Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 31

When Gallup doesn't provide trust to interviewees, how much of a bias does it introduce?

I just received a call from someone who said he's from Gallup and who asked me to participate in a poll about current politics. I agreed, and he proceeded to ask me my age. At that moment I said that I've seen too much privacy related crimes, and asked if I could call him back, or if he had any way to prove that he's really from Gallup. He didn't, which precluded the interview.

Doesn't that unnecessarily increase the bias? I know there's always some bias, because there may be some correlation between someone who's willing to be interviewed and their political opinions, and there are some ways to estimate that away. But the need to protect oneself from fraudulent phone calls seems very fundamental to me; there must be a whole big sector of the population that is excluded from such polls. Compared to that, setting up a system so you can call back to be interviewed seems like a trifle. Is that really not worth it? ThinkPaddy (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You might consider the possibility that he wasn't from Gallup but was just phishing. Was there a number on the caller ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. I did consider it, which is why I was cautious. But it did have a caller ID, and I called it, and it was a long winded automatic phone system that said it was Gallup. ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Polling by phone is just about useless anyway, as you will get too low of a participation rate, and there's no reason to think that those who choose to participate are a representative sample of the entire population. If they paid people they might get a more acceptable participation rate.

Plus, these days younger people are likely to have cell phones only, and the phone polls tend to only call land lines, introducing yet another bias. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting - would that explain why he asked me whether this was a cell phone or landline? ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like they use an auto-dialer that just dials a range of numbers, versus having any type of database to work off, as those would be sure to list the type of line. This lack of a database makes it sound more like phishing. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it could be because I changed my phone number from a landline to a cell phone. ThinkPaddy (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For an example of how opinion polling can go dreadfully wrong, read United States presidential election, 1936. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I find the premise dubious. At best I have been asked to give an age range, never been asked my age.

μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - that's what felt fishy. ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(It's not Bug's premise, so you shouldn't indent from his reply, as if you are replying to him.) StuRat (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And is your age in the range of 36 years and 243/365ths thru 36 years and 244/365ths ? :-) StuRat (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No. (That was easy!) ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can always jerk them around. Like telling them you're 93 1/2 years old and that you've lived most of your life in converted dumpster. And if that doesn't work, ask them for money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could lie, and do that with relish when a website forces me to enter information that they have no right to know. And when I get calls for commercial surveys, I do ask "what's in it for me", which usually surprises them. But I feel different about politics; I think there is something like civic duty (lower case; not the thriller). I have some respect for political polls, since I believe they provide a valuable service to democracy. ...

They most certainly don't. People are supposed to vote for the right person for the job. When a poll suggests one candidate is leading, it makes people vote for who they think is going to win instead.

This is compounded by 80% bullshit, 100% of the time. Unless respondents have a chance at winning something (an Amazon gift card, this time). You can trust those numbers, because they're large. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Interesting blog. I especially like the fact that people positively react to rewarding the admission of ignorance. We should do that in meetings at work! ThinkPaddy (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Which leads me back to my original question: Isn't Gallup missing its obligation to society when they refuse even such a small effort to ensure the validity of their survey? ThinkPaddy (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Which leads me back to my original comment: How do you know it was really Gallup calling? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course I don't know, which is why I didn't follow through. When I redialed their number 402-952-4444, I thought that it was pretty likely, since the voice message sounded authentic. But I now I looked up http://www.phonelookup.com/1/402-952-4444, which increased my doubts. Is it possible that it actually is Gallup's number, but it's being hijacked by phishers? ThinkPaddy (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I googled that phone number, and this is one thing that came up. Compare their 2012 experience with your recent one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There's not much to compare, as we didn't get that far. But if it that's the interview they wanted to conduct, then I don't feel I missed out on a civic duty, or that I even would have been "fortunate", as some people put it on the page you link. In that interview, they didn't give the interviewee any chance to give her opinion on any issue. The information they collect is already collected in a much more democratic and precise way: By elections. ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

By asking who they voted for, they could compare their results with the actual results and estimate the bias in their results. As to the link, they asked for age ranges rather than a specific age. Which is what you would expect. The guy who called you was either a scammer or a really poorly trained Gallup worker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The number 402-952-4444 does belong to Gallup, according to the above. If it was a scammer, then they must have tricked the phone system to display that number. How easy is that? If, OTOH, it was Gallup, then why do you assume that the age question has to be always exactly the same? ThinkPaddy (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Spoofing CallerID is said to be easy. (Doesn't make it useless!) I've had a few calls from clearly invalid numbers. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Or he was lonely. And looking for other lonely people. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

I once got a call from a heavy breather, and hung up. Then I realized I could have had some fun, and regretted it, but *69 didn't work, ironically. μηδείς (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha! You could have fooled me on any other day! ThinkPaddy (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I am not kidding. It was on my line in a college dorm. I would try to think of something funnier and more subtle for April Fools, like "Why do Europeans speak English so poorly?. (Hilarious, but not so subtle.) μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll have you know that Europeans speak English VERY well. They just don't want to. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have actually had the scenario in that skit happen to me in real life, KageTora. I was at a different branch of the gym from the one I usually worked out in, and asked an attendant where the showers were. The response, in perfect English, was "I am sorry, I don't speak English, you'll need to ask someone else." I responded that that was perfect English and was told, "I'm sorry, I really don't understand, I can' help you." (there were two sentences, I can't say I am remembering exactly, since this was about 15 years ago.) I did then get an answer when I re-asked the question in Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually did it myself in Japan a number of times, Medeis - as you know, I am fluent in Japanese, but sometimes I just didn't have time to mess around (buying tickets for trains, etc.), so I would pretend to be a dumb foreigner and get someone to do it for me by walking straight to the front of the queue and asking someone how to use the machines. It was fun at the time, but in retrospect, it was probably not a nice thing to do. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 04:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, KageTora, so I hereby declare you evil. But this attendant was speaking perfect, phonetically correct upper-middle-class Manhattan English. I have always told taxi-drivers that I don't speak any Spanish, only Russian, while addressing them in idiomatic and phonetically Caribbean Spanish. But not to gain advantage. I always admitted the joke. (The same with Wolof language and Haitian creole speakers whom I addressed in French, and told them I only spoke English. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's often easier to come up with apt responses after disconnection. Like, "How long have you had that case of tuberculosis? I have a physician to recommend. His name is Dr. Vinny Boombatz. Call him at this number [e.g. the number of the local police department]." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've heard that some phone polls with delicate questions ("Have you ever used heroin?") ask the respondent to roll a die, say "yes" if it comes up 1 or 2, say "no" if it comes up 5 or 6, and tell the truth otherwise; then they can throw away N/3 from the "yes" column and N/3 from the "no" and have some confidence that the remainder is truthful. Similarly, to reduce the danger of phishing, Gallup could say, "Roll two dice, add the result to your age and tell me the result." —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea. But it only works if the interviewee has complete trust in the interviewer. It's even more vulnerable to people cheating: If there's even a trace of a subconscious fear that you may get in trouble for saying "yes", then some of the ones who rolled 1 or 2 will say "no" regardless. Since you're subtracting the numbers, the difference will have a disproportionally large effect on the bias. ThinkPaddy (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Do any restaurants allow you to order from your home PC ?

...but still eat at the restaurant ? The reasons I would want to do this are:

1) Nutritional info is normally only available (in the US) on their web site, and in a huge PDF file that's both very wide and very long, making it quite time consuming to actually compare items.

2) It seems silly for me to explain what I want, then have the waitress try to write it down, then try to communicate that to the kitchen staff, when I could type it in myself with so much less possibility of error (like them mishearing "French" dressing as "Ranch").

3) They could start cooking it before I arrive, but they presumably would also want payment in advance to do that.

I imagine I'd walk in and say "I have order # 328" (for that day). So, do any restaurant chains offer this option ? (I don't mean ordering it to go and then sitting down to eat it at a fast food place, I mean having full table service.) StuRat (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Up front, I'll just say google "online menu order" and there's a national breadstick chain that will pop up as allowing you to order on line.

But for gosh sakes, Stu, you have to realize that the restaurant as an institution is so old that the word tavern comes not from Latin, but from Etruscan. Wenches often used to work for free just for the sake of getting tips.

And Wawa allows on site computerized ordering for many, but not all cooked items. Having cooked and waited and having used semi-computerized systems I can tell you that they are never meant for customer or wit-staff convenience, but as a way to do accounting on the cheap and to prevent theft.

Someone still has to read the printout, call the order, cook and pack or serve it. The purpose of the waitress is not to mess up your order, but to make sure you get exactly what you want, how and when you want it. That's why she get 1/2 or 1/3 of minimum wage--tips for good service.

There's a reason Horn & Hardart's went out of business, and people kick soda machines. Maybe you should consider grocery stores like Shop-Rite that allow you to call in, and even deliver in dense urban areas. The nutrition labels are on the packaging, and you can cook everything you want to your own exact specifications.

μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Some key points:

A) I want full service (a waiter or waitress).

B) If they are printing out the order then reading it to someone else, instead of just displaying it on a terminal the kitchen staff can read directly, that's another inefficiency, but that's beyond the scope of my Q.

C) The more times the order is translated from person to person, the more garbled it will get. See the telephone game.

D) Food vending machines remain popular, but I do think they need an attendant, in case things go wrong. They could make them a lot fancier, too, like a machine that cooks your pizza to order, with toppings you selected.

StuRat (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the waitress who is personally responsible for taking your order accurately, including advising you of options and answering questions about the food item(s). It is her responsibility to refer it properly to the head cook on-line. It's her responsibility to prepare some items, like water, soup and salad. And it's her responsibility to make sure what you got was correct, and to check soon after you start eating whether everything is okay. That is personalized service, not the telephone game. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

First off, it sounds like you're wanting to do this on your own. That's weird, for a start. You shouldn't really be eating in a full service restaurant on your own. But if you're really determined to do it, you should just go there, bring a book, give the waitress your order and read your book while waiting for it to be delivered. If you're really that bothered about weighing up the different nutritional values, just do that on the computer before you leave. The chances of the waitress getting your order wrong are infinitesimal. --Viennese Waltz 07:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In my experience the chance of them getting my order wrong is more like 50-50. You must go to much better places than me. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree the concept proposed in the OP is weird, eating on your own in a full service restaurant is not weird in and of itself, especially when near public transport hubs, where travellers would frequently be on their own. Have done it myself. 131.251.254.81 (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"You shouldn't really be eating in a full service restaurant on your own." But only in Indiana can you actually be turned away by the restaurant owner for seeking a table for one (if it's against their prejudices"religious beliefs").

Seriously, lots of people eat on their own in restaurants. I've done it myself many times, and I know plenty of other people who have done the same. What on earth would make you make a remark like that? RomanSpa (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A couple of problems with the proposed plan. What certainty does the restaurant have that you will turn up, and at the time you stipulate? What is the pay off for the restaurant to keep a website updated continuously for a small number of people who don't have time to wait a few minutes for the service staff to get their order or require extra information about their food. I do not recall in several decades of restaurant visiting ever having a wrong order caused by erroneous transcribing by the waiting staff. Richard Avery (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not high class dining but Panera allows you to order via their web site or their mobile app. You can then eat at the restaurant. Dismas|^(talk) 09:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I order on my phone, using their website, at Subway, Five Guys, Taco Bell, and Moes. I assume that not all restaurants support online ordering, but the ones that I visit do. Plus, I get to be a major ass and walk straight to the front of the line and tell them I ordered online. 209.149.113.207 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

All of those are counter service, not table service restaurants as Stu wanted. I am not aware of any table service restaurants, with wait staff, that allows online ordering and eating in. Some normally table service restaurants offer "curbside pick up" and online ordering (that is, you order online, and pick up your order to take home, places like Outback Steakhouse do that) but I've never heard of someone ordering online for table service. It may be one of those ideas which is in such low demand that no one thought of implementing it. --Jayron32 14:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saying "that's weird" isn't very helpful. Instead you should list specific objections the waitstaff or customers might have.

As for it not being a popular option, I'd like to see evidence of this, where it's actually been tried. Presumably the same objection initially existed to ordering take-out food online, and that's now quite a popular option.

Benefits the the restaurant would be reduced waitstaff needed, since they no longer need to take as many orders, fewer mistaken orders which have to be redone at their expense, and hopefully more satisfied (and thus more returning) customers. Getting customers in and out more quickly also effectively gives them more tables to use every hour. As for them not wanting to risk the customer not showing up, I already covered that with the customer paying in advance (if they expect the food to be prepared in advance). However, some chains do allow you to order take-out food which they prepare in advance, and pay for when you pick it up. I don't see why the risk is any worse for dine-ins.

As for viewing the nutritional info before heading in, that's what I do now, but I am often disappointed to find the item I selected isn't carried at that location. If I could order it in advance, hopefully they would need to reveal that they don't carry the item at some point in the process, where I can still review the nutritional info and make a second choice.

Regarding them needing to "keep a web site up to date", they likely already have all the infrastructure in place for pick-up or delivery options. All they would need to do is add an option for dine-in. (They might have to do a few minor tweaks, like adding some dine-in only options, such as the buffet.) StuRat (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Without any references to back this up, I think the reason that this can't work was mentioned above: the restaurant would be committing to cooking your meal and saving you a space without any guarantee that you would actually show up. Let's say you pay in advance. That's fine, then. The wasted food is still covered. But they lose the table and the potential for a walk in on that one. Mingmingla (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to have thought that thru logically. If I did arrive they would get X dollars in exchange for a given amount of food, a parking space, table time, and waitstaff service. If I don't arrive, the same exchange occurs, except they may give up on me sooner than I would have left, and reclaim the table, and they have no waitstaff requirement at all (and therefore no tip), and I don't take up a parking space. It works out the same or better for them. And if they can sell my food to somebody else, then they do even better. As it happens, here in Detroit, it's rare that all tables are full, but quite common that they lack the staff to handle the customers they do have. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@StuRat: There are quite a few restaurants that allow one to order ahead over the phone or online, and then dine-in. And many companies selling (and hyping) systems to allow even more restaurants to do so. If you want particular examples (rather than just proof of existence), it would help to know your rough geographical locations... if you are comfortable revealing it, of course. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew I live in Detroit, by now. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That link to the online order service for BJ's is just the type of thing I'm looking for: [1]. Unfortunately, we can't order BJ's by phone here in Detroit. Too, bad, because that really sounds awesome ! StuRat (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick search shows several burger and pizza places in Detroit supporting the order-ahead dine-in option. And if you call and ask, as this Chicago Tribune article suggests, I am sure you'll find many more. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And some web-services/apps for what you are looking for:

• Letsorderonline
• RushOrder (LA area)
• Settle (Bay Area)

There are plenty more, mostly local website. If you search google for "pre-order", "order ahead", "order online" options, it should provide you with geographically-customized results. Abecedare (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. Those are third party sites. I wonder why restaurants wouldn't use their own websites, as they do for ordering take-out or delivery. Adding middleman just means somebody else gets a cut of the profit. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Economies of scale; benefits of economic specialization; Ricardian notion of comparative advantage. Essentially the last few centuries of economic theory and history. :) Abecedare (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

But then why wouldn't the same logic apply when they set up take-out and delivery options on their own web site ? Also, I'm mainly concerned with large chains, which already have the economy of scale working for them. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Even big firms, say Starbucks, McDonald's etc, almost certainly don't design, manufacture, service, and run these systems in-house, but instead contract with multiple specialist retail IT firms in the area. The details are surely trade secrets, but you can get an idea of the market area by looking at the trade-press and trade-show participants; eg [2], [3], [4], [5].

The general question of what and why companies hire employees to do and what they hire other companies for (you have to pay, either ways) is covered academically by Theor(ies) of the firm which have garnered multiple Nobel prizes (Ronald Coase, Oliver Williamson, Jean Tirole etc), and in the "real-world" provides employment to hundreds of thousands of business consultants. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If starting from scratch I see your point, but already having a web site that allows take-out and/or delivery orders but then deciding you need to outsource to a different web site for dine-in orders would be a bit like having a factory that makes left foot shoes and deciding you need to outsource the production of right foot shoes, rather than tweaking your factory to do both. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Do any restaurants? arbitrary break I

• Stu, in most places (presumably all, in the US), once prepared, it's illegal to resell food that's been brought back to the kitchen. Basically all one can do is say, the customer wants his steak better done. Otherwise it has to go in the trash. In fact, I got in a very brief argument once at the Wendy's off Fulton Street in lower Manhattan when I ordered four triple burgers with no cheese or toppings (enough for a meal and seven bag-lunches) and they came with cheese.

When I opened the bag and found they had that disgusting fake-orange cheese on them (I had told the clerk "cuatro burgesas triples, sin queso, sin nada, solo pan y carne") I removed and threw out the tops of the buns, and returned the burgers to the manager. He yelled at me that I shouldn't have done that, since he couldn't resell them. I told him I did it deliberately, and asked if he wanted a report to the health department for reselling food. After that I was told to go to the manager's window (no waiting in line!) and to place my order directly with him.

As for tips and table space, certain tables a assigned to certain waitresses, usually based on their skill and seniority. This is a matter of competition. If the waitress works on tips per table per hour, she's not going to want her table sitting empty for 20 minutes. Nor does the tip come out of the restaurant's charges, so someone not paying a tip does not in any way benefit the restaurant.

The best that's going to happen if you order on line and want table service is that the hostess will take your order number when you arrive, advise the cook you are there, and seat you. The only time saved will be the time from seating until the waitress hangs the ticket on the cook's wheel. Everything else will be the same.

Otherwise you can call ahead to Denny's, tell them your order (the hostess, who may be a manager, and who doesn't get tips) will take your order, and if you want to eat it their she will direct you to the counter (as at a diner) or to the bar.

• Some restaurants here in Germany have their menus on tablets, including all nutritional information, and you order wirelessly from your table. The food is then served at the table by a waiter or waitress. I remember at least La Baracca (a somewhat upmarket Italian chain), and one Sushi place. I'd be surprised if this style wouldn't be more popular in e.g. Japan or Korea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The food would never be brought from the kitchen, if the person ordering it never arrived. Many restaurants also take your food away, after a meal, to put it in to-go containers. Doesn't that go back into the kitchen ? That never seemed very sanitary to me, plus they only seem to put half of the food in the containers, so I always insist on packing it up myself. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Stu, I get the impression that you have never worked at a restaurant. I have been a cook and a waitrix at several branches of three national chains, as well as a specialty German/Italian cuisine restaurant run by a Swiss owner, my sisters, my brother-in-law, his best man, and my best friend and an ex whom I used to diddle in the stock room all have similar experience, with me working for about six years, full time. My grandparents ran a two-generation family restaurant in Philly under my last name in which my father worked as a child. So although this is all OR and probably belongs at wikia, I know whereof I speak.

Doggy-bags never go back into the kitchen. In some places they bring the to-go containers to the table, which is what I prefer, because I won't make the mistake of packing the house dressing I didn't like and have it leak onto my entrée. In fancier places like Asia de Cuba the server packs the material for you off "the floor" (the area not accessible to customers) but also off "the line", the area where cooked food is prepared. This is similar to the behind the counter area at diners and the area between the waitresses' station at Denny's.

As for food never picked up, it is usually given to employees to eat who are on break. There's the rare case of the guy who orders a rare steak and then changes his order. If someone orders another steak medium while the orphaned steak is on the grill then there is no problem. Once the steak is plated for a ticket and in the window, if the order is canceled the meat cannot be resold. If an inspector were present and saw you change the side orders and serve it to a new customer, you'd be found in violation.

(This is not to say cooks obey the rules. Dropping a burger or steak that had fallen on the floor into the deep frier for a few seconds was a normal way to "clean it off" that could get you fired if the manager and the inspector both saw it. The same method was used to make well-done steaks well-doner and crispy bacon crispier) I have also seen waitresses hand milkshake tins to cooks and ask them to pee in it, so they could dunk a truculent customer's T-bone in it before serving, and even worse types of poisoning. Not at the better restaurants, though. Usually.

In any case, this idea that food can easily be re-used is wrong. The goal for the head cook (a position I got paid handsomely for in the 80's, $600 for 40 hours or less, with free meals, drinks, and marijuana) is to coordinate the whole kitchen, usually cooking for 4-12 tables at once, making sure that every plate was finished at the same time, so that the 20-minute well-done rib-eye and a 30 second slice of Prime rib and all the other items with different cooking times came out fresh and hot and served to the customer within a minute of being ready. We never wanted cancelations, they were never a benefit, and only occasionally could they be re-used. Otherwise, they were fed (illegally) to the staff on break, at a "loss" to the business. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, I point out that it's not a loss if they've been paid for the order in advance. I also think there's a wide variation from what they are supposed to do and what they actually do. I sent back a salad at Outback because it had croutons I didn't order, and it came back with only the ones on top removed, showing me they obviously just picked them out with their fingers and brought the same salad back out. Somehow I doubt if that's what they are supposed to do. Now I just pick them out myself. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

But there is a loss to the waitress if one of her tables is held empty when there are other guests waiting to be seated. In the case of the salad, no, she should not be picking the croutons out by hand. You shouldn't have to say it, but its the reason I unwrapped and threw out the top bun on each of the cheeseburgers. Otherwise I'd've gotten the same burgers back with the cheese scraped off, which has happened before. The thing to say would be, can I have an entirely new salad? (Maybe add you have an allergy.) μηδείς (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming they are turning people away because all the tables are taken. That just isn't the case in Detroit, in general, due to a loss of population. They are often short-staffed, but rarely short on tables. And I, in particular, hate crowds, so avoid any time when they would be the least bit crowded. I'm sure Outback knew I wanted a new salad, they just didn't care what I wanted. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry Niven wrote a short story about a fully automated restaurant with automated waitbots and computerized ordering (pre-www). IIRC, The patrons ended up getting stuck in their booth with a robot that kept presenting a bill for services unrendered and shocking the patrons when they tried to escape. You're always going to have to deal with some interface which may be flawed, human or machine. See entropy, Murphy's law, Peter principle and Westworld. [Here's an accurate description of the story, "Intent to Deceive".]

When eating at Outback, do you expect an Australian accent? The kitchen is most likely staffed by underpaid minorities and illegals, not to mince words. If you order house salad, the cook doesn't make it. The waitress gets it out of a bin in the waitress station. "They" didn't do this, nor did "Outback" do it, the waitress did. But you want table service, so of course you have to deal with a waitress. And if she's simply ferrying orders, she's not going to be expecting big tips nor putting the work into it. If you want good service you need to go to a busy place with an owner manager that's been in business for a good deal of time. Use the wisdom of the crowd; such places are busy because people enjoy the food and service.

Funny story about the Australian accent. They do have somebody with an Aussie tongue on the phone answering machine who announces hours, their address, etc. However, they changed their hours to include weekday lunch, then changed their location, and both times it took them like a month to get the message updated with the proper accent. So, apparently they would rather lose customers who think they are closed or can't find them (since they were sent to the wrong location), than record even a temporary message without the Aussie accent. Bizarre priorities, those. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making this about outback, but I ate there once with my parents and refused to go back. My parents ate there twice, they had four order errors between them, including getting the wrong type of potato. The got most of their meal comp'ed by the manager. I think you just need to either order fresh produce from a grocery that allows orders by phone for pickup, or go to a better quality restaurant. Novelty chains like Outback are actually a step below McDonalds, which used to rely on a clown, a burglar, and some sort of purple thing to sell their food. They abandoned that model years ago, and they rely on uniformity at a certain standard to survive. Outback gives cut-rate service and depends on nostalgia for "Crocodile" Dundee for sales. (At this point, much of this thread should probably be hatted as advice combined with defamation.) μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice they have a food contamination problem there, too. There often seem to be random food items mixed in with the dressing. Apparently they either use the same spoon or leave the dressings uncovered, so whatever was flying around in the kitchen ends up in there. And once the dressing had bleach in it (a poor job of rinsing after they washed out their containers, I hope). But cheap is right. For $7 at lunch, you get unlimited soup, salad, and bread. That's hard to beat, even at fast food places. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that federal law in the US only requires waiters to be paid $2.13/hr while the minimum wage is $7.25 for untipped labor. Where I worked in NJ the $2.13 minumum still applies, Michigan state law sets a $3.10/hr minimum. After taxes, a weekly paycheck of under $10 is not unusual. I have eaten in Germany, and service is perfunctory, as the wait staff is paid independently of the customer's satisfaction. In the US, the waitress, to do well, has to work hard to please the customer, not just carry the food to the table. Being assigned six prime, busy tables, rather than the four in the back new or bad waitresses get is easily a difference of $100 or more in tips a night. StuRat is looking for actual table service, and his scenario implies whole reworking of the normal system. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the service is Germany (and the rest of Europe) normal, rather than oppressively fake friendly and pushy. This is how the normal world operates, we pay people a living wage. American service is truly awful by and large. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand, a good waitress in a busy inexpensive diner-style restaurant can easily bring home $600 in cash from tips working three shifts a week. The $2.13 minimum wage is a technical pittance given our income tax system--if you didn't get a "paycheck" the government couldn't tax you. No waitress in America works for the wages.

If you get "pushy" (by which I mean they try to convince you to order more) or "fake-friendly" then you're eating at a gimmicky chain like Bennigan's or T.G.I.F. where orders come from on high to push specials do song and dance routines.

If you eat at a good privately-run middle of the range place like Mastoris Diner you will normally get excellent service. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to be reserving a table, not just a meal, of course.

I've seen restaurants do this for special occasions. Where you could RSVP your orders for a holiday meal by email or Facebook, but that's because they were preparing a greater volume of food at greater complexity than they're normally prepared for. (If you showed up without a reservation, they might find you a table, but there's a chance they'd be out of the holiday special.)

For non-special occasion meals, I've phoned in eat-in orders to restaurants before when I was in a hurry, so at least some are up for the basic concept. You might see if anything strikes your fancy on Grub-Hub and try putting "I'd like to eat in if a table is available" on the "special instructions" field. I dunno if that'd work, though. APL (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

APL (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now that you mention it, I have seen that for holidays (US definition), with a prix fixe menu. That's where they have very limited choices you order in advance [6]. Presumably this allows them to more easily resell the items if you don't show up, since in the cases I saw, payment was not made in advance. They might even overbook, figuring a certain percentage of no-shows.StuRat (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I overlooked the link to BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse, above, until now. It seems they allow an online order for a dine-in meal without requiring pre-payment: [7]. It doesn't actually say if they cook it until you show up, but the review for them seemed to say that do cook it in advance. They even allow a guest login, as opposed to registered users only. So, I'm not crazy (at least not for this reason). Personally I think they might be taking a bit too much risk by not requiring payment in advance, but apparently they think they can cover the loss with increased sales, due to this new service. I hope they will succeed and this will become standard practice. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't eat out much, certainly not in the US in the last decade, but I found this interesting and perhaps relevant: Disney’s $1 Billion Bet on a Magical Wristband, which is part of a system which enables the following: "The server—as in waitperson, not computer array—knew what they ordered before they even approached the restaurant and knew where they were sitting.". So one answer is "the restaurants at Disneyland", but my takeaway on reading that is that the same technology or something similar might one day be used in the wider world, if they can overcome the privacy concerns of tracking people.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: I couldn't find a place with full table service in Detroit yet that allows me to order in advance, so I settled for Panera Bread, and took my pre-ordered to-go order to a table. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you try the ones listed here? Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those, but wasn't sure if they had full table service if you order in advance. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

gdp growth and labor productivity increase

Is the ideal ratio 1:1 for an economy to be balanced? (e.g. not growing because of a credit bubble)

Muzzleflash (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the source of that number? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a universal ideal. The parameters that work best for business owners tend to be quite different from the parameters that work best for laborers. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly, because labor supply can change too due to population growth, immigration, increase in labor participaton (eg, women entering formal workforce), increase in hours worked etc. See this OECD document and cited references for some additional nuances. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Approval related voting system question.

Imagine, people vote on candidates by saying the ones they want to win.

On voting system 1: When you say yes to one candidate he get +1 points and if you dont he gets +0

On voting system 2: When you say yes to one candidate he get +1 points and if you dont he gets -1
PS: on both types of voting system, you just say yes, to the ones you didnt said yes, they get +0 or -1 based on the voting system used.

Is there any difference between both types of voting systems or in the end they would the exact the same thing?201.78.185.124 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In system 2, what happens when someone doesn't vote at all? Do all the candidates get -1 or not? --65.95.176.148 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If he say yes to 0 candidates all the candidates get -1 points added to their specific total amount of points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.185.124 (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the results will be exactly the same in the two systems, though the scores will be different, of course. You might be interested in the article Cardinal voting systems. Dbfirs 17:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The specific difference will be in the spread. If two candidates have a point difference of 5 in the first system, they will have a point difference of 10 in the second system. Other than point spread, there is no difference. 209.149.113.207 (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

But and the guys that doenst go to the place to vote, on the first case, the candidates score will not change so its like they got get 0 points, but on voting system 2 if they get 0 points its not like the guy gone there and didnt voted for them.201.78.185.124 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If each candidate gets a -1 due to a registered voter not showing up, it's a wash. It will change their scores, but not their ranking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

They get +0 if the guy doenst show on method 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.185.124 (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way, the ranking does not change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As BBugs stated before: If everyone has a score change of X, the relative ranking between them does not change. So, if everyone goes down 2 points, the spread between any two candidates remains the same. 209.149.113.207 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If voters have a "like" and a "don't like" checkbox for each candidate - and not checking either box scores zero...then there is a definite difference. Suppose there are two candidates A and B and just three voters. If candidate A gets one 'like' and the other two voters don't check a box, then A scores 1 point in both systems. If candidate B gets two 'likes' and one 'don't like' then in the first system, B scores '2' and wins cleanly...but in the second system, B also scores only 1 point and it's a tie.

But if the rules require that a voter who turns up to vote is somehow required to ALWAYS check exactly one box for each candidate, then there is no difference between the two systems. In either case, a voter who doesn't show up has no effect on the result - and otherwise, the score in the first system is always equal to the score in the second system plus the number of voters, divided by two.

The devil is in the details here!

SteveBaker (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 1

Electronic signs

Look at the electronic sign on the far left side of File:Benson municipal building.jpg, the thing inscribed "To Place Messages Call Mandi 479-4719". Is there a specific term for this kind of sign, i.e. a sign with lots of little lights that can be programmed to change to a different message at desired intervals? "Electronic sign" seems too generic (it could embrace other signs too), and I can't think of anything that's workable. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

They are sometimes referred to as 'LED signs', 'dot matrix signs', or something similar. [8] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

See LED display and Dot-matrix display. Dismas|^(talk) 00:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

How can I find out who is the biggest donor to Brooklyn College for a given time period?

Just wondering.--166.137.252.93 (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Donors, large and small, have the right to be assured that information about their donation is handled with respect and with confidentiality to the extent provided by law.

And here's the extent provided by law.

Can't help you beyond that. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:58, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe. If you become a donor, you have the right to "feel free to ask questions when making a donation and to receive prompt, truthful and forthright answers." They don't provide the extent of "truthful", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was thinking how at the symphony or museums, for example, they usually provide a list of donors who *dont mind* if their name is disclosed as a donor (ie, they are not anonymous donors and are presumably proud to be a supporter). Do colleges have a similar list?--166.137.252.93 (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

They may or may not; they are under no obligation to provide such a list. Which means that while one could feasibly exist for Brooklyn College, there is no reason to assume it does. --Jayron32 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Jayron, I think it's our job to tell the OP whether such a list exists or not for Brooklyn College. --Viennese Waltz 14:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If we believe one to exist, that may be a worthwhile use of our time. If we believed snipes to exist, it would be worthwhile to hunt them for meat and sport. I have a job, which feeds my family. This isn't it. --Jayron32 16:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Err. snipes exist. They are just difficult to shoot. LongHairedFop (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Different snipe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"We encourage you to contact the foundation staff with your questions and comments." Wouldn't hurt to ask, if you haven't already. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

April 2

Who owns Padmapper?

Rich (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's only reference to PadMapper is the court case Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc. There are links at the bottom of that article which take you to the transcripts of the original court case. I'm sure you could answer the question there. --Jayron32 18:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

According to this third party directory, a privatly owned corporation listed as

PADMAPPER INC

1600 VILLA ST

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041-1167

(240) 328-8512

Jdphenix (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Finding Living and Growing

I'm working on a project about the way sex ed has developed over the last century in the UK, and I wanted to include some notes about the programmes our class was shown, way back in the eighties. It was called Living and Growing. There have been several series with that name, but this was the 1980s version produced by Grampian; you can see its BFI record here. Obviously it would be better to cite the original material rather than my memories of thirty years ago, but I can't find a copy anywhere. Is there some sort of TV archive that might have a copy? The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any archive but in in case it helps you look further the programme I remember was presented by Gerry Davis (not wikinotable) and here is reported as being being transmitted on STV at 11:30. This would have been the parental version where each week an edition of the programme was shown sandwiched between Davis discussing with a couple of pundits. I image the parents were more problematic viewers than the children. I think it was transmitted on an annual cycle to each cohort of kids and that might explain the curious 1985 date on the BFI page. I'm puzzling whether it could be the same as this which seems to have the opening title here. I suspect what you and I are remembering is a completely different version, albeit still from Grampian TV. Thincat (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but now I've found this (also crediting Grampian) and I'm completely confused! Thincat (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• A google search for watch "living and growing" gives a whole host of videos from or about the series. You can search among the results. In general, if you want an obscure video, googling watch "name of obscure video" with quotes around the name will be the best way to find it. There's also a site called dailymotion dot com that hosts videos in the same format as youtube. If something is not at youtube, that is a good place to look, although I didn't find anything relevant there this time.

μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Although the two are not unrelated, the Google hits are generally about the (rather more explicit) 2007 Channel 4 video (Living and Growing), not the 1968 Grampian series. Tevildo (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried asking Scottish Television (they own Grampian TV, after the ITV network companies started to merge), if they have copies in they archives that they can send you? LongHairedFop (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a tiny fragment at YouTube - Living and Growing 1969 Dr K John Dennis (an earlier edition perhaps). Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And some more details at Broadcast for Schools but no clips. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening a US bank account without being in the US

If you want to open an American bank account in the US (in order to receive bank transfers from Amazon to a US account), is it possible to do that without actually going to the US or do you need to be physically in the US to sign the documents there? Thanks, ZygonLieutenant (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

First, let me say your user name inspires terror. The best thing to do would be to find a bank like Credit Suisse that does business multinationally. An agent local to you can advise what services can be provided. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, my user name is actually quite harmless, we Zygons are peaceful these days (except in Scotland). ZygonLieutenant (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZygonLieutenant (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly doable in Canada. Of course they charge you for the privilege, but it's only half an arm and a few toes. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is possible if you choose a large international bank (such as HSBC [9], Santander etc). In all cases you will have to contact the bank's customer services for advice. All have a long lead time and paperwork to complete and some request an upfront payment or have monthly fees. It is always a good idea to contact your current bank and ask them if they have any US operations as they may be able to do all of this for you and keep your banking within one corporation. You will find that most US land based banks will require a personal visit to check identification and paperwork. As always with banking; if you have a lot of net-worth, everyone wants your money. If you meet that requirement, then smaller banks such as Silicon Valley Bank will be interested in your business and will set up a US account for you.[10] Call around and see. I am not a lawyer or Financial advisor etc. Nanonic (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I live in the United States and at one point wanted to open a bank account in the euro zone without being resident there. I looked into various ways of doing it, but essentially found that it wasn't possible for residents of countries outside the EU, with the exception of "high-net-worth individuals" (people with more than $1 million (USD) to invest). Unfortunately, I did not qualify. I don't know whether this restriction applies to opening a US bank account outside the United States. Marco polo (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Stupid question, but why are Amazon insisting on a US bank account? There are a large number of non-US retailers in the Amazon marketplace, surely they get paid in their local currency. LongHairedFop (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Given the purpose is for Amazon, I'd call them first. They are almost certainly going to want you to have a US mailing address for tax purposes, and sales tax differs by state. Also, items are always listed as shipped from "state" or "nation". I have a basic account; I pay no monthly fee, but they take a larger cut, and I cannot offer certain shipping options. Recently, when I started burning my DVD collection to hard drive, I decided to start selling my DVD's. I was advised that that option was now blocked for non-professional accounts, even though I have been a good customer, selling thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, and buying over $10,000 since they opened. Professional accounts require a $40/month fee. Speak to a representative, and ask for a specialist or a manager in the case that they say "I can find out about that, can I put you on hold" since all they will be doing is talking to a specialist or a manager. Make sure they will let you know what they will allow before you go to the trouble. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't paying close attention to the Amazon angle, but are you sure that a U.S. bank account is necessary? A friend of mine (living in the United States) sells books through Amazon in many different countries. He receives payments separately for sales in each country, but the payments are all in U.S. dollars even though his sales are denominated in the local currency. I find it hard to believe that Amazon would convert, for example, euros to dollars but not vice versa. That would increase their currency conversion expense unnecessarily because they would have to pay a fee to a bank for every international transaction instead of pocketing the conversion fee and relying on their own accounts in each currency. (For example, let's say you are in the euro zone selling to customers in the United States who pay in dollars. Meanwhile, my friend in the United States is selling to customers in Germany who pay in euros. It would boost Amazon's profits to pay you with the euros received from my friend's sales and to pay my friend with the dollars received from your sales rather than to pay a bank to process both sets of transactions.) Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can buy from anywhere at amazon.com as long as the seller honors oversea orders (there is a risk to this, since you cannot collect if the buyer says the item never arrived). I have shipped to Ireland, the Netherlands, Japan, Australia, and Canada. I am not sure whether my items show up on other Amazons, not having checked. And I have purchased items from Russia, India, China and Turkey to mention a few places farther afield, and always paid in dollars. I have also purchased items from the Spanish and British websites. Purchasers can pay ahead of time by money order if they don't have a credit card number. (The item from Turkey never arrived, and the seller followed Sharia law, so I did get a refund after three months, but in the form of a money order issued from a mosque in the US.) Amazon converts currencies at a reasonable bank exchange rate. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I just checked; some of my items are available from America via overseas shipping, and none of them is listed at the UK site. This is actually a shame for UK buyers, because even with shipping I could beat all the prices I saw offered in Britain, some of them by up to 50% off, and certain titles which are available in the US are not available according the the UK site. In any case, Amazon csr svc is extremely helpful here in the US, so I would go to the help link, then the contact us link, and speak with an agent. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind there is also the trade tariff problem. Adding trade tariff from US to EU may very well make a shipment from the US much more expensive regardless of the lower prices from the seller (I have learned that the hard way). --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There was no special tax when I purchased items (books) from Europe. Are you suggesting that European buyers of American items have to pay a tariff, Saddhiyama? If so, of what rate? μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

painting meeples.

I have thousands of tiny wooden figurines (meeples) that I need to paint on a small industrial scale. How is this generally done? They meet need to be coated evenly on all sides.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

By ‘meet’ did you meep mead mean ‘need’? —Tamfang (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry...can't type on cellphone! SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think they can now powder coat wood. There are also paint sprayers and airbrushing. --Jayron32 00:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Are they to be painted a uniform color ? If so, then dipping them in a paint vat seems like a quick way. The paint may be a bit flawed on the surface where they sit to dry, but if the bottom of the base doesn't have to be perfect, that might be OK. Or, if the bottom of the base doesn't require paint at all, you might sand it back off after. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with spray paint, but you'd have to re-spray them, because certain parts (e.g. the legs touching the tray) would not be sprayed. You'd have to do it twice. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 08:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah - they need to be coated uniformly - I could imagine spray painting them - but getting into all of the little crevices would be painful (remember - doing THOUSANDS of them!) - and flipping them over to do the other sides would be tough. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you do have thousands, one way may be by agitating them with thin paint in a drum. See [11] (Video is in German, but the pictures are clear. Interesting bit starts at ~3:25). -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this is how it's done. I wonder how they get rid of the left-over liquid paint...and for how long they tumble them. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

April 3

Eyesight

This is not a request for medical advice. I went to an optometrist yesterday for a routine check, and she said that my eyesight had improved since my last visit (something which I didn't think was possible). I have not had any change in diet or anything (except that I am eating fish more regularly these days), so what could have caused this? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me guess, are you nearsighted and middle-aged ? People's vision often drifts towards farsighted as they pass middle age, and those who start out nearsighted can actually see a small improvement when this occurs. StuRat (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

. Writing that doesn't mean you're wrong. It means you need to back up what you say with references. --Jayron32 06:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the doc what she meant by that. There are googlable focusing exercises one can do meant to improve nearsightedness and farsightedness. Heinlein mentions this somewhere, either biographically or in one of is juvenile stories--somebody wasn't able to get into the military until he improved his eyesight. I notice my eyesight adjusts according to whether I am inside all day on a computer, or out driving and seeing long distance for hours. μηδείς (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, I was originally short-sighted, but became normal in the last few years. I am not particularly bothered about it, because my glasses are perfect (and make me look really good as if I have pockets full of money, because they are reactives, which are really expensive, and the girls like men with pockets full of money), but I was just wondering how this change could happen? Is it because I am using the computer all day, and need to focus on Japanese/Chinese (my job)? I doubt it, but it's a possibility. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 08:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly Age-related Long Sight--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We have (brief) coverage of it Presbyopia#Interaction_with_myopia. ---- LongHairedFop (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really. That says people with myopia have a protective affect against developing presbyopia. But it also says that their myopia doesn't disappear. It doesn't particularly say it doesn't improve, but it doesn't suggest it does. (And realisticly, if it improves there would surely be people with limited myopia for who it would disappear.) It also mentions how people who get refractive surgery may find this puts them at a disadvantage later because they may be more likely to develop presbyopia, but again nothing to do with their vision improving. The last point on astigmatism is unclear whether it means their near vision is better than it was before or akin to their original point, i.e. that their near vision is better than it would be if they didn't have myopia. My strong suspicion is the later. The point is because people with myopia may have a focal ability much more on the near range, presbyopia takes longer to develop. However the development of presbyopia doesn't improve their far sight because what happens is people simply can't focus so well on things that are close without an improvement in their ability to focus on things that are far. I.E. It's not that their focal range is moving to further way objects, it's that their focal range is becoming more limited. (Terms may be not entirely accurate but hopefully people get the idea.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are humans so badly designed. How did we survive.

Ok here's one I've been wondering for since a kid.

Why, how did we ever get this far despite being so physiologically backward. Look at women for instance. They have to go through periods which cause a range of highly unpleasant symptoms. Whereas, other mammals appear to not have any such issues at all. The process is way more streamlined. I won't even go into childbirth.

And look at how badly humans cope with defecation. Being upright with large upper hamstrings/glutes (the crack arrangement) means passing stools are more likely than not to cause a mess on oneself. And of course, in the animal kingdom toilet paper aisles are non existent. Anyone for crippling rashes that prevents walking (starvation) and/or potentially deadly skin infections?

So how an earth did we end up making it this far with such massive anatomical and physiological disadvantage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.219.29.8 (talk • contribs)

How do you know that 'childbirth' is not painful for other mammals? You try getting a baby horse out from between your legs, and then decide. As for defecation, I have never seen a single human shitting standing up. We either sit down or squat. And who says that animals don't go through periods? Chickens lay eggs - that is exactly the same thing (OK, they are not mammals, but anyway).

We survived because standing upright gave us less pressure on the blood-flow to the brain, and we started eating everything else (including each other in some cultures). Also, one of our ancestors was born with a mutated thumb, on each hand, and still managed to get a girlfriend and then created a whole new race of people with mutated thumbs, enabling his descendants to create and use tools, something which is difficult for most animals, due to their physical characteristics. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty of human childbirth is a consequence of the size of the human cranium, which is correlated with human brainpower, which has allowed our species not only to overcome such physiological disadvantages but to outcompete other species for use of the planet's resources. Marco polo (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've heard this before and it does make sense. However, that doesn't address why human infants can't just be born smaller and grow more outside the womb. For example, polar bear cubs are born weighing just over a pound, much smaller than human infants, but they grow up to be far larger than human adults and have a brain size that's about their entire birth weight. I guess it has to do with the womb providing more safety in the early stages of development, but that's true regardless of cranial size. Besides, the head is not always the widest part of the baby; when I was born, I broke my collar bone. - Lindert (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• This same defecation related question was posted yesterday by an IP 37.157.188.178 traced to Sofia, Bulgaria which has been reported as a source of forum spam. Today's defecation related question comes from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. μηδείς (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The mistake you are making is to assume that we are designed. We aren't; we evolved. We are the way we are because each little evolutionary change gave us just enough of an advantage over our immediately preceding form (and over enough of our rivals) that we were able to survive in the environment at that time. Each change had to be made on the basis of everything that had gone before, so we're just stuck with any inconvenient bits left over from earlier in our evolution. Women's periods, or inconveniences in the way we defecate, or our tendency to get appendicitis because we're stuck with an organ we no longer need, arise from the fact that at some earlier stage in our evolution these features were helpful in some other way, but as we've evolved have become less helpful and more tiresome - just not tiresome enough to actually give us an evolutionary disadvantage yet. As soon as these become actively unhelpful for our survival, they'll evolve away. It's the fact that we're imperfectly functioning, rather than perfectly functioning, that proves we evolved, rather than were designed by some god.

This short video pretty much sums it up. We made ourselves welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

I will try to address some of the specific questions. First, all mammals have some form of estrus. In some mammals it is known as "heat". Menstrual periods are distinctive to great apes as "cryptic estrus". That is, ovulation occurs in the middle of the month, and does not result in any obvious symptoms. I don't know the exact reasons why apes have this reproductive rhythm, but that is a characteristic of apes. (Research on female fertility cannot be done on lab animals other than great apes.) Second, as to childbirth, human childbirth is more difficult than that of other mammals, because human babies have large heads, and human babies have only had large heads for a short period of time in a biological time scale. I disagree with the comment that one of our ancestors had a mutated thumb that was transmitted to offspring. The changes and improvements to human hands compared to other primate hands have been gradual. Monkeys have opposable thumbs too. It is just that humans have even more flexible hands than flexible monkey hands or chimpanzee hands. Those are a few answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Suicide off the empire state building.

How many people would need to jump off the top before being unable to fall far enough to die? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

People survive falling out of planes. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 20:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if the bodies pile up so you only drop a few feet, you could still skewer yourself on somebody's exposed bone. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the bodies pile up into a cone, with perhaps a 45 degree slope (what is the angle of restitution for corpses?) then if the pile has to come to within (say) 30 meters of the "architectural" height of the building (which is 380m) - then the volume of the pile of corpses would be pi x r² x h / 3...around 40 million cubic meters. I'd guess that a typical corpse would occupy maybe a tenth of a cubic meter - so you're looking at maybe 4 million people...or a quarter million...or 50 million...there are a lot of unknowns here. The height of the fall that would kill you is critical because the number of bodies is proportional to the cube of the height of the pile - do small differences in that number make MASSIVE differences to the answer. SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Angle of repose, not "restitution". Dragons flight (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Steve: "...around 40 million cubic meters. I'd guess that a typical corpse would occupy maybe a tenth of a cubic meter - so you're looking at maybe 4 million people..." 4E6 m^6/person? Perhaps you should have divided by 0.1 m^3/person instead of multiplying. -- ToE 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You'd also need to take into account that the empire state building isn't an isolated structure. So, nearby buildings would fill in parts of the "cone". StuRat (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

After a certain point, you'd also start compressing the corpses at the bottom and losing the fluids. Dragons flight (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is obviously either a late April Fool's joke, or trollery. There is no "empire state building". There is an "Empire State Building", but the superficial similarities between these two titles would trick only the meanest of intellects. Even a lowly Probationary Acting Assistant Reference Desk Officer Grade I is more than a match for that sort of thing.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Depending on wind currents, the answer can be "one". Some decades back, someone climbed over the rail and jumped, only to be slammed against the building by the updrafts, and landed on a ledge, with a broken leg or such. Presumably she then thought better of jumping, and rescuers were able to pull her inside.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• The volume of a cone is 1/3 of the area of the base times the height. If we are assuming they are jumping from the 1250 foot roof (not the tip of the antenna), that gives a base of a radius of 625 feet. The area of the base is π(r^2) or 390,625 x pi = 1,227,185 sq. ft. This gives a volume of 511,327,083 cubic feet. Now, if we ignore the volume of the building itself and the surrounding buildings, which is not easily calculable, and assume the average human weighs 180lbs (according to this, and assume the density of the body to be the same as a water, 62.4lbs/cubic foot, we get about 3 cubic feet per person, then the number is 511,327,083/3 or 170,442,361 people. (Probably with a sig fig of less than 170 million given the rounding.) μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be a good question for xkcd What If. Staecker (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to complicate it even further: remember that the Empire State Building doesn't have simple straight sides the way the World Trade Center did, but has a stepped design with multiple setbacks. To model a person jumping off it, you need to take into account their horizontal speed to know how far they will fall without obstruction from a setback. In addition, people have talked about adjacent buildings interfering with the formation of a cone of bodies, but the Empire State Building itself would interfere more significantly, and in a complicated way because of the setbacks. --65.95.176.148 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I specifically said, "Now, if we ignore the volume of the building itself...." μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The world long jump record is less than 25 feet: One can use that information to calculate a person's likely horizontal velocity when leaving their ledge. Sketching the parabolic path a person would take on their trip to the ground given an initial horizontal velocity is a trivial calculation any high school physics student should be able to do. --Jayron32 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course there are all sorts of complications, people don't tumble freely or uniformly, the cone would slump, uncompressed bodies at the top would take up more space, blood would leak from the bottom of the cone, the ground under the bodies would compress.... The doable calculation is how many bodies would you need to fill a cone 1,250 feet high with a 45 degree slope. If you want an actual answer you'd need a grant to do the research and data we probably don't have about the compressibility of bodies and the actual behavior of bodies tumbled in a heap. In any case, you're looking at at least about 170,000,000, which is more than the populations of Mexico, Japan, Russia or Bangladesh. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's silly being a stickler over math in a problem like this where there are so many unknowns, but if you really intended a 45° slope, then the radius of the base of the cone should be equal to its height. You used half the height, giving a steep cone with a slope of atan(2) ≈ 63°. That is why your answer was so much smaller than Steve's (approx 400 million people, once his arithmetic was corrected), despite Steve choosing a shorter cone, only reaching to within 30 m of the architectural height of the building. -- ToE 18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I made the stupid mistake of assuming the cone would be both the rotation of a right triangle, as well as an equilateral triangle, which would give a sum of 270 degrees for the internal angles, rather than 180. I am sure in some universe highly curved in a higher dimension this must be possible. My mistake illustrates the wisdom that it doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't check your math.

This has got to be one of the BEST refdesk qs in a long, long time. Anyone care to non? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Imaginative certainly, but a best question in my opinion needs to be based on a more realistic scenario. Richard Avery (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of another unrealistic scenario I once thought of and made some loose calculations on: If the human population continues to grow at the current rate and we spread at the speed of light in all directions then when will we run out of mass to convert to humans and how many will there be? Ignore relativistic effects. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 4

Wikipedia and its comprehensive Middle-earth articles

Every cities have its own article, every character has its own article. The weapons itself have its own article, and even the movie soundtrack have its own article. It also have its own portal. And its the same wiki as the wiki that have an article about quantum physics. The question is: Why?

And the more amusing part is that people probably search for lord of the rings wiki and they will probably click this because its in the first link: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, only to find out this:

This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Black Gate (Middle-earth). The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with The One Wiki to Rule Them All, the text of Wikipedia is available under the Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.

What Wikipedia lacks is that the usual infobox for cities like Gondor, tolkiengateway.net have it, even uncyclopedia have it. Yes, I know I say uncyclopedia, don't ask

118.137.229.147 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: The Lord of the Rings books will eventually occupy the same role in the English-language as Beowulf, Arthurian legend, and Shakespeare. However, every element in the Lord of the Rings is made up, so all of the background elements end up with articles of their own instead of articles on legendary or historical people and places.

Long answer: In the West in the 1800s, there was an artistic movement known as Romanticism, which inspired most nations to develop national arts, including literature, especially epics. In England, however, Romantic writers focused on other lands. Tolkien wrote after this time, but still wrote under the shadow of Romanticism. The books also provided an escape from the "dark times" brought on by industrialization and the world wars (though Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings before the second world war). The books could be enjoyed both by war-profiteers who saw themselves as warriors in a struggle against evil could enjoy the books, as could nature-lovers who hated losing their countryside to factories. The mythology Tolkien created for it was (initially) religiously neutral, which allowed a wider variety of people to enjoy it. The books also included a lot of academic effort. Tolkien wrote the books to imitate various historical styles, and also to feature artificial languages he created. These constructed languages were realistically modeled after real languages.

Again, because everything in the Rings books was made up, we cannot just link to articles on legendary or historical people and places like we can for the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Iliad, or Le Morte d'Arthur. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with much of that except the chronology; according to our article, LoR was written "...in stages between 1937 and 1949, much of it during World War II" and first published in 1954. Alansplodge (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it? Will LOTR reaches Shakespeare level? Is there anything to back it up? Because if its true, its really awesome 118.137.229.147 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I am exaggerating with the Shakespeare comparison, but my experience from earning my bachelor's in English is that studying Lord of the Rings is at least allowed. I usually wrote about grimoires when given the chance, however, so I'm only speaking from indirect experience. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer the OP's specific question, see WP:FAN and Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items. Note that this discussion is 10 years old, and a similar one today would probably have a different outcome. WP:VP/P is probably the best place to raise this issue. Tevildo (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There are perpetual arguments within the Wikipedia community between "Deletionists" and "Inclusionists". The former want to strip out a ton of material that they don't deem worthy of an encyclopedia - the latter are happy to have a comprehensive, insanely detailed article about every single Pokemon character, every single Japanese railway station...and even characters in Lord of the Rings that only got a one line mention.

I have some sympathy with both sides. Maintaining all of those articles about Japanese Railway stations over the coming decades will be painful. The subject of the article changes - and there is a good case to be made for "It's better to have no article at all than one that is so outdated that it's incorrect"...but these Lord of the Ring articles are somewhat different from that. J.R.R.Tolkein is dead - no more books in that canon will be written - so the articles about all of those things don't need to change. Once they are established as being sufficiently well written - why not keep them? Disk space is cheap.

This is a horrible debate - neither side is 100% right or 100% wrong. SteveBaker (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the on-topic response.

If you look at the ref on the Kettling article[13], 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 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) How does having a tattoo constitute a "deep cultural division"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC) 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) Or IP thugs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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) 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) 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)

Phillips & Schneider's 1993 survey completed by 422 licensed female family physicians in Ontario, Canada [14] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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