Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:36, 10 April 2015

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

April 5

How is this not kidnapping?

Every so often, I read stories like this, where passengers were forced to stay on an aircraft against their will. Clearly it was safe for the police to get on and off the plane, and it was safe to let the passengers get off the plane after five hours, so how is this not kidnapping? I am primarily interested in UK kidnapping law, but US kidnapping law (or unlawful detaining or anything similar) would also be of interest. What other business gets to hold paying customers captive like this? CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the definition of Kidnapping, you can probably see that being stuck on a plane awaiting departure does not qualify. But if you have any doubts, you should contact a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One does not contact a solicitor simply because one has a general question about something in the news.

You are in the US, right? "Kidnapping generally includes the seizing, confining, or detention of another, and such conduct is, essential to a criminal abduction or kidnapping. According to some authorities, confinement alone is sufficient to constitute kidnapping... The element of restraint is present, when there is substantial interference with the person’s liberty." - http://kidnapping.uslegal.com/elements-of-kidnapping/taking-seizing-detention-or-restraint/

Does someone else who accepts the rather obvious fact that in most other situations confining a person against their will is considered kidnapping have an answer? I found the answer given by Baseball Bugs to be somewhat lacking. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis of your premise for being confined "against their will"? They weren't seize and forced onto the plane. They paid for a ticket for a flight to wherever, and boarded voluntarily. They are naturally going to be confined to the airplane during taxiing, takeoff, flight, landing, and taxiing. Sometimes there are delays. If you have a question about how long a delay is legally allowable, that's going to vary by country. But to equate delays on the tarmac to kidnapping is silly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in any further "answers" from you. Anyone who cannot grasp the fact that "Police were first called to the aircraft after some passengers reportedly began vocally expressing their agitation and officers were forced to return two hours later after reports that angry passengers were attempting to disembark the plane" equates to "against their will" is incapable of providing a reasonable answer. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you normally edit under a different username. I wouldn't want my name associated with your stupid question either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Kettling and Austin v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. The courts have ruled that a "temporary restriction on freedom of movement" does not count as "deprivation of liberty" for the purposes of Article 5. Lord Neuberger stated "Any sensible person living in a modern democracy would reasonably expect to be confined, or at least accept that it was proper that she could be confined, within a limited space by the police, in some circumstances." So nyah. Tevildo (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the on-topic response.

If you look at the ref on the Kettling article[1], you will see that European Court of Human Rights said "The police had imposed the cordon to isolate and contain a large crowd in dangerous and volatile conditions. This had been the least intrusive and most effective means to protect the public from violence." Hardly blanket permission to hold people when there is no danger in letting them leave the plane. In the same ref the BBC legal affairs correspondent said: "The essence of the judgement really is that kettling is lawful if it's done in the right way, if it's proportionate and is enforced for no longer than reasonably necessary and if it's being undertaken to avoid personal injury and damage to property." Again, it was clearly safe to allow the passengers to leave after imprisoning them against their will for five hours, so the European Court of Human Rights ruling does not apply.

Likewise for the Austin v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police ruling you cited. A key fact of that case was that "The judge held that it was not practicable for the police to release the crowd earlier than they did. For them to have done so earlier would have been a complete abnegation of their duty to prevent a breach of the peace and to protect members of the crowd and third parties, including the police, from serious injury." Nobody is implying that the authorities can never stop you from leaving. The case you cite is a clear example where they would be neglecting their duty to keep the public safe if they let the crowd go. I am asking on what basis the police are allowed to stop you from leaving in a situation where it is clearly safe to leave the aircraft, go back into the terminal, and then go home. Which is exactly what you are free to do if any other business fails to provide satisfactory service. Pub runs out of beer? Lock the patrons in until it arrives! Cruise ship breaks down and cannot leave the dock? Pull up the gangplanks and stop the customers from leaving! In no other situation that I can think of would we allow any commercial entity to do this. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As MilbourneOne points out, the passengers (assuming this was an international flight) had not been through immigration control and therefore had no right to enter the UK. They also had no right to wander around the airfield, which would constitute trespass. Keeping them on the plane as a temporary measure does not seem unreasonable. The police were called as a breach of the peace seemed likely, not for the specific purpose of keeping the passengers on the aircraft. I would advise any of the passengers not to attempt rail travel in the UK, if they consider that a delay of five hours might constitute "imprisonment". Tevildo (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite detention without trial is slightly more illegal than kettling, but also different from kidnapping. Generally can't pay a ransom. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

If the passengers were to leave the aircraft they would have to clear through customs and immigration and then would need to be found and re-processed to get back on the aircraft that would cause even more delays, it would seem reasonable in the airlines view to avoid all this fuss if the passengers just waited somewhere safe where the airline knew where they are and could look after them. The fact some passengers were miffed is not kidnapping in any reasonable view of the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The airline has no responsibility to re-process them to get back on the aircraft. Just tell them they are free to go home and buy a ticket for another day or from another airline. Same as any other business. It would be reasonable to detain anyone who didn't get on the plane at that airport, of course, because that subset of passengers would indeed have to clear through customs and immigration. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The airline has no responsibility to re-process them to get back on the aircraft." Who says they don't? The few times I've had to de-plane, we had to go through the boarding process again, and if we went outside we had to go back through security. Have you ever actually flown before? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about a different case now? Because in the case you linked to above, it's clear from the article you linked to that no one on that plane who was stuck for those 5 hours boarded it at that airport. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to compare with a taxi. Let's say you pay for a taxi ride, voluntarily get inside, then, once under way, the taxi suffers a mechanical failure. You then want to get out, but he won't let you (say he has control of the door locks). He may eventually get the taxi repaired and finish the trip, but you don't want to wait, and may be overheated, hungry, thirsty, etc. He might have good reason not to let you out, like if it's a bad neighborhood. Still, is he the one who gets to decide, or are you ? StuRat (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2009 and 2010 in the US a passenger's "bill of rights" were instituted saying you have the right to deplane after a 3-hr domestic delay, and a 4-hr international delay, as well as to be provided with food and water. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do unborn babies poop inside the mommys belly?

do unborn babies poop inside the mommys belly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.216.67 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in about 12% of pregnancies, and in a small percentage of that 12% it can be fatal to the baby. See http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2667/do-unborn-babies-urinate-defecate-in-the-womb CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From our Meconium article: Meconium is the earliest stool of a mammalian infant. ... Meconium is normally retained in the infant's bowel until after birth, but sometimes it is expelled into the amniotic fluid (also called "amniotic liquor") prior to birth or during labor and delivery. The stained amniotic fluid (called "meconium liquor" or "meconium stained liquor") is recognised by medical staff as a sign of fetal distress, and puts the neonate at risk of meconium aspiration.

Apparently contradicting this is Defecation in utero: a physiologic fetal function. by Cajal & Martínez in the January 2003 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology which reports on an ultrasound study which found that, "One or more defecations were documented in all fetuses. The frequency of defecations was highest between week 28 and 34 of gestation." and concludes that "defecation in utero is a normal function and supports the view that the evacuation of rectal contents into the amniotic fluid is no departure from normal fetal physiologic behavior." -- ToE 12:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could the following account for the contradictory answers? "In the fetus, passage of meconium occurs physiologically early in gestation, when it contributes to alkaline phosphatase in amniotic fluid. Abramovich1 noted that fetal defecation diminishes after 16 weeks and ceases by 20 weeks, concurrent with innervation of the anal sphincter. At that time, the rectum appears to be filled with meconium. From approximately 20 to 34 weeks, fetal passage of meconium was infrequent" http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v28/n3s/full/jp2008162a.html CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, In roughly about twelve percent of babies produce feces in the womb of their mother. If the baby is to fall in this twelve percent it could lead to disease or even fatal. Ravossman (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, around 12% of babies can produce feces while in the womb. ^[1] The only way the fetus can produce poop is when its digestive system is broken down and forms a little amount of feces, which is referred to as meconium. htt^[2] There is not always good that can come from this, pooping while the fetus is in the womb can cause serious problems to the baby when it is born and can cause meconium aspiration. ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therainman24 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Do Unborn Babies Pee and Poo in the Womb?". Access2Knowledge. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
^ Soniak. "Do Fetuses go to the Bathroom in the Womb?". Mental_Floss.
^ "Do babies pee inside the womb and if so where does it go?". Quora. Retrieved 6 April 2015.

Cultural curiosities

Here in the U.K, poor communities and individuals seem to be more likely to have numerous tattoos, piercings and generally sport shaved heads or in the case of women, the infamous Croydon facelift. Interests seem to overwhelming include football and celebrity culture. Of course there are some exceptions, but by in large the conformity and divides in social classes exists

Why do such deep divisions exist in this society and how did they come about. Even in the U.S, the term tramp stamp has very real meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Unhelpful

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

What is the statistical basis, if any, for your premise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Anyone that has ever lived around here know this is entirely true. The urban lower classes have a fairly distinct pattern of dress and body modification. The reason for that is an entirely different question of course, no idea for that one. Herd mentality, I'd guess. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does having a tattoo constitute a "deep cultural division"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of interest in sport, they could be Baseball Thugs. But I'm more willing to be they just need baseball hugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.25.123 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or IP thugs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe would be a subculture, you may also be interested in reading our articles and their sources at working class culture, low culture, and popular culture. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the Reference Desk, here's one: 28% of middle-class admit to at least one tattoo but 27% of working class. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might also wish to read our article on Fashion. Such people as you describe are often described as "fashion victims". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some say they chew charcoal teeth. But there's a difference between regular Joes symbolically trapped by their curiosity of freakish culture, and freakish Joes literally trapped for the curiosity of regular culture.

Also a big difference between The Smashing Pumpkins and the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Men going to the doctor

Please can you give any documented cases and news stories where men have been to the doctor with a penis problem and been accused of and or arrested for exposing themselves to the doctor when trying to show the doctor the problem. Thank you 175.180.183.80 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

off topic

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

If you think about it for more than a millisecond, that's a stupid question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is stupid. Men DO go to the doctor with problems of that nature, and it is not inconceivable that a doctor at some point has assumed the man is there for a different motive. I am only asking for documented cases, if there are any. If not, that's fine. 175.180.183.80 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question actually, I've wondered it myself. But in the context of female doctors and male patients insisting on repeated examinations. At what point can a medical professional refuse, and at what point could it conceivably become sexual abuse. Examples?

Bb. Maybe Medeis has something to say as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips & Schneider's 1993 survey completed by 422 licensed female family physicians in Ontario, Canada [2] is discussed in Women and Management (Michele A. Paludi, Editor), starting on pg. 93 (§ Female Physicians): "77% of the women surveyed were sexually harassed by a patient at least once with some experiencing harassment once a month or more ... The most likely location for sexual harassment to occur was in the physician's office. The most common type of patient harassment was to ask the physician to perform a genital exam when on was not required, and for patients to display erect penises." Is the OP is asking if there is a documented case where such patient was falsely accused?

Edit: Here is a link to the full Phillips & Schneider article from the 23 December 1993 New England Journal of Medicine. It notes that only 5% (13) of the incidents were reported to the police, but does not distinguish between types of incidents reported. The total number of incidents included 81 cases of inappropriate touching, 15 cases of grossly inappropriate touching, and 1 rape or attempted rape. I would not be surprised if all or nearly all of the 13 reported incidents came from the 16 incidents in two most sever categories, and few or none of the exposure cases were reported. -- ToE 19:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's question, if sincere (which is highly doubtful), appears to be talking about entrapment. Obviously, if the doctor says show it to me, then you have to show it to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but I believe that you are misusing the term entrapment. I've only heard it applied to law enforcement, but that aside, it involves inducing someone to commit a crime, and simply exposing yourself to your doctor as instructed (your scenario, not necessarily the OP's) is not a crime. Should your physician lie about the circumstances, then she has committed false accusation, not entrapment. I should note that in my short search I did not discover any such cases. In the 1993 survey mentioned above, the majority of incidences of sexual harassment were resolved by the physician who retained her patient. Practices adopted to help prevent such occurrences included giving patients explicit draping instructions and having a nurse present during genital examinations. -- ToE 15:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't female physicians deal with male urological conditions, STDs and erectile dysfunction? I would make no special effort to see a male doctor if there were ever such an issue. Edison (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Vs US Ground combat

With the situation in Ukraine right now, what if hypothetically the U.S decided to step in. In our hypothetical battle the U.S are unable to rely on air support due to comprehensive Russian air defence.

Instead, combat would be left to ground forces. Assuming the fight was left to armour for the most part, wouldn't it simply be carnage for the US?

Much of our forward armour is equipped with tank fired missles. Invar / Arkan / Kornet etc. These can hit reasonably well outside the practical range of 120mm cannon fire, and such ammunition common on BMP-3's, T72's, t80' etc.

The only systems that could practically counter this threat would be apaches and hellfire missiles, A10's and the like. But these would be unavailable as mentioned above. The i-tow system could be useful but the Bradleys using them are made from paper for the most part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.212.134.86 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up at the top, it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try some wargaming club instead of an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything happened, it would be the EU and NATO that intervened, not just the US-of-Eh?. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that Russian armour is significantly less developed than US armour? The T-90 can fire anti-tank missiles, as can other recent versions of the T-72. And, as they say, professionals study logistics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every modern army needs air support and boots on the ground. It's not all just tanks. They need infantry support, air support, and ground troops to refuel/re-equip them. No point in sending a massive column of tanks out to a war zone if they are going to run out of fuel and ammunition (First Gulf War). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many people have died in Central Park since 1785?

As title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.12.9.33 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean since 1857? μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should ask which Central Park. The one in New York City is the obvious one, but we should still make sure. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that we're talking about the obvious one, I found Crime in Central Park which has some details, if not a definitive figure. There seem to be plenty of accidental deaths too - see A Bicycle Crash Kills Another Pedestrian in Central Park - and how many middle-aged joggers never make it home? Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP geolocates to Melbourne, although the two Australian entities called Central Park appear to be recent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CENTRAL PARK ELEPHANT KILLED: "Tom", the fractious trick elephant of the Central Park zoo, was killed today in accordance with the death sentence passed upon him several days ago, when he became so unruly that it was dangerous for his keepers to go near him. It took 28 minutes to kill the big animal, 600 grains of cyanide of potassium being administered to him in two pails of bran mush.

From The Day (New London, Connecticut), October 3, 1902.

Not sure if it went down in the park, but it went down. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

What is the best free-question website besides yahoo answers and allexperts that is simple to use?

Like where anyone answers a question. 23:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluestarcanada (talk • contribs)

The best? Simple to use? Let me quote from the top of this page: We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate (emphasis added). -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a List_of_question-and-answer_websites that will probably help you. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Jesus vs Baby Jesus

What is the difference between "Jesus" and "baby Jesus" in the context of people who exclaim "Sweet [baby] Jesus!" OpinionatedOnion (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt there is any factual reference information as to that question. It's a matter of English idiom. Any response would be opinion. Per the instructions at the top of this page, we do not (are not supposed to) answer requests for opinions here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this previous discussion about the usage of the phrase "baby Jesus". Alansplodge (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, potentially ~~inflammatory~~ incendiary

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

I believe that people talk about 'baby Jesus' when he was a baby or toddler. When he got older, supposing he actually existed, he was no longer a baby, which is what people tend to do, so became simply 'Jesus'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "supposing he actually existed"? There is absolute proof that he existed because the Romans kept records of who they crucified and Jesus' name appears there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.206.189.82 (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is already way off topic, having nothing to do with the phrase "sweet baby Jesus", and it's likely to blow up unless we nip it in the bud. Any takers? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Baseball Bugs is right, no such list exists. Regardless, there is a strong consensus among historians that Jesus was indeed crucified by Pontius Pilate. See Historicity of Jesus. - Lindert (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kage might have been better off to have omitted the comment "supposing he actually existed", to prevent the obvious complaint about it. But thanks for posting that link, as the IP and anyone else who thinks that way would benefit from reading it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK pensions

In the UK can a "final salary pension" be inherited by the pension holders children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataskywa (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in the United Kingdom they just passed a law that will go into effect as of April 6 this year. Restrictive rules on what they can do with their money have been torn up, along with the need for most to buy an annuity Chancellor George Osborne said: ‘People who have worked hard and saved all their lives should be free to choose what they do with their money, and that freedom is central to our long-term economic plan. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2792180/savers-25-tax-free-multiple-pension-lump-sums-three-big-pension-changes-need-know-about.html

In the new law it states that if the saver dies and they still have money in their funds, it can be inherited by their family; a spouse or a child under 23 being able to get this tax-free. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2792180/savers-25-tax-free-multiple-pension-lump-sums-three-big-pension-changes-need-know-about.htmlwww.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2775646/Now-children-WILL-able-inherit-nest-egg.html

Though with this new law their are some exception to your child receiving your pension tax-free. The law says that if one dies after 75 the pot will be passed on to the child but will get a income tax charge depending on their taxable income and the amount of money they withdrew per tax year.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11489540/Can-I-transfer-my-frozen-final-salary-pension-to-my-children.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdlsmith3 (talk • contribs)

I believe the changes in UK pension law referred to above apply to defined contribution plans, whereas the questioner is asking about final salary plans (also known as defined benefit plans). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf is correct: the new rules do not apply to existing annuities or final salary (aka defined benefit) schemes. The government has proposed that it should be possible to trade in an annuity for cash, but I don't think there are any concrete details on this yet. If anything similar was introduced for final salary schemes, I suspect it would be an unattractive option unless you were desperate for the cash. On the specific question of inheritance, it's possible that some final salary schemes allow some of the value to be passed on after the holder's death, for example if they die with a certain time after the start of the pension. This already happens to some extent with annuities, which usually have an option of a "minimum payment term" of 5-10 years (which slightly reduces the annuity payments). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Treasure

Is there any truth to the idea that American banks are controlled by a shadowy elite who put pyramid symbols onto the banknotes as implied in the Nicolas Cage film "National Treasure"? 03:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by National Treasure Question (talk • contribs)

The film is a work of fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a read of Illuminati. Especially the conspiracy theory section. Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to register a username for each Reference Desk question. Actually I think we would prefer you didn't. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Please pick a single user name and stick to it, or if you prefer, edit while logged out. Creating a fresh username for each and every reference desk question you ask can be seen as disruptive. --Jayron 32 13:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia random article issues

Hello,

I enjoy Wikipedia very much. I often use the random search to get new ideas. Why is it that when I push the random button a few times I ALWAYS get an Iranian city? It doesn't seem very random. Thanks, Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.133.38 (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago there was a question posed about why railway stations seemed to come up with great frequency. If I remember correctly, it has something to do with the randomness of the Wikipedia random engine not being very good. Dismas|^(talk) 06:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I remember it as minor sports players. —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some non-randomness introduced by the MediaWiki's method of numbering articles. However "once upon a time", you were more likely to land on a U.S. city, due to the great work of Wikipedia's first bot. See History of Wikipedia. I think the current largest category is biographies? Rmhermen (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually get obscure Polish or Iranian villages. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about %5 of our articles are about obscure Polish Villages, or were the last time I pushed the random button 100 times. France and Nigeria are also highly represented. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me, (maybe confirmation bias) I usually get lots of articles about random celebrities (about whom I have no interest) and articles consisting of only a couple of sentences about really obscure places. You just have to keep clicking until you get something interesting for you - like turning the pages of a newspaper or magazine, or, in fact - an encyclopaedia. When you open one, it doesn't know what you want to read. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why kill grass that you're just digging up anyway?

Near the beginning of this report, the reporter says that crews in California are spraying grass with herbicide and then goes on to talk about drought resistant plants. I'm guessing that the grass is being replaced by these plants. So, why spray grass with herbicide if you're just going to be removing it anyway? Dismas|^(talk) 11:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhizomes are really hard to 100% remove. On anything other than very small scales, herbicides are commonly used to remove unwanted grass, otherwise they just come back. They may be planning on just planting drought-resistant plants in to the dead grass once it has been killed. glyphosate has a rather short life in the field, so that is feasible. One alternative way to kill the grass is to just cover it with something opaque, but that also uses comparable materials and labor, and can take up to a whole year to be effective. But the only real way to know why is to as the people in charge, you can contact Long Beach Water dept here [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent deep-rooted weeds, such as dandelions will take the opportunity grow up when the top soil has been removed; they might be trying to kill them as well. LongHairedFop (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refer to dandelions as weeds? They are flowers. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A weed is any unwanted plant. Last I checked, a flower is a plant, so if a flower is not wanted, it is a weed. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, a corn plant growing in the middle of a soybean field is technically a weed, although it's more often called "volunteer corn". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most gardeners don't want dandelions in their lawns, nor in their flower borders. Those gardeners would refer to them as weeds. However, dandelion-root tea is healthy (and often put in dandelion and burdock cordial), and (young) dandelion leaves are tasty in salads, so there might be a commercial use for them. 62.56.48.4 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 23:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the undertaker

How soon after the death of a relative is one supposed to contact the undertaker? Is one supposed to contact the undertaker directly or via the family doctor? 222.124.118.240 (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to vary depending on the laws of the given place where the death occurred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And on the manner of death. The police may be the right answer in some cases. Rmhermen (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, there exists a publication entitled "What to do after Death", produced by UK Government. It had to be retitled after people pointed out that, after your own death, you shouldn't be able to read the document. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What to do after someone dies. Truly (and verily), after your dead, there is not much one can do about it, when one oneself kicks the bucket. Except haunt all those relatives (those that never bother to visit you when you were alive) but will arguing over your will and testament and more importantly your millions of $. Sadly, being dead, I would not have the film rights to something that will be mighty more scary than The Amityville Horror for what will befall them . You ne'er-do-well are not going to get a dime! Not even a cent! </rant>--Aspro (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spoofed in "Youth TV" style by The Day Today here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people pre-plan and pay their own funerals lately, partially to avoid inconveniencing their survivors at weird times. Most homes have their ears to the ground, and know who died today before many family members do. Especially for those already on file, things get rolling almost automatically. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Within a few hours if you want the funeral as soon as possible (local tradition here is three days after death for the funeral), but if there is no hurry for the funeral, and the dead body has been taken care of, then there is no hurry to contact an undertaker, though most people do so within a week. Dbfirs 09:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone together

If you took everyone in the world and crammed them in as small a space possible, how big an area would they occupy standing up. And assuming they were all naked, what would this gigantic human blob look like from low earth orbit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should refer back to your question about the Empire State Building, for some suggestions on the arithmetic of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of all ~7.3 billion humans is about the same as the volume of a 1km cube. This and many other related analyses are presented here [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get an estimate for the number of people per unit of area, we can take as an example St. Peter's Square, which has an area of 22,783 m², and according to the Vatican's website, can accommodate up to 400,000 people during special occasions. That's a density of about 17.5 people per m², definitely closely packed, but presumably people still have a tiny bit of room and could be crammed just a bit closer together. Let's say 25/m², meaning that every person has a net space of 20x20 or 10x40cm. Assuming 7.3 billion people, that means 292 million m², or about a square with sides of 17 kilometers. - Lindert (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so basically, the entire Human race can fit in Los Angeles --147.85.186.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says here that they would just about fit in Rhode Island—but it also explains why, if you tried it, almost everyone would die. So please don't try it. --65.95.176.148 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago I went to Ripley's Odditorium in Blackpool, where a display informed us that the entire population of the world could fit on the Isle of Wight. For some reason this terrified me! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it's a much lower density than the OP asked, but these maps are interesting. --Jayron 32 16:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Stand on Zanzibar. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tulpas

I read the Tulpa article and I'm confused. Is it basically induced schizophrenia? Muromisan (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be a different mind within the same individual. As I understand it, a tulpa is a separate physical object. Tulpa#Modern_perspective puts it in the category of self-induced hallucinations, which sounds about right. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazed and Astounded

Hello,

I didn't know where else to put this. I've been doing research for the A-Z Blog Challenge. My theme for the whole month of April is anxiety, and tomorrow I'm expected to post on generalized anxiety disorder. Well, I've been diagnosed with it, so you would think I'd know a whole lot about it, but I really don't. So online I went, and one of the first articles which came up was from Wikipedia.

It was absolutely wonderful. So helpful and thorough, I couldn't believe it. I mean, I COULD, because I've used Wiki for other things before. But I never took the time to say thanks. I'm not sure who the writer was for that article, but could you please, PLEASE, say a big big thank you from a struggling blog writer for me?

Yours truly,

Chris [redacted, see here] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.207.1 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general its unlikely that the authors of the articles you found helpful will see your comments here. You might want to repeat your comments on the talk page for the articles yo found helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the GAD talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generalized_anxiety_disorder Justin15w (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Letters

When a person moves home, are letters addressed to their old address legally theirs or do they now belong to the new owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.165.193.19 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The letter belongs to the addressee. You should sign up to have your mail forwarded when you move, ~~do this at your new post office~~. Sometimes junkmail is meant for the person in the house, not a specific individual. That will normally be addressed "resident" or "dear neighbour". Mail forwarding. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a redirection should be organised at the old post office, just before you move? Letters addressed to the old address will go to the old post office, and if the redirection had been organised through the new post office, the old post office would have no idea you'd even moved, let alone know your new address to forward them on to. No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's done at the old post office, at least in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to assume that the laws related to this are uniform around the world. You might want to specify the part of the world that you're asking about. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP geolocates to China. I have requested a change of address from the new address before, that may have required me to mail the form to the old address, I don't remember. But I see no on-line source saying this must be done from the old address in the US. In fact it can be done by phone or email for a $1 fee. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure post offices talk to each other in most parts of the world, but, if there's a choice, then the redirection is best arranged at the old office since it is there that the physical redirection has to happen. Dbfirs 08:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Borden Sisters

How could Lizzie and Emma Borden have died 9 days apart when one died at age 66 and one died at age 76? This is what it says in your articleCmightymouth (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't twins. Lizzie Borden was born about a decade after Emma. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Cmightymouth somehow had the Borden Twins in mind? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, they played the roles of "Teensy" and "Weensy", and Lizzie chopped her parents up into "Teensy" and "Weensy" bits, so I could see the confusion. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

April 7

House with no heating

I overheard someone who said that an unoccupied house "will develop mold within six months and be ruined within a year", ostensibly due to lack of heating. However, I've been living in my house for 40 years without any central heating and there is no mold. Is this normal? When I hang my wet clothes to dry indoors they are bone dry within 3 days, so the water vapor must be going somewhere. Is it a cause of good ventilation? ZutenGato (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good ventilation and a dry climate, I would guess. But I would think a lack of A/C or dehumidifiers would lead to mold more than a lack of heat, unless a water pipe freezes and bursts and keeps the walls damp. StuRat (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "mildew in unheated house" and this is one of a number of items that came up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even in a wet climate (100 inches of rain a year) a house without central heating can be kept in reasonable condition by good ventilation on the (occasional) dry days. Dbfirs 08:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In places with a monsoon season, there may not be a dry day for quite some time. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in the desert in a house with no heat μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does your house have no heating at all, or just no central heating? That would make a difference. Iapetus (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much exercise is too much?

Sorry, we don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

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

I recently started with a personal trainer. He demanded 3 sets of 15 with increasing weight. He made me do reps and spotted me to make sure I didn't drop anything. He warned me I'd be sore afterwards but this is something else. I can't bend my legs, I feel weird and uncomfortable, my muscles are swollen, and my urine turned brown instead of yellow. Is this normal after a workout? He said not to worry but I've never felt anything like this before. How long until it goes back to normal?

.anaxarchosanaxarchos (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be asking for medical advice. Medical advice isn't dispensed here. Please consult a doctor. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally a request for medical advice, which we don't do. This much is certain, though: If you died from the exercise, then it was too much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page says "Muscle injury from extreme exercise can result in pink or cola-colored urine and kidney damage" (emphasis mine). I'm mentioning this not as a substitute for a doctor's advice but in the hope of convincing you to actually talk to a doctor and not trust this personal trainer's assurance that everything is okay. -- BenRG (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Signal Time and Coordinations

What I would like to know is the Traffic light control and coordination on various intersections it runs on different schedules and time modes, and when I contact the traffic engineers in my local city area, they all tell me the same thing "City of Mission Viejo have 70 intersection and the traffic engineer don't have all the schedules memorized at the top of their head". Is there any websites I can check my local intersections during the day if they run through free phase left turns lead and straight turns lag, or lead and lag phases when they allow one left turn to concurrent with straight turn and the other side have one left turn end as a concurrency terminus. I wish there is a website I can enter a "Intersection name" and they show me a data of the time stamps of how the signal phases runs during the day. Because contacting the city dept. is no use, they have too many intersections and nobody can ever memorize it, I wonder is there a website like that.--107.202.105.233 (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer the specific question about a website, but an additional complication could be that the pattern at any one intersection might be set to vary depending on the time of day/night, to better fit predictable changes in traffic density and direction.

On top of that, some places in the world use Adaptive traffic control (mentioned and linked from in the article you yourself linked above), so each intersection may change according to the actual traffic at or approaching it and also take into account traffic at/approaching adjacent intersections. In such a case the changes at any given intersection would be impossible to predict. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my city, which is a very average U.S. city, there is no "set schedule." There is a general schedule that gets updated all the time. There are workers who adjust lights here, change lights there, and keep messing with the system as the traffic patterns change over time. So, it appears that you are starting with the opinion that there is a set schedule that states when lights will turn on and off. I do not believe that your opinion is based in reality. Therefore, the question that follows is more complicated that you appear to believe. A website that shows light timing would need to be updated constantly. I doubt anyone would want to pay taxes to fund a person who does nothing but update the light timing website all day long. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The signals in my area are controlled by a county Road Commission. I have spoken to one of the traffic engineers there by phone several times about backups at a particular intersection caused by poor signal timing. He was receptive to my suggestions and made some improvements. Unfortunately for you, the information you are seeking does not seem to be available to the general public. Some of the signals in my area have cycles that change to flashing red/yellow at midnight (because of light traffic) and change back to their normal cycles at 6am. Some major highways have synchronized or "timed" signals that (in theory) allow cars moving at the posted speed limit to travel for many miles without stopping for a red light. We also have a system of cameras/sensors at major intersections in the county that allow some variation in the length of the green light and green turn arrows depending on the current traffic flow. In my opinion, the range is too narrow to adequately respond to eliminate the time spent waiting for a red light when no cross traffic is present. To get back to your question, it would probably take more money than is available in the budget to adequately address everyone's traffic concerns by providing the information you seek. --Thomprod (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to an intersection near you - Here in Britain we're trialling a device which matches traffic light sequences to a vehicle's speed and distance from an intersection to ensure that it never has to stop at a red light. It's only operational in one small part of one city centre at the moment and only being used by ambulances but it's going to expand. The aim is to speed up the flow of the driverless vehicles which are soon going to be the normal means of transportation. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey losing its smoky flavour?

In late March, I bought a bottle of Laphroaig 10 year old single malt Scotch whisky, because I had tasted it earlier and liked its extremely smoky flavour. I have been sipping it one or two centilitres at a time, and for the first week or so, it tasted extremely smoky, just as I liked it. But now I have found I can no longer taste the smoky flavour. Why is this happening? First of all, does this kind of thing really happen to whisky or is it only in my head? If it's really happening, what could I have done to prevent it? I have kept the whisky in plain view on my kitchen table at room temperature at all times. I just keep it almost constantly capped, I only ever remove the cap when I pour myself some whisky. During a 24-hour day, the whisky spends several hours in total darkness (while I'm sleeping), several hours in nothing but ambient sunlight (when I'm at work) and several hours in bright indoor lighting (when I'm at home after work). Could some of this affect it? JIP | Talk 20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just you have become accustomed to the taste. Islay produces some other good Scotches too. Get some others and rotate them. Once bottled they don't improve anymore but on the other-hand they don't go off. Verity is the spice of life and whisky is the aqua vitae. The mystery to me is how can you sip just a one or two centilitres at a time. I have heard of having just a wee dram but I think your taking traditional Scottish tightfistedness too far.--Aspro (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laphroaig is my favourite tipple. This has never happened to me. Could it have been a rip-off imitation? --Dweller (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the "smoky" taste of Laphroaig is usually attributed to peat, as is characteristic of most Islay malt whiskies (not whiskeys, as per question header). I suppose it's possible that exposure to the air in a half-full bottle could affect that element - perhaps you should do some controlled experiments with new and older bottles to see if you can really tell the differnce... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a "whiskyconnosr" forum, in a thread titled "How long does whiskey [sic] last opened?" "Victor" seems to be saying that "heavily peated" whiskies may lose their "full peat blast" within the first month or two, particularly the smokey quality being based on the most volatile parts in the mix. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the [sic], that is a perfectly acceptable spelling. Whisky is Scottish, whiskey is Irish. --Viennese Waltz 13:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whisky really can't be a rip-off imitation. I'm certain it's the real deal. The reason is that I bought it from Alko, the only place in Finland where you can legally buy strong distilled alcoholic beverages, and they should know their stuff. I think the problem is that I've kept it out in the open for too long. Even though I have kept it almost constantly capped, I should have kept it in a closet shielded from sunlight and ambient temperature. I'll try another bottle of whisky in a few weeks. Hopefully I can find a better storage place. I don't have access to a cool cellar. I do have a fridge, but I think that would only worsen the problem. As I understand it, the whisky should be kept in a dark, only very slightly moist, environment a few degrees cooler than ambient room temperature. Currently I don't know of any way to do this. JIP | Talk 20:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a thought. The Finns are very technologically advanced (after all they invented Linus Torvalds and Rollmops). How about decanting this into a wine bag Some have oxygen getters (absorbers) and being a bag it collapse anyway as one draws the liquid off (so atmospheric air does not get in). The sales desks of these companies [[5]] may only be interested in selling whole-sale but you can put it to them, that you may have a new and unrecognized market sector that they haven't considered. Talk to the right person and they might gladly send you free samples with which to experiment with. Keep all the receipts for the Scotch etc., and you might be able to claim the tax back as R&D research. To do the research properly, you may need to fly to Islay to discus this with the distillers – hence another tax deductible business expense = cheap foreign holiday. --Aspro (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been done before apparently, see Cromwell’s Royal De Luxe Scotch Whisky, although not entirely successful - one review says; "Nose: Industrial solvent. That stuff they disinfect combs with. Color: palest yellow, dear god this is going to be awful. Taste: alcohol. Straight alcohol. Tiny hint of what I think might be urine. Awful. Finish: nonexistent. more urine. make it stop...". [6] Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That last link took me to Scotch in a can produced by a "proud to be Scottish" company in the Cayman Islands. Words fail me. Alansplodge (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3D Custom Girl

Are there any video games similar to "3D Custom Girl" but with more features than just building and having sex with her? For example, I would like to feed her, bathe her, tuck her into bed, watch her fall asleep, etc. Sort of like a girlfriend version of a Tamagotchi but in anime style with good graphics. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:FFEA:1:AD2:0:0:0:7B35 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not anime, but there are lots of Skyrim mods out there, you can probably get something close to that by asking this question at a skyrim modding forum. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

seat-belts on buses

How come on state-run buses the passengers don't have to wear seat-belts (and indeed, none are even provided) but the driver wears a seat-belt? If there was a crash the passengers would get thrown about and injured badly, which is the whole justification for seat-belts in the first place. How can the bus company get away with that? Nonproduct3 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's a state-run bus? Anyway, if you're talking about the U.S., this page might be of some help. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bus run by the state instead of a private company. Nonproduct3 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I don't know where you live but I presume it's the US. There are many states that have some sort of public bus system. They normally only operate in larger cities and are not a state-wide system but they are run by the state. In my own area in Vermont, we have the CCTA system which operates in and around Burlington, Vermont. Boston has the MBTA, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 12:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK (not what you are talking about, of course), all buses and coaches are run by private companies, and the local buses do not provide seat belts, presumably because there is less chance of an accident when going only 30mph in a built-up area (even though it is actually law for every passenger in a vehicle to have a seatbelt on), but the intercity coaches do have seatbelts, as they are travelling at 60mph on motorways. Having said that, trains don't have them, either. Ironically, we have seat belts on planes, which is fairly pointless, because if it crashes, the seat belt will not save you. You always get told to put your seat belt on while the aircraft is going through turbulence, as if they think all the passengers will be bouncing around the cabin. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through fairly severe turbulence a time or two, and the seat belts are definitely important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. It just means you can't go to the toilet for a short while after all the free beer. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, You Should Buckle Your Seatbelt On An Airplane says: "Every year, about 58 people in the U.S. are injured by turbulence while not wearing seatbelts". Many crashes have no survivors but in some crashes a seatbelt can make a difference for some passengers. Here is a guy claiming seatbelts are pointless but he is the boss of a low-cost airline arguing that you shouldn't require seats either. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what airline you've been flying on KageTora but every one that I've seen charges (quite a bit) for beer. Dismas|^(talk) 12:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas On Long-haul flights, food and drinks are free. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, coaches have seatbelts but busses don't and I believe this is because they are multi-drop vehicles.--Ykraps (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure my mental translation is correct, a British coach is essentially the same as a bus but it just goes for longer distances and doesn't have any standing passengers? Dismas|^(talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And they tend to be more luxurious: the seats are plusher and recline, you get your own personal light and cool air blower (whoopee!)--Ykraps (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School and intercity buses utilize the concept of compartmentalization to reduce injury in case of an accident rather than seatbelts. By placing the seats very close together and making the seats quite tall, a passenger's entire body will press against the seat in front of them. The driver's seat has nothing in front of him but glass so a seatbelt is required to keep him from leaving the vehicle in case of an accident. Seatbelts are not used along with compartmentalization because the seatbelts would require a rigid seat while compartmentalization requires a bendable seat to absorb the kinetic energy of the passengers behind the seat. If every single rider was to always be wearing a 3 or 4 point seatbelt, seatbelts might be safer, but the addition of seatbelts would make those who do not wear them less safe. Also, seatbelts cost around $15,000 more to add to a bus and require space which would reduce the number of seats available on a bus. [7][8][9] 70.50.122.38 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Figures show coaches and buses remain the safest form of road travel in the UK, accounting for 17 deaths per one billion passenger kilometres travelled, compared to 37 for cars and 1,500 for motorcycles. Nine people were killed in coaches and buses in 2005, compared to 1,675 in cars." [10] Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is quite irrelevant, since apparently far more passenger km's are traveled in cars. The 17 fatalities versus 37 per billion passenger km's is relevant. However, that 37 must include drunk drivers, drivers on drugs, drivers who use cell phones ("mobiles") while driving and drivers with medical problems. If you exclude those, I bet the fatality rate for safe car drivers is lower than buses. (Of course, safe bus drivers would be nice, too, but presumably you aren't going to ask your bus driver to pass a urine test before you get on the bus.) So, my take on all this is that seat belts on buses may indeed be warranted. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to post your sources, I would really like to see these sources of yours that show casualty numbers are lower among "safe car drivers" than buses. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't list a number, but merely pointed out that the numbers listed lumped all drivers together, rather than separating good drivers from bad drivers, my source for that is the same as Alansplodge's. Something else I should add, since they looked at fatalities per total distance traveled, is that bus travel frequently requires more distance for a given trip, as buses rarely travel directly from your desired origin to your desired designation, thus increasing the risk. Also, there's some danger in walking to and waiting at the bus stop, not to mention being run over by your bus, although those risks don't involve seat belts. So, any conclusion that "buses are safer than cars" is highly questionable. (Buses also pose a risk to car drivers, but I'm not sure how that would fit in.) StuRat (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I hate to admit it, User:StuRat has a point as Department of Transport - National Travel Survey: 2012 (p. 5 of 25) shows that car or van travel (either as a driver or passenger) accounts for 78% of the distance travelled in the UK, whereas buses only account for 5%. Somebody who is clever at arithmatic and has time on their hands can work out exactly how much safer that makes car travel. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu's point is only apt insofar as he's pointing out some stats were scaled, and some were not. The standard way for assessing transportation safety is to scale by passenger mile. Ignoring drunk drivers is just silly, they cause a large amount of deaths. If you get killed by a drunk driver, you're still dead, right? By the standard measure, buses are indeed safer. By total injury, buses are also safer. Sure, you can slice stats in other ways, but there's a reason why the experts at NHTSA and similar agencies around the world use passenger-mile scaling- it's the sensible thing to do. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery drivers get in and out of their vehicles more frequently than other drivers, so are more likely to be run over by another vehicle. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk

What's the point of the "travel" link that goes off wikipedia to some other site? Why is it on the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vangeard (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's there as a result of this discussion. Questions such as "What are some good things to see in Bratislava?" or "How can I get from Wedmore to Climping on public transport?" are sometimes asked and answered here; but it may be thought that they're more appropriate for Wikivoyage's Tourist Office, and the site is, after all, a Wikimedia project just as we are. Deor (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woman eating pizza

In America is it normal for a woman to order a full-sized pizza for herself only and eat it all in one sitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.84.26.87 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you mean by "full sized." Most restaurants have personal pizzas that are usually 6 to 8 inches (or 15 to 20 cm) across, a small about 12 inches (30 cm) across, a medium about 18 inches (46 cm) across, and larger sizes that are at least a couple of inches wider than the medium.

It is normal to eat a whole personal pizza by yourself in one sitting. It would not be unusual for someone to eat a small by oneself, especially if it was with nothing else. It is uncommon for anyone to eat a whole medium or large pizza by themselves. I'm a man, my height is 6 feet and 2 inches (188 cm), and my weight is 220 pounds (100 kg) -- and the only way I can eat more than half a medium pizza is if I do a lot of work without food before eating and do not eat anything else for the rest of the day.

However, it is common in America for someone to order a pizza, eat some of it, and store the rest in their refrigerator for another meal. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Define "normal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me google that for you. Normal: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.[11] 70.50.122.38 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know there was an international standard for pizza consumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man or woman, no. But that does rest on your definition of a full-sized pizza. Pizzas can be ordered in various sizes by diameter, Personal- 15cm(650kcal), Small-25cm, Medium-30cm(2000kcal), Large-35cm(2900kcal), Extra Large -40cm. A large pizza would normally be split between two adults although if it is ordered as a late night snack rather than a dinner meal it may be split between 3 or 4. A personal pizza is only large enough for one and even then could leave an adult hungry. A small pizza could be finished by an adult with a large appetite. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what bizarre, exotic country do you live that a twelve inch diameter pizza is a "medium"? In the US our pizzas (which are exceptional, of course) come in small: 16", large 18", and jumbo 32" diameters. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just measured out the size of a 16" pizza on my desk; it looks like a good meal for a family of three. If this is what Americans think of as "small" I think we can understand why obesity is on the rise! RomanSpa (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity is on the rise worldwide, it can hardly be blamed on one American invention. The pizza place my parents patronize has 14" small and 18" large pizzas, and they always get two pizzas, ten slices in one sitting and save the rest for the toaster oven. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked retail (and would pull in more carts with a rope than the cart-pushing machine could do without breaking down), a 12" microwavable pizza was something I'd fold in half and eat as a regular-sized sandwich. I almost get the impression that America is about the only place large enough that a single pie could feed four to eight people. This German menu calls their largest size "American," and I'd have to buy at least two if I was covering dinner for my Dungeons & Dragons group. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about America which I thought meant USA so I used the American PizzaHut.com for sizes and calories - [12]. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Hut and Domino's are to manager-owned pizzerias as McDonald's is to a nice burger joint. A McDonald's "hamburger" is 1.6 ounces (before cooking) of patty; 8 ounces is normal for respectable establishments with table service. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As others have commented above the answer will depend upon the person and the pizza, and what you cosider "normal" (middle quintile? <90 percentile? within 2 sd of mean?). To give you an idea of average consumption, though: "Among consumers of pizza [in US], the mean energy intake obtained from pizza was 538 kilocalories for children and 744 kilocalories for adults... The amount of energy contained in a slice of cheese pizza (1/8th of a medium, all crust types) ranged from approximately 220-370 kilocalories." That is, adults on average consumed the rough equivalent of 2-4 slices of a medium cheese pizza at a sitting. The Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies may have more details. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own OR, but women usually eat one or two (never three) slices of pizza, while men will eat six slices at one sitting if they can get it, and all eight slices is not unheard of. Pizza for men is like chocolate for women. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The data cited above does not support the OR (there is some gender difference, but nowhere close to that). Beware of falling for or propagating gender stereotypes. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - At this point I'm reminded of this Yogi Berra attribution: "Would you like your pizza cut into 4 slices or 8?" -- "Better make it 4. I don't think I can eat 8." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I knew a waitress who told his customers, "I could tell you guys were hungry, so I cut you eight slices, rather than six." I was not aware that was an old joke. I am not sure how reporting my observations amounts to "perpetuating" a gender stereotypes. I don't know if I'm being told I'm delusional, or to hold my tongue for the good of the cause. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's doubtful Yogi ever actually said that, it just sounds like something he "might" say. He has often been attributed for quips that weren't his, hence his comment, "I never said half the things I said." As for your being lectured about gender stereotypes, that's too funny for words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MY OR is that it will depend on the size of the stomach and how hungry you are. It will also depend on the pizza. For example Pizza Hut makes a "cracker crust" style which can go pretty fast. The same might not be said for Chicago-style deep-dish pizza. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is pizza with really thin dough so you can easily eat a diameter of 40 cm when hungry (from a German perspective, the typical "Italian" pizza), and there is pizza where one or two slices leave you full. Also depends on the amount and type of topping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:69:CE25:C000:226:BBFF:FE17:86D5 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote alert: My brother went to Greece with three friends and one day they wanted a pizza, so they went to a pizzeria and ordered one each. The waiter said, astounded, "One EACH? Are you sure?", they replied, "Yes." The pizzas came a few minutes later, and my brother and his friends had to sit at four separate tables, because they were so big. None of them finished them. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like I'm going to Greece for my next vacation. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Information on a Metronome's Manufacturer

I found your article on metronomes quite fascinating. Having recently purchased an old metronome my question is about it's possible manufacturer. An oval brass plate on it's front contains the initials "H L", a small crown underneath the letters, and the words "Improved Maelzel, Patent Applied For" is the only information contained. Any information you can share as to when and where it may have been made and by whom would be greatly appreciated.

Sincere thanks, E Klodzen 184.1.34.87 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maelzel is the name of the manufacturer. If he made it himself, that would put it somewhere in the decades around 1800, so you'd have quite an antique. If that wording is in English, then that's a little suspicious, although I suppose he might have made some for English-speaking nations. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several other manufacturers also use Maelzel's name on their plaque (see this website) and the "Improved Maelzel" could mean that the manufacturer is claiming to have improved upon Maelzel's design. Would help if op could take photographs of the metronome they own and upload it online somewhere. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's someone auctioning an "HL Wind-Up Wood Cased Metronome P-1899"; but the description unfortunately contains no further information, and the photo doesn't show the manufacturer's plaque. Deor (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a photo here of a "vintage HL metronome", which sold for $25. The photo is grainy and small, and cannot be enlarged. Above it is a "Seth Thomas metronome", so HL seems to suggest the name of the maker, but my searches for info on HL produced only this hit. Here are some older manufacturers and their plaques, including Seth Thomas. No mention of HL. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bread

Is there anywhere I can buy a loaf of bread that doesnt have the crusts or the nasty burned bits at both ends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estoy Loca (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Crustless bread which doesn't have many specific examples of products and where to buy them. Just google "crustless bread" for lots more. Staecker (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, note that the crust keeps the rest from getting stale. So, you can just buy regular bread, cut the crusts off each slice as you eat it, then toss those and the unwanted ends to the birds. StuRat (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whence hails the OP that she gets bread with burnt ends? In our family get-togethers one has to ask Grandfather's permission to eat the nose. I can't think of ever having seen such burnt bread for sale in bakeries or stores of all ethnic persuasion, including plain old white-bread stores. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such bread is available in Austria, see [13] for example. It is marketed as "sandwich bread" because all slices, including the ones at the end, can be used to make sandwiches. --Viennese Waltz 08:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish standard plain loaf meets your requirements. RomanSpa (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Rate of murder conviction against police, compared to civilians in the US

It was suggested at ITN that police in the US being arrested for murder is rare (as compared to arrests of 'civilians'). I was unable to come up with any statistic on it. Can anyone find any reliable sources on the issue? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean just in the line of duty, or also in the course of their private lives? If the former, this 1979 study found three convictions stemming from 1500 police killings over the previous 5 years, but doesn't seem to mention arrests (and also notes that its data may be incomplete). A more recent news article found that "at least 17" police officers have been charged with murder over the last 20 years (but none of those 17 convicted), but they also cautioned that their data is probably incomplete. It looks like the available data is not complete enough to get a reliable exact rate, but it seems likely based on what we do have that it's definitely rarer than the overall arrest and conviction rates at least. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to ProPublica, FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report documents >12,000 police homicides between 1980 and 2012 including 1,217 deadly police shootings between 2010 and 2012 although that database is "terribly incomplete" since it is not mandatory for police departments to supply that data, and many don't. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States#Crowd-sourced projects to collect data lists some efforts to compile more comprehensive stats. Abecedare (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, for the comparison, you need to know how many killings have been attributed to non-police (civilians). That will be incomplete. It is not a requirement to report it, so it is simply a guess. However, it is clear that the point of the question is to cherry-pick data to claim that police can shoot anyone they like whenever they like and not be arrested while civilians get arrested every time they think about shooting someone. In case you don't have access to American media, that is the hot topic now. Police have overtaken radical Islam as the worst threat to Americans. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is incredibly ignorant, offensive and baseless. I have both seen police brutality and false arrest, and had the police solve the murder of a loved one and swarm my building in NYC within 30 seconds when my neighbor was shot to death by his wife. I am not trying to make a case for any claim, I am asking for evidence. That my asking for reliable sources amounts to "cherry picking" is a self-contradiction. You need to go analize yourself. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike what the IP implies, stats about homicide in general (an overwhelming majority of which are by "civilians") are regarded as the most well-kept and trustworthy of all crime statistics since homicides are the hardest to miss, not report, hide, reclasify etc in real-life, ie, outside of novels, films, TV shows and our imagination. You can find homicides stats for US from 1990-2012 here. Note also that while reporting crime data to FBI is not mandatory, police organizations covering about 95% of US population do participate in the Uniform Crime Reports program. So while not "perfect", the total homicide stats are well-regarded in general and have been used is 1000s of academic studies over the past 80 years (in stark contrast to the "homicide by cops" numbers as the ProPublica article linked above and this Fivethirtyeight column note). Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

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

So, this boils down to this claim: If a civilian kills someone, it is hard to hide it, so police report it. If a cop kills someone, police hide it and don't report it. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about both arrests and convictions. Presumably police are less likely to be arrested, charged by a grand jury, and convicted, given the same evidence against them, than civilians, especially if the victim is black. For example, we had video evidence of the police choking a man to death with a baton ([14]), yet the grand jury didn't bring charges. What are the chances that would have happened had the chokers been black civilians and the victim been a white police officer ? Without video evidence against them, chances of being convicted is far lower, still. Also, when charges are brought, they are likely to be lesser charges, like manslaughter. However, the increase in civilians with camera phones means there is more likely to be evidence against police, which they can't as easily destroy as their own video (assuming whoever took the video is smart enough to send it to the media instead of the police), so this might somewhat improve things. StuRat (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to bring black and white into it. James Whitehead was white. He was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a black police officer. The police officer was not reprimanded, let alone arrested. Simply because media is cherry-picking cases of white officers and black victims does not mean that black officers are not killing white civilians. To put it simply, do not assume that anecdotes from the media indicate data. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that's an unusual case due to the races: [15]. However, there is such a bias in favor of police officers that, in this case, it seems to have been more important than the bias against blacks. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that it isn't race. It is poverty. The best I heard it explained was by a past police chief Reuben Greenberg (if I remember his name correctly). He stated, to the best of my memory: There will always be heated conflict between people on the East side and the police because the people on the East side are poor and mostly criminals. Criminals hate police. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking for anecdotes and what a four day-old single purpose IP says is "his argument". Please take the race debate elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recall WP:HUMAN, and perhaps refresh your memory on how dynamic IP addresses work. Or just treat IPs with prejudice, whatever. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Elmer and Abecedere. To answer Elmer, no, I am not looking for only charges in the line of duty, but for any murders, like domestic violence, etc. This can be compared to the general population rate, since it will very closely match the non-police civilian rate. Let me repeat my question: "It was suggested at ITN that police in the US being arrested for murder is rare (as compared to arrests of 'civilians'). I was unable to come up with any statistic on it. Can anyone find any reliable sources on the issue?" I am not interested in politicking or a race debate, just (preferably peer-reviewed) statistics. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ITN claim is easy to justify. There are approximately 20,000 police in the United States. That leaved at least 308,000,000 civilians. If every single police person was arrested for murder, that would be equivalent to 0.006% of the U.S. population. This is a fallacy of comparing quantities in disproportionate population sizes. The claim, as you wrote it, doesn't indicate that they are looking at percent of police. It simply states that arrests (total quantity) are rare. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no claim, I have asked a question. You are not answering that question, you are making an irrelevant argument on the assumption I didn't learn ratios in elementary school. If you think the question should be different, start your own thread with your own question. I am interested in comparing the murder arrest or conviction rate of civilians in general to that of police. Please stop disrupting this thread. If you continue the disruption I will close your responses and report you for disciplinary action. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does This lead you anywhere interesting? --Jayron 32 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using Elmer Clark's statistics, there were about 4.7 murders per 100,000 citizens per year. I'm guessing the number of murderers per murder victim is only slightly less than one (i.e. multiple murderers are rare). In which case there might be roughly 4 murderers per 100,000 people per year. According to [16] there are about 700,000 officers in US. So there ought to be roughly 30 officers who commit murder per year (excluding any killings deemed justifiable). In the general population, about 60% of murders lead to an arrest [17], suggesting that roughly 18 officers should be arrested for murder per year to stay proportional. I don't know the exact numbers but news accounts make it seem unlikely to me that a police officer is arrested every few weeks for murder; hence, it seems plausible that police officers are charged with murder less often than the general population. Though one can't say from this data whether any difference is because they commit murder less often or simply that they get caught and charged less often. Dragons flight (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more data and estimates:

Number of police killings: although the number recorded by FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report is about 400/year that is known to be a vast undercount and more recent estimates based on Bureau of Justice Statistics data is closer to 1240/annum, and even that may be low by around 25%.
Arrest and conviction stats: According to this presentation by Philip M Stinson (the expert source cited in the article linked by User:Jayron32 above) et al, between 2005 and 2011, 104 police-officers (ie, 15/annum) were charged with murder or non-negligent manslaughter, although only 31 of those (ie 4 annum) were for shootings by on-duty officers (Aside: most of the violent crimes for which police officers are charged are committed off-duty, often involving domestic disputes, and with women constituting >60% of the victims). The conviction stats for these cases is unavailable, although the linked presentation does have conviction rates for violent crimes by police officers in general.
WP:OR bottomline: Based on the above numbers between 0.3% and 1.0% of police officers involved in a killing are charged with murder or non-negligent manslaughter; the conviction rate is necessarily even lower.

PS: I predict that there will be many more sources available if Medeis re-asks this question a year from now. Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Added OR. Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, including primary sources from California, today. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Below is an ec with Abecedare's excellent post above.)

Thanks, DF & Jayron. I think that the article Jayron32 has pointed out has one important statistic, that about 385 homicides a year are found "justified". If 10 percent of those deaths were actually unjustified (remember that the dead victim has no rights, and instead of the state having to prove the police were justified in killing a presumed-innocent suspect beyond a reasonable doubt, the police, not the civilian they shot, are given all the benefit of the doubt) then that means about 40 criminal killings a year.

Of course that would require a study to demonstrate. But anecdotal evidence indicates that the justifiability of many of these homicides is dubious. Consider the Amadou Diallo case of 1999, where an African immigrant entering his own apartment with a key was shot 41 times, with the explanation being that when he pulled out his wallet upon being told to stop and identify himself, "his wallet looked like a gun." If that weren't considered justified, it would be second degree manslaughter by New York law. Note the odd fact that when the victim of manslaughter is a police officer, the penalties are higher. Some people are more equal than others.

The Anthony Baez case is more egregious, where a police officer with years of excessive violence complaints against him caused Baez's death. In the Diallo case, the shooters were primed to act during a stake-out for a suspected rapist. In the Baez case, officers became enraged when their parked car was accidentally hit by the ball during a pick-up game of street football. They arrested Anthony's brother for disorderly conduct, then forcibly arrested Anthony himself for verbally objecting. The officer was charged with homicide, but found innocent in a trial by judge. He was found guilty on Federal civil rights charges. The Sean Bell case is also of interest.

This is of course speculation, if not entirely groundless speculation. What I am really interested in is first and second degree murders, as well as suicides and murders by ex-cops. I suppose this may be fruitless. Some 40% of murders go unsolved. It just seems odd there are no well-known direct studies on violence by the police compared to that by the public in general. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider some issues with comparing police to the general public? My job, one of the most tedious and boring ones possible, is to compare statistics across large populations. In comparing police to the general public, there are important issues. For example, 24% of the U.S. is under 18. There are no police under 18. Therefore, if violent crime is more rampant in those under 18, you should not expect police to be similar because that population is missing. Similarly, 14% of the U.S. is over 65. If violent crime is far less for that population, you wouldn't expect that lack of violence to occur in the police force. Then, there are economic factors. Depending on your definition, 6-10% of the population is unemployed. None of the police are unemployed. If being unemployed is correlated to violent crime, the police wouldn't have that factor. Poverty (having income, but below the poverty level) is another factor that may be correlated to violent crime for which police wouldn't have. I am not attempting to sway your opinion. I am trying to help you improve your argument. If you want to compare a small population to a large population, the two must be comparable. As for the size of the police, CSLLEA works off of number of police per 100,000 people. It grows very slowly, currently at 251, but nearly 252. That puts the police population less than 0.003%. Then, there is yet another problem. There was a police murder in South Carolina very recently, Charleston County to be exact. That county tallied it up in the "murder" statistics. So, if you look at the number of murders among the "population", it will include that one. You will want to separate murders by police from murders by the population. I personally would also go in a different direction of separating out females all together. I would only look at males. What I would expect you to find (because I see the raw data before it gets mangled by others) is that among 20-30 year old males, there is an extremely high correlation between areas of poverty and people killed both by civilians and police (I avoided using the word "murders" because some have been ruled "justifiable" both for the civilians and the police). Under 20, the correlation remains for civilians, but the police population does not exist for comparison. From 30-40, the rates of being killed is still heavily correlated to poverty areas, but the rates of those arrested for murder decreases for both police and civilians. Therefore, based on my original research, I really believe that if you want to shine a light on this problem, you can do so easily by focusing on a comparison of 20-30 year old males (police and civilians) in poverty areas. Your populations will be smaller, the crime rates are higher, and the two populations are far more comparable. Then, I would also do a comparison to military and professional athletes. I know it is my own predisposition, but I believe that guys who are all muscle and no brains are more apt to using violence to solve problems. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's some good advice. But since I mean to include former cops, I would not exclude older non-police. μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Male virgins

Does the statistical likelihood of a male virgin ever having sex decrease for every subsequent year that he remains a virgin over the age of 16? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.97.191.234 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt such precise statistics exist, plus due to differences in culture and life expectancy across the globe, such statistics would vary greatly internationally. Where I am from, Canada, I would guess the key age would be over 30years old. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is in Indonesia, statistics there may be different. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have stated where I was from so the OP would know I wasn't from their nation...Anyways, actually my answer was wrong, I was thinking along the lines of difference in chances of a particular virgin and non-virgin who both are not opposed to sex, having sex (first time or again) before they die. When you pool people as virgins vs non-virgins the critical point is the age at which the first male has sex though that answer has no real world use. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me this must be true by definition (even if you start counting at younger than 16). Statistically speaking, there are a certain number of lifelong virgins, and as you remove more and more non-lifelong-virgins for each year of age as they lose their virginities, these lifelong virgins will make up a larger and larger proportion of the pool of remaining virgins. It's no different from saying that each year that you don't go to Disney World makes it statistically less likely that you'll ever go. The only question is the magnitude. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically, this need not always be true by definition. As a counterexample, consider a hypothetical society with strictly enforced mores which prevent sex before marriage, and where all males on their 16th birthday become warriors and server for four years during which time they have a 50% chance of being killed in battle. Should they survive to their 20th birthday, they then return to their village where they spend one year cultivating a garden, building a home, and courting a future spouse who they marry on their 21st birthday. In this contrived example, a young virgin male on his sixteenth birthday has only a 50% likelihood of ever having sex, but should he survive (necessarily as a virgin) to age 20, his chance of eventually having sex has gone up to 100%. -- ToE 00:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, but the statement as asked is essentially empty. The probability of ever having sex between age 16 and death must include the probability of ever having sex between age 17 and death plus an added amount due to the probability of having sex between age 16 and 17. Hence, the statistical probability of ever having sex must be a non-increasing function of age. A more interesting question is how the probability of having sex per year changes. A bit more than half of all US teenagers self-report having had sex by the time they graduate high school [18], but by the late 20s more than 95% of people have had sex, and by the late 30s it is greater than 98% [19]. Even if many people have sex in high school, many others don't and still go on to have a normal sex life later. There is no specific age by which one must start having sex. However, whenever a person starts having sex, it is important to do so responsibly (safe sex) and with due consideration of the needs and desires of one's partner. Dragons flight (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The question is not about "the probability of ever having sex between age 17 and death", but about the conditional probability of of ever having sex between age 17 and death for those who have not had sex before age 17. And this is to be compared with the same number for age 18, and so on up. See ToE's response above for a hypothetical society where the answer to the original question would be no. --65.95.176.148 (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and ToE read it as conditioned on the probability of living to be 17. I don't read the question asker's intent that way. I read it as, given I am X now am I more or less likely to die a virgin as time goes on. Future looking scenarios where the person dies young, obviously have a 100% chance of being dead, but if you care about ever having sex, you don't necessarily want to ignore that. Put another way, supposes a 16-year-old in a hypothetical war-like society has only 10% chance of living to be 17 but a 100% chance of having sex if they do. We could say either that the 16-year-old has either a 100% chance of having sex after age 17 (predicated on them living) or that they have a 10% chance of having sex after age 17 (including the chance they are dead). If you were a 16-year-old worrying about dying a virgin, then I think it makes sense to think about the future in terms of the latter probability rather than the former. Dragons flight (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of college in the US seems to be getting laid. See Tom Wolfe's Hooking Up, and I am Charlotte Simmons. A small but significant fraction of the people I knew during that period had lost their virginity before college. I know that all but one had lost it by the end of their freshman year. There's one friend who's never spoken of a boy or girlfriend, whom I have never interrogated. In any case, I would suspect those who do not loose their virginity before college graduation (age 22) will be a small minority, of whom the perpetual virgins will be a remainder. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correlation is not causation. You'd need to compare numbers of college attendees who lost their virginity at college to non-college attendees who lost their virginity in the same age bracket, but without going to college, to make your first statement valid. If it was found that non-college people get laid at similar (or possibly even higher) rates, then that throws that theory out... --Jayron 32 14:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mail addr for Gov Rick Perry

I want to write a letter to Gov Rick Perry but going through Google for several hrs am unable to find a mailing addr.. I'm not a stalker I have a subject he may be interested in for his Presidential run. You were recommended as someone who may be able to help. If you're unable to help me please at least let me know. I'm not really computer literate so if I'm doing something wrong I apologise. I don't know what or where the "tildes" key is on my keyboard, so cannot let you know I'm finished that way, sorry......found it!2001:5B0:235F:F1F0:B0F3:768B:1490:2761 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has campaign website, http://www.rickperry.org/, has a mailing address at the bottom:

815-A Brazos Street, PMB 217

Austin, TX 78701

Assuming it is campaign related that is probably a good one to try. Dragons flight (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try contacting him through his Facebook page [20] or on Twitter [21]. He seems to really like his flags... and his new hipster glasses [22] [23]. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And world domination through (clean) coal-powered death rays! Or something. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

~~In many cases, the USPS makes all effort to deliver the mail. Simply addressing a ailed letter to Governor Rick Perry, Capitol, Texas, will probably work, just not very quickly.~~ See below. μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could send it c/o Capitol Building, Congress Street, Austin, TX. But that should be used for correspondence pertaining to his governorship of Texas, rather than his campaign for the Republican nomination for the US Presidential election. LongHairedFop (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perry is no longer governor, however. --Xuxl (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The wording of the queriant's question throw me. As he's no longer governor (he left on 20th Jan), you shouldn't write to him about governoral matters. Best bet, as others have mentioned, is c/o his campaign team. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The adjectival form is "gubernatorial". Sneaky of Perry to leave office without notifying the rest of the county. μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

Uncensored version of police beating horse-thief suspect?

The L.A. NBC affiliate has published this video of a man on his belly with his hands crossed to be cuffed then getting kicked and or punched repeatedly both by the immediately arresting officers, and others who run to join the beating. Does anyone know of an uncensored link to the video (in other words, the reporters' live commentary)? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That audio is not present on any of the YooToob versions I found. Therefore, given the masses of diligent YooToob feeders, I think it's safe to assume (1) the audio was never recorded, or (2) the audio was removed or lost before the video was broadcast or otherwise escaped from the TV station (was this live?). "Uncensored" assumes too much considering the number of other ways the audio could be lost, including various technical problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, I spent a good twenty minutes at it. It's quite blatantly an editorial decision, the coincidence with the violence was far too obvious, and the reporter says nothing about the sound going out when she comments in a follow-up piece where she is 'interviewed' by her co-workers. This will perhaps be leaked or be admitted as evidence in the officers' state assault and federal civil rights trial, at which point it will be subject to a freedom of information act inquiry. I'll keep looking. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an editorial decision, it was a good one. Her inane play-by-play commentary — Suspect being Tased! Suspect being Tased! — added nothing useful and, in Wikipedia lingo, was original research. What followed very well might have sounded too biased for the station to broadcast; viewers can clearly see what was happening and make their own interpretations. Actually I'm curious why you're interested in that commentary. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you don't deny this was censored on purpose. I am interested in it precisely because it was censored. Excited utterances and the recorded speech of eyewitnesses have special import in US courts, although given the video exists a judge might exclude the commentary as unnecessary if it was prejudicial. In any case, the "reasonable person" standard holds, and this broadcaster is presumably a seasoned reporter. As for bias, are we supposed to believe she started off, "Yeah, kick that motherfucker! Don't just beat him, shoot him in the head! Ooh, this violence arouses me," or did mean something else? We most certainly would not exclude such verbatim speech from being posted if it were verified. I am asking no more. Are there reliable sources that give the unedited cut? μηδείς (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's debatable which is more inflammatory, the thread or the hat. In any case, a hatter should identify themselves, especially in borderline cases. Why should it be necessary to find the edit in the history in order to establish that I didn't do it because I didn't like Medeis's comment? The mad hatter were: 117.173.108.206. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the video was shot by the very TV station that released it with the audio-commentary partially cut-off there are unlikely to be any other versions available with the commentary unless such a version is (1) leaked, or (2) released by the media organization, or as part of legal proceedings, sometime down the line. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wondering if perhaps the live broadcast itself was uncensored, just the following release. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for a British NHS doctor (GP) to refer a patient to the mental health services?

Assuming a patient went to their doctor with a physical problem, but the doctor noticed something wrong with the patients mental health. What criteria or threshold of behaviour would cause the doctor to make a referral to the mental health services? Is there a checklist of "signs and symptoms" a doctor looks for in their patients? For example, if the patient expresses paranoid thoughts to the doctor, will that generate a referral? NHSdoctors (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term mental health, just like physical health, covers a large number of potential conditions. There is no universal checklist. A GP's course of action depends on the symptoms displayed and their own professional judgement. Dalliance (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible for you to ask your GP about this. He or she will be more than willing to explain - that is part of their job. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today, in 2015 the mental health resource in the UK are under such strain, that to refer even just a third of patients with a mental health issue would make the system collapse entirely. Thus the threshold (in practice) is were the GP believe their patient is close to endangering the lives of others. Should they not refer such a patient and that patent causes death of another (and very, very few do – compared with the rest of the 'normal' mentally sane population), the GP knows they may have to come up before a GMC inquiry for negligence. For everyone else, they just proscribe pills and platitudes. Shame, because Britain was one of the pioneers of effective health treatment that returned such people, back into society so that they could become productive citizen once more. In these modern days of automation – there is no shortage of labour – so the same need doesn't exist to treat effectively. So the current criteria is: “Is this patent potentially dangerous enough to bump he/her up the priority list and get him some proper treatment?” Oh, No. A doctor will not explain this to a patient or relative because their patent or relative is desperate and begging for effective help and could cause a very emotionally difficult consultation for the GP - (GP's have feeling and a sense of empathy towards their patients too) but their hands are tied now as to what help they can provide. --Aspro (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the doctor who might notice something wrong with the patient's mental health. Patients themselves understand when they are mentally ill and there are emergency mental health services which they can contact. This area has some of the best mental health provision in the country. A patient can walk into A&E and if necessary a doctor will liaise with the staff in the mental health unit which is next door and the patient can be admitted the same day. There are area mental health units which a patient can visit and the central unit has a crisis contact point accessible directly from the street which can be visited or telephoned 24 hours a day. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First up, criterion - singular, criteria - plural

I cannot go along with Aspro's comments. Whether there is strain on the system or not should not influence the doctor's or your opinion about the need for referral to the mental health services. Services grow (or should grow) depending on the demand for that service within the population. If there are reduced referrals because someone foolishly thinks that they may cause strain on the system or there might be a long wait to be seen is doing society an injustice and doing the Department of Health a favour - not to mention the patient. What happened recently when emergency departments were overwhelmed with patients? the government found a few million pounds to alleviate the problem. A more pertinent cause of the reduced budget and general service shortfall in mental health services in the UK is the lack of political clout that the service and its managers have. Compare cancer or childrens' illness with mental health and most people will prefer to support the former two. This is largely due to the stigma that still attaches to mental health disorders and the appalling ignorance on the part of politicians and the public about mental illness.

Finally, for Aspro's benefit this is worth a look. Richard Avery (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should not influence the doctor's or your opinion but when the mental health infrastructure has been cut to the bone to only admit emergences what option has the GP got but to hope for the best and offer platitudes and drugs. This links into 87.81.147.76 comment. Yeah, they might be able to walk in to any A&E but until recently I did volunteer work for a mental heath charity and if they walk in they were told to see their GP until the problem became so bad that the police delivered them to to hospital – in the back of a van in a cage. If you got taken to hospital in a cage would, that do yourself esteem any good or would it make your feel even more retched than you already felt? Only then did they get admitted, because they were becoming a danger not only to themselves but other and so law enforcement had to take over. So instead of nipping the problem in the bud at the start, there are now legal issues, complex social problems that social workers are now expected to unpick, etc. etc. Britain used to be a great naval nation and they knew the meaning of Spoil the ship for a ha'pworth of tarIf the brakes on your car start to fail, do you say to yourself “oh well Im going to sell it soon so I will leave the next owner to fix them.” The NHS now does not wait for people to get lung cancer, it actively promotes the cessation of smoking. Why is mental health now become different over the last decades? Four out of ten experience mental health problems at sometime in there lives and it is an eye- opener to console weeping police officers, executives, etc. that have found themselves admitted and bewail “but I should not be here! I cant be in a mental ward. These places are for the hoi-poli. I am different”. It is such a shock to them, that the initial response is one of absolute and total denial. Mental illness can hit anybody out of the blue and the pills that their GP's gave them was no substitute to avoid the eventual crisis. Today a 'crisis' now mean that things have got to a stage that their wives out of fear have got a court order to prevent them seeing their children and there careers ends in tatters. Instead of not paying income tax for a few months, they end up 'chronic' and unable to work at all for the rest of their lives. Think about all those skills gone to wastes for a ha'pworth of tar. The OP asked for the criteria - it has now been provided - and mental health professionals will back me up on every word (save perhaps for the word prescribe - it is Latin for something that has to be written before and whilst on this occasion it was not my spell checkers fault but mine entirely. Richard Avery (talk) is, me thinks, nit picking), (and I can recommend to him a remedy for nits, if he finds he continues to suffer form this complaint ;-)--Aspro (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo location help

I've tried to find out the location on that this photo was taken, but have had no luck. It was probably the United States or Ireland, but I need to find out which. Can anyone else figure this out? --Steverci (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should link to a specific image, not to a Google search result; I see a bunch of identical portraits of a woman (with no background), which surely isn't what you're meaning. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the specific image; it's Maureen O'Hara. --Steverci (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a studio headshot. She did not work in a studio in Ireland. She started in London. She moved to Hollywood. This would have come from her agent (which, because she used a film clip initially, is doubtful) or as publicity for a movie (which is more likely). I expect it to be from movie publicity from RKO. The hair style makes it hard. She wasn't known for having her hair so closely tied down. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely taken in America, but O'Hara did return to, and work professionally in, Ireland after coming to the U.S. Films she was in were shot on location in Ireland, such as The Quiet Man. It is possible she had the headshot physically taken while she was on location in Ireland for a shoot. That being said, it is nearly impossible to tell where the picture was taken just from the picture. There's no geography or contextual clues to say where it was taken. It's a portrait against a white background. --Jayron 32 18:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking for places and times she wore her hair like that for a clue, and it seems the only time she did was for The Fallen Sparrow, which was made by RKO. Is this enough evidence to prove to Commons that the picture was made in the United States (and thus is free to use)? --Steverci (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is beyond reasonable doubt that this is a studio photo. The studio, RKO, is a U.S. studio. They would have owned the photo. So, while it may have been taken in Tahiti, Mongolia, or Zimbabwe, it is still owned by a U.S. company. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where, but it was taken in 1955. See caption for this stock-photo from the same session (Caution: the Ireland in the caption is a reference to "Irish actress" and not the place where the photograph was taken). Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Getty credits it to Ullstein Bild, which seems to be a similar stock-image service operating in Germamy. I found the photo on ullsteinbild.de as a thumbnail, but it seems you need an account in order to use the "more details" button. --65.94.49.82 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, because the photo I linked is supposed to be in the early 1940's, which is when the movie was made. --Steverci (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dinosaur unscientific classification

are there a unscientific classification of dinosaurs?--151.76.241.71 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. There are enormous ones, big ones, medium-sized ones, small ones, and a few little tiny ones. There are ugly ones and pretty ones. Scary ones and nice ones. If you want a better answer, please clarify what you are trying to figure out. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the argument that the term 'dinosaur' is unscientific in that it includes species more distantly related to each other than some species it excludes, at least as the term is commonly understood. See the discussion regarding birds (descendants of theropod dinosaurs) in our dinosaur article. As far as phylogenetic taxonomy is concerned, if dinosaurs are a legitimate clade, there are currently dinosaurs nesting in the trees outside my house... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By implication, the term "dinosaur" is now itself a dinosaur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a metaphor - another sort of beast entirely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I intead to only dinosaurs not avians, I intead to a cassification by bybehavior and appearance (e.g. big carnivorous dinosaurs, small carnivorous dinosaur, dinosaur whit armor, horned dinosaur, big herbivorous dinosaur whit long neck et ect.)--95.247.25.222 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to stop you classifying dinosaurs how you like - but don't expect qualified experts to agree with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all scientific terms have to be cladistic, some are descriptive and useful because members share share common characteristics other than ancestry. For example, aerobes are not a clade, nor are marine mammals or trees or algae. As long as "dinosaur" denotes a reasonably well-defined group of scientific interest and discussion, it doesn't necessarily matter that the group isn't a clade. Dragons flight (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "there is an argument that the term 'dinosaur' is unscientific..." the argument, and the reasoning behind it, tells the reader much about how science (or at least biology) classifies things. That science still manages to have rational discussions about 'trees' or 'marine mammals' suggests that the argument hasn't necessarily been won - and probably suggests that when it comes to classifying things, pragmatism isn't of itself unscientific. Accordingly, one can have a rational scientific discussion about 'big herbivorous dinosaur whit long neck', as long as one makes clear that one is using the classification for a specific purpose, and that one isn't necessarily implying any particular evolutionary relationship. Classification in of itself is neither inherently scientific or non-scientific - the distinction is more a question of what is implied by the classification. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Indeed. Tree is a good example. Definitely not a good formal grouping, nor a clade, but also certainly it is a useful group, and we'd be silly to try to avoid it. We of course do have dinosaurs flying through our yards if we take the term to mean the clade (as many paleontologists do); that's why "non-avian dinosaur" is a common term in the literature. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is apparently asking for a typological classification. The internet mentions typological classifications of certain bones and eggshell fragments. But basically, any research is likely to be done within valid groups, like the sauropods and their skulls and backbones. The only common non-genetic classification I have heard of would be the herbivorous, versus the carnivorous dinosaurs, which would group the sauropods with the bird-hipped dinosaurs (the brontosaur with the triceratops, e.g., instead of with their closer cousins, the tyrannosaur. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

succubus

Are people who claim to have summoned a demon/succubus for sex delusional or does such a thing actually exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.163.201.237 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no widely accepted scientific evidence of actual demons, succubi and such things, which would strongly suggest that people who say they have had an experience with such things are likely to be either delusional, intentionally lying, or in some other way mistaken. Though if you know such a person, maybe encourage them to take a picture next time. Dragons flight (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [24] [25] are some accounts from people who believe that such things exist. Many people would classify this as crackpot territory. On the other hand, people believe in lots of things, from miracles to the invisible pink unicorn to the Garden of Eden. So if you don't want a scientific perspective (you didn't ask on the science desk), then you get to believe whatever you want. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, no one actually earnestly believes in the invisible pink unicorn. It only exists to serve the purpose of mocking people of faith. Without confirming, denying, or passing normative judgement on anything else you noted people believe in, I just needed to clarify that. --Jayron 32 21:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inbreeding, out breeding?

Has there been any documented cases of a son getting his mom pregnant. And what would the product of this be? Brother and son at the same time?

What about grand mother convieving her grandsons child, this too.

Or as above, but female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Do Unborn Babies Pee and Poo in the Womb?". Access2Knowledge. Retrieved 6 April 2015.

[2] Soniak. "Do Fetuses go to the Bathroom in the Womb?". Mental_Floss.

[3] "Do babies pee inside the womb and if so where does it go?". Quora. Retrieved 6 April 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 655: / Line 655: @@
 :Here [http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2014/03/terrifying-demon-sleeping-wyou-succubus-incubus-a-paranormal-romance-with-the-devil-a-womens-personal-encounter-2466098.html] [https://drintimacy.wordpress.com/incubus-and-succubus-sex-demons-of-the-night/] are some accounts from people who believe that such things exist. Many people would classify this as [[crackpot]] territory. On the other hand, people believe in lots of things, from [[miracle]]s to the [[invisible pink unicorn]] to the [[Garden of Eden]]. So if you don't want a scientific perspective (you didn't ask on the science desk), then you get to believe whatever you want. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 ::Just to clarify, no one actually earnestly believes in the invisible pink unicorn.  It only exists to serve the purpose of mocking people of faith.  Without confirming, denying, or passing normative judgement on anything else you noted people believe in, I just needed to clarify that.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 21:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
+== Inbreeding, out breeding? ==
+Has there been any documented cases of a son getting his mom pregnant. And what would the product of this be? Brother and son at the same time?
+What about grand mother convieving her grandsons child, this too.
+Or as above, but female.  <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.24.128.230|86.24.128.230]] ([[User talk:86.24.128.230|talk]]) 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 21:36, 10 April 2015

April 5

How is this not kidnapping?

do unborn babies poop inside the mommys belly?

Cultural curiosities

Men going to the doctor

Russian Vs US Ground combat

How many people have died in Central Park since 1785?

What is the best free-question website besides yahoo answers and allexperts that is simple to use?

April 6

Jesus vs Baby Jesus

UK pensions

National Treasure

Wikipedia random article issues

Why kill grass that you're just digging up anyway?

Calling the undertaker

Everyone together

Tulpas

Amazed and Astounded

Letters

The Borden Sisters

April 7

House with no heating

How much exercise is too much?

Traffic Signal Time and Coordinations

Whiskey losing its smoky flavour?

3D Custom Girl

April 8

seat-belts on buses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk

Woman eating pizza

Seeking Information on a Metronome's Manufacturer

bread

April 9

Rate of murder conviction against police, compared to civilians in the US

Male virgins

mail addr for Gov Rick Perry

April 10

Uncensored version of police beating horse-thief suspect?

What is the criteria for a British NHS doctor (GP) to refer a patient to the mental health services?

Photo location help

dinosaur unscientific classification

succubus

Inbreeding, out breeding?

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.