you're subject to the TWOV (Transit Without Visa) rules and can be admitted to the UK for 24 hours subject to you having a confirmed ticket out of the country within those 24 hours and correct documentation for the next stage of your journey. Visiting central London is a bit of a tradeoff between journey time and price - there's the Heathrow Express train to Paddington station which takes about 20 minutes and, depending on how you buy your ticket, costs between £18 and £23 each way; the Heathrow Connect train to Paddington which takes about 30 minutes including some intermediate stops and costs around £10 each way; and the Underground which takes about 60 minutes to central London, but costs around £5 each way or £15 for a day pass (you may well need to buy a day pass for the Underground even if you use HE or HC anyway). Be sure to allow plenty of time to get through security when you return to Heathrow. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see the tourist sites, I'd recommend going to Westminster Underground Station. The Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, London Eye, Horse Guards, Trafalgar Square, National Gallery and Buckingham Palace are all within walking distance. If you're on the Underground from Heathrow, change at South Kensington onto the District or Circle Line. A couple of gems that tourists often miss are the Banqueting House with a wonderful painted ceiling by Peter Paul Ruebens, nearly opposite Horseguards and if you want a close-up picture of a Guardsman, walk around the back of St James's Palace into Pall Mall, - one stands on the pavement. If you'd rather go shopping, get out at Piccadilly Circus. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You could also take a boat tour down the Thames from Westminster (or start at the other end at the Tower). You get to see a lot of stuff, although unfortunately of course you can't really visit any of it while you're on the boat. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)