Miscellaneous desk
< November 7	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 9 >

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.

November 8

Window?

In psychology, there is a term called 'someone's window' where it shows that there are four windows of your self, one that you know and no one else knows, one that you know and eveyone else know, one that you dont know but eceryone else knows, and one that you dont know and no one knows.what is that called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [psychology 4 windows], and it brought up the wikipedia article Johari window. It doesn't come out and say where the term came from, presumably because it's pretty obvious that it's from the names of its creators: Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urk. Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owning a gun in New York State

Are there legal methods for an alien working in the state of New York on a work-visa to legally own a rifle/shotgun? Acceptable (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page may be of some use. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives says No . . . but maybe. (For extra-terrestrial aliens, it would depend on their rights under treaty with the United Nations, probably.) Textorus (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank YOU Note

I don't have any Q. Thank you.

This is in regards to "Ode To Joy" English Lyrics/Hymnal I just want to let Mr. Jimmy Wales, thank you for posting Ode To Joy Hymnal version. I am learning how to play Cello to Worship and You Tube doesn't have the English Version but Mr. Wales was kind enough to POST this. Now I can keep on practising the same notes w/ Lyrics... I hope I can play this in one of the USO functions this Christmas Day for our Wounded Warriors.

Mr. Wales, May God Bless you and Keep you and your family. Shalom!

Ms. Memosa NC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.238.133 (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are written by thousands of volunteers, very rarely by Mr. Wales himself. But we're glad you found Wikipedia helpful, and I've copied this note to his talk page, where he will see it. Textorus (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, you mean Jimbo hasn't written all of the about 3.7 million articles on the English Wikipedia by himself? Now my whole image of Wikipedia is ruined! =) JIP | Talk 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His fame exceeds his abilities, I'm afraid. Textorus (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW are you referring to Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee? Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a Wikipedia version Jimbo, Jimbo We Adore Thee... Lemon martini (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Lemon. Textorus (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a passport for air travel between the Continental U.S. and Hawaii?

My understanding is that even though you'll fly over international waters, the flight is still domestic and you don't need a passport. Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.79.58 (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a passport in such circumstances. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you are a U.S. citizen, says the Customs office. Textorus (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are not a U.S. citizen, you will not be asked to show a passport on arrival after a flight between Hawaii and the U.S. mainland, because such a flight is a domestic flight. However, you do need official identification to board a plane for any flight. Airlines typically accept U.S. driver's licenses and state identification cards from U.S. residents as identification for boarding. However, you should check the airline's policy on identification if you are not a U.S. resident. It is possible that airlines accept only passports as identification for non-U.S. residents. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence certainly describes my experience as an Australian travelling within the US. It's not really a problem, as one would be daft to not be carrying one's passport just about all the time when in any foreign country. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly didn't carry mine all the time when I lived in Canada! But of course I was actually living there, had a Canadian driver license and everything. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested for drink driving when not driving

My questionis, can someone be arrested for drink driving when they are not in the drivers seat of the vehicle ie sitting in the passengers seat or even lying passed out in the back of the car & the vehicle is not moving ie the engine is off ? I ask because this happened to my friend who was asleep in the back of his car & got arrested because he had the keys on him & therefore "in control" or "in charge of the vehicle" (I foeget exactly what they said), acording to the police that arrested him. 80.254.146.140 (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might depend on the laws of your particular state/province/country, but in the U.S. - yes, it can happen. Textorus (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QED, you can be arrested. The IP geolocates to the UK, in which case the statute law is the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.4(2) or s.5(1)(6) - this page provides further details. Your friend might be able to talk his way out of it at the court, but it seems to law leans towards the assumption that if you are in the car with the keys whilst drunk, then you're fair game. The arrest is for being in charge of the vehicle, not for driving the vehicle. The intent seems to be to convey the message "if you are drunk, stay away from the car". --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Drink driving (United Kingdom) says "It is a separate offence to be in charge of a vehicle while over the prescribed limit, even without driving or attempting to drive it ... A person may be deemed to be responsible for a vehicle if they are in possession of the key; the onus is then on the suspect to prove that they had no intention of driving. The car does not have to be in motion and an offender does not have to sit at the wheel." Gandalf61 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple ECs)IANAL, but I am a driver and a drinker - though not concurrently! - in the UK, and can confirm that here also, if one is in a vehicle and in possession of the keys, one is legally "in charge of the vehicle" and open to being arrested and charged for being drunk while in control of the vehicle, as mentioned in our Drink driving (United Kingdom) article (see the second bulleted point in Section 1: Offenses), and subsequent text, which mentions that the onus is on the arrestee to prove that he/she was not intending to drive while drunk, clearly not an easy thing to do.

The nearest US-equivalent article section Drunk driving law by country: United States does not go into "in charge" laws, perhaps because of detail variations between States. {The poster formerly known as 87.81230.195} 90.193.78.2 (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that the defence is to prove that there was "no likelihood" of driving, not no intention, so you'd have to prove not only that you didn't intend to drive but that there was no likelihood you'd change your mind. In addition, there has to be no likelihood not just at the time you're stopped but until you would have dropped below the limit, so if you're sleeping off a drinking spree you'd have to show that when you woke up in the morning and drove home you wouldn't still be over the limit. That can often prove tricky. Proteus (Talk) 17:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a terribly bad-faith act to arrest someone who's trying to sleep off their intoxication. I mean, a fella has the right to attempt to drive home, think better of it, and retire to the side of the road, does he not? If his attempt is so badly thought out that he ends up hurting someone it's a different matter of course. Playing Devil's advocate here -- I am not in the habit of doing it myself. Vranak (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A getout described to me, is to hide the keys somewhere outside the car BEFORE you go to sleep (under the wheel arch was suggested). Apparently, you are not "in control of the vehicle" if you don't have the keys. Not something I'm going to try any time soon. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you aren't so drunk you can't remember where you put them the next morning! Though chances are, the cops would just pick another reason to haul you in, like "drunk and disorderly." Textorus (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Vranak, personally I'm glad that AGF does not apply to drunk car owners in the UK. If you have your keys with you, you are capable of waking up, driving drunk, and causing death and serious injury to others as well as yourself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't see why someone should have the 'right' Vranak has prescribed above. Don't drink drive period. Drink driving until you realise you're too drunk to drive should not be a 'right'. One of the reasons for drunk drivings laws is precisely because someone could be hurt by the drunk driver, the fact is hasn't happened yet (if it really hasn't) doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Obviously if the drivers realises his mistake while driving and stops, as in the case Vranak outlined, this is better then the drive who didn't stop, but this doesn't excuse his driving before hand!

Further, it's almost impossible to distinguish between a driver who makes a concious decision not to drive but instead sleep it off because they are too drunk, and a driver who just fell asleep because they were so drunk, and may therefore wake up and drive while still drunk. Then there are those who only stopped and pretended to sleep because they heard police sirens (or whatever). Furthermore, even if the driver was intending to sleep it off, as others have said, it's difficult to be sure they aren't going to be still too drunk to drive when they wake up (and if they drove in the first place, one would be reluctant to trust their judgement on their level of intoxication).

Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, and I would add one further: if you're in the position where this is a serious dilemma perhaps your love of beer has gone a bit too far, and getting scared straight by a police citation might not be such a bad idea. Vranak (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work, I'm afraid - you can still be in charge without having the keys. (And legally you'd probably be held still to be in possession of the keys anyway - they don't have to be in your pocket for you to be in possession of them.) Proteus (Talk) 17:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how to prove the intent to not drive. Perhaps what's needed is a box to put the keys in, with a fiendishly complicated sort of combination lock which incorporates a sobriety test. Card Zero (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once met the son of the sheriff of a rural Utah county who told me his dad once arrested someone for attempted DUI. If I remember correctly, a sober guy was driving and his alcohol-influenced friend was in the passenger seat. They came to a hill. Because of the weather or something wrong with the vehicle, the driver couldn't get it up the hill. So the other guy says, "Let me try." He also fails to get the car to move when a cop shows up. The cop realizes the guy trying to drive the car is drunk, but can't get him for DUI because the car didn't actually go anywhere. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A prosecutor in Illinois told me about convicting a man of drunk driving for sitting in a car, while it was parked, waiting for the booze to wear off before he drove home. I suggested that the prosecution was contrary to the public interest, since it encouraged the man to drive home drunk rather than sitting in the car and getting caught being "drunk while in a car," and that if he told a jury that he was waiting to sober up before he drove home, Jury nullification was a very real possibility. Edison (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being dense, or have a lot of posters just ignored the prohibition on giving legal advice? --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've just about stayed within acceptable limits. The OP was not explicitly asking for advice on how to proceed in a pending or ongoing case, but rather - prompted by a past instance - was asking whether a particular law really existed, a factual rather than an advisory point. Further discussion and references clarified the general scope of the law(s) involved - which is useful to know - and the advisibility of its exercise by the Authorities, but again did not offer advice about a particular actual case. Contrary opinions welcome, of course. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.161 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many jurisdictions have, or have had in the past, drink driving laws which literally make it illegal to "be in control of a vehicle" while intoxicated. Courts have repeatedly found that a person behind the wheel of a motor vehicle should be taken to be "in control" of it even if the engine is not engaged and the vehicle is not moving. You may likewise be "in control" of a vehicle if you are pushing it after an engine failure or even if you are behind the wheel while the vehicle is under tow. The Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent) in your jurisdiction will be able to give you specific advice about the road laws that apply to you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This picture can't be right...

So, maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but are the cars on the right side of this freeway in India about to drive off of a sheer cliff face? That can't be what I am seeing. Can someone familiar with the roads in India tell me that this isn't what am I looking at? --Jayron32 19:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is a carriageway disappearing into a cylindrical tunnel with a square face. I can't make out the cliff face you refer to. Nanonic (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The square thing with the red border is some sort of placard or sign attached to the mountain, I think. It's way higher than the cars, which drive under it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though Jack is correct. The presence of the guardrail that gets cut off by the sign helps to confirm it. TheGrimme (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article about the Mumbai Pune Expressway does mention that there are five tunnels. You might want to get a refill for your Occam's Trac III, Jayron. --LarryMac | Talk 19:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - it's a real-life illusion along the lines of the necker cube or the blivet. Card Zero (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does look to me too like they're about to drive off a cliff face. But I think that if we assume that the square red thingy is actually higher than the cars, not in level with them, then it's the top of a tunnel, which is obstructing the view of the road below it. This is apparently an inherent problem with two-dimensional images. Were we to travel there in person and see the road with our own eyes, we would know better. We humans have two eyes which give slightly different input to the brain, and the brain is clever enough to decide distances based on the differences. But it doesn't work that way if both eyes see a two-dimensional image instead of the real thing. JIP | Talk 19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent optical illusion. To me, it looks for all the world like that red line is painted on the roadway and there's a drop right beyond it. APL (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This illusion is vaguely similar to the way they faked the apparent break in the highway in a critical scene in Speed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I notice is that nearly half of the cars are straddling the white lines. I think maybe I'm not going to drive there. Looie496 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least they're driving on the correct side of the road. ;-) Although given the white line straddling, that may become doubtful without a centre barrier. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point, I didnt see the illusion I just assumed it was a tunnel but I drive on the left, perhaps it is seen more by people who drive on the right where the brain is more confused. I also saw the line stradling as cars moving out to overtake something that is out of view in the tunnel! MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive on the right where the brain is more confused." Well, most of the world is right-handed, so driving on the right-hand side seems natural. And according to Right- and left-hand traffic, 2/3 of the world drives on the right-hand side. The minority who drive on the left seem to be mostly Britain and part of its empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never considered a connection between handedness and which side of the road one should drive on. I thought the historical reasons were somewhat different. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The connection is real, but Baseball Bugs misses it - because right handedness is more common, driving on the left is the default (known to have been the case as far back as Rome) - that means that oncoming traffic approaches you on the right for handshakes or swordplay. Later changes were being politically POINTY ;) --Saalstin (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, when walking along a sidewalk or hallway, do people bear right or left? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whereever there's space? :) But if it's just me and it's empty I'll veer left. Otherwise, since I'm tall and other people walk slow, I dart whichever way's necessary to make progress. --Saalstin (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I think MilborneOne meant "where the brain is more confused ... by this image.". His theory being that since the image already looks weird to us, we're less likely to recognize the true interpretation of the image. APL (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks APL perhaps I was not clear the intent was that driver who dont drive on the left would be confused by the image so the brain was already confused by the image. I wondered if other lefty drivers didnt have a problem with the image. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Driving in India is a whole 'nother experience, Looie. Rather frightening much of the time, and utterly intriguing the rest of the time. That people can engage in such insane national behaviour and yet seem to have so few accidents (not that I've checked the official stats) is amazing. If anything, it's even more terror-inducing in Sri Lanka. Maybe we in the West can learn something from them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in List of countries by traffic-related death rate, both India and Sri Lanka have higher road fatality rates than most Western countries. Of course, it is hard to say how much of this is down to driving skill as opposed to road layouts, the number of vehicles, their state of repair, etc. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a highway-level view of the tunnel entrance, this being the Khandala tunnel.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely you will see a black cat licking a potato.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full resolution [2] doesn't give an illusion to me. commons:Category:Khandala and commons:Category:Mumbai Pune expressway have more images clearly showing a tunnel. However, it must be the Adoshi Tunnel (entrance view) as [3] says, and not the Khandala Tunnel in the link [4] by Baseball Bugs. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if it is the Adoshi tunnel the shot is taken from the air. Right? There seems to be no obvious veiwing point to suggest a land based shot. Richard Avery (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then is the photo at Mumbai Pune Expressway#Tunnels mislabeled? Or did I misunderstand it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Pune Expressway#Tunnels says the Adoshi tunnel is the only one with a single tube and the other direction alongside the tube. File:Khandala-4.JPG shows the image is probably taken from a hill blocked from the entrance view. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Looie496's observation "that nearly half of the cars are straddling the white lines", careful inspection suggests to me that all the vehicles doing so are probably in the process of changing lanes in order to overtake a slower-moving vehicle, or returning to an inside lane after having overtaken. The latter is fairly obvious with the most distant lorry on the left carriageway heading away from the camera, and the nearest on the right, and it seems likely that there is a vehicle (perhaps a centre-lane hogger) about to be overtaken by three cars in the right-hand carriageway, which is itself already obscured by the tunnel face and mountain. So, no call for any slurs against Indian driving abilities :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.190 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the lorry that's coming towards us that appears to be in between two lanes (I think the one you referred to as nearest on the right) probably had no choice but to go to the centre lane to get past the lorry that seems to be stopped (it looks a lot like there's a person next to it) behind it so is likely doing the proper thing by returning to the outer lane. Also the stopped lorry likely partially contributes to the confusing mix of the traffic on that side of the road (if you look there's actually no vehicle on the outer lane other then the stopped lorry), i.e. those in the outer lane had to move to the centre lane so those in the centre lane may have moved towards the inner lane, and this could also be part of the reason for a 'centre-lane hogger' (may simply be a vehicle which perhaps took a little too long to return to the outer lane) or it could be the 3 cars are in fact just going back to becoming centre lane hoggers, or perhaps even going back to the outer lane after having to move to the inner lane to get past a vehicle which was in the centre lane because of the stopped lorry. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what's going on in the left side mind you. There seems to be a person beside the road (the closest thing to the camera on the road on that side). Is the lorry in front of the person also stopped or is there some other reason for this person? There's a car in front of it which seems to have red patches, the left side could simply be the door is red but I don't get why the right side is red unless the door is open (or more likely from the picture, in the process of being opened or closed) or is it just some sort of weird camera artifact. In front of the car with red patches, is there another person next to the car (that's besides the large lorry, possibly some kind of trailer) or is it simply an artifact of the shoulder barrier and camera? In any case, I would say if anything the number of people on the highway in this small stretch (seems likely at least 2 and possibly 3) is more concerning then the 'straddling the white lines' Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Houston Airport

Does anyone know if any airlines have ever serviced West Houston Airport ? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you include charters, then yes, there is a picture on the airport web site showing an ad for charter service. If you want scheduled airlines, that would be improbable. The 3950 foot runway is too short for anything except small turboprops. --Itinerant1 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant scheduled airlines - There are a few turboprop airlines out there - For instance I know Sugar Land Airport got a 19 seater airline WhisperToMe (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, back in the early '80s...there was an airline that serviced West Houston Airport and Dallas Love Field. The aircraft was a twin engine turboprop deHavailland Dash 7. The aircraft's STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) abilities allowed the operations from a 4000ft runway. I think the aircraft handled up to 45 people.