Miscellaneous desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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.

June 17

Cold beer

Is there any legislation that either forces or prohibits certain beer stores from keeping their beer refridgerated? I was having a conversation about this with some coworkers and some suggested that local authorities force certain types of licensed stores to sell or even stock only cold beer as a means to artificially limit the amount of alcohol at the establishment. Another guy suggested something to the opposite effect, that certain types of licensed liquor stores are not allowed to refidgerate their product, in order to reduce the ammount of beer purchased and consumed in public in the surrounding area and the associated social problems. I'm just wondering, does anyone have any concrete examples of either of these, or any other laws requiring, prohibiting, or limiting the refridgeration of alcohol sold at private beer stores anywhere? Roberto75780 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford, Mississippi (home of Ole Miss) cannot sell cold beer. Part of the weird Blue laws in this state. In a nearby community, Water Valley, believe it or not, you can buy or sell liquor, but it's illegal to sell or possess beer there. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each state's alcohol laws are unique. Dry state and Dry county have some possibly useful information. One of the odder oddities is that the famous Jack Daniel's is manufactured in a dry county. They're allowed to make it there in Lynchburg, Tennessee, but cannot sell it there, with some exceptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always liked the fact that gas stations sold cold beer, even though the person who is supposed to be using the gas station should not be drinking. Googlemeister (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must love seeing drive-thru windows at beer selling gas stations. Dismas|^(talk) 20:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time, one will encounter automobiles that can comfortably accommodate more than one passenger. In many places, you may also be shocked to discover that individuals are capable of buying groceries and not consuming all of them before they return to their homes.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, open liquor in cars is illegal, no matter who's opening it. However, they might be about to drive someplace close enough to where the beer will still be cold when they get there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of laws forcing stores to sell only cold beer. However, I have heard of laws banning the sale of cold beer in stores to discourage people from buying beer for immediate consumption. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think beer being cold would limit consumption. However, some mixed drinks are blended with crushed ice, and that does limit the rate at which you can consume it, since you'd get brain freeze if you tried to slam it. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

caffeine fatality

Are there any reported cases of caffeine fatality from someone drinking a massive amount of coffee, rather than from ingesting caffeine pills? --CGPGrey (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but this site - Death by Caffeine - claims to be able to calculate how much would kill you for a range of coffees, soft drinks, energy drinks, etc. If we assume an average bodyweight of 170 lb / 77 kg it claims it would take 203 cups of instant coffee, 108 cups of brewed coffee, or 150 espressos. I'm not entirely sure of it's basis for the calculations, and no indication of the time frame is given (so presumably this is just "drunk as quickly as you can"). This page on the site says "No one has died (as far as we know) from drinking too many soft drinks. However people have died from overdosing on caffeine pills." Hopefully someone can find something more definite. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is even though caffeine may be a diuretic, water intoxication is going to kill you before caffeine does. This would definitely seem to be the case if you really have to drink 108 cups. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] suggests 100 cups is about correct but thats the estimated Median lethal dose in humans (I'm not sure how it was estimated). Obviously many people are going to die before consuming the LD50. It also has some discussion of water intoxication but that part isn't visible to me. It also mentions the case of child (age not mentioned) who died after consuming 5.5 grams of caffeine which it says is about the equivalent of 5 cups. Depending on age this sounds like it could happen even if still unlikely. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've read about people killing themselves by eating coffee grounds, but I can't find a link right now. APL (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three citizenships

I will put flagicons to make this easier. So I am currently a United States citizen . My girlfriend, who is a dual Israeli and Norwegian citizen was thinking I should get citizenship in the UK and we could move there along with her girlfriend who is a British citizen . I also want to get Israeli citizenship though at some point. Would it be possible for me to gain British citizenship , and then Israeli (through the law of return) and retain all three ()? If so, what problems could arise from having the three other than not being able to visit the majority of Muslim-majority nations (at least if I am using an Israeli passport)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will be able to retain your US Citizenship as well as your UK Citizenship while a citizen of Israel. Please see Multiple citizenship for any scruples you may have. Schyler (one language) 12:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria do you think you would qualify for UK citizenship? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this falls into the category of legal advice, which is not allowed i kan reed (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British nationality law lists several ways of obtaining UK citizenship: By birth (born in the UK), by descent (parents were UK citizens), by adoption (before 18, though, as the UK doesn't do adult adoptions), by registration (need to be a British national, e.g. from a British Overseas Territory), and by naturalisation. If you're not married to a UK citizen, the requirements for naturalisation are listed as including 5 years residence in the UK, an intent to remain in the UK, being "of good character", and passing exams on language competency and knowledge of UK life. It possible, but really isn't something to undertake on a whim. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked into emigration to the UK at one point some years back. If you are wealthy enough to support yourself from your investment income as a retired person of independent means (not my situation), I believe you can get a renewable resident visa that would let you live in the UK the 5 years needed to apply for citizenship. Otherwise, you will need a working visa, and those are harder to obtain for non-EU nationals without British parents or close relatives living in the UK. In essence, either you have to get a company based in the UK to sponsor you by making a case that they need your services for crucial business reasons, and that no British national could offer the same qualifications as you; or else, you need to offer some set of skills that the UK border agency has determined are in high demand (a demand not being met by British workers). See this page for more information. Marco polo (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those three countries prohibit multiple citizenship, so you should be fine. (Also, while you noted not to use your Israeli passport to enter some Muslim countries, you should also avoid using any countries' passport if it has an Israeli stamp in it. In the US, you can get a second passport that is valid for two years to visit those other countries.) ^Avic _ennasis @ 16:12, 15 Sivan 5771 / 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah neat, thanks. I checked out the multiple citizenship article before and wasn't 100% sure. =p For British citship, we are both going to be doctors, and I was thinking that made one Tier 2 or something and doctors are always in demand everywhere, right? Oh my, is it really legal advice? O_O I hadn't thought of that, sorry, I was thinking it was like a general q. I can destroy any exam, happily. Hmmm, if this is legal advice, maybe I'll ask an immigration lawyer in the UK (when I get the chance) if it is possible to have my gf as both my wife and her gf's same-sex partner (complex relationship) recognised. Very unorthodox, but it would be interesting. Yep, when I got my latest passport last year, I said, right after I entered Israel, "I just invalidated this passport in 15 different countries" (or something along those lines, I know the number is wrong). Thanks all.

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consult an actual lawyer before doing all this, though. From what I've read multiple citizenship can cause tax problems, and irritating paperwork hassles. If you're of draft age you'd really want to check with a lawyer before becoming a citizen of Israel. APL (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep yep, I know. =p This is in the future though, after med school (so in about six years, maybe seven). I'm 21, so I would have been in the military if I had the citship now. I plan on serving in the IDF as a doctor anyway so the military service isn't of concern. Taxes are a concern though, so I'd have to find a specialist for that. My mom and dad were cool with it, but they're ERISA and corporate lawyers respectively, so not much help. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had planned to mention something similar earlier but then noticed the OP was already a US citizen. I believe the US is the only area of concern because most other countries go by tax residence which depends on stuff like where you live (usually more than 183 days in year in one country means you're a tax resident there) and potentially other things if that doesn't resolve it like whether and where you have a home, where your family lives etc but usually with only limited consideration of citizenship (if any). Definitely that's the case for the UK [2] and Israel [3]. The US is one of the few countries which taxes their citizens regardless of where they live, although double taxation agreements and exemptions under US law may help. In other words, the primary issue of concern is likely to be where the OP resides not what citizenship they have and taking up the other citizenships are not going to significantly change that. I presume of course the OPs plans are likely independent of what citizenship they take up and the OP is not likely to renounce their US citizenship. I do agree that OP needs to seek professional advice, e.g. [4] (which mentions the person's cat) shows these things can be complicated even when not involving citizenship. Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

piped link?

I sometimes see "piped link" mentioned on various wikipedia pages, what are those? 69.154.180.133 (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the page hot munchkin insanity -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well cool Finlay! ;)) Richard Avery (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pipe" is a nickname for "vertical bar", which is what it really is. :| You can make the link look similar to what you're linking to, or not, depending on whether you want to parallel a pipe edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful for linking to articles where the name would look out of place in the text [[articlename:cat|texttodisplay:kitty]] result: kitty, as well as smart remarks on Talk pages. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains

Right. This's been bugging me for long enough to finally merit a proper answer, even though it sounds kinda dumb. Can ANYONE explain why mountains are colder? Especially when convection currents make HOT air rise UP, and cold air go down. Shouldn't plain land be colder in that case? And, aren't mountains physically "nearer" the sun? o_O 110.225.189.251 (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that the atmosphere is heated by the ground, not by the sun directly, because the atmosphere is transparent and doesn't absorb (much) solar radiation (in the infra-red and visible). Troposphere#Temperature goes into some mathematical detail. Tevildo (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at best, the top of mount everest would be something like 1/160,000th of a percent closer to the sun then sea level, so that impact would be negligible. Googlemeister (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But even then, the air heated by the ground will rise up, and the mountains should be getting droughts of hot air from below, right? 110.225.189.251 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Droughts of hot air? - not really. Maybe you're thinking of draughts (but not the board game). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot air rises, but it doesn't "stay hot". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, it expands since the pressure is lower. This expansion cools it. We have, of course, an article at (Adiabatic) Lapse rate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lower air pressure corresponds to "thinner" air, right? And obviously the air gets thinner as you ascend, especially about 20,000 feet or so, hence the need for oxygen bottles when climbing high mountains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP thinks that the air temperature must increase monotonically from the surface of the Earth all the way to the Sun, then think about aircraft flying at 10,000 ft. They'd be flying through super-hot air. And think about skydivers - they'd be jumping into super-hot air, getting fried in the process. But we all know this isn't so. The further you get above the Earth, the colder - not hotter - it gets, and iy only starts to get warmer when we get close to the Sun. By "close", I mean it would take an Earth spaceship travelling at supersonic speed many years to get there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not quite true. The temperature tends to rise and fall in different layers; in fact its the changes of temperature that generally define the layers. The temeperature falls as you move up though the troposphere and reaches a minimum at the tropopause and increases as you move up though the stratosphere; reaching a local maximum at the stratopause. When you get to the thermosphere temperatures can reach 2500K, yet if you were sitting uninsulated in the thermosphere, you would freeze to death. That's because the air is so sparse, you would cool off radiatively faster than the the 2500K air could heat you up; that is though the air molecules have 2500K worth of kinetic energy, there are so few of them that they don't transfer enough energy to you to keep you warm. This of course has nothing to do with the proximity to the sun, given that moving from the earth's surface to the thermosphere you pass through the equivalent of the skin on an apple; if the apple was in say New York and the sun was in Los Angeles. In other words, you have not moved significantly closer to the sun (and you'd only be close to the sun for 1/2 the day, for the other half you'd be the same distance but now farther from the sun; so on average through the course of the day, floating in the thermosphere, you'd be the same average distance from the sun.) Also, since the tallest mountains still lie within the troposphere, it is still colder at the top than at the bottom... --Jayron32 22:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nuances I omitted (because I was totally unaware of them). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Thermosphere.—Wavelength (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor to consider is that the sunlight which is delivered to the Earth also radiates back into space, as infrared, mainly. The tops of mountains, being closer to space, with less air between to absorb the heat, radiate that energy back out more efficiently. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprise no one mention orographic lifting (from the article: As the (hot) air mass gain altitude it quickly cools down adiabatically). When hot air rise up the gas expand due to lower pressure (the lower pressure is cause by 1) higher altitude and 2) removal of water vapor in the form of rain) and the temperature drop (see adiabatic cooling). Royor (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorologist jumping in here; the explanations offered above are partially right, but not entirely. This question is actually quite difficult to answer to a lay person, but I'll give it my best.

The notion that "warm air rises", while true in basic principle, is an immense over-simplification. In reality, whether or not a given blob of air will rise has to do with and the fact that the atmosphere must always be in a stable arrangement, with air density higher the closer you are to the ground, which is dependent on the vertical temperature profile, or lapse rate. As some have mentioned above, the reason air is warmer at the surface is because that is where solar heating occurs; light passes through the (mostly) transparent atmosphere on the way down, strikes the earth, and is partially absorbed, heating the ground or whatever surface it happens to strike. This heat is then transferred by conduction (and other, more complicated processes) to the lowest few meters of the air near the ground, and then turbulence will cause the warmer air to mix upwards. However, as a given blob of air rises, its pressure decreases, and, by the ideal gas law, its temperature will also decrease. This decrease is constant for Earth's atmosphere, and is approximately 9.8 °C (17.6 °F) per kilometer (0.62 miles); this is known as the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Due to the competing effects of warming at the surface and cooling as areas of air rise, the lapse rate in the atmosphere is typically around 4-6 degrees Celsius per kilometer (12-17 degrees Fahrenheit per mile), so on a typical day, if the temperature at the surface were 70 °F (21 °C) at the surface, it would be about 60 °F (16 °C) at the top of a nearby 1,000-metre (3,300 ft) tall mountain. However, this is highly changeable on a daily basis; meteorologists release weather balloons twice a day around the world to determine the temperature (among other things) throughout the atmosphere vertically, which allows the calculation of this lapse rate at different levels each day.

A blob of air will rise if it is less dense than the surrounding air. Left on its own, density will always decrease with increasing height, since gravity pulls harder on denser air; this is a stable arrangement, which is what you are hearing when TV meteorologists talk about the "stability" of the atmosphere on a given day. However, heating the air at the surface decreases its density, which in turn decreases the stability. If you heat the air at the surface enough, you can reach a critical point where the air at the surface is less dense than the air just above it, and convection will occur; air will rise at the surface and be replaced by relatively cooler air from surrounding areas. It turns out that if you heated the air to the point where the surface air was exactly as dense as the air above it, the lapse rate would be 9.8 °C (17.6 °F) per kilometer (0.62 miles); the same dry adiabatic lapse rate I mentioned before! This is the absolute limit to how quickly the air can cool with height in our atmosphere, since if this lapse rate is exceeded, convection will instantly begin, and the sun can not heat the surface fast enough to sustain this sort of dry convection. This also determines the rate at which a given blob of air which rises (sinks) will cool (warm), assuming that it happens fast enough that there is no conduction with the surrounding air. I hope this is a helpful and understandable explanation!-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]