Miscellaneous desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19

Provenance of a quote

I've seen the following quote attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson but I can't find where/when he actually said it. Quite a few sources from Cracked and on down the reliable source ladder say he said it but again, I can't find anything more reliable. The quote is:

The problem in society is not kids not knowing science. The problem is adults not knowing science. They outnumber kids 5 to 1, they wield power, they write legislation. When you have scientifically illiterate adults, you have undermined the very fabric of what makes a nation wealthy and strong.

It's longer than 140 characters, so I'm guessing it's not from NdGT's Twitter account. So, is anyone's Google-fu better than mine? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google, it takes you immediately to Wikiquote. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote was the very first place I looked before Google. I searched through Tyson's entry there for the words "outnumber", "number", and "illiterate". When they weren't found, or were found but not in this quote, I went to Google. Dismas|^(talk) 01:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this recently (ca. 17 May) on Facebook but a scroll-back failed to recover it. Possibly you may search or inquire on the following websites: Brain Pickings (Maria Popova) or IFLScience, both known to quote N. Tyson. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it on FB recently too. When these things come across my feed, I sometimes go looking for the source of the quote. I also check Snopes for various claims that are posted too. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this video. Abecedare (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDFgLS3sdpU "Neil deGrasse Tyson - Children Are Not The Problem" posted on 05.09.2011 by ttk1opc --CiaPan (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for finding those videos. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Off-topic: He's putting across a rather strange point of view though - I mean, most of the population are taught whatever core science knowledge they'll ever have in school - so if kids knew science, then within a few decades, they'd grow up to be adults who'd know science. Teaching adults stuff is difficult because there is no way to force them to sit down and learn...but kids are a captive audience for the decade or so that we have them in the education system. Tyson has a conflict of interest here because he makes his money trying to educate adults through pop.sci TV shows. But because his shows don't teach fundamentals like Euclid's theorems, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics or "The Scientific Method" - he's not making much of a dent in the problem. SteveBaker (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Basement of Mom

Since when the whole living in the basement of 'mom' become such a big taboo and social no-no. Shouldn't mom's feel proud that their kids want to stick around and help, rather than disappear off into the boonies and general not give a crap about their families who busted a butt bringing them up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.182.206.48 (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See freeloader. The issue is not "helping out around the house", the issue is "not earning one's own way and behaving like an adult". You can move out and still stop by to visit and help with chores. People live in mom's basement because they don't have a job and can't afford their own house. You know, like the one mom paid for. With her job. --Jayron 32 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your last two sentences are utter nonsense, and not suitable for the reference desk. Unless you accidentally left out the first part: "The negative and false stereotype is that people live in mom's basement..." ? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotype wouldn't exist if it wasn't true often enough to have formed. It isn't that stereotypes are never true, so they are not false. It is that stereotypes are not exclusively true on a case-by-case basis. That there exist people who live at home for other reasons doesn't mean that no one has ever freeloaded off their parents because they were lazy. --Jayron 32 17:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wonder if you think the same thing about a phrase like "The Irish are lazy drunkards"? Would you type that here, or other related stereotypes, without at least explaining that it is a stereotype your are reporting, and not a statement of fact? I'd think not, but thanks for explaining, I won't derail further. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that's a bigoted thing to say. --Jayron 32 18:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] The concept refers not to well-adjusted adults who for various valid reasons choose to remain or return to the parental home for a period*, but those who are unable to develop adult-level abilities to socialise with their peers (and perhaps marry) and/or work and/or get their own place, which is widely considered "normal" in recently affluent Western society. There are of course many perfectly well-adjusted people in similar arrangements to whom the stigmatization is not applied.

(*Personal disclosure: I myself returned (from a different country) to my parents' recently-acquired home for an 8-year spell in my late 20s, after they acquired one following retirement from an internationally peripatetic life. After 9 years I was able to buy my own home and move out. I'm also now in my late 50s, single and satisfied with that arrangement, so I have sympathy for those who are derided for not conforming to the aforementioned "cultural norms.")

The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you demonstrated ambition and moved on when you were able to. The stereotype, as Jayron notes, is of someone who's basically a lazy mooch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who says that only people living with their mothers help them or care about them? I spend hours every week visiting and caring for my mother, although I support myself and don't live under her roof. 67.17.193.162 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many of us know a recent college grad? Or a high school graduate who can't even afford college? The job market in USA has been... different for them. I don't know what it's like in Iran, where your IP address geolocates to. It's also not clear where in the world you are interested in these social norms. Some relevant info and refs at Millennials#Peter_Pan_generation, as well as Extended_family#Recent_trend_in_the_United_States. Also related Underemployment, Secondary labor market, Working poor. We have e.g. Labor market of Japan but I can't find a similar article Labor market of Iran. Finally, it's worth pointing out that there are huge cultural differences here. In the USA, long term, multi-generational housing has not been as common in the late 20th century, compared to other parts of the world. My point is, this trend of young adults living with parents seems new and different in the USA (and some people will jump to conclusions and call them "freeloaders" or "lazy mooch]" simply by virtue of the living arrangement), but it would be totally normal for a Hindu_joint_family. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it used to be the norm for unmarried children to remain in the home, and perhaps even married children. Indeed, at one point an unmarried daughter living away from home would have been scandalous. As a result of free trade, the US middle class finds itself poorer now than in previous generations, as many of the jobs for new graduates are now done in China or India. Thus, the ability of new grads to move out of the home is greatly reduced. And, ultimately, if they can manage to save up money at whatever menial job they can get, so they afford to eventually buy a home rather than wasting that money on rent, this may be a good thing for them financially in the long run. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The erosion of the American middle class has been purposeful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends if the basement has windows. Good lighting can make all the difference. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to answer the original question: The difference in cultural expectations regarding family size and extended families living at home is closely tied to an economic concept known as the demographic-economic paradox. I wish I could find a printed sources, but it's something that came up in a human geography class I took over 20 years ago, which discussed the issue. You can read the article in question, but the gist of the rationale for the paradox is thus. In pre-industrial societies, children are an asset, because children work for the family, and bring in an income from a young age. They work the family farm, they become apprentices in the family trade, etc. So, in pre-industrial societies, having as many children as possible makes economic sense. Also, having them live at home makes economic sense: they contribute to the family income, and the entire family is economically stronger for them. In a post-industrial society, children are an economic liability. They cost money to educate, they don't earn an income until long after they are a physiological adult; time or money spent "raising" children is money lost from family incomes. This standard explanation of the Demographic-economic paradox explains why in post-industrial societies, where per capita income is much higher, family size is still much smaller: people making individual, rational economic decisions find that children are expensive. In pre-industrial societies, they also make rational, economic decisions but with the opposite result because in their society, children make you money. In the U.S., the stereotype of the freeloading adult living in mom's basement comes in the socio-economic expectation that adults have a responsibility to be self-sufficient, so they are not a liability to their parents anymore. That societal expectation is driven by the economics of the western, post-industrial society and does not necessarily reflect the expectation in other cultures with different economic realities. But it all boils down to the socioeconomic background of the Demographic-economic paradox. The wikipedia article called Demographic transition covers this pretty well. --Jayron 32 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who's ever lived in the attic during the summer knows why people live in the basement, Mom's or not. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House port ?

I had an idea for something and want to know if anyone else has done it. The reason for this idea is that I often need to open a door or remove a window screen to snake a hose out the window (to drain the basement after flooding) or an electric cord (to run the electric leaf blower). The second problem can be solved by adding an electric outlet outside the house, but the hose is more difficult to solve. Just leaving a door or window screen open is bad, because we can get bees and such inside the house. I can tape the area up as an ad-hoc solution, but that's not very good for something I need to do regularly.

So, my idea is a circular "port" with a screw-on cover both inside and outside, and maybe a lever operated closing mechanism (like a camera has) to squeeze in on the hose or cord once it is in place. So, has anyone seen this solution, or another solution to this problem ? StuRat (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a bit like something I've seen at the International Convention Centre, Birmingham. I can't find a photo, but if you go behind it and look up, high on the wall there are several circular metal doors about 20cm in diameter, which are secured with a 1/2 turn toggle. Inside there is a fabric "cuff" which closes around cables that are pushed through. There are also a series of hooks running the top. When I went on a tour, the guide said these were for TV broadcasts, so the cables can be run from the event inside to the van outside. I've only ever seen one TV broadcast from the ICC, but the designers were thinking ahead when it was built. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ! I didn't think I would have been the first person ever to think of this, as it's a rather obvious solution to a common problem. I wonder what they are called and if we have an article on them. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not install an outside tap? Or, failing that, what about putting in a cat flap and running the hose through that? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're trying to band-aid the issue instead of fixing the root problem. If your basement floods that often, why not fix the problem with the flooding? And instead of using a hose, have you looked into installing a sump pump? Dismas|^(talk) 00:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if you don't find a solution already on the market, you could use a hole saw to put a hole in the wall. Get a section of PVC pipe and put it in the hole and caulk around the pipe. Make sure the pipe sticks through the wall by about an inch on each side of the wall. Get two PVC pipe caps and put them on the pipe when not in use. If you're that concerned that even one bee not get in the house during the few minutes/hours that you'd have the caps off, you can pack an old towel around the hose when it's running through the pipe. In fact, keeping the towel in there 24/7 would probably help with any heating/cooling loss on every other day when you're not draining your basement. Dismas|^(talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are parts of the US where people's basements flood regularly, and are required to flood, by law. They live on low spots on the sewer line, and are not allowed to put check valves in, as then the pressure would build up in the sewer after a heavy rain and damage the sewer. As absurd as it sounds, this is the case.

And we do use a sump pump, which pumps water out of the basement by hose. We obviously can't use the floor drain, as this applies when the floor drain is backed up. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...it's hard to imagine that! Anyway - I think I would install the same contraption that is use to vent a cooker hood - which is a 4" PVC pipe with a flap valve in it that closes when the cooker hood is not venting. In your case, that would enable you to poke something through it from the inside when you need to - and which would flap shut when you didn't. That said, there are probably better answers out there. What do other people in your area do? I bet there is some kind of local building code to cover this. SteveBaker (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source is needed for the statement that some towns forbid their citizens installing a checkvalve to prevent stormwater (and sewage if the storm and sanitary drains are combined) from filling their basements. It does not seem like it would make much difference to the pressure in the sewers, in any event. In my area it is very common to have a manhole outside a lowlying house with one or two checkvalves and an ejector pump. or for more money to have overhead sewers in the basement along with a sump pump. It would mot be practical to have a finished basement or even to have the furnace and laundry in a basement if it filled with backup. Flooding coming in from a nearby river or creek is a different issue than backup. Edison (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Cup

When was the trophy called The Stanley Cup for the first time? In other words, what was the trophy officially named beforehand, if in any way? Splićanin (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hall of Fame writeup says its original name was to have been "Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup", but was designated Stanley Cup "immediately" upon its creation.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Born at sea

What should one write on their passport if they were born on a cruiseship? The Atlantic? The Mediterranean? Justttt (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Pointless non-answer

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'd imagine that sort of thing gets settled with the birth certificate people first. Then you just write what it says on there. No idea what that would be. Probably depends a lot on your parents. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of that pointless post? If you don't know, OPs don't want to know about your ignorance, your imaginings or your guesses. They want to hear from people who either know or have searched for a reference. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Birth aboard aircraft and ships ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to link that. I'll go with List of people born at sea instead. None are described as "Atlantean". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James McGowen's parents were English. When they reached Australia, they already had an Australian baby. So it depends on your parents, and where they're headed, too. Unless things have changed somewhat in the last 160 years. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have changed. On 26 January 1949 the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 came into force (later renamed the Australian Citizenship Act). Prior to 1949, all people born in Australia were British subjects, and that's what it said on their passports. Australian people born before 1949 but alive in 1949 all had to have their passports changed, from "British subject" to "Australian citizen". But McGowen had died well before then, and all his life he was a British subject, never an Australian citizen, despite being an Australian. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. McGowen also largely predated passports themselves. Doesn't seem to have ever left the island, either. I think this may have been the pointless post to hat. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Carry on. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women who are in late term are not usually allowed on cruise ships (or planes, for that matter), quite simply because they don't have the medical facilities to deal with a new-born. This also goes for epilepsy (which I have), and psychosis, schozophrenia, and a whole host of other conditions. People need to be assessed first. It would be very unlikely that a child would be born on a ship, and if it was, it would take the nationality of the parents, especially if it was in international waters. A child born in American territory usually gets granted American nationality automatically, but not so in Europe.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

04:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would also depend a lot on the nationality laws of the country in question. Jus soli is but one type of nationality law, most (perhaps all) countries also have a form of Jus sanguinis laws which grant nationality to children of their own nationals, regardless of the location of birth, especially where the parents are legal residents of the nation in question as well as citizens, and where the absence from the country is temporary or short-term. --Jayron 32 09:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the US government official guidance document on many, many scenarios for passport "Place of Birth". People born in international waters are to be listed as "At Sea". In some cases, people born on airplanes would in fact be listed as "In The Air". Dragons flight (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I imagine this is primarily what the OP is asking about, rather than citizenship or nationality of the child. (The citizenship or nationality may affect what is written due to different laws or regulations.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birth aboard aircraft and ships. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a trick question. No one should write anything on his passport; that's for the authorities to do. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. At the age of 0 yrs, it would be rather difficult to write anything coherent. Wouldn't the parents do it? $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still no. A wise person once wrote: "No one should write anything on his passport; that's for the authorities to do". Hmm, I wonder how I'd find out who said that first. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the Wizards and Wizardesses of OZ have signatures on their passports, or is it all done with fingerprints like common criminals? Oh, yes, sorry. Australia is our penal colony, kind of like Alcatraz but bigger and full of dangerous animals.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

12:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were discussing who writes details such as place of birth, citizenship etc. As for signatures, I don't know how they do things in your ~~failed empire~~ country, but down here we sign a form when applying for our passports, and facsimiles of those signatures are transferred electronically to the passports. The passports themselves are never signed directly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here in Canada, where this bad boy largely reduced magic points spent at all levels of government in 1949. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]