Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 March 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.

March 9

Wallkill Valley

What more can be added to this page? Tinton5 (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite a bit. For example a link to Wallkill River, a map, more information on the region's history, population, geography, fauna and flora, climate, hydrology, ... Chew Valley, an example of a featured article on a valley, might give you more ideas. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cashier ergonomics

In Hawaii, over the last several years, I've noticed more and more cashiers in convenience stores suffering from some kind of work-related disability, usually a form of repetitive strain injury. In some cases, they also seem to be suffering from foot and back problems. I know this because I'm somewhat of a social person and enjoy talking to people I see every day and getting to know them. One thing that I noticed after many years, is that very few of these cashiers have stools or chairs available to them. Those that do are usually in a smaller space, like a gas station food mart. I'm curious, wouldn't management benefit more from having healthy workers using a stool or chair that would give them more of an ergonomic workspace? I realize this might difficult to do, but I'm wondering if someone out there has thought about this problem. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitting seems to cause more health problems than standing.[1][2][3][4][5] And it's not necessarily going to stop you getting RSI from operating a POS terminal/cash register, etc. Of course there are many other reasons why stools/seats may not be provided - they might require more space for them, they may impede speedy evacuation in a fire, staff may have to move around a lot to do their jobs (picking things off shelves etc), staff turnover is high enough that businesses don't care, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing that seems problematic to me is how they always lean the same way (the side the conveyor belt is on). I've seen an occasional setup, usually in cafeterias, where they can serve customers on both sides. This seems better, to me, as they will then get to balance out their movements more. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Typically (I don't know if it's required by law), cashiers stand on anti-fatigue mats (I'm surprised there's no Wikipedia article on them!), which are just soft mats that make standing up for a long time somewhat less tiring, so there's at least some attention paid to this. But alternating between sitting and standing is probably the best option. Paul (Stansifer) 22:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Two points about the responses thus far. 1) Is POS in this case supposed to stand for "point of sale" or "piece of shit" or is this left up the reader to decide?  :) 2) Stu, many places that have remodeled in the last ~5 years have conveyors on both sides with two cashiers. The cashiers are still working only one side but at least there's a chance that on their next shift, they'll be working the opposite side. Dismas|^(talk) 23:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not nearly as good as one cashier who has customers on both sides, but a slight improvement, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, one cashier with one conveyor on each side doesn't help anything but the cashier. And I don't know how much it helps them other than the health issue of leaning. It doesn't make anything faster for the customer; now instead of being after the person in front of you, you're after the person across from you. And with that set up, the cashier would have to think more about what side their working on, switch hands that mainly deals with the register (thinking that the register is centrally located and therefore on either the dominant side or non-dominant depending on which way the cashier is facing), the little divider wall between the register and the row of customers in the next aisle is normally used for reminders and store coupons which would have to go... somewhere, etc. Also, how much leaning does the cashier have to do? Many modern set ups have the keyboard above the conveyor (right above the bar code scanner) and therefore the cashier isn't leaning sideways over the belt anyway. Dismas|^(talk) 00:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point was about it helping the cashier, not the customers, but I can see some ways it could help the customers, too:

1) You can unload your groceries onto the belt while the cashier checks out the other side. This avoids the problem of the belt moving while you are trying to place groceries on it, thus allowing you to use the belt more efficiently. It also avoids the problem of a quick cashier being limited by the speed at which the customers can place their groceries on the belt. Then, when the cashier does get to you, hopefully you will be ready to watch the prices ring up and complain when they overcharge you.

2) If one conveyor belt goes down due to mechanical failure or needs cleaning, say due to blood and milk spilled on it, they can close off that aisle and use the remaining belt, without having to "cash out" and move to a new register.

3) Two short lines are better than one long line, since it might block the aisle. StuRat (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Man-eating Monsters

I'm looking for a list of monsters that might eat humans; mythological monsters, pop-culture monsters, whatever. I already have werewolves and ogres on my list, and I'm looking at the List of legendary creatures but there's a lot to go through there and my mind has gone blank so I'm hoping for a few nudges.... Ideally, I want monsters that would want to eat all of a human, but others like vampires who just want their blood and zombies who just want their brains could fit too. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Grendel is a good one. --Tango (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Audrey II. Staecker (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dragons are common across more than one culture. HiLo48 (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The mares of Diomedes, the Stymphalian birds, the Keres, various man-eating trees, Ammit (a taste for impure human hearts), the ghūl, Yilbegän, the Abaasy, the killer badger, Manananggal, Baxbaxwalanuksiwe, Gwaxwgwakwalanuksiwe', Galuxwadzuwus, and Huxhukw, the Mirror Monsters ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Scylla and Cyclops come to mind. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

King Kong, Godzilla, manticores, the wendigo... the list is going to be quite long. Matt Deres (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

King Kong is herbivore, forget man-eating. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Normal gorillas are herbivores, but this documentary clearly chows him eating Shirley Temple. Matt Deres (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk. And the great white shark in Jaws, which is part fiction and part fact. Then there's the gigantic chicken heart described by Bill Cosby in an early routine about old time radio horror/thriller programs. And there's The Blob. But you haven't lived until you've seen The Killer Shrews or Attack of the Giant Leeches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And there are those little monsters in Piranha 3D. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, got some good ideas there :) MorganaFiolett (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia traffic question

What percent of Wikipedia's traffic comes from search engine links. I read that 99% of Wikipedia pages are in the top results for Google inquiries but am not sure how to backtrack through that to get a % (needed for a school project). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.143.236 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

From my Google search for What percent of Wikipedia's traffic comes from search engine links, the fourth result is Google Sending Wikipedia A Ton Of Traffic, dated February 19, 2007.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

See here. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

phone prices

If I call a number starting 0190 489, are they going to charge me a rediculously excessive price for it as part of some scam? Isn't there some way of telling the cost of phoning certain numbers from how they start?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

inb4 "which country are you in?", it's obviously the UK (I could tell even before doing a whois on the IP address). --Viennese Waltz 21:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it one of these numbers? As you can see, the code is 01904 which is the STD code for York. Just googled "01904 telephone code". Google is your friend! --TammyMoet (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not on that list, but if it's a standard york number...

What if it's an american based company, though, can they have the same numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

However, let's say I've found something that could be a scam of some sort, but looks like a decent advertising proposal once you read the small print, is there anywhere I could go to find reports by people on the company/product in question, some sort of scam reporting website that isn't censored or run by the people trying to take my money? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just Google their name, and maybe address or phone number, in case it is a scam and they frequently change their company's name. While you might find some websites they set up, you would likely also find sites identifying them as a scam, if they are. StuRat (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

yea, could do. I googled the number alone and nothing. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.81.179 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you find nothing on a Google of their name, or their phone number, or their address, that's a very bad sign. Sounds like a fly-by-night operation that just changed their name and moved to a new location, probably to escape the angry mob. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing like that, I'm sure, they've been advertising under that name for a while. Just, they emailed me the phone number as soon as I expressed interest, that's what seemed a bit odd to me, so I can understand it not being freely given anywhere google could look. I can see this deserves a lot more investigation, though. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether there is some dodgy element to the number I think might depend how the number is expressed. Most UK companies would put "01904" either in parentheses or followed by a space then the 6-digit number - ie. "(01904) 89xxxx" or "01904 89xxxx". Some other placing of spaces, dashes or parentheses, or something other than 11 digits, might indicate a foreign operation. However, the UK telephone system works only on the numbers - dialing 0190489... gets you a number in York starting with 89. You will only be charged what your service provider charges for a call to York. Of course, they might capture your number using caller ID and use that to send you reverse billed SMS messages, but there is probably some regulation stopping that from happening. You can contact OFCOM and ask about how to make a complaint if that happens. Astronaut (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth in the UK it's not possible to be charged for a call by simply answering it. If they ask you to press some keys or something though it's possible then. Don't get paranoid about picking up your phone192.84.79.2 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Parking deck economics

While, in the US, surface parking is often free, deck parking rarely is, and often costs around $10 per day. However, there is a shopping mall near me with free deck parking. I'm curious how much it actually costs to maintain a surface parking space (including plowing snow, clearing leaves, and more frequent painting of lines) versus a deck parking space (includes the higher initial cost divided by the number of spaces). Obviously, the property price is a wildcard, with high property prices making surface parking disproportionately more expensive. So, let's just leave those out of the calculations, for now. Also, are taxes ever based on number of parking spaces, or purely based on land area ? StuRat (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've no idea what's being discussed here - what are 'surface parking' and 'deck parking' (they mean nothing to me in the UK)? Mikenorton (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Surface parking" is a parking lot while "deck parking" is a parking structure. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, not that I have an answer, but it's difficult when you don't understand the question. Mikenorton (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The normal British English terms are "car park" and "multi storey car park" for anyone still confused by the US terms - ah the old chestnut - The UK and the USA, two countries separated by a common language! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can leave property prices out of the equation. Rent on the land is probably one of the largest costs for either type of car park. (The other large cost would be selling and checking tickets, but obviously you don't have that cost if it is free. Shopping centres with free parking often require proof that you bought something in one of the shops, though, so that involves some cost.) --Tango (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the garage is of the open-air variety and not fully enclosed or underground, much of the cost is in the initial construction. After that, most such structures have only one or two employees staffing them, or none if it is really free and no validation is required. They are also often rather poorly lit, presumably to save on electricity and because cars have lights anyway. As you mentioned they also do not need to plow unless there is roof parking. As to the question of taxes, how property taxes are determined is highly varied depending on jurisdiction, so a small lot in Manhattan is probably paying more than a big garage in Oklahoma City. Parking spaces are so prized in Manhattan that they even have lots with hydraulic lifts in each space so they can lift up your car and park another one underneath it. Now that's a pricey parking operation! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I just stopped by this thread to object to StuRat's premise, "in the US, surface parking is often free, deck parking rarely is, and often costs around $10 per day". Surely you know that, to use Beeblebrox's locales, in Manhattan all of the above prices are a fantasy from 150 years ago, and that in Oklahoma City you don't pay to park. That aside, my OR observation is that it's supply and demand based, and a parking lot is sometimes an investment, built by investors, who make a return on their investment; highly congested areas have more expensive parking garages, and parking becomes less expensive the farther away you look. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There may be a few exceptions, like Manhattan, but, in 99% of the US by land area (and maybe 90% by population), you can find free surface parking and deck parking for around $10 a day. StuRat (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My guess is it's simple economics. In most of the United States, land is relatively cheap and it's structures which are expensive. By far, the most cost effective way to build parking is to buy extra land and make a surface lot. In my hometown, you can tell when a shopping center was originally built by its location. They get younger further from downtown, as they were built on cheap, undeveloped land at the edge of town, and followed the edge outward with expansion. You'd only opt for a multi-level garage over a surface lot if there's no extra room. Which means there's probably no available parking in the area, so it's a seller's market for parking. Note that doesn't mean that all parking garages charge for parking. Once you have the structure built, it's a sunk cost, so the cost of the structure doesn't really figure in to whether you charge or not. While you get money for charging, you also have additional expenses - the traffic control equipment to keep freeloaders out, extra security to dissuade cheaters, payment processing costs (credit card processing fees are killers on small dollar transactions). You also have opportunity costs. People will try to avoid paying by looking for free on-street parking, or by driving an extra 5 minutes to a shopping center without parking fees. Even if you have "free parking with purchase", you potentially lose people who don't want the hassle of parking validation, or who might impulse buy while window shopping. Charging for parking typically happens where there's no other parking options, and typically in those situations any nearby surface or street parking is also charged (though there may be a few privately owned or "for customers while in store only" spots). So I don't think it's a lot/garage distinction, but a parking availability distinction, and you tend to get garages only in low-availability areas. -- 71.35.120.88 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good summary. It's a supply-and-demand situation, and I've often heard parking decks in cities described as "cash cows". Once you've paid for the structure itself, there's not much maintenance cost, and the money just rolls in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This document [6] seems informative. It provides information on the land, construction, and operating costs of various types of parking facilities. For example, on page 10, it says the typical cost of building and running a parking facility runs from $56 / month / spot for surface spots to $330 / month / spot for underground structures in a city center. Also, it appears that most of the operating cost of a parking facility is associated with the cashiers, security, management and related things. The actual maintenance may be $100-150 / space / year. Construction costs for new parking facilities tend to be $12000 - $20000 / per space, which of course has to be compensated for over the useful life to the structure. Some of these numbers might seem large, but if you are a retail center that owns the parking lot, the amount of added revenue you require from each visitor to offset the cost of parking often won't be very high since you get many visitors per month, and most of the visitors are there to spend money anyway. Dragons flight (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's just what I was looking for. That also confirms my thoughts on why surface parking lots are often free. That $56 per spot per month works out to under $0.50 a day, and most retail establishments could afford to chalk that up to overhead. The $330 per spot per day is more like $11 a day, and it's hard to see how they can swallow that as overhead, especially if the spaces aren't at 100% occupancy. You need a lot of paying customers to be able to cover that. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

gardening - poppies

I am planning my garden and would like to include poppies for the seeds. I have heard that in some states growing certain types of poppies or any poppies at all is illegal. Can you direct me to a site where I can find this information for Oklahoma?Pattilavonne (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Our relevant article is Opium poppy#Legality. It doesn't mention Oklahoma specifically, but it does have a section on the US. --Tango (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Googling [poppies oklahoma] came up with this gardening forum,[7] which gives no hint that there's any issue about growing poppies in Oklahoma. Apparently the obstacle in OK isn't the law, it's merely getting the seeds to germinate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that simply having opium poppy Papaver somniferum plants in your garden anywhere in the United States is a federal crime of the same caliber as having a bag of marijuana in your glove box. But I am not a lawyer (besides, Wikipedia does not give legal advice).--Itinerant1 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would think the legal authorities would differentiate between a very occasional stray or "volunteer" opium poppy within a large field of "normal" poppies, as contrasted with having a crop of them. They might want to have a chat with the source of your seeds, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Opium poppies *are* "normal" poppies (the kind that you grow to make seeds for cooking). Yes, knowing that you have them is an element of the crime, and the scale of production matters too (just like the sentence for having an acre of marijuana is different from the sentence for having ten plants.) Incidentally, I read that, under the U.S. law, growing is "manufacturing", and penalties for manufacturing illegal drugs are steeper than penalties for simple possession.

The kind that you can find most easily in stores here seems to be the California poppy. I have no idea how California poppy seeds compare to real poppy seeds in taste. It's a completely different genus. But it is possible to find opium poppy seeds in stores as well, even at Walmart, but usually under different names, e.g. as "Peony poppy". Opium poppy seeds are exempt from prosecution. Otherwise every Jewish bagel store owner would be in prison by now. --Itinerant1 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)