Miscellaneous desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30

Questions to ask buying a nice bike

Hi all,

After many years just riding mountain bikes on road, I reckon it's time I finally got a proper on-road bike. Since these usually start at several hundred pounds +, and I'd not like to go completely cheap, this is a fairly major cash commitment. I'm also quite shy. Before I walk into the specialist bike store (rather than Halfords!), are there any particular questions that I ought to know to ask/know to avoid? I know my height, budget, and intended use, is there anything else that would either help me get good service (ie not get ripped off as obviously not knowing what I'm talking about), or just avoid getting laughed at? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.230.34 (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend visiting more than one bike store. Ask similar questions in each and see what kind of response you get. That will teach you more about the bikes you're interested in and give you a sense of which bike shops have knowledgeable staff who offer good information and which shops target the uninitiated and steer them toward expensive features that they don't need. Also, you might start by reading a few bicycling magazines or websites to get a sense for the issues. Here are some tips: A good bike shop will not suggest an expensive (and somewhat fragile) racing bike for an urban commuter (nor will they suggest a mountain bike). Unless you tend to ride for speed on well-maintained and open roads in the countryside, you will probably want some kind of hybrid bike: i.e., one that combines the lightness and efficiency of a racing bike with the ruggedness of a mountain bike. Good questions to ask are "Why does this bike cost more than that bike?" "What are the advantages of this model over that model?" and so on. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience dedicated bike shops (you're right to avoid Halfords) are among the friendliest and most helpful stores there are. They rely heavily on word of mouth among the cycling community so you're unlikely to get ripped off. You might want to look for a web forum of local cyclists who will be able to suggest where to look, and give some thought to what style of handlebars and saddle you want as these have a big impact on comfort. In my opinion you're unlikely ever to need more than ten gears unless you're thinking of going up mountains.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'd say never make a purchase on your first visit. Instead, write down the model numbers and prices of bikes they have for sale, along with any included accessories. Then take this info home, and look up all those items on the Internet, both for prices and reviews. Beware any shop that starts slashing prices but only if you buy right then. This probably means the prices were absurdly high to begin with and are still higher than you could get elsewhere after the supposed "slashing". However, note that you should expect prices to be higher in a bike shop, especially one which assembles the bike for you and/or offers any type of maintenance or other services, versus buying one over the Internet in a box and assembling it yourself. So, maybe 50% more might make sense, but not 10X more.

2) I agree with the advice to avoid anything fancy, like a graphite-composite frame. That just makes the bike incredibly expensive and fragile.

3) Once you decide on the model you want, go to several bike shops and tell them you intend to buy that model, but found it cheaper at shop X. Many will then lower their prices. This approach works better on a popular model many stores carry. You could also tell them you found it cheaper on the Internet, although they probably won't match that price, since that's really an "apples and oranges" comparison.

4) Also beware of bikes that use "proprietary standards". I know Schwinn used to do this, meaning you had to buy all replacement parts from them at absurd prices. I'm not sure which ones still do this.

5) Have you decided what you need on the bike, like number of speeds, whether you need a full suspension, lights and reflectors for night use, speedometer/odometer, and type of seat ? They might treat you better if you come in knowing what you want, and might try to rip you off if you don't. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to visit more than one bike store (unless you have one already that you know and trust) was based on my experience in the Boston, USA, area, where some stores take advantage of the somewhat large population of transient students with wealthy parents (or young doctors and lawyers with more money than common sense) to push overly expensive models. In my area, there is also a type of bike store staffed with bicycle snobs who can't be bothered to help you if you are not already a connoisseur. These people may respond condescendingly to your questions and make it clear that they just wish you would leave the store, with or without a bike. If every bike store in your area happens to be friendly, helpful, and not out to gouge, then it might be fine to deal with whichever happens to be closest to you. Otherwise, shop around. Marco polo (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with StuRat that it helps to think about what sort of bike you want before coming into the shop.Probably the two biggest decisions are true road bike or hybrid, and if a true road bike whether you want flat or drop handlebars. Both of these decisions steer you to completely different models of bike. Number of speeds is also important. Things like lights, saddle, pedals and bike computers are useful to think about but less critical as they can all be changed/fitted on any particular model. Also if you are shy it's an easier way to start a conversation to say e.g. "I'm looking for a flat handlebar road bike in this price range for this indended use, what do you recommend?" Rather than say "I'm looking for a bike" and then get asked lots of questions you haven't researched. Knowing what you want also makes people less likely to rip you off for fear that you might catch them out! Equisetum (talk | contributions) 10:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lottery winners

With the Mega Millions having a ridiculously high jackpot at the moment everyone seems to be interested in the lottery. What do people who win the lottery (for simplicity we'll say winners of at least several million dollars) normally do from the time they found out they've won to a couple weeks after they've claimed the jackpot, given that they have a fair amount of time between when they win and when they have to claim the prize? What normally happens to them in the long term after they've claimed the prize? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some like Jack Whittaker (lottery winner) who run into a lot of trouble once they win. Dismas|^(talk) 17:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways that much money can cause problems. One is just having it, in that some people will drink, do drugs, and gamble until they die as a result. The other problem is letting the public and your relatives know you have that much money, which makes you the target of crime. Some lotteries allow the winner to remain anonymous, but I doubt if a prize of that magnitude can possibly be hidden. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes nothing. I recall reading about one silly woman who waited something like six months before claiming the money, so she could surprise her husband on his birthday. I did a rough calculation (this was back when interest rates were a lot higher) and figured she could have bought a house with the interest she didn't collect. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odds ?

With a $462 million dollar jackpot, has this reached the point where it's actually worth buying a ticket, or will you still lose money, on average ? StuRat (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you lose money? Granted, you have to pay taxes on it but they can't be greater than the sum of the winnings. Dismas|^(talk) 17:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You lose money by paying for a lottery ticket and not winning, of course. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formula should, I believe, be:

       (Prize value after taxes) x (Chance of winning)   
------------------------------------------------------------   -   Price of Ticket 
(Average number of winners when there's at least one winner)

If positive, then you would make money, on average, by buying a ticket. So, can anyone help me fill in the variables ? The denominator seems the trickiest, since that must depend on the number of people who enter but also how random the numbers are which they select (if everyone picks the same numbers, this would be far higher than if everyone picks a unique number). The "Prize value after taxes" should either be interpreted as "Lump sum prize money after taxes" or "Installment prize value after taxes and inflation".StuRat (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Mega Millions lists the odds. Taxes will depend on where you live. US Federal taxes are 35% I think. State taxes widely vary. California doesn't tax winnings, other states do. Current jackpot is listed as $640 million annuity or $462 million lump sum. RudolfRed (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other complexities are the chances of winning a lesser prize, and the use of the "Megaplier" option. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me try running some numbers. Ignoring the lesser prizes, taking a WAG at 50% net tax rate, using the lump sum figure, and guessing at 3 winners, on average, when there is a winner, at this level, I get:

(50% after taxes x $462 million lump sum) x 1 in 175,711,536
------------------------------------------------------------   -   $1   =   -$0.56
                    3 winners, on average

If we add in the Megaplier, which gives an average multiplication of 3.476 and makes the ticket cost $2, we get:

3.476 x (50% after taxes x $462 million lump sum) x 1 in 175,711,536
--------------------------------------------------------------------   -   $2   =   -$0.48
                     3 winners, on average

So, with those figures, it looks like it's not high enough to be worthwhile, yet. Did I do the calcs right ? It looks like you could just about break even in California, due to the lack of state taxes, if you used the "Megaplier", but, unfortunately, they don't have it in that state. The number you pick presumably also matters, with a truly random number winner being less likely to share his winnings than somebody who plays today's date. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Megaplier does not apply to the jackpot. RudolfRed (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? That makes it a colossal rip-off then, if you have to pay twice as much and yet only increase the payout on the insignificant secondary prizes. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people you might have to share your prize with depends the choice of numbers. With over 175 million possible winning combinations, there are some very popular combinations, while there are many, many combinations that are not played at all. If you are one of the idiots who play multiples of 7 (ie. 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42) because 7 is a "lucky" number, then you might have to share your prize with an awful lot more people that you might have otherwise expected. When I used to work in the lottery business, several thousand people played that exact combination every week. The same goes with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - another combination that is inexplicably popular. As far as I'm aware, all the sevens has never come up as a winning combination and the only time 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ever won was when we were running the test system :-).

The best advice I had was to play a random-pick. Not letting your feelings for a certain numbers interfere with your number selection has a couple of advantages: while it is not garanteed to pick a combination that has not been played so far, the random pick is random enough that you are more likely to not to have to share your prize; and it also means you don't get attached to a particular set of numbers week after week (nothing's worse than thinking you have won, only to find you forgot to enter that week). Astronaut (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a local news show present an "expert" who advised that you should never use the quick-pick (random). I agree with you, though. The so-called expert did not present his reasoning. I suspect it's based on interviews with winners, who, even though they really did the quick-pick, lied and came up with explanations for how God told them the numbers to play, or some such thing. StuRat (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut, any mathematician will confirm that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is just as likely to come up as any other combination of 6 valid numbers you could possibly name. A random draw is not concerned with aesthetics or with any apparent relationship between the numbers, but every once in a while an apparently related series of numbers will be drawn. But that's only because humans like to find patterns in nature, even in random accidents where no pattern was, or could possibly have been, intended. To exclude the possibility of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or all the sevens, or any other ordered series of numbers, ever being drawn is to actually slightly reduce your chance of winning, not increase it. But I know where you're coming from - wild horses could never force me to pick 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 either. I tell myself it's just so unlikely, and I conveniently overlook that every other combination, without exception, is just as unlikely. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, Jack. If one asks, "is 1,2,3,4,5,6 any more unlikely that any other set of numbers," the answer is clearly "no." But if one asks, "is a string of numbers in perfect order more unlikely than a set of numbers more unusually distributed," the answer is "yes." The human intuition is really telling you about the latter probability, not the former. My point is not that excluding those numbers will help you win, but that human intuition in this case is not entirely wrong, so long as you understand what it is really being intuited... --Mr.98 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intuition will sometimes lead you to conclusions that are just plain wrong. You can look at all the previous results and come to the view that the selected numbers have always been disordered, and are always going to be, because that's the nature of random numbers; and therefore it would be an utter waste of money (or as near as damn it) to choose 1,2,3,4,5,6 or any other string of numbers in perfect order. I say it's an utter waste of money (or as near as damn it) to choose 1,3,9,23,31,38, or 7,11,15,21,22,33, or ......., because they are all exactly as unlikely as 1,2,3,4,5,6. The truth is that any single ticket has an infinitesimally small chance of winning, no matter what numbers are chosen. The "as near as damn it" is the area we're working in here. And when that intersects with human nature, interesting things happen. When the string is 1,2,3,4,5,6, most people prefer to believe that "as near as damn it" exactly equals zero. But when it's some randomly disordered series, most people hope like hell that "as near as damn it" is non-zero. They can't have it both ways. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, Astronaut's point wasn't that 1-2-3-4-5-6 is any less likely to win, it's that if it does win, you will have to split your winnings with the thousands of other idiots who also bet that. Therefore, betting a random sequence is far better, as nobody else is likely to have bet on it, so, if it does win (which is just as likely) you get to keep it all (assuming you use your shotgun to keep the taxman at bay). StuRat (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was half of his point. The other part was "as far as I'm aware, all the sevens has never come up as a winning combination and the only time 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ever won was when we were running the test system" - that is, it's very unlikely to come up at all, whether you have to share your winnings with others or not, so it's unwise to bet on it just from the unlikeliness perspective. But I'm saying it's no more unlikely than any random combination, and I think you and Mr.98 have agreed with me on that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his point was that this combo is any less likely, just that it isn't any more likely. That is, that it never have come up isn't very notable, unless one expects it to come up often. But, since it has never come up, just like most other combos, this shows it isn't really "lucky". StuRat (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. OK. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Fooians"

I keep seeing discussions about categories pertaining to "Old Fooians". What in the world is an "Old Fooian"? Allen (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Foobar. "Foo" is often used as a placeholder for another word which might be anything. Another example is widget. So if you were talking about people from various countries and didn't want to have to name each and every one of them (i.e. Old German, Old Norwegian, Old Mexican, etc.) you could just put "foo" in their place. Without having a specific example from you, it's a bit hard to tell if this answers your question or not. Dismas|^(talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fooian is not a collective term I recognised or have ever come across. Do mean the plural of “ An Old Fool”?--Aspro (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please look at the answer by User:Dismas above. JIP | Talk 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying it – in fact it makes sense. Its just that I have never come across it and the OP say's s/he keeps coming across it. Obviously, I should bolt the door, draw the curtains and spend more time in cyberspace.--Aspro (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another instance of the OP not including an example of what they are referring to. I just happened to (maybe) know what they were referring to and responded. When the question was asked, I did a quick web search for "Old Fooian" (with quotes) and the first page, at least, of results were to Wikipedia. <rant>It really helps when the OPs provide examples of what they're referring to. It's akin to asking a regular editor "Why did you make that edit?" What edit? Where? If they can provide examples of what they're referring to, it really helps the responders answer the question more precisely. </rant> Dismas|^(talk) 20:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, this refers to past pupils at a school such as Old Etonians, but with the the 'Foo' being a placeholder as described above. The debate has been about the naming of pages that list such people I believe - see [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt a real word it is just easier to say Old Fooians rather than Old xxxians it is just easier on wikipedia to insert Foo instead of xxx. You can find it in other discussions where Foo is used as an example like Category:Cycle manufacturers of Foo rather than list all the countries. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I said that. Dismas|^(talk) 23:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Category names#Occupation and the nicely named {{Fooian fooers}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a little further on what Mikenorton said above, an Old Fooian would be a former student of Foo School, in the same way that an Old Etonian went to Eton and an Old Harrovian went to Harrow. In the UK, these descriptions are normally only applied to the older and more famous public schools - it would be unusual for someone to refer to themselves as an 'Old Walford-Highschool-ian' - and can sometimes be used to denote some of the 'benefits' that ex-students of these places are perceived to get - for instance 'How did Foofoo Barrington get that cushy job with the civil service?' 'Oh, he's an Old Etonian'.

The collective term for ex-students is Old Boys, and that article contains a long list of specific names for past students of various schools. See also Old boy network and School tie for information about the benefits of being an Old Boy. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the early 20th century, English Grammar schools tried to model themselve on the much more prestigious public schools. Most Grammar schools had old boys' associations, many of which survive as sports (esp Rugby Union) clubs, so we have Old Beccehamians, Old Elthamians, Old Surbitonians, Old Leamingtonians etc etc... BTW Cucumber Mike, my old school had an Old Leytonians club, long since deceased (Leyton is directly between Walthamstow and Stratford, whose names were combined to make the fictional Walford). But as you say, it wouldn't be something you'd boast about at a dinner party, although Derek Jacobi and Jonathan Ross are "Old Leytonians". Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the ex-students of the original Walford High School (which have also have to suffer the indignity of being pupils at an establishment that has repeatedly been acknowledged as the worst school -ever) will appreciate your current claim that they are also now to be considered, no more than the result of a concatenated abbreviation in someone’s imagination?--Aspro (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really my claim. If you follow Cucumber Mike's link, as I did, you'll see that the claim is referenced to Smith, Rupert (2005). EastEnders: 20 Years in Albert Square. BBC Books, BBC Worldwide Ltd. ISBN 978-0-563-52165-5. I didn't see the Walford (disambiguation) page. We already have Walford Anglican School for Girls which is in Australia. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a redlink to Walford High School on the disambiguation page. THe school has been replaced by the West London Academy which occupies the same site. Both schools had WP articles but both have been deleted. Alansplodge (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should have thought of adding them to the disambiguation page. Glade that some editors are still awake.--Aspro (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Foo" is not widely used in British English, something I didn't notice in our article Foobar (redirect from Foo). It's also not properly explained in Placeholder name. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rare in British English. The only place I've ever met the expression is on Wikipedia, where it seems to be in common usage. Dbfirs 11:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it in comic strips from generations back. I suspect it's a variant on "faux", or possibly connected with "phony" or the old expression "Phooey!" all of which mean a humbug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brits take their pick of (off the top of my head) "X", "whatever", "any old", "such and such" or for people, "so and so" or "Joe Bloggs". I've only heard British people say "phooey" when there's a particularly bad smell. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's used more broadly in America. Here's what EO has to say about it (as well as "phoo"):[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]