Miscellaneous desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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.

January 11

Weight gain as a result of Calories intake

I am confused how the weight is gained on intake of calories. Do the calories taken in creat fat or how is the calories causing increase of weight, because weight is only due to fat adn/or muscles. Please correct me if I am asking a stupid question. Typical question is about drinks. How is water based (alcohol) causing weight increase please. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.40.37 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, anything you consume increase your weight, including drinking water. But, in the case of water, you quickly pee it out, so it's not permanent. Calories, on the other hand, can put on permanent weight, if you consume more than you burn, as they are converted into fat and stored in your body. Alcohol does contain calories itself, and is also commonly mixed with sugar in some form (like fruit juices), which then adds more calories. StuRat (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Food calories are a heuristic method of tracking your diet. What a calorie is is a measure of energy. Your body works with energy by storing it in the bonds of various molecules. It is actually quite a complex set of molecules, everything from ATP to glucose to glycogen to fat is used by the body to "store" and transport energy for various purposes. What your body does when you eat food is break the food down and use the energy released by the breakdown of this food to create these various molecules. The most direct form of energy is known as blood glucose, that is the molecule used to transport energy from place to place in your blood. Things like your muscles and brain absorb this glucose and break it down to use for energy. Your body has means of monitoring blood glucose; if your blood glucose remains elevated for long periods of time, it activates processes in your body which will put it into a form of long-term storage, first as glycogen and, after long enough, as fat. If you are constantly consuming more food energy (as commonly measured in "calories") than your body uses, it ends up in consistantly high blood glucose levels, which in turn results in making yourself fatter and other problems like Type II diabetes. I hope that all makes sense, its the simplest way I can present it. Regarding the alcohol & water issue: The deal with drinks is that it isn't the water that provides food calories, it is the stuff floating in the water, i.e. the alcohol, juices, and other stuff, that does. --Jayron32 01:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very silly question unlikely to be answered

Does the seat 19A on a Boeing 777 (Air Canada) has a power outlet? Thanks! Answers are useless after 9 PM UTC on the 11th. :P [CharlieEchoTango] 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A google search on keywords like "boeing 777" and "air canada" and "power" (or something like that, I forget exactly what I typed) soon led me to seatguru.com, which says that both the 777-200 and the 777-300 on Air Canada have power at that seat. The site also states that on the 777-300 (but not the 777-200), 19A is an inferior seat because it has no window. I have no idea how reliable the information is. --Anonymous, 07:30 UTC, 1/11/11 (or 11/1/11, or...).

Wow, you definitely rock, Anonymous! I don't care 'bout the window, it's all about the power! Thanks a thousand times! [CharlieEchoTango] 08:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not believe there's information like THIS online. I am actually awed, and a little freaked out. And prefer seats with windows to seats with power outlets ;) cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be wise to ask the stew about usage of the power outlet, although I suppose you could try and see if they yell at you for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Why? APL (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it might not be intended for passenger use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have ... you been on an airplane recently? We're not talking about running an extension cord across the aisle to the flight-attendant's station. We're talking about the power outlets they put right on the arms of your seats to plug your laptop into. APL (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez... now can you tell me which flights have the most attractive flight attendants? --Ludwigs2 17:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American. They do what they do best. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Singapore Airlines has a good reputation in this regard. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

according to the TV adverts in the UK the flight attendants on Virgin Airways cause people to stop and stare in silence at their beauty, and spill coffee over themselves, and consider giving up high powered jobs just to work with them etc... gazhiley.co.uk 11:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Assuming the stews are all virgins at departure, are they still all virgins at arrival? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can't say I've heard of a service offered by them that would change that status... It's not in the brochure anyways... ;-) gazhiley.co.uk 13:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Singapore Airlines wins out of the airlines I've travelled with. (Although my main reason for liking the airline is that they have the best selection of movies, etc., on demand in the back of every seat in economy.) --Tango (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the accent is so annoying!! 86.4.183.90 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

That's one of the most impressive answers I've seen here. The internet is an amazing thing! --Tango (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An uplifting question

Our article on the Otis Elevator Company claims at the very start of the article, "The Otis Elevator Company is the world's largest manufacturer of vertical transportation systems today, principally elevators and escalators." What other types of vertical transportation are being implied here? As far as carrying people, elevators and escalators are all I can think of. Is it poorly written or is it just me? Dismas|^(talk) 11:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, own website states "Otis Elevator Company is the world’s leading manufacturer, installer and maintainer of elevators, escalators and moving walkways—a constant, reliable name for more than 150 years.", so it sounds like the article is a clumsy paraphrase. I've added the word "focusing" to imply that it's what the company focuses on, rather than the type of vertical transportWorm 11:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh an as to your question, elevators do come in many shapes and sized, for example the Paternoster is not what people think of as a traditional elevator... Worm 11:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slides and stairs also seem to be "vertical transportation systems". See my old alma mater. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have Category:Vertical transport devices which is a lot broader than elevators/escalators. I'm not sure the article means to imply such a range though. the wub "?!" 12:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They also maintain funiculars - I don't know if any new ones are being built.71.7.141.10 (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel's Flight was razed in 1969 (I rode it in 1968) - and a new one was built in 1996 (using the original cars but not really anything else, and completely different in operation), so I think that qualifies as building a funicular? Collect (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are various other general and specialist types of (usually industrial) goods/materials lifting devices, such as fixed and portable hoists, that could arguably come under the description of "vertical transportation systems." Devices such as cranes and fork-lift trucks, which also come under the legal category of 'Lifting Tackle' for UK certification purposes, may be more of a stretch. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Archimedes' screw, ladder, fireman's pole, and Space Shuttle are all vertical transportation systems. --M @r ē ino 15:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you can buy a Space Shuttle from Otis Elevator. APL (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that depends on the price you offer. But I grant that it's not a COTS item for them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to lift a person from the Earth to space slowly so they experience insignificant g-force? If not, why not? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's just enormously expensive in terms of fuel. If it's practical with current and near-future technology is an interesting question. But notice that the shuttle already reduces g-forces to at most 3g, down from 4g for the Saturn V Apollo missions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but hopefully soon: space elevator. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Otis are working on it!85.211.160.26 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sending a customer complaint to the top

If I wanted to send a vitriolic letter to the president of Sovereign Bank, would it go to the address listed at this page? Dismas|^(talk) 11:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak from my experience in the UK, but on the one occassion when I felt sufficiently upset to do so, I found out the home addresses of the directors of the company from Companies House, which cost a few pounds, and addressed my letters to their home addresses, and got the result I wanted. You may be able to do something analogous in the US. 92.24.181.78 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I handled consumer complaints for a blue chip company there was no way that a letter would get to the top person without passing through several layers of management. Write, as advised above, to the home address if you can find it.Froggie34 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitriolic letters are a total waste of time. Letters are like Wikipedia articles -- to get attention and respect, they should be neutrally worded, clearly written, and based on verifiable facts. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} You're stating that as if it were a known and measured fact, when I am sure it is only your own opinion. I see no reason to believe a priori that a neutrally worded letter is going to have more influence than a vitriolic one on individuals or organizations. Human beings are not encyclopedias. An idealized, "polite" model of human psychology is a nice ideal for civil discourse but is no necessarily the most accurate or influential. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, have you tried visiting or phoning the bank and politely explaining your problem? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's the result of substantial experience. Anger can be effective, but mainly in two circumstances: (1) if it is associated with an actual ability to do some sort of harm to the subject of it; (2) if it is displayed in public where it may be embarrassing to the subject of it. An angry letter to a corporate leader you don't know is unlikely to meet either of those criteria. Looie496 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to delve into your personal business, do you have a good idea of what you're hoping to accomplish with your letter? I mean, are you trying to get a problem solved, or is this just a burn-all-the-bridges will-never-have-to-deal-with-this-company-again crank-up-the-middle-finger catharsis? (And in the latter case, are you sure you'll never have to deal with them through your place of business, even if you change employers, experience a merger, recruit a large client, etc.?)

A few years ago, I ran across a helpful column titled The Art of Turboing. In this context, 'turboing' is the process of interacting directly with senior company officials after the regular customer support systems have failed. I believe it offers some constructive guidance on when and how to employ this strategy, as well as important pointers on how to avoid pitfalls (...like getting too angry, too early, with the wrong people). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is to make them aware of problems within their bank which have not been satisfactorily handled by escalating phone calls to managers of their customer service people. Dismas|^(talk) 22:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable way of expressing it in writing, and more likely to get a constructive response than using vitriol. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old adage that letters containing good news should say the good news up front, while letters containing bad news should soft-pedal it and start with something positive. A general example could be, "I have been a member of your bank for X years, and have always received the highest quality service, which makes a recent problem all the more discouraging." The message basically is, "I like you very much, but..." A letter that starts out "I hate you" is likely to find its way to a circular file or be answered by a form-letter that begins "Dear valued customer..." and contains no useful information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to start out with something positive when there isn't anything positive to say. I mean, I guess I could start out with "Hey! I've noticed your bank has managed to go a couple months without screwing up my mortgage again..." But on to less snarky comments, how would I go about finding the home addresses of the officers of a (inter?)national bank such as this one? Dismas|^(talk) 13:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If every experience with a bank from day one has been negative, probably best to forget about writing letters, and just close the account and open an account at a different bank. Then you could write a letter telling them why you left their bank. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, if it were that simple, I would. But, as I said, it's a mortgage and not that easy to transfer. I've tried to get a re-fi elsewhere already and have been turned down for one reason or another. Dismas|^(talk) 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been bad service from day one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. About once a year, they screw up the payments that we send in and then send us letters saying that we haven't paid. At the start of it all, while trying to set up a login on their web site to see our mortgage online, I called cust. service. I first called the mortgage dept who told me that the web site was handled by the personal banking dept. Personal banking sent me back to mortgages. At that point, I asked for a manager and finally got someone who could help. I was, in their own words, "caught in the 'Sovereign Loop'"! It happens so often that the manager had a term for it! And to log in to my account for my mortgage in Vermont, I had to tell the system that I was in Pennsylvania! Dismas|^(talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences, Dismas. Sadly, I doubt that the senior management of the bank will care about a letter from an individual. In my experience, most senior managers are cynical people looking out for number one. They may be perfectly happy with the way things work as long as the profit-and-loss statement reflects well on them. They probably could care less about a captive client like you. The only way to get their attention would be to do something that threatens their complacency. You might start out with a polite letter to the CEO so that you can document that you tried to be nice. Then you could escalate by saying vaguely that you may have to consider seeking satisfaction in a more public venue if they are not responsive. The next step might be to draft a plan to set up an organization with a website that posts your experiences (and invites others to submit their experiences) and use the website to urge people seeking mortgages to avoid Sovereign Bank. Send your draft to the bank management and say that you hope you don't have to carry through on this plan and that you will be happy to put it aside if they give you satisfaction. If this still doesn't work, you could follow through on the plan. Your organization could send press releases to media that still do investigative journalism (maybe Consumer Reports?) The organization might collect small donations to consult with a lawyer and see if there is a basis for a class-action lawsuit seeking damages for their harassment or the emotional distress that they have caused. At some point, the cost of giving you satisfaction will be lower than the cost of letting you proceed with your plans. However, going through these steps would be a lot of work on your part. Marco polo (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to get action with a company, contact the CEO, who is the most likely one to order someone to fix a problem, as he is the most visible face (if there is one) of the company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electric hand drill keyed chucks - opening and closing?

Do they all turn the same way to open, and the opposite to close? What direction do old Black and Decker hand drills turn to open? I have one jammed fully open and I don't know which direction to turn it. Thanks 92.24.181.78 (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is that on my trusty B&D the chuck (and key) turns anticlockwise to open when looked at from the business end. I imagine they are all the same.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have worked out which direction they go from the twist of the drill-bits, which is I believe the same for all drill-bits. When holding the drill up in front of you, as if to drill into a wall, the nearest part of the chuck turns clockwise to open. Thanks 92.24.181.78 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are obviously designed with right-handers in mind, just as screws and nuts-and-bolts and so on turn clockwise to tighten and counter-clockwise to loosen. In general, tools in which handedness matters are typically designed for right-handers. Can openers come to mind also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interesting to find a ref about the origin of "lefty-loosy-righty-tighty" as the standard, to add to Screw thread#Handedness. DMacks (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is implied by the direction of twist in the drill-bit, which determines which way the drill needs to rotate. The chuck is designed to avoid loosening when the drill is in use. 92.24.181.78 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And it's still driven by an expectation of right-handedness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The drill in question can have the handle bolted to the left or right side as the user wishes, so not any expectation there. 92.24.181.78 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Handedness article states that 70-90 percent of the world is righthanded, and even if it's hard to find a source (the screw was invented hundreds of years ago), it obviously makes sense to create tools and machines primarily for right-handers. Look at most any machine created in the last couple of centuries, in which handedness is a factor, and you'll see that it assumes right-handed operation. The old phonographs and telephones are good examples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is the Automobile pedal, which favors right-handers (or right-footers) regardless of which side of the road you drive on. That's because the gas pedal requires a fairly finely-tuned touch, whereas the clutch pedal only requires that you stomp on it. This all must be a nuisance for lefties, but that's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that a particular 'handedness' applies equally to all parts and motor functions of the body, which I do not think is the case. For example (ObPersonal), I am, and always have been, conventionally right-handed (no enforced switching of the writing hand as a child, for example), but equally have always been markedly left footed in terms of both force and fine control, something I displayed from the moment I could kick a soccer ball. I also disagree that "the clutch pedal only requires that you stomp on it": clutch control, including smooth (manual) gear changing, finding the point of bite preparatory to moving off, holding the vehicle stationary on an upgrade by slipping the clutch* after releasing the handbrake (all things that are or used to be part of the UK driving test) require a delicate (left-footed) touch.

(*I disagree with the linked article's second description of this manoeuvre - no "back and forward" movement need or should be present.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that "stomp on it" was a bit of an oversimplification. But the fact remains that the pedals are set up with a dominant right-footer in mind, and that for a left-footer or a "mixed" they would likely be less convenient to use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may simply an example of where the individuals' mileages differ, but I don't think most people's 'footedness' is so marked that the sidedness of the pedals makes a significant difference - if the accelerator and clutch pedals had been established the other way around from what was probably a random initial design (by Karl Benz?), I bet everybody would find them just as easy. As an upper-limb comparison, consider that most people play a guitar "right-handed", but the left hand has some fairly precise work to do. Anyway, mustn't hijack the thread further :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're onto it. The large majority of persons are right-handed and right-footed. But there is a significant minority of other combinations. However, manufacturers build things with "unit cost" in mind, so they would tend to favor the large majority in their designs. I imagine you might be able to get a custom-made left-hand version of a car, which would be way much more expensive than the the conventional, mass-produced right-hand version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [drills for left handers] and it came up with some interesting sites that sell tools for lefties. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The drill I've got is 'ambidextrous' and can have the second handle bolted to either side. I don't think there is any problem or need. 92.24.181.78 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is it fixed now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't so busy replying, you might note that the OP said he figured it out half an hour after posting his initial question. Is there a text version for the phrase "He enjoys the sound of his own voice"? :) Six replies - none of which were aimed at helping the OP... Matt Deres (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! 86.4.183.90 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considerate comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the people in this video and why are they doing these things

I'm unsure if this question is allowed on the Reference Desk, but I have read the rules at the top and I can't see anything specifically prohibiting it. So firstly a warning; this link is extremely non-safe for work. I cannot stress that enough; I actually threw up watching it. What I would like to know is - who are the people in the video? Why are they doing those things; were they paid to do it, forced to do it, or just doing it for some weird self-pleasure reason? I can't comprehend why anyone would do anything in that video voluntarily. If there are there any Wikipedia articles, news articles, etc about this I would appreciate very much links to them so I can read. Thanks 85.201.138.229 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at your link (and I don't think I want to), but it sound like a shock site, of which there are quite a number. In addition to that article, a few more are listed at Category:Shock sites. Wikipedia used to list a bunch more, but it seems we decided we didn't want to be a directory for this stuff (a longer list, before the trimming, is here). For the most part, it seems that who the participants are, and why they would do these things, aren't publicly known. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually seen that one before (or at least the first bit of it). For people afraid to click the link, it's a video featuring some rather extreme forms of masochism and self-performed genital mutilation, including penile subincision, genital bisection, and more. As far as I can tell, most are amateurs, who do it for reasons of their own, but they're likely not paid performers or being forced to do this. Extreme forms of body modification are definitely a topic in psychology; the OP might wish to see articles such as Skoptic syndrome and genital piercing (and the other links above). Matt Deres (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The video is a compilation of scenes of self-mutilation, mostly genital, by unidentified adult light-skinned males. I think it possible that some of the mutilations are done to corpses. @Finlay McWalter, we should answer questions by looking at the evidence instead of guessing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland floods

I live in Sweden and Swedish media claim that 75% of Queensland is under water right now. Obviously not true. Can someone please find a map where I can see where the water is, so that I can tell them how wrong they are? Maybe someone in Australia can help me. Thank you! Calle Widmann (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on the floods says that 75% of Queensland has been declared a disaster zone, I don't think that is the same thing but I'm unsure. 91.85.135.156 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same thing. Calle Widmann (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be as directly graphic as you like, but it's probably the most authoritative and accurate - here, from the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, and click on "river conditions". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more graphic, up-to-date report, with maps. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Calle Widmann (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, natural disasters are no respecters of political boundaries. Queensland has been getting most of the media attention, but the floods are also severely affecting parts of northern New South Wales, particularly around Grafton, Tenterfield and Bellingen. [1] [2] -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that, especially because the Brisbane area is in southern Queensland. They never mention NSW. Rimush (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish National Radio (Sveriges Radio) admits its information was wrong. It is very hard for me to believe that 50% of Queensland is under water. I understand that 75% is affected, but can really 50% be under water? Calle Widmann (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual media hyperbole. It's bad enough as it is without making it apocalyptic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 50% of the densely populated areas? hmmm, actually even that seem very very unlikely. Or could "under water" mean that it is raining there?--Lgriot (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Brisbane has about 50% of Queenslanders and is currently flooding. Perhaps that is their justification. Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the floods can't coincide with the infamous bush fires. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in time but certainly in place. Now it's Victoria's turn. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Company Owning another company

Hi, I am curious about this question, as I was asked by a friend and I had no idea about the answer! Do you know if a Limited Company (LTD) can own another Limited Company in the UK? If not, how does a company have branches below it? For example, could garage A ltd own tyre manufacturer ltd, or how would they have to go about it?

The LTDs I am talking about would have 1,2 or at most 3 owners.

Thanks for your help, Jacques 95.150.87.118 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Corporation#Ownership and control. There are various kinds of company and various kinds of ownership, but typically a company is owned by its shareholders, any or all of which might individuals, trusts or other companies. If company A owns all the shares of company B, B is called a wholly owned subsidiary. If a company has branches, they may or may not be separate companies. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, a company with limited liability simply means any creditors can only sue it for its own assets, rather than the assets of its shareholders. There is nothing in this that impedes one such company owning another such company. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An exception (a narrow one) is that in some countries, a few specific types of companies may be barred from owning certain other types of companies. In the United States, for example, the Sherman Act anti-monopoly law allows the government some latitude in this — the big movie studios were divested of their movie theater holdings in an order that was upheld in the Supreme Court case United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948); and the behemoth Bell System was broken up in the Bell System divestiture, and the AT&T long distance component wasn't allowed to own the local telephone monopolies for a while. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the former AT&T was later bought by one of its own daughter companies. The modern AT&T is actually a rebranded Southwestern Bell Corporation, one of the original 7 Baby Bells. --Jayron32 05:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]