Miscellaneous desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 11

call center agents

how much is the average income of a callcenter agent in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will vary wildly depending on the department, the company, and the industry. As an example, when I worked for CompanyA as a call center tech support agent, starting pay was 12/hr. The same call center's customer support department started at 9.50/hr, while sales started at 22/hr. When I went to CompanyB to do essentially the same tech support, they started at 28/hr. So, depending on what kind of answer you are looking for, some additional specifics might be useful. ^Avic _ennasis @ 00:57, 13 Tishrei 5772 / 00:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw anything near most of those figures when I worked in a call center. I took a part time seasonal job in a call center that eventually became full time. I was paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $9-10/hour to start and didn't make too much more than that in my time there. I was doing sales of gifts and moved on to more customer service. Dismas|^(talk) 01:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there callcenter agents in the US? I thought they were all re-locate to the Philippines ... Wikiweek (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many call center jobs have been outsourced to various countries including the Philippines, India, etc. But not all of them. Dismas|^(talk) 00:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotype in the US is that 'all' American call centres have been outsourced to India. Sometimes you'll hear of an American company bringing call center operations back; here's the Delta Airlines story, for example. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the early nineties I worked for a company that did promo work for radio stations. The company was based in Boston, but their call center was in in Cincinnati because people from Ohio generally have flat, unaccented voices so they could reasonably be calling around the States and claiming, as we did, to be calling directly from their local radio station. We were even required to use fake, generic sounding names. So if you got a call from Mike Sampson from KOIT in San Fransisco, you were actually talking to a guy in a room full of Mike Sampsons in a basement in Ohio. There may still be some operations like that around. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagorean Theorem

Recently I have found something very interesting about the Pythagorean triples and I have no information whether similar studies already exist. I could not find information in Wikipedia, as well. Briefly this is the following:

Theorem “Pythagoras – 3D” (name given by me)

The sum of the volumes of the three cubes with edges equal to the sides of a triangle, where it’s side lengths are in ratio 3 : 4 : 5 is equal to the volume of a cube with edge equal to the semi perimeter of the triangle. a³ + b³ + c³ = p³, where p = ½ (a + b + c) Furthermore: All these triangles are straight angle triangles e. g.〖 a〗^2+b^2=c^2, as 3^2+4^2=5^2 and the Pythagorean equation can be written as: 3²k + 4²k = 5²k where k is any positive number. If √k is an integer √k = 1, 2, 3 … ∞, e.g. whole number, these all are straight angle triangles e.g. Pythagorean triangles measuring their sides with the integers of the first primitive Pythagorean triple (3, 4, 5) and its generated derivates. Similarly the above equation for cubes can be written as 3³k + 4³k + 5³k = 6³k where k is any positive number. If ³√k is an integer ³√k = 1, 2, 3 … ∞, e.g. a whole number, these cubes are all set of four cubes measuring their edges with integers (whole numbers), that are representing the first primitive Pythagorean triple (3, 4, 5) and its generated non primitive derivates, where the sum of the volumes of the three small cubes is equal to the volume of the largest one and there are no more such cubes, to represent other primitive or non primitive Pythagorean triples or any other combination of four natural numbers!

If k = 1, then 3³ + 4³ + 5³ = 6³!!!

Reverse Theorem

Any cube with edge length m can be divided in three cubes with edge lengths 3/6m; 4/6m and 5/6m e. g.

m³ = (3/6m) ³ + (4/6m) ³ + (5/6m) ³

If m is an integer, divisible by 6, the three small cubes are measuring their edges also with integers (whole numbers) that can be divided by 3, 4 and 5 accordingly. If m = ³√k, then the cubes equation can be written in the same form, as above: 6³k = 3³k + 4³k + 5³k.

If this is still not published by anybody I would like to publish it for discussion. Please tell me how! Regards. Michael Ivanov (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware we have a Mathematics Reference Desk here? I venture that the good folks there could tell you whether you've discovered something new or not, and if so, how to go about publishing it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the answer is that he's discovered an extremely simple specific case to something for which the general case has been well understood for centuries. Not even remotely publishable. Unfortunately, multiplying both sides of an equation by a constant is rather simple algebra, and not an amazing insight into mathematics. Sorry to burst your bubble. i kan reed (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't explain how you found the identities that you state. A mathematician will ask whether you can prove what you state. There are an infinite number of Pythagorean triples (see article), not just enlargements of the example (3, 4, 5), so have you proven your statements for all or only some of them? Your claim that there is no "other combination of four natural numbers" that satisfies your cubic equation needs close attention; how is this known? If you clarify those issues you may consider extending the Pythagorean relationship to yet higher dimensions than 3D. I think the value of what you are doing is not so much a discovery of a significant theorem as posing an interesting exam question. There are language errors in your post (==> is how to correct them): where it's side ==> where its side, semi perimeter ==> semiperimeter, straight angle ==> right angle (in 2 places), √k = 1, 2, 3 … ∞, e.g. whole number ==> √k = 1, 2, 3 …, i.e. a whole number, e.g. Pythagorean triangles ==> i.e. Pythagorean triangles, ³√k = 1, 2, 3 … ∞, e.g. a whole number ==> ³√k = 1, 2, 3 …, i.e. a whole number, cubes are all set ==> cubes are all sets, edge lengths 3/6m; 4/6m and 5/6m e. g. ==> edge lengths 3/6m; 4/6m and 5/6m i.e. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might also wish to read Plato's_number#Interpretations. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, by stating "... and there are no more such cubes, to represent other primitive or non primitive Pythagorean triples or any other combination of four natural numbers!", are you claiming that if a³ + b³ + c³ = d³ for any ordered natural number 4‑tuple (a, b, c, d), then its primitive is (3, 4, 5, 6)? If so, then (1, 6, 8, 9) is a counterexample. -- ToE^T 01:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting the or any other ... natural numbers part, we are left with the assertion that (3,4,5) is the only primitive Pythagorean triple whose cubes sum to a perfect cube. I asked that over at the math ref desk at WP:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2011 October 15#Sum of cubes of Pythagorean triples, where User:Dragons flight reported that direct inspection of all primitives (a,b,c) with c < 2 billion shows no other examples, which makes this very plausible. No proof has been put forward yet, though. Do you, Michael, have a proof for this assertion, or is it simply an observation? -- 110.49.12.136 (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes and tobacco usage

Putting aside the cocaine for the moment, throughout the Sherlock Holmes stories, we find that Holmes is fond of attributing his powers of deduction to the time spent devoted to contemplation of the problem at hand while engaging in long smoking sessions with his pipe. Can anyone talk about the type of tobacco he smoked and what benefits it might have offered? I recall reading a few years back that researchers had found that tobacco consumption (possibly nicotine itself) conferred short-term cognitive benefits, probably in the area of attention. Finally, what difference, if any, would there be between the type of tobacco Holmes smoked then as opposed to the kind found today? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is unsourced and less than helpful, but I've long thought that smoking, especially taking a "smoke break" where one goes out to calmly smoke while staring off into space, can be vaguely akin to mediation. Not that I condone smoking or partake in it myself. But I've long watched others "take a break" and have a smoke, during which they pensively consider the larger implications of whatever they had been overly-focused upon. Pfly (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for what type Holmes smoked, go to this page and search for "black shag" for a description. Deor (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on nicotine#Psychoactive effects touches on possible (short-term) benefits to concentration and memory, along with a discussion of other psychological effects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is prostitution defined, when it's illegal?

Many activities of normal couples - like buying a gift, helping your partner find a job - could be construe as payment for sex, so how do some governments prohibit prostitution without interfering with behavior considered normal? Is there an obvious place to draw a line? Wikiweek (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no "partnership" relationship between prostitute and client is probably significant - the "relationship" is purely sex for payment. Roger (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, prosititution itself is not illegal; however: "a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes." (Prostitution in the UK) and these are presumably easier to tie down. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have to define it precisely. They simply do not interfere with behaviour which is considered normal in their community and go after undesirable behaviour. In the UK and Spain that's for example minors soliciting in public places, some brothels, and violence from pimps against their sex workers. 88.11.244.183 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For info, under 18s involved in prostitution are regarded as victims of child abuse in the UK, not just if they are soliciting. The general age of consent is 16 but adults in a position of trust aren't allowed to exploit 16-18s. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio Revised Code defines "prostitute" as one who: "promiscuously engages in sexual activity for hire, regardless of whether the hire is paid to the prostitute or to another." That would seem to exclude dating. I'm sure there has been case law regarding what exactly fits under that description, but the annotated version of the code does not seem to be available online. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may find Compensated dating relevant. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Houses towed by cows on QI?

Hi - did anyone see that episode? Largish buildings being dragged across meadows by teams of cows? Can anyone tell me where that's practiced? Ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiloe, in Chile - http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/8/9/ . Pictures here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the towing is done by oxen. -- 110.49.225.244 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxen being "Cows strapped to something for towing purposes" --Jayron32 12:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually. Oxen: "Oxen are commonly castrated adult male cattle..." Cows are the ones that give milk. Rmhermen (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See wether. EDIT - Bizarrely, I could have sworn my English teacher told me it referred to bulls. I shall leave this mistake here. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cow" and "cows" are very commonly used as synonyms for "cattle" of all genders and gonad status regardless of such usage being pedantically incorrect. While, pedantically, the word "cow" only refers to a female cattle, many people use the term to refer to cattle and/or bovines in general. --Jayron32 13:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more pedantic about correcting someone on this then correcting someone who calls all humans, regardless of gender, women. Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but people do often use the word "man" to refer to humanity in general, i.e. "mankind", etc. It is fairly common, linguisticly, to use one of the genders to also refer to the entire species, both male and female. This is not "wrong", it just is. --Jayron32 17:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any women here? --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who threw that?!-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all - esp. for the first answer. And yes, I'm guilty of using 'cows' to mean 'cattle'; I wonder how many species are referred to generically by their female form? - Cows - Chooks - Ducks... Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cows is fairly common, but it seems less common for people who are actively involved in raising cattle to refer to their herd as cows unless it is a dairy farm (where they all are truly cows). I don't know what a chook is, but female ducks are called hens, not ducks. Googlemeister (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'duck' as limited to female is quite common, especially among those who spend much time around them. From duck: "some people use "duck" specifically for adult females and "drake" for adult males". Our article does mention 'hen' as an alternative, But duck=female member Anatidae is perfectly cromulent. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told once that waitstaff are occasionally referred to collectively as "waitresses", but I have never heard it used that way myself. —Akrabbim^talk 19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all the wait staff in a certain establishment were female, it would be odd not to refer to them collectively as "waitresses". Likewise, "waiters" for an all-male establishment. But what's the protocol when there's a mixture? - I suggest we wait and see. But not too long, I gotta get back to work soon. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about nurses? Also, slightly different, but pigs are referred to by the name of the young of their species, and not the adult male or females. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My spouse was once in the catering business. Waiters and waitresses as a group were called the "servers" or "waiters"; the term "wait staff" included the head waiter(s) and bar staff. I can't claim this is a general division of terms, but it was the case in one establishment in Canada. Bielle (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a wild sow, and thus I conclude all wild boars are gay. Peacocks are questionable.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old enough to sometimes accidentally refer to flight attendants as stewardesses... Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsidian Soul: Peacocks have peahens, and together they are peafowl, which proves nothing except that the language is accommodating. Bielle (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't question my gaydar! -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the image of a peacock having gay avian sex with another peacock - all those brilliant feathers being ruffled and rustled. Maybe this is where they got the idea for the rainbow flag. Or not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaving, polishing the shoes, and marching in the army

Why do armies have policies regarding shaving, polishing shoes, and marching (in the sense of a uniformed walk)? Marching, at least, could be seen as a training of discipline. But none of these elements has any implications for real combat. Shaving could be substituted by a stubble, cut with a manual hair trimmer, which is a minimalist approach to keeping your hair short, while on deployment. Wikiweek (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polishing shoes is most likely a matter of tradition, and to enforce taking pride in your uniform and position. Shaving is probably drawn from attempting to strip the individuality from soldiers and turning them into part of the unit. Facial hair would allow soldiers to be unique, even if kept to a particular style. Facial hair can also cause problems in the event of using a gas mask, where it prevents an air-tight seal. TheGrimme (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Militaries are inherently conservative institutions. (The American military was the same institution under the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States of America.) They inculcate the military mindset. Matters like discipline regarding hygiene, dress and parade are essentially spiritual. That is, they orient the mind towards traditional values. This should not be surprising in an essentially altruistic and masculine profession. Even ;less so when one considers the need to inculcate draftees. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit de corps. Neutrality^talk 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that not all armies require this. The Spanish Legion can wear beards. See here:

88.11.244.183 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Facial hair in the military. Note that beards can also interfere with the efficacy of gas masks. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping your gun clean is an essential part of being a soldier if you want to be able to shoot people. The general requirement from cleanliness and order partly stems from the need to maintain kit and equipment. As Medeis mentions, there is also the importance in shaping the military mindset, which is why restrictions on hair etc are usually stricter for new recruits. Also if you have large numbers of men living in close quarters, who may be required to pack up and move at short notice, then it's essential to keep good order. Many people believe that if you let people be lax on small things, they will be equally lax on bigger things. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US TV Miniseries Generation Kill provides interesting observations here. An elite unit is allowed to grow moustaches, but the sergeant major vigorously polices the limits of the "grooming standards" prior to, and during lulls in, combat operations. The allowance of facial hair sets the elite apart, links to their willingness to conform in all other aspects, but also recognises that the enlisted men are expected to be adaptable and self-motivated. When "conventional" combat operations end, the sergeant major again begins to brutalise men about facial hair grooming standards: as a way to make work, vent masculine social tension, and to provide an informal object of hatred for the enlisted men. Facial hair grooming standards in Generation Kill are a complex way for the armed forces, as an institution, to control men—not simply by restricting them, but by giving them straw men to hate. 60.242.186.80 (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the facial hair,I seem to remember reading that in the British navy,men were not permitted to grow a moustache without a beard,except if you were Maltese. Never quite understood what special exemption they had... Lemon martini (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th century Royal Navy regulations are here - Royal Marines are mentioned (moustaches only for them) but not Maltese. In the British Army, beards are forbidden except for Pioneer Sargeants and members of the Royal Family. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I found your reference to the Maltese but it appears to be the other way round: (regarding the ban on moustaches) "except by non-continuous service Officers' Steward, Officers' Cook and Cook (O) ratings (excluding Maltese), who may wear their beards and moustaches, or moustaches only, or be clean-shaven as each may elect." Queen's Regulations & Admiralty Instructions 1953. So stewards and cooks could choose to wear a moustache, unless they're Maltese (who I imagine were rather further down the pecking order). Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shaving=gasmask fits airtight. boot=polished means subtle and watertight. marching=working a a co-ordinated team. problem solved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.240.144 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leather boots, when repeatedly polished with a good shoe polish and/or shoe wax, will keep water out for at least a day or two. Sjö (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In olden times, an impressive looking army, marching in unison with polished boots, might impress and scare the enemy. These days, however, most enemies won't be very impressed by such theatrics. Furthermore, militaries can go overboard on the "fuss and feathers" and forget about what they are there for. Battle-hardened veterans returning from heavy combat may well sneer at raw recruits who still think polished buttons are important. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball team 1980-1981

How can I get articles,pictures of a student on the basketball team at Shoreland Lutheran High in Somers, WI? My son will be 50 next year and I would like to recover some articles written about him on the Basketball team 1980-1981> Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.40.215 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ask the school library if they have copies of the yearbooks for those years? Some material about your son may appear in the yearbook. Neutrality^talk 20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check out the local newspaper (the smaller, the better). The local library might have it on microfilm. You might have to look through the local sports page for each day. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edible grapes and wine grapes

I have noticed that grapes that you would buy from the supermarket are often not the same variety as those that are used to make wine. Little packets of grapes you might find next to the sandwiches (at least common in Europe) are often Thompson grapes and maybe a few others, but I have never seen, for example, Riesling grapes or Pinot noir. Is there any reason for this? Are Riesling grapes not as nice to eat but make nice wine, whilst Thompson grapes make poor wine but are nicer to eat? 86.150.21.206 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My father used to make wine from grapes that he grew. I've tried them and they're not as tasty as the grapes that you'd get at a grocer. Though that's an opinion, so see Wine grape#Table and wine grapes. Dismas|^(talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Seedless are specifically bred for table use but are the same species as Pinot and Riesling. In America, we sometimes get Concord or Scuppernong (but more often for jelly) which are completely different species. See also List of grape varieties. Rmhermen (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true in most fermentable fruits. The apples best used in cider are certainly not the ones you'd go for eating outright, and vis versa. If there's an exception to this, please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bananas ? StuRat (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely about sugar. When grapes are fermented, almost all of the sugar in them is converted into alcohol. Sugar suppresses the sensation of sourness and bitterness, so grapes that are pleasingly tart and flavorful when eaten raw give rise to wine that is obnoxiously sour. Grapes that are good for wine are generally too sugary to be interesting when eaten raw. Looie496 (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think super sweet grapes might go over well with kids used to candy. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar is vastly important, but he reason you don't see them in grocery stores is price. Farmers get much more for good quality wine grapes than they do for table grapes. So, they sell them to wine makers, rather than grocers. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]