Miscellaneous desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 28 >

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 27

Presdential interviews for sale

I want to buy interviews of Presidents and celebrities Miamibil at the aol place

What's so special about the 787?

Why is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner making news everywhere? It's not the largest or fastest airplane or something. Are all new models of commercial jetliners met with such fanfare? Acceptable (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several superlatives listed in the article Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which you can read at your own leisure. Many people find these superlatives significant, which is why they care. If you don't care, that's cool too. --Jayron32 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very fuel efficient, plus it's a big part of Boeing's business future. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):It uses a much larger proportion of composite materials in its structure than any other large airliner, thus it represents a major shift away from riveted Duralumin construction that has been the norm for large aircraft for over 70 years. Roger (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been a significant amount of time since Boeing rolled a new design off the assembly line. the 777 came out in the mid-90s ('94 I think) and they haven't since then. If a major market player in any industry released their first new product in almost two decades, it would be majorly newsworthy. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the largest or fastest, but it is the first of its kind - it primarily uses composite materials; the metal jetliners have been in use since the first completely jet-powered Vickers_VC.1_Viking in the 1940's. The use of composite materials opens up many new construction opportunities and challenges (you can do things with composites that you can't do with metal), and is far lighter, giving the aircraft significantly greater efficiency. For most people, the 787 may just be another airplane, but for people interested in aviation, it is truly a huge advance in technology, environmental stewardship, and even passenger comfort. This isn't just an aircraft that has different and interesting features, it may well be the very first of a very long list of this new type of aircraft (already, Airbus is working on their first composite-based aircraft, the A350 to stay competitive). The 787 is also the best-selling new airliner to enter into production, with, I believe, over 800 orders before it even flew, which is quite remarkable. Falconus^{p t c} 08:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its made of plastic, has bigger windows, and 'seems' more roomy (though without actually being more roomy --just a trick of good design). also: the potty has a window. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember the Airbus A380 getting a lot of coverage, at least in Europe, when it was launched. But the A380 was the world's biggest airliner, so that was part of the reason. New airliners always seem to get a lot of publicity - the Boeing 777 inspired several TV programs I saw when it came out in the mid 1990s. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you believe that the last few cups' worth of fuel is worth bickering over?

At a McPherson, KS Kwik Shop, a 40s man in his late-model sky blue Dodge Charger (who, in sunglasses, looked like an upstanding office supervisor, not an ex-con) asked me if I lifted the hose to get the "last cup" of gas in, and I said, yeah, because it's wasteful otherwise, so everyone ought to do it.

He then said, "you just stole from me, asshole." I figured that if he was the owner of this Kwik Shop, I should call the Kroger corporate offices to get him fired (and possibly get me some kind of compensation for the trouble.)

I clarified that I learned that the fuel at the bottom of the hose was the fuel I already paid for; any drop of fuel that left the pump and went into the hose is already purchased. He wouldn't listen for some reason, and somewhat repeated it.

Then I asked if he was the owner of this Kwik Shop, so he said, "No, but if you don't move your car I'm going to kick your ass." Just before I left the area, I got his license plate number, reported it to Kroger's corporate headquarters (in case he DID work for them in some capacity, and to report to Law Enforcement if it was indeed reportable), and posted it someplace online.

First off, exactly how much gasoline would typically sit at the bottom of the hose? At $3.40/gallon as it was sometime that summer (at least after a Dillons card discount), how much therefore, would the gasoline at the bottom of the hose have been worth?

(I have a feeling that if I let him beat me up, the lawsuit payouts could have paid off my student loans.)

Moreover, I may get a Taser in the future for self-defense. If anyone else repeats his actions, how does it sound for me to point it at them to get them to back off from that attitude and go away? Thank you, --70.179.174.63 (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the quantity of fuel, but it can't be much. As for what do I think about the taser, from a legal standpoint, we cannot advise you (it's against our policy), but from a practical standpoint, carrying any weapon, legality aside, is a huge responsibility, and I caution you not to take it lightly. Falconus^{p t c} 08:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying hard not to go into legal advice territory, but the OP might want to read our article on assault.Sjö (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letting off a taser in a gas station does not sound like a good idea to me. Both of you may end up in a fireball. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasering someone for either a drop of gas or calling you an asshole will get you into jail. That's just common sense. How about you just carry a gold-framed dime with an idiot certificate and proudly present it to them if they insist? Man... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only referring to pointing a taser at him in order to get him to rethink what he should really bicker about. I'd only discharge said taser if harm was certain to come from him. --70.179.174.63 (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily escalating a situation by bringing in any kind of weapon is usually a bad idea, both legally and practically. Just imagine the goon mistakes it for a real gun and uses his Special Forces training to counter the threat. Or, more realistically, just imagine he neither backs down nor makes additional aggressive moves. Do you stand there with you taser forever? Do you use it anyways? Do you put it away, disarming yourself? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Part of using a weapon responsibly is not pointing it at someone whom you are not prepared to use it on. If someone talks trash at you, and you pull a weapon, you have just escalated the conflict ten-fold, and frankly, are almost begging to be shot. It's not like you've described this man as being particularly reasonable to begin with. It is obviously your decision, but my advice is to not carry a weapon unless you have had extensive training in its use. A taser is not a conflict-mediation tool, it is a dangerous weapon that is not to be misused. Falconus^{p t c} 09:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sounds like the person involved was waiting to use the pump you had just used and got annoyed because you lifted the hose to get the last bit which may be a bit dumb in any case (I guess they considered it rude to lift the hose so were not going to do it themselves which means if this actually does anything they would lose out), and then got more annoyed because you hung around rather then just leave while they were still waiting to use the pump. I'm not sure why you believe he owned the petrol station. As with others, the suggestion to get or use a taser seems an extreme overeaction to a minor dispute with someone who was a bit of an idiot and isn't likely to go down well for you even if we ignore the legal issues (and to be honest as dumb as the guy sounds from your description, your suggestion makes you sound worse). Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you believe he owned the petrol station.

Because the term "you stole from me" immediately made me think of how a shopkeeper/shop owner would tell off a shoplifter. --70.179.174.63 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realise that but considering the details presented that seems the far less likely intepretation. I admit I don't live in the US but is it normal for petrol stations owners to hang around in their cars there? Did you see whether he drove up to the pump you were using after you left? If he did, this makes your intepretation even less likely. Edit: Forgot to clarify when I said use a taser I'm including using it to threaten someone Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's back up a bit. Does that trick even work on modern gas pumps? After the computer decides your $20 is spent, can you get more fuel out of the hose? I thought the shut-off valve was now in the handle for exactly this reason? I can't find a source either way. Have I been misinformed? APL (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like it matters — we're talking about one dude who gets pissed off over what might be $0.10 worth of gas, and the other dude who seriously considers tasering him for that. And of course the IP geolocates to the Midwes' of the Yóónidid States Ovamewica. Home sweet home... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, there are irrational people everywhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's something the OP has overlooked, namely that if there is normally any "paid for" gas left in the hose, he's obtaining the "paid for" gas from the previous user of the hose, for free. So it balances out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course is why the other person in the scenario felt that he had been stolen from. He was the customer after the OP, so rather than getting the fuel remaining in the hose, he'd get air. It's quite doubtful that there'd be a cup of fuel or air, anyway, assuming the dispensing system works that way. --LarryMac | Talk 12:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP needs to learn the wisdom of blowing it off and just walking away - there's no shame in that. Life is full of assholes who shoot off their mouths . . . move on and forget about it. If you're still mad, don't shop there anymore. And realize that merely pointing a weapon, any weapon, loaded/activated or not, at anybody for any reason will get your ass in big-time trouble with the law that will ruin your day much worse than any rude remarks from the shopowner ever could. You don't need the hassle. Textorus (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An aphorism I heard a long time ago was more on the lines of "never brandish a weapon unless you intend to use it. If you don't, be prepared to have the weapon taken away and used against you". Franamax (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parents should follow that advice, particularly those who are prone to making "If you don't ... by this evening, I swear I'm going to kill you" statements. A parent with any sense of integrity should promptly smite their child if they fail to comply. Children should be taught by example that promises must be kept. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

We're fucked.

Please can someone point me at a transcript of the speech (I think made by a banker) which basically consisted of the words "We're fucked. I'm fucked, you're fucked. Germany's fucked." - it continues in a similar vein for some time? Many thanks. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one I'm familiar with is not about Germany but about the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the British government. It was said by Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary. Our article says he said "We're all fucked. I'm fucked. You're fucked. The whole department is fucked. It's the biggest cock-up ever. We're all completely fucked." DuncanHill (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that's the one, but he went on at some length to include other countries as well, which is why I'm after a transcript of what he said. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it was about an attempt to use the events of 9/11 to bury bad news from the department it didn't go on to refer to other countries. I suspect it may have been adapted by either Rory Bremner or in The Thick of It. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You could be right there, it's the sort of language "The Thick of It" used. Thanks. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis? What Crisis?

The current European debt situation is described by the BBC and other media as a 'crisis'. There usually follows dire predictions of disaster if something isn't done, and done sooner rather than later. However, many third-world countries have been in debt to the IMF and many donor countries for years on end. Those countries seem to keep going while corrupt officials cream off billions. Why is the debt situation in the Eurozone considered such a huge crisis when it doesn't seem to be considered a crisis for the third world? Astronaut (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the third-world debt doesn't affect the BBC, but the Eurozone debt might? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massive debt is "business as usual" in parts of the third world, thus nobody gets too excited about it. In the Eurozone it is a major disruption to "business as usual". See PIGS (economics), it may offer some insight into the issue. Roger (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a matter of scale. See List of countries by external debt, for instance. Euro countries seem to have 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more debt than African countries. Zambia being unable to relay its debts does not threaten the global banking system. Italy or Spain not being able to repay their debts does. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note if you combine the two answers you get something obvious. Anyone who is a debtor to Zambia [sorry Zambia I didn't chose you as an example ;-)] must have known they were doing something risky, otherwise they were idiots. However it was widely believe loaning to Italy or Greece was very safe until recently. And if you combine this with your original question you arrive at another conclusion, there's a reason why a significant part of the Greece or Italian debt is owed to commercial banks but in many of the countries you mention it's to the IMF, the World Bank and 'donor' countries. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Yes, it is the size of the European economies, their importance to the global economy, and the extent to which the European economies are interlinked, particularly to one another, but also to outside economies. If Zambia declares bankruptcy, no one outside of Zambia is likely to suffer much. If, for example, Italy declares bankruptcy (a very real prospect if a solution is not found to this crisis), then it is not only Italy that would suffer. Bankruptcy in Italy would be likely to push other vulnerable European nations, such as Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, over the edge to fail as well, because lenders facing default in Italy will fear the same in those countries, since Italy's failure would demonstrate the inability of the EU to rescue its members. Banks all over Europe (including the UK because of its banks' exposure to Italian debt) are likely to fail, and banks in the United States and other countries could fail or be forced to sharply reduce lending as a result. Meanwhile, governments, facing the wholesale failure of their banking sectors, would be in difficult positions. The size of a bailout might drag a country such as France into bankruptcy as well; the more likely alternative would be for a nation such as France to nationalize failing banks and default on the banks' creditors, leading to a destruction of capital and a loss of confidence in Europe's financial institutions. A failure in Europe would be likely to bring down the entire global financial system, as international lending would dry up in the face of the threat of nationalization and expropriation and a loss of confidence by lenders and investors in the integrity of the system. All of these things together could cause a global depression. Marco polo (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third World economies clearly can have crises; however, because they are a smaller part of the world economy, the crisis is localized. One exception may be the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which started in developing countries and wound up affecting the whole world to some extent. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's above all the fact that they have a common currency, the Euro. If not for that, this would be similar to other debt crises. It would still be serious because of the exposure of large banks, but the common currency is what makes it beyond serious. Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to TV programs (in England)

I see noone has yet answered my earlier questions on this subject, but now I have another.

Let's suppose there is some new program starting on some TV channel, any of them, next week, and I don't know about it yet but I would really enjoy watching it. When eventually I do hear about it, it is already half way through and I have to try to catch up on the internet. Then I realise, this is actually the sort of program I would have liked to record and watch back later as well, but now I can't, because I have already missed half of it.

So, rather than looking through the TV guides for every channel every day, is there any way I can get a list of all the new programs due start soon, so I can look through and see if any of them interest me?

148.197.80.214 (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buy a tv guide? Most tabloid papers include one with their saturday edition, with details about new shows that week as well as program listings--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This site has a "New series this week" menu. I'm sure other sites provide similar information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to me all the time. Several series are now available on iPlayer in their entirety (I'm currently catching up with Fry's Planet Word). The only guaranteed solution is to buy a TV guide every week, trawl through it and set up your HDD recorder before you forget. However, if you stumble upon something half way through, check to see whether it's available on a timeshift channel and set your HDD to pick that up. Finally, bear in mind that most stuff gets repeated eventually, sometimes within only a few hours.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the adverts. Every channel advertises virtually all of its new show between existing shows - that way you get a trailer of what to expect from the show and a reminder of when it starts/when it's on. People might hate adverts but they do serve a useful purpose. The tvguide link is good - I have that on my favourites list generally, beyond this you could check out Category:Upcoming television series (sorry no idea how to link to it but basically category; upcoming television shows) just because Wikipedia does have an article on everything! ny156uk (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Sky, many channels have a catch-up session for new shows. So, for example, they show the first 5 then the following Sunday they'll have a catch-up session of those 5 shows back-to-back. You can easily find these by looking choosing 'search' from the programme guide. Astronaut (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could get yourself a Virgin Media TiVo. I understand that the TiVo will actively seek out shows, old or new, based on you setting a "series recording". So, in the OP's scenario, imagine that the first few episodes are repeated either on the same channel (mid-week, after midnight, as is fairly common) or perhaps a year later on another channel; the TiVo will record them. I really want one! --Rixxin (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK: NHS certificate to proof that I am insured in the UK (needed for my German health insurance company)

Dear all,

I am currently doing a 1-year Master's programme in the UK and am entitled to be insured via the NHS. As I have previously lived in Germany, I am still insured there, which costs me about €80 (i.e. approx. £70) a month. For obvious reasons, I want to quit my German insurance. To do so, I need to proof that I am legally insured elsewhere. As I still find it quite difficult to understand the UK healthcare system, could you please tell me who I need to turn to in order to request/receive a certificate indicating the date from which on I am covered by the NHS? Thank you very much for your support!

Kind regards --80.194.187.112 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want a European Health Insurance Card --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] As this UK government site explains, you first need to register with the NHS through a local practitioner in your area. You will need to fill out an application at the practitioner's office. You should probably call ahead to find out what documentation they will need for your application. When you register, you should probably request an NHS medical card, as described under the ninth question on this page. Alternatively, once you are registered, you might apply for an EHIC card, which can also serve as proof of insurance with the NHS. Probably the best thing would be to contact your German insurer and ask them which of these documents they prefer so that you can obtain the correct one when you register with the NHS. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec2) You should be registered with a GP (a general practitioner). Even if there's nothing at all wrong with you now, and you don't intent to make any routine uses of a doctor during your stay, a GP is the gateway to the entire NHS for anything except emergency services and dentistry (and even a minor injury requiring say a few stitches will require your GP practice to be involved, such as removing stitches or wound care). Your educational institution will be able to refer you to a local practice (or may, in a few cases, run a student health service that is essentially a GP practice on campus). Registering with a GP takes about 10 minutes of form filling. A GP practice in an area that includes a college or university will be well used to dealing with people in your position, and will be able to help you with your German insurance issue (and with transferring your records from Germany). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your detailed answers! I forgot to mention that I have already registered with a GP via my university. If I understand you right, I need to contact my GP in order to get/request such a certificate. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your reply! However, as my German health insurer requires a certification indicating the date from which on I am insured in the UK, an EHIC is unfortunately not sufficient as a proof... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.187.112 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, probably because I don't understand the German system, but I'm intrigued... If you stop paying the German insurance company but provide them with no proof of ongoing cover, what could they possibly do to you? What gives them the right to demand to see proof that you're covered elsewhere? Why would you care whether they're making such demands? Why couldn't you opt not to have any cover at all? --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an 'Everyone needs a health insurance' law. They are obliged to insure you until you are insured by someone else. It doesn't matter if you pay the rates. If you need expensive treatment they still have to pay for it. Therefore, they will try to sue you to get their money 192.124.26.250 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They'll sue you for premiums or for money they have to shell out? If you don't incur them any cost, it doesn't seem worth their while to sue you for such meagre amounts. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the premiums of course. If you need medical treatment they have to pay. And 80 Euros per month to be paid forever is not that meagre. (and when they stop giving you the student tariff it probably becomes more than 200 Euros)

This is exactly how it works in Germany! Unless I can proof that I am insured elsewhere, I am forced (by law) to continue to pay the fees. But back to my main question: Does anyone know if I need to turn to my GP or rather to the nation-wide NHS body in order to get a certificate described above? Many thanks again! --80.194.187.112 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the forum on http://www.deutsche-in-london.net/. They are usually pretty knowledgeable on these things. 109.150.107.49 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is you're not a German citizen or otherwise don't plan to go back to Germany. If so [1] may be useful. In such a case you probably want to Abmeldung (deregister) if you haven't already and this may help convince them, perhaps along with the NHS information that you can cancel your insurance. However from what I read it's still likely to be a palaver since the law is new and/or not well drafted and the companies and people involved don't yet have resonable or well known policies for dealing with cases like yours. However from discussions like e.g. [2] [3] you're right, you definitely do want to get it sort out, particularly if you have any remaining connection to Germany or may one day go back there. Now if I'm mistaken and you plan to return to Germany soon after your Masters in the UK, from what I read e.g. [4] [5] [6] it may be better to put your insurance in 'Anwartschaft' meaning you still pay a small maintence fee but your policy is put on hold until you go back to Germany and have it re-activated. If you have public insurance this may be slightly more difficult but from what I read should still br possible for a 1 year stay abroad. Cancelling it may make it more difficult or more costly to try to get insurance when you go back. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]