Miscellaneous desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 6 >

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.

August 5

UK law

There are two separate things I'm interested in about UK law: On those 'cop shows' on TV you can see police arresting people who meet prostitutes on the street. Now I know in the UK it's not illegal to use prostitutes if they are willing and not in a brothel, so what is the crime? I know prostitutes aren't allowed to solicit in public, so in this instance they are breaking the law, but what would the client be arrested for? This is for if the client is walking, because I know there is some sort of 'curb crawling' law if driving. Side question: Is the curb crawling law just you can't drive too slowly on the road? Because there could be non-prostitute reasons why you would want to do that, although I can't think of any.

And my second question is that what is the minimum and maximum punishment of driving without a licence? I'm guessing that it must be more than driving without insurance, because driving without a licence means that you can't have insurance (usually). Really, what I'm trying to figure out is if the law says it's worse (in terms of severity of punishment) to not have a licence or to drink drive. The Wiki page on drink driving shows that it's 2 years having the licence taken away, and up to £5000 fine and 6 months in prison. But I don't know what the punishment for not having a licence to find out which is (legally) worse.

Thanks for any help you can provide 78.42.201.216 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as driving without a licence goes the minimum penalty seems to be 3-6 penalty points and a £1000 fine. This page seems to have a good amount of info on various driving offenses and their penalties in the UK. Biggs Pliff (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see kerb crawler. Rojomoke (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you both! 78.42.201.216 (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean England and Wales but either way the aptly named Prostitution in the United Kingdom mentions the specific laws and the terminology used. For example in England and Wales, the client will likely be guilty of soliciting as well, if they try to solicit sexual services in a public place or street, including if they are in a vehicle. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beach on San Francisco (another question for my novel)

What's the most quiet beach in San Francisco. A place where you're never going to se a lot of people around? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco is in Northern California, with a cold, foggy climate that doesn't attract throngs of beachgoers. Here is the visitors' page for the City and County of San Francisco. If there's no relevant information there, you can write to them directly. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deborahjay,

I don't have Internet access so I cannot follow the link

I am looking for a beach to spend the day, but not swimming, but talking in the sand, playing football, etc. Does Ocean Beach works for that? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Thornton State Beach, near the southern edge of the city, is the most deserted. It's under high cliffs and is officially closed to the public because of landslides, but a few people go there anyway. As Deborahjay says, none of the SF beaches tend to be very crowded, except on special occasions. But Ocean Beach will be fine for your purposes. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three suggestions.

From http://www.askalo.com, you can select http://sanfrancisco.askalo.com and then http://sanfrancisco.askalo.com/Other-Going-Out-Questions/510/ and then post your question there.
You can post your question at http://www.experttravelanswers.com.
You can post your question at voy:Wikivoyage:Tourist Office.

I am interested in knowing which of those is the most helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. And Wavelength, I cannot access those links :( Sorry.-. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a few days almost every year, San Francisco experiences a strong easterly wind that blows the fog far offshore and brings sunshine real heat to the city (though the ocean water is still frigid). On those days, a trip to the beach can be appealing, but even then, if you walk far enough south, Thornton Beach will be quite empty. Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscrapers in NYC (novel question)

Is it illegal to use the roof of a skyscraper in NYC to organize a romantic dinner? Do you have to pay for it or ask for some permission? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you're looking for a special kind of penthouse apartment, one with a terrace. They cost a fortune, so you would either need a lot of money or very good connections with very rich people. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant roof. I don't know if that's the correct word, but I am trying to refer to the place where Peter Parker tried his webs for the first tim in Spiderman (starring Toby Macguire) and where most of the fights in movies are developed. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every tall building in NYC has a penthouse apartment on its roof. However, almost every tall building in NYC is private property (the rest are government buildings that also restrict public access), and the roof is often off-limits even to tenants, mainly for liability reasons. So you would need special permission from the property owner, which would probably be impossible to obtain at many buildings, again for liability reasons, unless perhaps if you hired a lawyer to negotiate a (probably very expensive) contract, part of which would exempt the owner from liability for any harm that might come to you or any of your guests on the roof and would require you to obtain an insurance policy against any harm that your party might do to the building. The makers of the Superman movie certainly would have had to arrange such a contract. Another option would be to rent out a penthouse bar, of which there are a few in NYC. This, too, would be extremely expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost for one evening was $500,000 or more. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wao... thanks Marco polo, could you suggest one of those? (one that my character could rent-the price is not the most important thing, but not braking the laws) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difficulty and cost of this is being far overestimated. I have attended two such dinners on buildings of about 40 stories. It was more of a stunt than a dinner, and the furnishings were not that nice, since they had to be weatherproof--basically quality patio furniture. I have had much nicer experiences in indoor luxury apartments on high floors but not outside. IN any case, I'd lop off a zero from the $500,000 rental, and expect the space to accommodate 100 guests. (Oops, I see that was a "pnthouse bar"--yes, far more expensive) You can google one-day manhattan penthouse rental. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, μηδείς. This is the situation. The wealthy man in my story is trying to win the love of the girl (main character), but she (as he is a public figure, like what Tony DiNozzo did in NCIS for his back-then girlfriend Jean Benoit, somewhere in the 4th Season) refuses to go out for dinner in a luxurious restaurant in Manhattan, so he plans a special dinner -casual but romantic-, just the two of them at the roof top of a skycraper (have you seen Friends With Benefits (film)), the one where Mila takes Justin the first time he is in New York). So I wanted to know if that (what the artist wants to do) if possible. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find the clip at google and am not interested in watching any large part of the movie. But in concept it is very easily doable if you have the money or a friend who will lend you his pad. Funny thing is the book I recommended, El Manantial, is set in Manhattan and has three men involved in building skyscrapers vying for the love of one woman. It has plenty of scenes you would like. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest any skycraper μηδείς?? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The problem is you want a nice penthouse in an impressive building with a good view. You are not likely to find the combination in one building. Skyscraper skyscrapers don't have penthouses. Nice residential buildings look ugly from the outside, since they are built cheap, and with a balcony on each floor. The best view is of Central Park looking south, but no impressive buildings will fit the requirements. The best would be to go with a made-up building like the Enright Building which would be on Central Park South. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

μηδείς, It doesn't have to be an impressive building or a penthouse... it could be even this one. The idea was making the dinner in a ugly bulding for a contrast stuff. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 20:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter you can't really eat on a commercial skyscraper like the NY Times building, as it would be too windy. You have to be on a building intentionally built with a penthouse. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a story line could be constructed in which one pays off a building super for discreet access to a sufficiently tall roof. If you look on Google Earth you can see what rooftops are like in New York. Recent buildings tend to have pointy things or decorative elements, buildings from the 1950s and 1960s have flat tops, but all of them put their cooling towers up there, so many of them would have a hot, moist, potentially Legionella-laden breeze. Still, ten minutes looking at rooftops on Google Earth would provide a few candidates. There would probably be some ladder-climbing - both the guests and the wait staff would need to be agile. It being fiction, one could assume relatively little wind (or a sauce that holds things down). Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about The Dakota Building or The San Remo building? After seeing this picture File:Snowedthedakota.JPG Miss Bono^[zootalk] 20:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dakota's kind of low and pointy. The four "two-tower" buildings on Central Park West are The San Remo, The Eldorado, The Beresford and The Majestic (New York City). 55 Central Park West, home of Dana Barrett and Zuul would work too. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dakota is a rusting, dusty, faded run-down dump with no roof access. (The roof in the picture you linked to is on the opposite side from the Park and has no view of it.) Think of the building from Kubrik's The Shining with a 50 year maintenance backlog. Its' only actual benefits are name and location above the subways and near the Park. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

μηδείς and Acroterion. It is creepy! (about the hotel in The Shining) Doesn't Eldorado looks like San Remo?? I think I'll choose that one. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

help

Is there a vehicle to simply comment on a Wikipedia post. I might be an expert on a topic and simply wish to make a pointed academic statement. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pozzateef (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on what you mean by "post". If you mean an article such as Earth or Time, then every article has a talk page (sometimes called a discussion page) which can be accessed by clicking on the word talk or discussion (depends on which Wikipedia skin you are using) at the top of the article. Examples would be Talk:Earth or Talk:Time. Comments concerning the article can be posted there. New topics should be put under their own heading to keep things organized.

If by "post" you mean a section here or on one of those talk pages, then you can just edit that particular section by clicking on the "edit" link to the right of the section header and providing your response. Dismas|^(talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But strictly, talk pages are for the purpose of discussing improvements to the relevant article, not for discussion about the subject of the article. The disctinction can get blurred, though. --ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't really have a place to discuss the topic of the article, only to discuss the article itself.

For example, if you think that Wikipedia has Barack Obama's birthday wrong, you could click on that article's "Discussion" or "Talk" tab, and discuss that issue. But if you think that Obama's public policy is wrong or shortsighted, there is no place on Wikipedia you could discuss that.

Same with scientific topics. If you think there's an error in the Cold Fusion article, feel free to discuss that on the talk page, but if you think that mainstream scientific consensus is wrong, Wikipedia is not the place to make that point. APL (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very best way to do that is not to loudly proclaim your expertise - because this is the Internet and the other editors of the article have no way to know whether you're telling use the truth or feeding them a line of BS. For that reason, you generally need to point out some kind of published (preferably peer-reviewed) paper or article that explains the point you're trying to make. If you have that - then you can take it to the Talk: page of the article and explain why you think the article need changing based on your reference. Using your expertise to 'translate' any difficult language or concepts into 'layman' form for the benefit of other editors is a good idea. SteveBaker (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is also the article feedback tool, unfortunately. Depending on the point you're looking to make, that may be an appropriate venue. As long as it's directly related to the content of the article, of course. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera shutter life

The display problem I earlier reported with my Olympus E-620 camera has only got worse, so I sent it to repairs. The repairs company said it will take until Friday next week and cost 300 € at the most. My question is not about the display, but about the camera itself. I have had the camera for about two years now and taken 75 thousand pictures with it. And I even bought the camera used, the previous owner had taken 9 thousand pictures with it. This makes 84 thousand. How much longer will the shutter last until I will start seeing defects in the pictures themselves? JIP | Talk 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For their 'pro' level equipment, the big SLR manufacturers typically rate their shutters as good for a minimum of 100-150,000 actuations. They tend to get a bit cagier about their prosumer or amateur lines, but scuttlebutt usually says those shutters will be good for an absolute minimum of 50,000, and can often last significantly longer. (As you have already experienced.) If you look around online, you'll find a number of anecdotal reports from E-620 users who are still clicking away at 100,000+ shots: [1]. Then again, in this market segment, most users tend to be likely to upgrade or replace their camera body before they get to shutter counts that high, so the data may be a bit sparse. Maybe flip a coin? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, most high-end consumer-grade DSLRs have 50,000 shot shutters, with pro and prosumer cameras in the 100,000 range. I would expect an outright failure of the shutter mechanism if/when it does fail, rather than image defects - the failure mode is probably a shutter stuck open, closed, or partway, or the mirror, which has more mass, might not move. Acroterion (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read on the net that these are pessimistic estimates, to guarantee a minimum. I'm already well beyond the 50 thousand shot estimate, and the shutter is all OK so far. (It's just the display that has broken, it's being fixed now.) I've seen mentioned that some people have managed twice or even triple this many shots. One person even took his consumer-grade DSLR to Spitzbergen and Death Valley, and it worked fine. I'm not going to take mine to such extremes. In contrast to a failed display, a failed shutter or a failed mirror will render the camera unusable. But if the shutter or mirror fails, it can still be replaced, right? The only problem is that it's going to cost half the price of a new camera and take two-three weeks. If it happens during, or less than three weeks before, an important event, I'm kind of screwed. Is there any way of knowing that the shutter will fail soon, when it is finally on its last legs? JIP | Talk 18:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Visited Page

What's the most visited page in en.Wikipedia? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Main_Page.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, besides that one. It seems tricky, Main PAge comes by default :). Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top visited pages from April are here. You can see more recent stats for a given page by inserting the title here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those can't be right, the most viewed page aside from main page is Mark Linn-Baker, number 33 is Aho–Corasick string matching algorithm. There are also no sexual articles until around the 70th place, seems unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.48.186 (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also links at WP:POPULAR. Many of the top pages in stats are often obscure topics or misspelled titles. The usual theory is that a poorly configured piece of software somewhere keeps requesting the same page without human intervention. User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages is based on a recent week. The top articles on the current list which appear likely to actually be based on human interest are Facebook (always popular) and The Wolverine (film) (premiered July 24). This week the most read may be Peter Capaldi (stats) who caused controvercy at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#.5BClosed.5D Doctor Who. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natural gas generator; price range with full install

Obviously no one can give me anything exact here, but I'm looking for a sort of baseline to think from. Maybe someone else has done this or is an electrician. I am looking to install a natural gas-powered generator here in New York, as we are having these storms with power outages now every year. This is for a house that has natural gas already for the stove/range. I only need enough to power a space heater and a few accessories in one room, like some lights, so 3,500 watts, according to what I've been reading, should be about sufficient. I would expect to buy on the low to middling range of units. Does anyone have an idea of what this would be expected to cost, with the unit itself, a transfer switch, whatever else is needed and full installation by an electrician? I know it's a broad question but I'm looking for some idea. I mean at this point I don't know whether I should be thinking $1,500. or $10,000.--108.27.62.131 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google for "buy 3.5kw generator natural gas" and got a bunch of interesting options. It's pretty clear that if you want one that automatically starts up and kicks in without much hassle - then you're looking at around $1500 to $2000 - but if you're prepared to go and start the thing manually, then you can do it for under $1000. But I strongly suggest you try googling around it yourself - there are lot of options to choose from. SteveBaker (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will need a separate fuse box with only those circuits you want the generator to power. Rmhermen (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]