Miscellaneous desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

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.

September 28

Scary - Are Aileen Wuornos Words Predicted

request for comment/debate on youtube video, not for references--WP:NOTAFORUM

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

Hi. Is Wuornos predicting the big Nuke for 2019, now after North Korea, Iran and Trump ? Listen to her at 5:50 in this Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9ytpB-lOBQ 2001:7E8:D206:4501:C8C5:364:8499:AC6D (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Aileen Wuornos died in 2002, so she's not predicting anything for 2019. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you watch the video? She predicts that "you're all going to get nuked in 2019". Akld guy (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did she make any other predictions that came true? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and I don't care. She made a prediction. The OP didn't ask whether she had a track record of being right. Akld guy (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can predict anything. What's special about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the OP's asking. Why are you so argumentative? Akld guy (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the OP's asking. The OP's arguing that the ravings of a serial killer are somehow significant. The OP (or you, if it's you) needs to clarify why they think it matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on now, don't suggest that I'm trolling by sockpuppeting when you can see that the OP is located in Luxembourg and I'm in Auckland, New Zealand. That's a personal attack. Akld guy (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I merely thought you might have posted while logged out. No sockpuppetry allegation, no personal attack. I don't know where either of you is based. As to the OP's question, it's rather silly, and I just want to know what's so special about a serial killer making a "prediction", or more to the point, why it matters. It's really just a debate-forum type of question, and should have been deleted on-sight. Maybe too late now. Referencing what Jack said below, if Wuornos had also "predicted" that Trump would be president and that we might be on the verge of war with North Korea, then that might be something of an attention-getter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know how to determine location, click on the ip's number to get to his/her Contributions page, then click on "Geolocate" at the bottom. This can be done at most ips' Contributions pages. Akld guy (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is saying we're all going to be nuked in 2019, but whether that has anything to do with Trump, North Korea or Iraq is anyone's guess. Was she known as some sort of seer/psychic, in amongst her murderous activities? Do you have any rational basis to consider her words "scary"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, she was an psychotic serial killer, and we have nothing scholarly or referenced to say about this--it's essentially clickbait, and certainly not a subject of research or a way to improve the project. The only "source" is the video itself of a raving lunatic just prior to her execution. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does any jurisdiction require that donations to politicians be anonymous ?

This would serve a function similar to anonymous votes. That is, elected politicians wouldn't be able to discriminate against people who voted against them or who didn't given them money. The mechanism could be a gov org which accepts the contributions then passes them on to the designated recipients anonymously. A side benefit would be that politicians wouldn't need to evaluate the suitability of donors, and then return contributions from white supremists, etc. If politicians ask if you've contributed to them before agreeing to meet, you could just lie and say you had, but hopefully asking the Q would be illegal, too. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reverse is usually true, especially over a certain amount. The Obama campaign was fined a record amount in 2013 over illegal donations, including foreign contributions, contributions made without proof of the 3 digit security code (to show actual possession of the card) accepting more than the $46,000 limit from individual donors and suspected robo-donations where large amounts are broken up into smaller batches of prepaid cards to avoid detection. US News ABC. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this country we have an Electoral Commission which receives and scrutinises candidates' filings of election expenses. Is there anything comparable in the U S? Complaints about the running of elections can be filed in the Election Court - is there an American equivalent? Again, Members of Parliament are required to disclose in the "Register of Members' Interests" anything which could remotely be considered a conflict of interest. The system is policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Unfortunately some people are not averse to subverting it for their own interest (see Elizabeth Filkin). Are similar safeguards in place in America?

Also in this country we have a problem with Members claiming thirty thousand pounds expenses for a few days' attendance without speaking [1]. There was a huge expenses scandal a few years back. Is this a problem in America as well? 82.14.24.95 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your country is the Land of the Banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that secret ballot systems don't prevent you telling others how you voted - but they generally prevent you from proving it (basically so you can't give anyone the evidence they would need to prove you are lying about how you voted). This is considerably harder for election donations - e.g. if a corporate entity makes a donation of $14 million, keeping this secret would require the corporate entity not to announce the donation, and not to show it on their accounts. Otherwise the party could easily see that they have received a donation which matches the amount announced by the company. In general, voting involves a simple act, with a limited set of ways to prove it. Moving money around is a complicated act which needs to be accounted for other reasons, so keeping it secret is likely to be much more difficult. MChesterMC (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These corporate entities know a thing or two about moving money. That's not to say any or all of them routinely fund elections, but they wouldn't tell you if they did. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an imaginary system that exist nowhere on earth, it could be done. Donations -- everyone's donation -- go to a trusted third party, so there is a clear record that YoYoDyne Corporation gave a $14 million political donation to someone, but we don't know who. This would be mixed in with hundreds of millions that others donate to other candidates. After some randomly-chosen delay, Senator Fogbottom gets $14 million from someone, but we don't know who. This is basically the scheme used by Tor (anonymity network). I would suggest Equifax as the trusted third party, because they have been so careful about keeping secrets in the past. :(

Alas, it is the politicians who make the rules, and they find it to be very advantageous to know who is giving them money. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of "Cutts"

Does anybody know the origin of Cutts as a first name? I couldn't find any appropriate etymological information for the given name.--Tuchiel (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it used as a first name, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's much more common as a last name (see Cutts (surname)). Various more-or-less reliable online sites claim its origin is from the first name Cuthbert and the saint of that name, but it could also be a modified spelling of a foreign surname (e.g. Kotz or Katz). --Xuxl (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuxl: Okay, thanks a lot!--Tuchiel (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curved window panes

Is there a name for those rectangular curved glass panes: File:FreihofSulz2.jpg? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are called blown-glass panes, as they were cut from round blown glass. Making flat panes of any great size was not possible until the industrial revolution. This article on antique panes discusses the two types, crown and cylinder panes. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that is something different. Those rectangular panes are not mouth-blown but formed from flat panes (heated in oven and formed in a mould by gravity). In German it is called Wölbglas. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found Crown glass (window), but that's also blown. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a special form of curved glass ([2], [3], [4], [5]). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 12:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wölbglas isn't curved, it's slumped. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're the German equivalent of the 1970s British fascination for bullseye glass.

Window glass used to be difficult to make, expensive and showed artifacts of its manufacture. The more visible the artifact, the cheaper each pane. Often a building would have its best panes at the front, most distorted at the back, or in a basement. There were two main manufacturing processes, mouth blowing a sphere, cutting it to a disc and spinning it to thin it (crown glass) or mouth blowing a cylinder, cutting and unrolling it (hand cylinder glass). Britain favoured crown glass, mainland Europe favoured cylinder (this was largely influenced by the fuel used and the type of glass furnace).

German glass artifacts were about the planes being curved. Although this was a single curvature, and sometimes (for cheap glass) a third curved edge, it was rare to have four curved edges and unknown where this was on a non-rectangular panel.

In time, an affectation developed for these curved edges. They became a feature of some cabinetry (I think Austria was the centre of this) although that was plate glass, cast, ground and polished. In modern times, the idea of curved edge panes has become a kitsch feature for domestic glass. It's now moulded deliberately that way, by slumping over a steel frame, to any size or shape needed.

It makes as much sense as Britain's phase of faux Dickensiana where every front window became a curved bay full of obscured bullseyes. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found de:Diskussion:Butzenscheibe--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion mainly deals with blown glass. Is тнояsтеn satisfied that he has answered his own question with Wölbglas? Googling that I found images but not text in English, and one forum in French complaining they could not find the French term for Wölbglas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the English term. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 17:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an English equivalent for the glass, so there isn't an equivalent term. Our nearest would be bevelled glass, which is thick plate glass, ground and polished. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've never seen glass like that in the UK and Google couldn't find me any. It seems to be a German peculiarity. Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your input. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 06:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]