Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 March 16

= March 16 =

Modern armor vs old cannon fire
Just out of curiousity, how would a modern main battle tank such as an M1A2 Abrams or Leopard tank fare against the type of cannon used in the late middle ages? I remember that these tanks have armor suited for the purpose of withstanding penetration from modern HEAT and Sabot rounds. But the cannonball is different and relies more on blunt kinetic impact rather than explosive or penetrating power. If a main battle tank were teleported in a late medieval battlefield, how long would it last?


 * A long time. My bet is that even large cannonballs would ricochet off of it quite easily. Also remember that a cannonball made of iron would be comparatively soft as compared to a modern kinetic penetrator. I doubt that cannonballs have anything like the kinetic impact as the shaped charges that the M1A2 etc. are meant to withstand. --24.147.86.187 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....have a look at Mons Meg. Clio the Muse 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at English cannon, the largest cannonball listed weighed only 48 pounds. Plus, I'm guessing that the velocity would drop off fairly quickly for a spherical object, so the kinetic energy would not be that great, especially when you consider that an M1 weighs nearly 70 tons. Also, tank armor is designed to dissipate energy. Then there's the fact that modern tanks can fire accurately on the move, while medieval cannon weren't exactly accurate or easy to aim, so it would take a lot of luck to even get a hit. If I had to take a tank on, I'd just wait until it ran out of fuel. Clarityfiend 06:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A bit of hunting for cannon performance figures and some basic physics indicates that a 48lber would dump around 750 kJ into that M1. if it didn't crumple that's enough energy to knock it flying sideways at 10 mph. I think they'd at least know they'd been hit hard. EABlair 04:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That Mons Meg is nothing compared to the Great Turkish Bombard. · AO Talk 10:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is nothing again compared to the Tsar Cannon. --Taraborn 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that a direct hit could disable the tank, rather than penetrate it. Canon was designed to bash holes, rather than skewer them. A hit on the tracks would probably stop it moving, a hit on the turret could disable it from rotating and a hit on the gun would probably make firing the weapon rather perilous. It'd be interesting to know if even closed hatches could keep out Greek Fire. If not, you'd have nicely barbecued occupants and probably exploding munitions inside the tank. --Dweller 14:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Greek fire could probably be compared to napalm. Does anyone know if tanks are flamethrower/napalm-proof? I think some new ones might be, but how well they can hold fire off is beyond me. · AO Talk 14:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The fighting compartments of modern tanks are reasonably fireproof as a side effect of the nuclear/biological/chemical defenses, but other areas, especially the engine compartment, are still quite vulnerable. --Carnildo 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes Question
When I view Recent Changes, it has this red or green text that has either something like +86 or -148. What does that mean, user score? --Vscel4 04:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The value is the net number of characters added (green) or subtracted (red) in the previous edit. It was introduced help identify large-scale deletion vandalism, and also to help users spot when vandals, who think they are being clever, try to disguise vandalism with a minor edit summary. Rockpock  e  t  05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

People
What percentage of the worlds population are born, bred, live and die in the same region of the same country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't really understand what You had in mind, but take a look at List of countries by population. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think s/he's talking about people who live all their life in the same place. Don't know how to answer, though. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pleae allow me to refraze. Most people live very strange little lives in very strange little towns and never do anything of value. What percentage of the worlds population, do nothing significant with thier lives, what percentage of the pop. live in the same town all thier lives?
 * Oh, like this. Well... I don't think there is an answer. Anyway, you could take a look at travel figures and things like that, but keep in mind that they might not lead you to a precise answer. Another thing you could do is consider rural regions or less-developed places, I'd say people living further from what some call 'civilisation' tend to not move around a lot. No POV intended, just pondering. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And why do you think that living your life as a regular person isn't "significant" or "of value"? If it weren't for those "strange little lives", none of us would exist, because they are the backbone of society - economically, reproductively, and even politically. -- Charlene 13:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, well, Charlene my dear, all I wish to convey is, what an extrodinary place our universe would be if the backbone of our society was made of Einsteins, and Colombus's and Alexander the greats, rather than boring people who care about nothing more important than britneys new boob job.

I dont think Alexander would have been very great if the rest of the world were like him. Joneleth 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, probably not the world as a whole, either... =S 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Immanuel Kant, hardly a bore, is one famous counterexample of a great and open mind who spent his entire life in and near his birthplace in Königsberg. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer the original question, I think that it is likely that most people alive today have never traveled more than 200 km from their place of birth. Possibly a majority have never traveled more than 100 km.  (I say this considering that most of the world's population lives in Asia and Africa, where such mobility is the exception.)  The percentage who ever left their region of birth would have been very small before about 1900.  Marco polo 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very, very high. In the world as a whole, the majority of the population has never been more than five miles from their place of birth.  Even in a highly-mobile nation like the United States, less than half the population has ever been more than 100 miles from their birthplace. --Carnildo 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats a remarkable statistic, Carnildo. I'd love to learn more, do you happen to have a source for it? Rockpock  e  t  21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Per "what an extrodinary place our universe would be if the backbone of our society was made of Einsteins, and Colombus's and Alexander the greats", I was looking for various studies I've seen done, but I can't seem to get the right search terms. Basically, I recall studies where teams were made up of different sorts of people, of different personalities/intelligence levels/capabilities etc. It was generally found that teams made up only of the most intelligent, driven people were the least successful, since everyone was convinced they were right and had the best way to do things, and the team didn't work. So I world full of Einsteins, Columbuses and Alexander the Greats would probably achieve very little. What good is Alexander the Great if nobody will follow him? What good is Einstein without people to do all the menial work that gives his theries practical application? What good is Columbus if nobody builds ships? Skittle 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk volunteers
I have been coming to the ref desk every day for over 6 months now, answering questions and (never signing my posts) and reading some odd things. My question is I have noticed that many people are regulars too, do you people not have jobs or social lives? I mean this in the nicest of possible ways... Hotclaws, Sturat, 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /),Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント ,JackofOz, Twas now ect

Further more are there ever any sort of Wiki conventions, where one volunteer can meet the others and see who is acctually intelligent and who is a good googler? thanks Xnton (please notice no tiles) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, I am also a regular here (but You never mentioned me, sigh), and I have a life and things, thanks. As for meetups and conventions, there's Wikimania, plus a whole lot of regional and local meetings. Depending on where you're from, you should definitely find something! --Ouro (blah blah) 12:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm new enough not to resent being off your list (though I'm surprised not to see Clio on it), but I wanted to note a few things: Jfarber 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would take issue with the false dichotomy "is actually intelligent" vs. "a good googler".  As someone who has worked reference desks and taught info literacy in real libraries for much of my life, I suggest being a good googler requires more skill, practice and intelligence than most assume, and further note that locating info for querents AND sharing it intelligently are clearly part and parcel of being a good "ref desk vol".   More importantly, community-mindedness seems to be in most of the regulars as well -- why else volunteer to wade through the oft-mucky and engage?
 * My social life is, in part, the life of the mind; my job (teaching info lit and tech literacy integration to teachers and kids) demands that I stay honed, and know wikipedia well.  Plus, I like it here, and so again, I cry false dichotomy in the question.   The issue isn't whether we are here instead of social lives or jobs; for some of us, the issue is "is this part of our social life / job"?  I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom this is both.  (That said, I DID trade active blogging for wikiwork, deliberately and before I came in; the time has to come from somewhere, and I have little kids at home.)
 * Thanks for asking about RL meetups -- and to Ouro for the response. It's good to know.

Ill take that as a no.


 * Well, to answer your no - I usually spend most of the time in front of the PC because of my job (translator), sometimes I have classes (finishing my studies), and sometimes I travel to lands far away, but... see the big yellow box on my user page ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can take it as anything you like, of course. But the fact that you decided that my YES meant NO is pretty funny to my students, who are looking over my shoulder as we speak, learning plenty from this exchange.   And the fact that they're watching and learning underscores the "yes" answer I left before.    Thanks for your unwitting contribution to our Web 2.0 unit, and specifically, for helping teach them about wikipedia, close reading, trolling-type behavior, community standards, and the importance of signing your statements in threaded discussion, unknown assailant!   (p.s. a class full of 13 year olds says hi.)  Jfarber 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your original question: yes, I have a job and a social life. Working as a reference librarian (although with considerably less experience than Jfarber) requires me to spend virtually my entire day in front of a computer - and, when things are slow (as they often are, especially during the day), permits me the opportunity to answer refdesk questions - and make other edits to wikipedia. As far as a social life is concerned, I'm happy with mine, although I don't feel it neccessary to disclose the details thereof in this particular forum. Carom 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not on your list but am something of a regular. Others often answer questions before me, though, because I am busy with my job or social life.  Marco polo 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm secretly pleased I didn't make your list, since it permits me to maintain the belief that I don't really spend too much time here. Regarding your question, yes I have both a job and a social life, however the former severly restricts the latter. Moreover, my job is in research and requires me to be at work for long hours, but with periods of waiting inbetween activity. Therefore WP and the refdesk are ideal for short periods of distraction. Rockpock  e  t  17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * RD is a great way to procrastinate for a few minutes. And I know a lot of things, and it is nice to help others. I have a flexible job and a flexible social life, it is not an issue here. By the way, not signing your posts is just irritating. --24.147.86.187 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What's a social life? Does not compute. Divide by cucumber error.
 * I just like learning about things, so if someone has a question and I have a lead or knowledge on it, why not spend a few minutes to answer it, and expect the same in return when I have questions I need help with? And I've been relatively busy to take up a real hobby lately (final semester of undergrad EE, filled with projects and long labs), and I have been avoiding playing games, which gives me a lot more free time here and there. If I wake up and it's too early to go on campus, I check here, etc. And for me, minus my girlfriend, Uni is my social life. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My job requires me to sit for lengthy amounts of time; fortunately, they also allow me to happen to have a computer in front of me while I sit. Sometimes I have things to do (like the past few days - I haven't had many edits), and sometimes I am left to the wild abandon of Wikipedia. Also, it may be significant to note that I recently became a boyfriend. V-Man - T/C 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm disabled and cannot work.I do have a social life but like spending time on the computer to learn,amuse myself and pass on stuff as well.It's more comfortable for me to lie in bed and use a laptop than to sit up and TV is mostly rubbish.I have a lot of blog friends as well so I don't think being on the computer a lot makes me friendless.hotclaws**== 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any sort of life at all :( When I am not on the internet I sometimes spend hours sitting and doing nothing :( And I am not on the list either :( But obviously a full list would take a long time to write :( And also I am not intelligent or any good at anything on the internet, I just know lots of useless junk :) And the idea of meeting other WP fans wouldn't work as they live too far away :) HS7 21:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, like most anything else, can be habit forming, an interesting place to visit regularly. I been away for a while due to other distractions, such as what happens in an interesting life.  I returned because I needed to look up some stuff, then an old habit reverted itself. User:AlMac|(talk) 21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

About executions
I was asking myself: why are executions traditionally carried out at sunrise or sunset? Cthulhu.mythos 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One possible answer:  There seems to be an instinct in humankind to enact such significant social and personal changes in the context of natural Liminal periods.  Doing so helps distance the culture from the act of killing by making it seem ritualized and natural, rather than brutal.   Since dawn/twilight happen to the whole word, this helps ownership of the execution remain "safely" at the global or community level, rather than leaving the culture open to a perception of the execution act as somehow about any individual, whether that be the hangman or the noosed himself.  See the section Liminality in time for more, as well as the history section of the original article on Execution.  Jfarber 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that old of a 'tradition' - public executions in France, England, Scotland, the US, and Canada traditionally took place in mid-morning. (See Pepys's Diary and Boswell's London Journal for two vivid descriptions of executions that took place over 100 years apart.) I can't find anything online that gives a direct answer as to why the timing changed, though, and the book Lord High Executioner by Howard Engel doesn't address the matter.


 * My best guess would be that once executions became private affairs, there was no need to wait until later in the day for the benefit of onlookers. (With most death sentences, the date of execution was either set out in the sentence or was known in advance from precedent - most UK executions took place on the day following the last day of the court session.) The execution couldn't be carried out before sunrise because, although executions were private, they did usually take place out of doors in the prison courtyard, and it would have been too dark for the officials. The timing would also cut down on crowds amassing around prisons, plus it would make things easier for both a nervous prisoner and (perhaps more importantly) the executioners who had to handle him or her. Also, according to Engel, many executioners had drinking problems - I wonder if that would also prompt officials to prefer sunrise hangings.


 * By the way, many references state that executions took place at sunrise because Pancho Villa wanted a Hearst photographer to document an execution in 1915. This isn't the case. Sunrise executions date from much earlier than this - see Breaker Morant. -- Charlene 13:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard that executions are carried out often at 12:01 am on the day it is scheduled to take place. If anything goes wrong, there is a last minute appeal that is to be heard, the execution can still take place later in the day.  However, it MUST take place on the day listed on the death warrant, otherwise the process must start all over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shindo9Hikaru (talk • contribs) 07:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Bought Commissions in the British Army
When did buying a Commission in the British army finish, the family story is that Grandfather left the family after leaving the family and bought a commission but we know nothing about him. He was born in 1875 and was called Fredrick Rossall Hall. I am assuming he jined the army between 1885 - 1914 would this be possible between those dates?12:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)~


 * Our articles on Sale of commissions and the Cardwell Reforms state that the Regulation of the Forces Act ending the sale of commissions was passed in 1871. -- Charlene 12:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

LOOKS
People say I look very dull.But I think I've inherited my dad's shitty looks.I think I naturally have a dull face oval facecut,hollow&fatigued eyes,dull tamarind colour and a non luminous complexion.Morever I have such a pessimistic and guilty attitude towards my life that a normal human would have commited suicide long ago.I am bothering too much about my looks and it is making me feel very girlish and embarrassing.A small comment on my looks is enough to get me into a depression and this is making me look very much stressed.Please help me.13:37, 16 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.245.23 (talk • contribs)
 * Could it be Body dysmorphic disorder? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your post sounds like a literal "cry for help." We cannot provide psychological counseling or medical advice, but you might wish to see a psychologist, a doctor of medicine or a psychiatrist and discuss your concerns. Personally speaking, people who make unsolicited comments about how you look with the result of making you stressed or depressed are the sort of people I would avoid, and I would question the accuracy and the intent of their comments. Edison 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just try to remember that it is not you, it is every one else that is ****ed in the head. You are a normal beautiful person and its every one else that is wasting your oxygen. And I listen to Death Metal music all the time. The two keep me functioning normally, give it a go. Signed: | 81.144.161.223


 * Would the above poster PLEASE start signing his/her posts?  It helps readers know where one answer ends and the next begins, and it's just plain polite. Jfarber 14:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

no


 * No worries; I've been invited to sign your work for you. Let me know if that's not going to work out for you... Jfarber 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks are extremely subjective. What is unappealing to one person is very appealing to another.  Also, people's perception of a person's appearance actually has a lot to do with that person's attitude.  A sunny disposition and a smiling demeanor will win favorable attention almost regardless of the person's features.  I agree that you should try talking to a counselor, not so much about your looks, which are probably fine and which you can't change (without expensive, risky, and unnecessary surgery), but about your self-acceptance and happiness, which you can improve. You might also take a look at Cognitive therapy and some of the links from that article.  Marco polo 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We not so long ago had a very similar question, and the asker even said his/her self-consciousness is making them "feel very girlish" which matches your words. I also believe that the previous asker didn't sign their question - and you didn't either. When you asked the question this time, we all tried to help (myself included) but found your question was too brief and inspecific to impart any advice beyond general advice. Why have you not expanded your question and given us more to go with? and were you not satisfied with the previous answers?

Anyway, to try and answer your question - last time I told you that you feel self-conscious about your looks probably because you feel the need to be (sounds obvious, I know). I also told you that in the long run as you get older you will become slightly less and less concerned about your beauty, and more concerned with things like money, career, etc. - and in fact you are likely to one day meet somebody that likes you the way you are - even when you're not looking your best. I also told you that you should consider seeking out a good hairdresser/stylist if you think changing your hair could improve your self-esteem and how you look (or think you look). You can also improve your makeup regime if you don't have one (asuming you are female) and if you're male then working on your facial hair could also help a bit. Finally you should actually seek advice elsewhere - in fact from a therapist or someone you can trust - perhaps an adult or a family friend. You might say you'd like to go for coffee with them, and simply explain that you find yourself very unattractive and you could use some honest feedback and constructive help on how to improve your looks, and to just talk through the problem - because someone that is meeting you face to face and knows you and can talk one on one is more likely to actually help you.

I should also mention that exercise and a healthy diet can not only improve your mood and outlook, but in fact can improve your complexion and skin tone. Even spending time in the sun can make you look more healthy and appealing, and you should try drink 2-3 litres of water a day (not that you should take any medical advice from me!) because that will improve your skin and general health as well.

Good luck, and try stay positive. If you are young and inexperienced, hopefully as you grow up more and more you will slowly learn to cope better with these things. And another thought comes to mind that as you grow up your looks can change a bit - I remember the less-attractive and chubby girls at my school all turned out fine when they grew up - and equally I've seen real beauty queens messing themselves up with drugs etc and turning out worse for wear when they reached full adulthood. Hope some of this helps  Rfwoolf 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To the original question asker: Consider the possibility of going to a gym. Working out makes you stronger which means more confident and healthier. It also cleans and relaxes your mind for a while. --Taraborn 23:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

wow this sounds a lot like me


 * I agree with Edison; it sounds like this is about your perception and feelings, not about how you actually look. It would be a really good idea to talk to a doctor or psychologist (or such like) about this, since they could really help and make you feel better. And, ironically, once you feel better, not only will you look better to yourself, you could look better to other people. Skittle 17:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Patience
I always live in fantasies and think nonsense.I simply never had this habit of keeping a goal having a vision etc..I want take up something worthwhile and have a good career.First I want to inculcate patience and relity thinking. How can I do it.```moonytoon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.247.245.23 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Try meditaion, it might centre you mind.


 * Something worthwhile would be to improve your internet grammar and spelling :D Splintercellguy 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Shifting
can I shift a question from archive to the present reference desk column? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.247.245.23 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

yes you can, whether or not you should is another issue, but go for it im curious now.
 * I think there might be at least one person who'd frown upon this (just numbers, it's not pointing at anyone); better post the question anew, and link to the archived discussion. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hacking Password
How to hack a yahoo password? Actually I have got an id of a person who is disturbing me by sending mails. so i want to hack the id of that person.please tell me if any one can give me I will be very thankful to him. thanks 203.145.188.131 15:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just add the person to your spam filter, so you don't have to see their emails? We don't generally tend to give advice here on how to best break laws, sorry. --Maelwys 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this question quite humourous. · AO Talk 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask the person to kindly give you his/her password. If that fails, build your own internet. With blackjack. And hookers. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of the time someone in an online game came up to me and asked if I would give him my password. He said he was too high-ranked, and no one would play him, so he wanted to use my account. I laughed in his face, because the main page warned against these guys. Maybe you should do that too 203.145. :) · AO Talk 00:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask on Yahoo Answershotclaws**== 06:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone on Yahoo is harassing you, contact Yahoo. Yahoo will be able to help you. Attempting to discover somebody's password is illegal. --h2g2bob 08:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

getting information
Is there any software or wbsite where i can have a detail information of a person living in India? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.145.188.131 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Is the person notable for anything? That would make it a lot easier.  Dismas |(talk) 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In which case Wikipedia might help, including these ones:
 * Telugu (26,713 articles)
 * Bengali (15,339 articles)
 * Hindi (10,135 articles)
 * Marathi (8,207 articles)
 * Tamil (7,772 articles)
 * Urdu (5,023 articles)
 * Et (meta:List of Wikipedias) cetera… − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

TV aspect ratios
Why are most modern TV either in a 4:3 or widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio? Could this be because that those numbers are Pythagorean triplets and allow easier calculation of the diagonal? Jamesino 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We actually have a pretty great article on aspect ratios. I don't really know enough about this stuff to be able to comment on it directly, but the article is nice :) Oskar 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 16:9 isn't a Pythagorean triplet. --Auximines 09:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've always wondered why 4:3 was chosen - that's 1.33:1. I would have expected 1.61:1 since that is the golden ratio - a shape that humans find aesthetically pleasing.  So many things in our environment are golden-ratio-shaped for this exact reason, it's surprising that TV screens are not. SteveBaker 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

British Highway Code - Turning Right

 * Please don't be offended but I would prefer an informed and correct answer if at all possible as opposed to a speculative one. Thanks in anticipation. The question is: I have been driving for 43 years in England and Scotland, thankfully without being involved in an accident, but on two separate occasions yesterday and today, I was nearly involved in a prang. Each time, the cause was exactly the same, in that, when approaching a main road (contraflow) from a minor road, with the intention of crossing the main road and entering another minor road directly opposite, I was confronted by another oncoming vehicle exiting from the minor road opposite. and it was signalling to turn to his RIGHT (across my path). All my driving life, I have believed that in such circumstances, I had Right of Way over the other vehicle and he should have deferred to my intention to cross in a straight line ahead (observing that I wasn't indicating either Right or Left). But each time I set off to go ahead, the opposing vehicle turned Right and nearly cut off my nose. And each time, the other driver blasted his horn, obviously in the belief that he had Right of Way. I have browsed the Internet and also read and re-read the UK Highway Code today but cannot find the answer to this question. Does anyone here know what the rule is? I apologise for sounding petulant as I am normally a very considerate and forgiving driver who doesn't insist on Rights of Way - it would just be nice to know whether all these years I have been driving incorrectly at minor-onto-main crossroads. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CasualWikiUser (talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


 * You don't say what the road markings were at the junction, and I would imagine that may inform who has right of way. Were both you and the driver opposite required to give way? Rockpock  e  t  17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally fail to see how you had right of way. The only rule I can find is 148..."You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.". Having scoured the highway-code site I cannot find an official rule to back-up my interpretation...You give way to traffic on the main-road, therefore you give way to traffic joining the main-road. This way it is consistent: The person entering/leaving/currently on the main road is given the right of way. In your setting the person 'crossing' the main-road is given right of way ahead of someone who is joining the road. This is my interpretation, i've emailed the highway-code authority to try to clarify, this is a very interesting question. ny156uk 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is unfortunately not cited, but certainly in my experience on UK roads, every time I've come to a crossroads that doesn't have a roundabout, those going straight on had priority over those turning right. It leads to cars building up in the lane to turn right, so it must be what other people think too. Looking at 150 in the highway code, this does seem to be expected. However, given the major/minor aspect, and that I'm guessing there were few road markings, it might actually be that nobody has clear right of way, and that people are expected to give way to each other out of politeness. So possibly, if they reached the junction before you, the other drivers thought they might expect you to wait, or they could just be prats. I recommend contemplating this old Google answers thread as shedding some light but unfortunately it also lacks sources. Sorry for the speculative nature of this, I hope for someone to come with something more definate, but a strongly suspect it will turn out there is no clear right of way. In which case, will it be written anywhere? Skittle 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A Speculative Answer for what it's worth:
 * It is my belief that at any four-way intersection, the person that is not going straight (i.e. is turning to their LEFT or their RIGHT) cannot simply obey a green traffic-light and swurve their car in that direction. No. When the traffic-light turns green, and you are to turn RIGHT, you must STOP, and look at the oncoming traffic until it clears... even if this means you wait until Orange, at which point the oncoming traffic should be stopping/slowing down, and you can then edge forward, and turn RIGHT before the traffic-light hits Red.


 * Now obviously the same rules apply when no traffic-lights exist, and you have come to a 4-way interesection, and you wish to turn right: You have to stop and wait for oncoming traffic.


 * The exception to this rule is traffic-lights that specifically have a directional arrow light. If for example it shows a right arrow and lights it green, then all vehicles turning right are now compelled to go - even if the normal Green light is still Green. Similarly, if that directional sign is Red, then you are told to *not* drive in that direction and you have to wait.


 * It should be mentioned that these are my observations of the rules in South Africa and Australia. I appologise if this is not applicable to Britain. Rfwoolf 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I might add an anectdote to all this - that the exact situation you described in your question was exactly what took me by surprise when I passed my drivers' license in South Africa - in my Learners Test (i.e. the theory part of the testing) this type of etiquette at intersections was not actually taught. And as I recall I learned how to deal with those situations when I was having actual driving lessons with my instructor. I remember so clearly because once I got my license, the first few near-accidents I had was exactly that -- at an intersection I would be indicating right, and the light would turn green (and green means go!) and I would motion to turn right (not having checked for oncoming traffic) and almost caused a few accidents.


 * My point is that if the above was to be learned, it was to be learned in practical driving (not so much theory), and so the answers you seek may lie not in the learners theory, but instead in the testing instructors' handbooks or similar.


 * Rfwoolf 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

|          |               A = You (Going STRAIGHT) |    |     |               B = Perpetrator (Turning his/her RIGHT) |          |               O = Traffic Light(s) ??? |    |  B  | O| ↑     ↓  |O --+ - - - - - +                                   ·          →             →           ·                                    ·  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- -- ·                                    ·          ←             ←           ·                                    ·  --+ - - - - - +          O|  ↑  |  ↓  |O | A        | |    |     |           |           | Rfwoolf 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Casual, yes, you had right of way. Highway Code rule 157 shows the procedure for turning right when you believe the other driver is also turning right: .  Since you were going straight on, this does not apply, but note the right-side-to-right-side manoeuvre: "turn right side to right side; keep the other vehicle on your right and turn behind it. This is generally the safest method as you have a clear view of any approaching traffic when completing your turn".  So, the other driver was not acting prudently.  Guy (Help!) 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Canadian I'm not intimately familiar with the UK Highway Code, but it took me only a minute or so to find section 156: when turning right, "Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle." This doesn't actually mention right of way, but it certainly seems to confirm the original poster's point of view.

Of course, as in so many driving situations, it is possible to be correct and still have bad things happen. Or as someone put it, "You could be dead right."

207.176.159.90 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You certainly had right of way, though I can't find this explicitly in the Highway Code. I suspect what is happening is that as you get older your driving is getting slower and other drivers are interpreting this as hesitation and taking the opportunity to turn in front of you. --Auximines 09:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked the original question and have been astounded at the number of intentionally helpful responses, so first let me say Thanks very much to one and all. However, no single response (to my mind anyway)seems to be sufficiently based on statute to be convincing. I appreciate the supportive ones, even that from Auximines suggesting I might be getting indecisive, but I am still not convinced that those responses pointing me to Rule 157 (when the opposing vehicles are on the main road already), will equally apply when both vehicles are waiting at their minor road junctions with the main road. So, I will eagerly await any response that User:Ny156uk might get from The Highway Code Authorities and I thank him here for his efforts. And I will also take caution in future from the wise words of User:207.176.159.90|207.176.159.90 who quite rightly points out that sometimes those who act on their claim to having Right of Way are later proved to be "Dead Right". I am also going to present this question to my local Police Station and will post their advice here (under a new heading probably) if and when I get a reliable answer. Thanks again Folks. I always enjoy your support on Wikipedia. CasualWikiUser 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are people whose turn signals malfunctioning & not know it. Do a walk around & verify your lites outside agree with dashboard inside.  Do this for all combinations of your turn signals.  Could be the reason you got honked at was you have a turn signal on & you not know it. User:AlMac|(talk) 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Driving in USA, I would guess a significant volume of motorists either put on turn signals, then change mind about intentions then not turn them off, or use turn signals to make a shallow turn in which after the turn the lites not off. I come to an intersection, and see turn signals and they not turn, or no turn signals and they do turn, perhaps 5% of the traffic.  it is very dangerous.  User:AlMac|(talk) 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then there are exceedingly rude drivers. It is like they think "I always have right of way, irrespective of laws, other people opinions." and they perpetually have road rage against everyone who do in fact have contrary opinions. User:AlMac|(talk) 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

references on powerpoints
Is it correct to put a reference in mid sentence on a bulletpoint in powerpoints per AMA style? See example below:

§ With almost 30 drugs available1(supercripted here), HIV+ people are living longer and healthier lives —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.46.75 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Uhh, it depends. If you're doing this for an education thing, ask your instructor. Otherwise, it certainly makes the presentation and the facts presented seem more credible and impressive, even than simply putting sources at the end. Whether it fits is another thing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Usually you will want to put references in a more discrete location (smaller font, end of sentence). There's no one-way to do this. You might consider also having a handout if possible (see the master on this point). --24.147.86.187 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * With a few tiny exceptions (see below), I would NEVER recommend putting citation on a PowerPoint slide.


 * In-text citation interferes with the whole purpose of a PowerPoint slide -- that is, to provide visual support to an oral presentation.  The best way to do that?  To provide JUST enough information to help audiences understand and stay focused on your oral presentation.  If you show citation and full sentence syntax, then your audience is reading sentences INSTEAD of listening to you.  And if all you're doing is reading those sentences TO an audience...well, heck, why talk at all?  Your audience can read, right?


 * Citation matters, but putting it on the slide itself interferes with the effectiveness of the medium.   As a teacher of info and technology literacies, I have seen many librarians and professors present powerpoint presentations at professional conferences, and I've never seen citation on a slide -- and if anyone knows the answer to your question, it's those folks, eh?


 * Personally, I put my citations in endnotes slides, and do NOT show them on the screen when presenting (that way, if I need to give someone a copy, the extra slide prints out, too).  Alternately, you might make a seperate citation sheet.   If you MUST cite info on a slide, I'd put it at the end of the bullet, and make the citation as tiny as humanly possible.


 * Note, by the way, that if your PowerPoint slides are designed to support an ORAL presentation, the "full sentences" are what comes out of your mouth, not what goes on the slide. UNLESS you have a professor who says specifically otherwise, OR you are NOT using your PowerPoint presentation to support an oral presentation, then, that means full sentences don't go on PowerPoint slides, either.  Jfarber 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If it helps, I would have presented your original bullet as a series of nestled bullets, as follows:
 * Infected people living longer
 * Over 30 drugs
 * citation, if absolutely necessary, is small, so people skip it visually
 * insert other reason(s) infected ppl living longer here (social/medical awareness of treatment?)
 * Jfarber 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jfarber; again, check out the Tufte link I put earlier. PowerPoint should be considered like a slide show — a visual augmentation to a presentation or a handout, but not a presentation in and of itself. The only time I would use citations at all is if it is a question of giving credit correctly; i.e. not misrepresenting where you did research or who made that graph and etc. --24.147.86.187 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See, I wasn't going to mention Tufte, because I figured he was obscure. But I'm glad to see information design isn't as rare as I thought.  A good source for all to consider! Jfarber 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tufte can't be THAT obscure, after all there is a Wikipedia article about him! 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are fast approaching 2 million entries in here; no one recognized my reference to Walter Ong in a previous thread.  Obscurity is, increasingly, the lot of almost all of us; notability is hardly its opposite.  Jfarber 01:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

adding to my profile
I'm still fairly new to wikipedia, and I've looked around on these helpfl pages provided, but I've not figured out how to do this yet. On many users prfile page, they've got these little rectangular boxes that give bits of information on them. How do I put those into my page?planes
 * They're called userboxes, and all the info can be found here. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, if you're the kind of user who learns by playing, do what many of us do: find one you like on another page, use "edit page" to see how it works, and then cut copy and paste the relevant box code to your own profile page. Jfarber 18:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And feel free to use the wp:sandbox for experimentation. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:BOX, click on a category (for example Food), and look for a userbox you like. You'll see something like " " to the left; paste that onto your page, and save. You can add as many as you like at a time; you don't have to do it one-by-one. (Note: I gave basic instructions just in case you're not a computer geek) By the way, please sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~ . Thanks! · AO Talk  22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Copying map to sister wikipedia
I would like to write an article for the Czech Wikipedia on the fertile crescent. I am wondering if it is permissible to transfer the map used in English Wikipedia for the Czech article. Thank you! V.B. 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)V.B.


 * Yes, if we have permission to display it in one Wikipedia, it is okay to display it in another Wikipedia as well. Marco polo 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since that image is uploaded on the Wikipedia Commons, you don't even have to transfer it! Just type in [[Image:Fertile Crescent map.png|thumb]] on the page and it should turn up! Oskar 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(In case you didn't know, Wikipedia images have either been uploaded to wikipedia, or to the wikicommons.) Rfwoolf 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Upload it to Wikimedia Commons, - all wikis can use content on commons. --h2g2bob 08:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Price of a can of baked beans W/O VAT + retail profit
Hi I would like to know a qualified estimate of the price of a can of white baked beans (let's say a 400gr with tomato sauce). And I mean the price that the bean factory charges.

In retail they are sold a piece, but if you forget about that and think about the price for a larger delivery/shipment like what can fit on a standard EU pallet. Which must be around 24*6 for the bottom layer * let's say 20 layers = 144*20 = 2880 cans. If I bought this much directly from the bean factory how much would that be in dollars or danish kroner or Euros?

I would like to know because a can of beans is really cheap but what if you didn't have to pay for all the middlemen, how much less would you have to pay.

In Denmark a run-of-the-mill dirt cheap can of beans is anout 3 dkr, which is about 50 cent's or 0.4 EU.

How much is added to reach the final retail price of a can of beans?

In Denmark ?

In the States / UK ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.81.121.107 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I don't (yet) have the answers to your questions, but I would point out that the retail markup is not the same as the retail profit. Retailers have to pay for delivery of the pallet, and they have to pay people to unpack pallets of canned beans and to stack them on shelves.  They have to pay cashiers to ring up the sale.  They have to pay benefits for all of their employees, and they have to cover the cost of leasing and maintaining the buiding.  So there are retail costs on top of the wholesale price.  The retail profit is just what is left after covering the wholesale price, the cost of delivery, any taxes, and the retail costs.  Marco polo 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I must apologize, because I don't think that I will be able to answer the original question in the time that I have available. To my surprise, wholesalers of canned goods, particularly in Europe, do not maintain much of a web presence.  My guess is that this market still operates via paper catalogues and live sales representatives.  Given the lack of a web presence, wholesalers may be reluctant to sell to anyone but retailers.  They may have agreements with retailers not to sell to consumers so as not to infringe on retailers' business.  Marco polo 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You could try to approximate this by looking for the price of a large quantity of baked beans at a retailer with as small a markup as possible (e.g. warehouse club). A froogle search finds a place selling 660 ounces of beans for US$42.65 which is $1.03 (€0.78) per 16 ounces.  You might also be interested in what the bean factory pays the farmer for the beans -- this article gives a price of US$16.90 per cwt for navy beans, or €0.128 for 16 ounces.  <b style="color:blue;">Dave</b> 6 <sup style="color:green;">talk  20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to mention that with importing, you buy from your seller the 'export price', which is typically the price of the product at the nearest port - you of course will arrange this all with your exporter. Then you have to book a container (which is always cheaper if you book the whole container and don't share it). From there you pay export taxes/duty, then when it's imported you once again pay import taxes/duty (all of this you have to research to get the rates) -- oh and there's insurance which you would probably choose not to pay for with cheap beans. Then once it arrives and it gets released from the port, you have to have trucks transport it to a wharehouse for storage, and then it get further distributed to supermarkets and other retailers - who then need to unpack them all.


 * But if they're manufactured locally, then it starts to depend on whether or not your manufacturer has a distributor or not. A distributor will take large consignments of the product and store them at their warehouses, and then distribute them to the clients (retailers). They will sell them at the price you set, but keep in mind that you can sometimes assign up to 30% of the cost of your product going to distribution alone - that's how much they take! So assuming that you are the retailer that wants to purchase a few palates from a manufacturer, you would either arrange to do this buy taking from one of their distributor's wharehouses (in which case if they're lazy they'll charge you the same as if they had to deliver to your retail branch), or you would arrange to collect these palates from the manufacturer itself - who would probably refer you to their distributors anyway. If they let you get them from the manufacturer themself, only *then* do you start to pay for the manufacture rate.


 * Having told you this, it must be mentioned that in order to sell a product cheaply (after transport and distribution, unpacking etc) - the supermarkets usually order HUGE consignments - it all comes down to economies of scale: Rather make a huge order, put it on a huge truck, allocate a huge section in their distribution centres, make a huge area for them on their shelves, and you'll find that all your costs per unit come down dramatically on all levels - your labour per unit, your pricing per unit, your delivery per unit, your manufacture rate, etc.


 * Hope this helps


 * Rfwoolf 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict -- looks like RFwoolf saw what I see here...)


 * I'm not so surprised at your final-anaysis findings, MarcoPolo -- I think you anticipated them in your earlier conjectures above. Wholesalers would have to charge more to everyone if they had to pay for web design, online sales management, and the staff necessary to manage retail markets -- they'd have to charge what retailers do, in other words, if they had to carry the same costs as retailers.   As such, one possible answer to the OP question is that because buying direct from wholesalers shifts many traditional retailer costs to the wholesaler, the difference in endcost would be very slight.


 * You might still have some savings, at least at the (newly staffed and cost-incurring) cash register, I suppose.   But I suspect even those just shift somewhere else in the model, and who else is there to take on those costs than the consumer himself?  Asking one corporation to take on fully vertical integration of a market may save a BIT because of centralization of services, in other words, but essentially all steps in the can-to-consumer process would still need to be acounted for in either distribution model.   And, of course, even after that, if you wanted to buy from the wholesaler (and turn it into the retailer), unless you lived in a heavy industrial production area, you'd end up incurring the remaining extra costs yourself in gas, shipping, etc.   The only real savings I see here is the one that buying BULK provides (no need to pay someone to break down boxes, manage displays, etc.), but then the consumer still has to pay more for storage, by adding a room in their house to store all those damn cans of beans.   Hence the illusion of major savings in the Costco model -- we save on toilet paper, but we need a new cabinet to store a month's worth of paper in, and are likely to buy a truck to carry home our bulk foods in... Jfarber 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is likely irrelevant, but one of the things that really surprised me in the UK was how incredibly cheap Heinz Baked Beans were. Everything else was more expensive than it is in Canada, but the baked beans were 1/5th the cost. 20 pence for a can that in Canada would cost easily $2.19 Canadian (or about L1 sterling). (Of course, the recipe is also completely different.) -- Charlene 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Duel to the death
I recently came across a mention of a duel between two people who absolutely hated each other. The terms of the duel were "Shotguns at three paces": essentially, pre-arranged mutual murder. Does anyone know more about this? --Carnildo 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this a specific duel you are talking about? It would not necessarily be mutual murder because one of the shooters would probably be slightly quicker with the trigger finger than the other shooter. I believe that is the point of a duel (sort of). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This was a specific duel. I believe the reason for "shotguns at three paces" was to ensure that both parties died: you can hardly miss with a shotgun at that range, it's fatal, but it's not immediately fatal, so you can get your shot off even if you're slow on the trigger. --Carnildo 06:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

of course if one of the guns didn't work ..:] HS7 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

LOgic question
If an aircraft crashed exactly on the border between Canada and USA, and none of the passengers had any relatives or nationality, where would the survivors be buried? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.132.119 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Why whould they bury survivors?--ChesterMarcol 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even survivors eventually die... But I suppose it depends on where they lived after surviving the crash. V-Man - T/C 00:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And how can the passengers not have any relatives ? Must involve some sort of abiogenesis, I guess. Gandalf61 00:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets assume that the parents are both dead Kyrgyzistanies, and he/she doesn't have a brother/sister or a wife/husband or a son/daugther. Oskar 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the passengers would have no living relatives, but that wasn't what the question said. It is impossible for a person to have absolutely no relatives. My underlying point is that if the questioner is going to ask a so-called logic puzzle, they should be more precise in their wording. Gandalf61 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess they would have to get the Anna Nicole Smith judge to figure it out.--ChesterMarcol 00:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or Lance Ito... V-Man - T/C 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose the government could decide, if you meant that the non-survivors of the crash were to be buried. But this is a common logic question that would make most people assume that without realizing you said "survivors." --Proficient 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly brain-teaser question that I was once asked years ago. The answer is that the survivors will not be buried; they're survivors. Rfwoolf 05:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be so sure. Who knows what lengths the authorities might go to in order to stop The Truth from getting out? --88.111.0.168 11:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also silly because the US-Canadian border doesn't actually have any width. If an aircraft actually did crash on the border, some of the dead would land up in Canada, some in the US, and some half-and-half. Generally the NTSB and TSBC would make a decision as to who would investigate and some local authority would bury the deceased, likely in the nearest cemetery.


 * In fact, there actually once was an accident that took place right on the US-Canada border. An aircraft going from Juneau to Anchorage and owned by the Alaska Department of Public Safety crashed on the Mount Fairweather glacier. The aircraft first touched ground in the US but skidded across the border and ended up in Canada. Since it was a state-owned government aircraft going from one US city to another (and since the pilot was the head of the department), Canada said "you deal with it". Luckily nobody was killed or seriously injured. -- Charlene  06:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)