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.
If you are refering to Wikipedia, then once you are logged in select "my preferences" at the top of the screen, and you will then find the option to amend your choice of "skin" which is the page colour etc... Oh and please do not use caps lock as it has the effect of shouting! gazhiley.co.uk13:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Jonathan Franzen's novel Freedom (p.347 of my Farrar Straus Giroux copy) there is a reference to a "massive Eisenhower-era utility building that marred the architectural vistas of almost every Tribecan loft-dweller". Which building is being referred to here? TriBeCa is no help. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz09:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some searching using Google Maps and cannot find a massive utility building in Tribeca that dates to the Eisenhower era. The only massive utility buildings in the area are 33 Thomas Street, which was completed in 1974, during either the Nixon or Ford presidency, and 32 Avenue of the Americas, completed in 1932 during the Hoover presidency. Marco polo (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"big shoe bazaar" - question original posed as article
Hi all,
Question asked by Quuuu2 was originally created as article Bigshoebazaar.
Is there any page with the name or content under the tag of big shoe bazaar or what was its content? Can you please sort out this query? I would be extremely glad to know about the details of the page filed under the name of big shoe bazaar.
If you click on the red link above, you will see the notice stating that the article was deleted because it was "blatant advertising ... with no meaningful, substantive content".--Shantavira|feed me13:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "rights" are you referring to? Can you give some representative examples of the sorts of "rights" we should be thinking of, and even their corresponding "obligations"? I think we should have a more finely-honed question so that our responses can be more targeted. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in practice, if that is all you are looking at, there was some truth for that. Arguably the position of many slaves (whether in the American South, or the emancipated serfs in Russia) was far worse after they had been liberated than it had been before. But that calculus clearly does not take into account the fuller ramifications of slavery, of human needs. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For some odd reason, the slaveowners apparently never actually asked the slaves that question, opting instead to "speak for them". Once slavery was ended, most of them split, and that was as good an implied answer as any. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, actually, when slavery ended, most of them became share croppers, which had arguably worse conditions than under slavery. I'm not apologizing for slavery. But I think it's important to emphasize that things got worse for many before they got better. And they didn't get close to parity with the white population until well over a century later. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what obligations you have in mind. I think if you made it clear what those obligations were, you'd see how "happy" you should or should not be. Do you think that the Soviet people were pleased by lacking the obligation of voting once every few years? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases not having the rights of citizenship in a country can allow one to avoid the obligation of military conscription—so in that case I think a lot of people would be real happy. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conscription is not everything: if you are a US-citizen, you get taxed on your worldwide income, no matter where you are (exemptions apply, for avoiding double taxation, for example). That's a right that I don't want to have. Quest09 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your European taxes level includes health care (in Spain, UK and France, at least) and discounted college fees, sometimes even free. Quest09 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every single time this comes up, an American (usually Bugs) feels the need to 'explain' this to people who live in a country where precisely how it is funded, and what is covered, is mentioned at every election, and in much of the political discourse in between. Do you think the electorate of these countries are so stupid they do not know how taxation works? And given you are replying to a message that explains the tax includes the price of healthcare, what are you even trying to prove? That you don't understand? Anyway, look at this 'huge' difference in tax rates between the UK and the US, then remember the UK citizens paying that tax don't have to pay health insurance or hospital bills, and if they received higher education they are paying off much lower loans. Which is the point Quest was making: you're not usually going to be worse off, financially. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Bugs, you're going to judge an IP's longevity based on the record first post? That's a fairly big logical error. Even named accounts can have different origin dates. I have been here for a very, very long time, myself, much longer than this account lets on. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's been here since 2003, and it's pretty obvious from my comment that I've been around longer than this IP address: I'd expect most people to be able to put that together, but then I'd also expect most people to realise that the word 'free' does not usually mean 'nobody paid for it at any point', and that Quest was even specifically referring to cases where some people actually do receive something that is free for them. After all, I paid no tax in order to get free eye tests and glasses in my childhood. I 'buy one, get one free' without assuming the supermarket magicked the 'free' product into existence without anyone paying anything. And I edit a 'free' encyclopedia that requires huge amounts of donated money to run. 'Free' does not only have the single, narrow meaning you imply, and it is frankly insulting to 'explain' that things paid for from the public purse require money from the public purse, every time someone mentions that the taxes of many countries include the price of healthcare for all citizens. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that anything exists outside my personal experience at this precise moment: I'm surprised you see evidence I'm anything other than a fleeting thought in your dreaming mind. Once we reject that mode of thought, we have to accept less rigorous proof. And at some point, you have to decide: is everyone else using a word wrong, or does the word have a different meaning to what you thought? You are using the word 'free' to mean something different to the meaning people have explained it means in this sentence, and then are insisting that they are wrong because the sentence isn't true if the word means this different thing. If "nothing is free" following the meaning you are using, and people are explaining how many things are free, perhaps the solution is not to assume they are all too stupid to realise this, but perhaps to assume your meaning of the word is not the relevant one. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, the typical IP attitude, feeling free to take personal attack shots at others without having to account for it. And you wonder why I have such rock-bottom regard for IP's. However, in the case of "free" goods and services, "free", as in "free of charge" means "not having to pay money for it". How are you not having to pay money for it? Or have you figured out a tax dodge so that you can stick everyone else with paying for it? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, feel free to point out where I have made a 'personal attack shot', since that is a policy violation and I take Wikipedia policy seriously. I do not wonder why you have such rock-bottom regard for IP's: life is too short, and it is not relevant. "After all, I paid no tax in order to get free eye tests and glasses in my childhood". I pay taxes so that the health service and schools and fire brigade and police and functioning roads are available for everyone: using them is free for me, and for anyone else who needs to use them, regardless of how much or little they have paid into the system. I pay the same amount in tax, whether or not I use them. Using them is free for me, and was before I had paid any tax at all. What costs money is providing the system, and I pay for that. Reading Wikipedia is free for me, although money has to be paid by someone at some point for it to be available. As explained, this is the usual meaning of the word 'free' in this context, and is the meaning people have in mind when they say "we have free healthcare". It is "free at the point of use", although obviously it has to be paid for by society as a whole. When someone explains that the taxes paid include the cost of healthcare, which is free, they clearly are not using the word 'free' in the way you have defined it, and responding to them with 'nothing is free' is not especially productive. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so "brain in a vat" was supposed to be a compliment, then? OK, you can continue to delude yourself as to what "free" is, that's up to you. And I will continue to point out that delusion when it arises. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under 86's logic, it would appear that any insurance payouts are free money, regardless of how much their premiums cost them. If you want to consider that free, I guess no one can stop you, but I won't buy into that delusion. Googlemeister (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paying insurance premiums is not a purchase of payouts. It is purchasing freedom from possible loss(es) that may also give freedom from worry and FUD. I hope Googlemeister doesn't find that the insurance he buys turns out to be an illusion. State healthcare is a form of insurance. Quest09, Warofdreams and IP user 86.164.25.178 have all used "free" in a comprehensible way. It is a pity that Baseball Bugs expresses his persuasion that state involvement is undesireable in bombastic terms that do not advance any cogent analysis of the subject. User 86.164.25.178 is no less worthy of regard than Baseball Bugs, is wrongly accused by the latter of personal attack where they made none, and gives a reasoned account for what they are saying. However it is as unhelpful to categorise what Americans do "every single time" as to categorise negatively our IP-using contributors. I don't where "brain in a vat" arose but it is a notable philosophical concept that can be traced back to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm personally very happy I don't have the right to randomly shoot strangers in the street, that is, rather, that I'm happy other people don't have that right. After all, we could have a society where people were free to do what they like - anarchy (of either sort) - and that isn't so hard to believe as a possible. - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]17:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate my point, you have to outline the real "obligations" first to know if they are worth the trade-off. Example: I am obligated, every so often, to show up for jury duty. That is perhaps kind of a hassle (though honestly I have never gotten to the stage where I've even had to show up to the courthouse, much less been drafted into a jury, personally), but if you compare not having to do that with the costs of having a jury-less legal system, it seems like a pretty minor sacrifice. Another example: I am (in the US) obligated to register with the Selective Service and potentially be drafted. That might be somewhat scary, to be sure, but this is actually a pretty compromising position, if I don't want compulsory military service (which is common in societies with less "rights", as well as a number of liberal democracies as well) or don't want my nation to be totally undefended should it get into a big war (which would have high costs for me as well). That's a more questionable compromise, though I'm not sure a society with "less rights" would be a better alternative there (one could argue that a nation should have an entirely volunteer army, which is essentially what the US has in effect, and that seems to be working more or less well in terms of security). Another example: I have to pay sales and income tax. Question: Would a society with less rights have more or less taxes? Technically speaking I can affect how much I am taxed, though in principle that can be complicated and difficult. That is actually a tremendous "right" in the American system. Going to a system with less rights would probably result in me having no control over that process, and would probably still result in taxation (which seems inevitable anyway). Another example: I have the obligation of voting once every few years. Does that "burden" (election cycles, endless advertisements and articles, the actual work of voting) balance out against the "convenience" of having no control over my government? It looks like an absurd formulation when you put it that way. I think one cannot talk about the abstract principles here without actual concrete examples, and I think most examples lean on the side that the "burdens" are relatively light compared to the "benefits" of being without rights. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of what Will Rogers said about that grand and glorious experiment in freedom called the Soviet Union. When someone griped about the American income tax, Rogers retorted, "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
\Here's a concrete example: I am delighted that my own goverment denies me the right to keep a gun in my home. I have no wish for my daughter to find it and accidentally kill herself or her sister with it, or for a burglar to take it off me and kill me with it if I attempt to use it to defend us. I have no desire to kill anyone. I happily forgo any responsibility for maintaining or licensing a gun, or keeping it locked securely away, in exchange for a law that says ordinary citizens don't need them and will be punished for owning them. As recompense for the "tyranny" of the state preventing me from keeping a gun in my house, I expect said state to use my taxes to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to get hold of illegal guns, and to lock up anyone caught with one for a long, long time. Society balances individual rights against the general good, and one man's indispensable right may be his neighbour's unwanted responsibility. If the pendulum swings too far one way, you have anarchy; too far the other way and you have totalitarianism. Everything else is a compromise of sorts. Karenjc23:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and I'm happy that the same government as Karenjc's (I think) allows me the right to keep a (licensed) gun in my home, and that it imposes some very onerous restrictions on where I keep it and how I use it, and makes it difficult to obtain a licence. I agree that these balances are all compromises, and I think the governments on both sides of the pond get things roughly correct in balancing freedoms against responsibilities for their respective populations. We do have the power to change things if most of us think that they are getting it wrong. Dbfirs08:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're on opinion, I don't think it's about right. I'm for much more individual liberty and much less emphasis on social order. I further claim that whether most of us think it's about right is not the point. --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you do have more liberty in your country, and some other countries have less, but at least we can change the situation if most of us want to do so. I'm with you in supporting individual liberty, and I often wish there was less regulation here, but I'm willing to compromise if the majority want to keep the legislation. Dbfirs09:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I could live happily in your Utopia, and I'd be delighted with just nineteen laws, but what happens when others have a different interpretation of how "natural law" should work when our freedoms clash? In a large society, who acts as "Arbitrator"? Dbfirs09:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, who decides which laws are "natural"? One of the reasons people generally prefer democratic deliberation over appeals to natural law is that one guy's natural law is another guy's arbitrary theocracy. (Whether you appeal to Nature or to the Good Book or whatever, it is still an appeal to authority parsed through human interpretation.) I find natural law to be a pretty ridiculous thing to base one's convictions on; even the Declaration of Independence is rather ridiculous if you read it as actually trying to describe how natural law would work (is it really "self-evident" that all men are created equal? I admit it is not self-evident to me in the least!). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that I don't have the right to buy a gun, as it means that I and my children relatives and friends are unlikely to be shot by a nutter or criminal, or by accident. I understand the clip of the grandmother who attacked people trying to rob a jeweller's has been shown in the US - you can see that nobody is worried about getting shot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he52NKjhqx8 Wordsworth wrote a poem relating to the OPs question: Nuns Fret Not at Their Convent's Narrow Room. http://www.bartleby.com/101/533.html Most people are content to live by the rules of society, in return for what it brings, rather than having the right to do whatever you like in an anarchic wilderness. 92.24.182.65 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would a bullet with spiral grooves on the outside fired from a smoothbore gun spin as a smooth bullet fired from a rifled gun does? If so, why is this mechanism unused? If not, why not? 128.223.222.23 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bullets are made from soft(ish) material. Bullets swage when fired - you need to form a good seal between bullet and barrel so the expanding gasses push the bullet instead of rushing past it. So, this does not sound like it would work very well. Whereas rifled barrels do work quite well. Friday(talk)17:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rifling inside a bore not only imparts spin, but the bore itself imparts straightness to the trajectory, at the same time that it is imparting spin. I would think that grooves added to the outside of a bullet would be much less tolerant of imperfection, as any such imperfections would be magnified over the course of the long flight of the projectile. Imperfections that might be found in the rifling inside the bore are negated by the control exerted by the straightness of the bore. Once the projectile leaves the bore, all but the slightest imperfections I think would be likely to introduce perturbations that would be magnified in the course of a long flight. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some shotgun slugs have inclined protrusions around the outside, but they provide no spin; instead they reduce friction inside the barrel and allow the slug to pass through the choke. The gas seal is provided by wadding. anonymous649419:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On May 22, 2010, Cote de Pablo was at Acqualina Resort & Spa in Sunny Isles Beach, FL.[2] You can send a letter to the spa and ask them to forward it (although the agent approach might be better). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're mainly decorative, but you may wish to replace it if you intend to sell the car at some point in the future. Buyers may subconsciously view a missing or non-matching hubcap as a sign of neglect, in the same way that they'd subconsciously regard an unwashed floor in an otherwise pristine house for sale. --NellieBly (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hubcaps serve as a cheap means of imitating the styling of magnesium or aluminum alloy wheels, display the car marque and prevent dust entering the wheel bearing. Special hubcap designs modify airflow or are non-rotating for diaplaying advertisements. A wheel cover can also refer to an overall cover on an external rear-mounted spare tire on some off-road vehicles. EDITABLElink— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddlyable3 (talk • contribs)
Girly OR here, but on the occasions I've changed a car tyre, my hands have been much cleaner when the wheels have had hubcaps on! Guess it keeps the wheelnuts clean. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back when I owned a car, the most useful function of the hubcap was to hold the lug nuts while you're changing tires. Sure beats watching them roll down the sewer opening! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
