Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 November 27

= November 27 =

RCN changed billing without telling me
Hi all,

I signed up for broadband internet with RCN for $13.95 a month for 1.5MBPS speed. I've just discovered that for the past three months I've been paying $36.95 for the same service. I hadn't realize because I pay by direct debit. They never informed me. Is this legal? Is there any chance that they will credit me the amount they took from me without telling me if I call up and complain?

I know I should call them, and I will, but I want to know what cards are in my hands when I do.

Thanks! &mdash;Mike. 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to repeat my answer for "Phone Bill" above: Step 1: Look at your bill. How is it broken down? Step 2: If there isn't enough information on your bill to find out why the charge is higher than you expected, phone them and ask for a more detailed explanation of why the bill is so high. Step 3: Figure out who's fault it is. Step 4: If it is their fault, call them again and explain how they screwed up and ask what they are going to do about it. Step 5: Wait for them to reply. Step 6: IF (and only if) it is both their fault - and they refuse to fix it - consider taking them to court. But we aren't even on step 1 yet - you don't even know what the extra charge is for!  Probably there is some total download limit or something like that that you have exceeded. SteveBaker (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One trick some companies use is advertise a low price and put in the small print "price only valid for first 6 months" or something. Maybe you got conned by something like this. Check the original ad or contract. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Martin

World War II Japanese Sword
My father brought home a sword retrieved from a Japanese soldier after being in the Army of the Occupation in Japan at the end of WWII. I'm trying to find out something about the sword. It has a WOODEN handle around the tang with a press/release catch to draw the blade. On the blade itself, there appears what may be a letter/character followed by the numbers 210798. The guard appears to be painted black steel as is the cap of the tang. There does not appear to be any markings on the scabbard and it has a single ring with which to attach it to a persons belt. There is also a single screw in the side of the scabbard toward the opening when holding the blade with the edge upward. There is a piece of copper or brass around the blade just in front of the guard toward the edge of the blade. I would appreciate any help in learning more about this sword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.192.118 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From your description (particularly the stamped serial number) it sounds like a Shin gunto - the later type 95 or 98 described in the article sounds a lot like yours. Incidentally, these swords were banned and destroyed in Japan following the war, but a lot of servicemen like your father took one (or more) home as a souvenir.  This means they're much more common in the US than Japan these days. FiggyBee (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hope this will help. Oda Mari (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Engine of the Economy in an American metro area
I've always wondered what percentage of employed ppl work for the engine of a local economy. By engine I mean the sectors of the economy which are not common in every single other local economy such as schools, post office, retailers, police, DUI law, etc.

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your question is an interesting one but difficult to answer. What you are calling the "engine of the economy" sounds something like what might also be called the "export sectors" of the economy: that is, the sectors that generate the income with which to support local services and what Marxists call the reproduction of labor power.  The problem is that these sectors can overlap with the "local services" sector.  For example, my metropolitan area, Greater Boston has unusually large education and health care sectors.  While schools and hospitals mainly serve local residents, as elsewhere, in Greater Boston some of them can really be considered engines of the local economy because some of the area's schools, universities, and hospitals bring in students, patients, and money from other parts of the United States and other parts of the world.  Bank branches can be found everywhere in a developed country, and in most places, they mainly serve local customers.  However, in New York City, banks are obviously engines of the economy.  The concept of "engines of the economy" is not, to my knowledge, recognized by urban economists.  Urban and regional economists sometimes refer to the "driving sectors" of an urban or regional economy, but they don't use this term with the analytical specificity that you suggest.  I am not aware of any studies that break down employment along the lines that you suggest.  Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Marco,

Very interesting and credible response coming from an academic in urban geography. If I were a geography student I might want to do a project answering this question for an honors thesis--but I'm not so oh well.

What if averages could be created for each division of the local sector? So if we have an average for retail banking, higher education, etc. we could subtract the difference from individual local economies to find the surplus engine. lots of issues | leave me a message 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Senegal/Egypt basketball game
I was just reading Basketball at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and saw that the score to the Senegal/Egypt match was 2-0. How the hell did that happen? and how is that even possible?72.50.180.145 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible that Egypt forfeited that game, giving Senegal two automatic points. I'll have to look into this further, though. Zagalejo^^^ 06:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Egyptian team left the games after the Munich massacre. FiggyBee (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

human sex and procreation: when did we first understand the relationship?
When did people of various cultures first show understanding that human sexual intercourse causes pregnancy? 71.198.170.154 (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)guydeguy


 * It doesn't take much intelligence to work that one out so I would think it would be at the dawn of human evolution. (It's instinctual, otherwise why would birds build nests?) But for a more objective take, see birth control.--Shantavira|feed me 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the correspondence between sexual intercourse and pregnancy was not so clear cut and our own article on the topic (see History_of_human_sexuality) suggests that the connection only really was made around the time that humans began animal husbandry - approximately 10000 years ago.Manning (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a Straight Dope article on that here a couple years ago.  Cecil dated the discovery around the domestication of animals (and thus husbandry), too. Deltopia (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I could remember where I was reading it, because I remember reading a history of ideas about procreation - everything from the woman is merely "soil" for the man's "seeds", to the idea that through male orgasm god personally put the baby in there and that semen had nothing to do with it... before they had microscopes which could see individual sperm cells and discovered egg cells, there were a lot of fascinatingly wrong ideas. Kuronue | Talk 04:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard to imagine that they wouldn't have figured it out. At some point, someone must have watched the pregnant woman's stomach growing - and thought "I wonder how that baby got in there?....OOoooooohhhhhhh!".  Later, that day, in the "womens hut" they are all sitting around playing with the kids and talking about which of the guys is the cutest - and someone notices that everyone who's actually ever gotten laid is either pregnant or has a kid - and everyone who hasn't...isn't.  Once someone has this theory, the evidence to prove it is all around them.  I think it would have been pretty easy for someone to figure it out...they had nothing much else to talk about before there was TV and Wikipedia - and even back in stone-age times, our brains were about the size they are now - these people definitely weren't stupid.  There is no reason to assume that they didn't figure it out at about the same time as language had been developed to the point where the discussion could happen. SteveBaker (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, you're considering the situation with a whole pile of knowledge that they didn't have. Consider this:  if sex makes you pregnant, why is that a woman might have sex twenty times but only have one baby inside her?  Kids have sex and they don't get pregnant.  If a woman has twins, does that mean she was having sex with two men at the same time?  Some folks just plain have a hard time conceiving, but still may enjoy sex.
 * Also consider folks living in a hunter-gatherer mode of existence. They often live in a feast or famine type of situation, where times may be lean until the salmon run or the antelope migrate or whatever. Women who are undernourished may undergo amenorrhea and be unable to conceive - until those salmon come through again. Place yourself as a rational primitive human in that situation. Everyone is getting laid, but not many people are getting pregnant. Then the salmon come (or whatever) and suddenly everyone seems to be getting pregnant. What would you think had happened? Suddenly the notion of animal ancestors makes a lot more sense - and those are common among people who live as H&Gs or have (relatively) recently shifted away from that lifestyle. "We are the bear tribe - the bear is our ancestor spirit" suddenly makes a lot of sense if that group had hunted bears during the good times.
 * I do agree that it's certainly no indication that the "primitives" were intrinsically dumber than us. We pay lip service to the notion we understand the relationship between sex and conception, but there are about two billion people on the planet who solemnly believe that a woman gave birth without having sex. Matt Deres (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To Matt Deres - touche! Manning (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary, and I think you're completely on target with this. Except that I really hope you're not suggesting that people believe in the Virgin Mary simply because they're stupid. --Masamage ♫ 17:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The implication seems not so much to be that they're stupid as that they lack a real understanding of cause and effect. It's a cheap shot, at any rate, and it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny: the fatherless birth is presented specifically as a miracle, something just as much against the ordinary way of things as the stories of Jesus walking on water or performing transmutations. It requires our familiarity with the way conception ordinarily works to be impressive, and indeed, I've heard of cases where Christian missionary efforts had a lot of trouble finding converts among certain island tribes precisely because spontaneous pregnancies were locally accepted as a matter of course. --Glump 20:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh! That...sounds like an interesting story. ("What's so special about a virgin birth? All five of my children were born in the rainy season! That's why I'm the chief!") --Masamage ♫ 05:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

MOT
Through no fault of my own, I have to take a car for an MOT test next week. Unfortunately I have an (probably unreasonable) fear of these, having been exposed to years of horror stories from a female teacher whilst at an impressionable age. Anything I should know before I go? Are pre-MOT services/checks at a garage good value? Should I run through an inspection myself? This is the car's second MOT, and I'm female with a reasonable knowledge of the bits under the bonnet, if that makes a difference. -- Kateshort  forbob  10:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Check all your lights work, for sure, and your horn too. You're unlikely to fail on a bulb alone, if that's all that is wrong most garages will fit the bulb free, but it's always worth it because if you fail on something else then you'll usually get charged the bulbs and labour as well as the other work.  The rest of it I wouldn't worry about so much.  I've had a few old bangers through the years and the most I have ever been charged was £400, and that was on a fifteen year old car with four bad tyres and worn brakes.  If it hasn't been driven more than average, about 12000 miles a year, you should be alright. Hiding T 12:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some things to be wary of. Make sure you use a garage you know and don't select a garage that substantially discounts the MOT charge. They offset those losses by being particularly tough, failing the car then offering to do the repairs. Invariably inspectors are more rigid on items that are safety related, e.g. they will fail if a seatbelt is frayed whereas you may be given some latitude on something like CO2 emission. -- Web H amster  12:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (For the non-Brit's here - the MOT is like a state inspection for cars - it's slightly more rigerous than the Texas state inspection - but I don't know about other states).
 * The most serious problems I've had with MOT's have been with rust. Cars that seemed perfectly drivable (although perhaps not too pretty to look at) would be failed and cost a small fortune to fix.  These days, emissions are the more likely problem.  Obviously, you need all of the lights working, the brakes (including the handbrake), the horn and the wipers - there is no point putting it in for a test if any of those things don't work well.  I had one particularly nasty junker which  had one windscreen wiper that occasionally only worked if you 'wiggled it' - but to fix it required replacing the wiper's gearbox - that required taking apart the dashboard and removing the steering wheel - and the labor charge for that was more than the car was worth!  Since the wiper sometimes worked OK without wiggling it, I thought I'd put it though the MOT anyway.  Sadly, it failed so the "Maurice"-the-Morris-Marina (a horrible car, actually) went to the great junkyard in the sky because of a faulty wiper! SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are pre-MOT services/checks at a garage good value?. Yes, in my view. Saves time if items can be repaired before the inspection. As is developing a relationship with small garages ... I've made it clear to my local garage that so far as repairs are concerned, it's their car to keep on the road. They seem to like that. (Which is just as well, since my car, err, bounced off a rather stout wall last night after encountering a little ice on the road :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have had the manufacturer's servicing, the easiest way is to leave it all to them. Book the car for a service and MOT. They will usually run a pre-check and then fix what needs doing. Then the MOT pass is simple (and they do it for you even if they are not a MOT inspecting station.) It costs just a little more. But you do nothing (except pay). Good luck.86.197.169.2 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)petitmichel


 * Thanks for all the information - I really appreciate it. Last year, the car went back to the dealer for it's pre-MOT and the mechanic forgot (!) to screw the oil cap back on. Result: oil everywhere, failed MOT and, I understand, quite a lot of shouting, so I'll look into a decent local garage or manufacturer this time around, and make sure everything is okay myself. (Sorry to hear about your car, Tagishsimon - hope nothing's badly damaged.)-- Kateshort  forbob  20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cost of living in Hawaii
How expensive is it to live in Honolulu? --66.135.231.164 (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do a Google search for "cost of living calculator" you will get several results which point to sites that allow you to compare the COL between two U.S. cities. If you add the search term "international" you should be able to find similar sites to compare internationally.  Since your IP geolocates to Manoa, just outside Honolulu, I'm not sure which type of comparison would be most useful to you.  In general, based on several visits to Honolulu over the last three years, I'd say it's "very expensive."  Almost everything that one would buy there has to come from somewhere else far far away.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, what are the job oppertunities like. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unemployment in Hawaii is among the lowest in the nation. Unfortunately, many of these jobs are in the tourist industry which doesn't pay very well. There are some high-tech opportunities in Hawaii and contracting jobs assoicated with the military which pay relatively well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Broadband
If I get a broad band account, is it legal for me to set up a router and allow my housemates to use it too if they help me to pay the bill. eg £2 each per month, £10 for the broadband. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It all depends on whether or not the contract specifically says no. If it doesn't then there's no legal reason you can't. On the other hand you, as the account owner, will be legally liable for anything your mates do whilst on the net. The likelihood is that it's perfectly legal, and most probably a regular occurrence. -- Web H amster  03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While we can not give specific legal advice here, I think I can say that this is strictly a matter of what it says in the contract you have with your provider. -- LarryMac  | Talk  14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Short answer - yes you can do it - I have no clue as to whether it's legal or not.


 * It depends on the broadband service - and on how you run it.


 * The first broadband I had gave me just one fixed IP address - so only one computer could be connected at a time. However, I used an old PC with Linux running on it (I have no idea if/how you'd do it under Windows) and TWO Ethernet adapters as the gateway/firewall and had all of the other computers run on a LAN 'inside' the firewall.  The firewall machine acted as the DHCP host (handing out IP addresses on the internal LAN) and passed messages into and out of the building using it's own IP address.  This may or may not have been legal under the terms and conditions of my broadband contract - but it worked just fine in practice for over 5 years.  The firewall/gateway also acted as a web and email server so I could host my own web pages at my own domain name and have email addresses like '@sjbaker.org' instead of '@sbc.com'.


 * When I later switched services, my new broadband supplier gave me 6 fixed IP addresses, so I could theoretically connect up to 6 machines to the DSL modem via a cheap ethernet switcher box. However, the convenience of having my firewall/gateway box meant that I preferred to stick with using just one of the six addresses.


 * Many of the more up-market WiFi units have built-in DHCP and gateway features - so you could use one of those instead of messing around with an old PC and Linux for your gateway.


 * In my apartment (I'm living away from home during the week and going home at weekends), the broadband hookup uses DHCP - I don't have a fixed IP address - it changes every time I reboot my machine. They allow me to run several PC's off the same line though - so I can still run multiple computers from the same line.  So running web pages and an email server would be difficult, if not impossible.


 * It might be possible that there are broadband providers out there that only let you hook up one computer - but you could still circumvent that by using a gateway machine. In this day and age, it's likely that you'd have at least a PC and a networked game console - so it's unlikely they are going to get heavy-handed about having multiple machines hanging off one connection.


 * So technologically, I don't think there is any problem at all. The issue is one of your terms of service - which might explicitly disallow reselling their services.  But you live in the same house - just add the price into the rent or pay the broadband bill the same way you pay for electricity.  The only time I think the broadband folks would have a problem would be if you started stringing Ethernet cables over to your neighbours house.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Work
If someone is not liked at work, but one has no legitimate reason for fireing them, one can make thier work life miserable, until eventually they quit. In South Africa there is a term for this, and it is illegal, is there a term for this in England, and is it legal. Further more, what can the person do? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From the point of view of the person whose life is made miserable, it falls into the category of workplace bullying and might extend to constructive dismissal (in that the employer has failed in its responsibility to protect staff from bullying. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The victim should talk to their union rep, or try their local Citizens Advice Bureau. DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, if the bullying comes from peers, talk to their management or the company's Human Resources department, if such a thing exists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what we're talking about here is when the company wishes to fire an employee - but under local laws would not legally be allowed to do so (eg they want to get rid of you because you are disabled or too old or too ugly or something).  So instead of firing you, they move you to a smaller office (OK, it's actually a broom cupboard), replace your chair with a plastic milk crate, replace your computer with a ZX80 with a wobbly RAM pack, then play continuous loud country-and-western music at you until you resign of your own accord!


 * I believe this is illegal under UK law - but I don't recall what the law is called. SteveBaker (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Constructive_dismissal. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC)That would be the company giving grounds for constructive dismissal. Not sure there's another phrase. In a larger organisation, your immediate management may play those games but you might have recourse to a seperate department - HR - which might put your managers right. Bottom line, though: it's a very unpleasant situation and if constructive dismissal is the only route open to you, then you're looking at either walking away, or going through an employment tribunal ... any recourse to legal action will cause major stress. Not good. As Duncan noted, above, your union (if you have one) or the CAB would be the first places to go since they'll be able to walk you though your options. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In quite a few countries this is refered to as moral harassment or psychological harassment. Our article on sexual harassment talks about it. You might find more information in the articles harassment, bullying and workplace bullying as Tagishsimon pointed out. Keria (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, milk crate - broom cupboard is just about right, more than once I have trained some one up, and been thier suppeior, only to see them get promoted over me. the most recent time, he got promoted, to his own office, while I got demoted to doing my job, and his job, so now he sits in his office, while I do the work of two ppl. I think I am going to go postal. or cry. more than likely go postal. please note there is no lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, not good. It's v.difficult, but have you ever had a conversation with your management to find out why others are being promoted and you are not? Or had a conversation with them to ask whether there is ever a hope in hell of you being prompted? Or to find out what you'd need to do (e.g. what you'd need to change) in order to get out of this situation. We don't know what's happening at your end, so don't know if these sorts of conversations are possible. But it is clear to me that if I'm in an intolerable situation, I have to do something sensible & purposeful (note, not postal) to get out of the situation. That might be challenging the staus quo. More likely it will involve leaving that job and finding another. But even then, I'd want to find out exacltly why my face didn't fit, and to do that I'd want to have a rational (note, not emotional) conversation with my management. (Or, in the alternative, with some other member of staff who might be able to give a reasoned explanation of their opinion as to what's going on.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also heard of situations where two employees are on the same grade - one of them very good at what they do - the other, less so. When a promotional opportunity opened up, they promoted the less good of the two because they couldn't afford for the better employee to cease doing the actual work and become a manager.  My best advice is to seek an internal transfer to another department within the same company.  You'll lose all of that history and have a new boss with an opportunity to shine without all of the grief of a full change of job.  Of course this isn't always possible (especially in a small company).  SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have (semi-anonymously) now threatened to go postal on your fellow employees and specifically added that it was not a joke. I do not think you need worry about semi-formal harassment; you've broken the law of most countries and could now be dismissed "with cause" if you were identified, leaving you no legal recourse at all. Stand outside your personal situation and look at what you've just done. If one of your co-workers was publicly talking about killing people, would you consider them "promotion material" or "needs to get fired material"? Get another job, enjoy the fresh start and seriously consider counselling. Matt Deres 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Document check
I would like to know how to check the papers to buy a site dimension (30x40), land measuring in acres and also if you could tell me about zones it would be great(green belt, yellow zone, etc.,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinod6930 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you rephrase the questions to break them up into specific items? I think you are saying you want to buy a 30 by 40 (what measurement units: feet, metres?) site, want to know how to "check papers" which I am assuming are title deeds, perhaps? That is usually something handled by a lawyer, or law clerk in a real-estate (or "real property") transaction in North America, but you don't say what locale you are writing about. You can do it yourself in most places, but you might not want to have that kind of responsibility in the event of a problem with the title. Zoning (including "green belts") are local matters, and are usually very "site specific". That means that your neighbour may have entirely different zoning on his property from yours. What "land measuring in acres" means, I am not sure, as the only numbers appear to be linear measures which could lead to acres or hectares, but acres are themselves a measure of surface area, not linear distance. (I am sure that someone with a science background could give a better explanation of why 30 x 40 isn't likely to be a measurement in acres, but that's the best I can do.) We need more information even to be able to determine if someone here can help you. This is likely why no one has tried in 5 days, which is unusual on the Ref Desks. Bielle 05:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How many Acura Integra second generation GS-R's were produced in the U.S. and Canada?
Hello Wikipedia, I am searching for the exact number for second generation Acura Integra gs-r's(also known by the code name db2) (these gs-r's were only availible from 1992-1993). In your site,regarding the general information about Acura Integras, you mention that the db2 with a b17a1 engine is the most rare of all Integras ever produced. I believe this to be true. However, the exact production number for these vehicles appears to be elusive and is a topic of much debate and speculation on Honda and Integra related website forums. Any insight you could porvide on this issue would be beneficial to many curious Integra lovers. Thanks DAfasthatch (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Justin

Let's invent CONTAINERISATION ???????????
My mother-in-law lives in Central Scotland. We visit most days. But today - because of the noise - I happened to take particular notice of the containerisation depot visible from her house. It is HUGE and contains zillions of different sized containers (for obvious transportation by the local visiting shipping companies). But her husband once worked in the days of Bulk Cargo shipping wherein everything was loaded into the hold - in powder form - and had to be manually loaded. Now - a container arrives on a lorry - from where? - and is lifted off by a purpose built crane - and deposited in a holding bay - and subsequently lifted onto another truck and subsequently loaded onto a ship that just happens to be visiting the destination port for that consignment. Confused??? So am I. Who organised that logistical nightmare taking into account international politics, trade-unions, cultures, shipping and port design etc., etc. And how do they sort out who owns all the different containers? And how do they reserve them and return them for future use? And how did they all get to agree - maybe we should adopt their principles of co-operation as a better basis for the United Nations??? Listen - seriously - I am growing old, and I don't have time to research all these vexations for myself. So please put my curiousity at rest. Thanks. 81.145.240.74 (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Big subject. Suffice to say, in a short answer, is that the reason that containerisation works is that it is so very much more efficient than was the handballing method of yore. And that efficiency provided sufficient impetus to be able to overcome intertia associated with social change. The rest is relatively minor details, of booking containers and transport on ships and storage at the dockside. There is, and I'll try to find it for you, a fascinating Wired article on containerisation. That might help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, here you go: The 20-Ton Packet. And, of course, Containerization, which looks to have good coverage of "Shipping container history". Come back once you've read the pair of them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * International standardisation is less of a nightmare than you may think. Most standardisation is carried out by an organisation called "ISO"; practically every nation in the world is a member of ISO, and it has strong ties with politicians and business leaders from every nation. Since there is no economic advantage to producing non-standard containers, every shipping company, container manufacturer, train company and crane operator can use the exact same containers for everything - this approach applies to almost everything, from ISO standard CDs to ISO standard iron ore; there's even an ISO Standard cup of tea! As everyone in ISO wants to make their country more efficient and therefore richer, it is in their best interests to co-operate to produce globally standard equipment - who would buy cameras if every camera used a different size film?
 * The political side of containerisation, as you rightly guess, is slightly more complex than the physical side - generally, containers are owned by the freight companies (Maersk, MSC and Hapag-Lloyd are the big ones) and then rented out, not unlike cabins in a cruise ship. They try to make sure that the number of containers at each port remains roughly constant, but the containers themselves roam around the round as required. Databases make sorting out which container is which relatively simple: the boxes are carefully stacked and the positions noted, so a crane operator can just be told "take the 7th container from the left on the 28th row and put it on the 14th train carriage" by the computer - the system also makes sure that containers are never going to end up buried under half-a-dozen others 20 minutes before it's due to be loaded on the boat to China! The trade union issue is perhaps more complicated, as there was a lot of trade union opposition to it (see Liverpool Dockers' Strike), but since those who didn't lose their jobs found the new work easier and better paid, opposition certainly wasn't unanimous. Laïka  19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or don't see Liverpool Dockers' Strike because it is one of the worst stubs I've ever seen. It contains many words, but none of them say why the dockers were striking. If anyone knows enough to improve it, that would be lovely. 79.69.14.132 (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at a book called 'The Box' by Marc Levin (The Box (book) (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8131.html) I got it for christmas a few years ago, it's actually a very interesting read about the way that containerization developed. The logistics of it all never ceases to amaze me. Of all the areas that changed the world without really getting that much major plaudits this is one. The 'box' made movement of goods unbelievably streamlined compared to the old days...Malcolm Maclean (not the wikipedia one) may not be a famous name but much of his work made the modern container what it is today. To me, at least, the history of it is fascinating and the organisation mind-boggling. ny156uk (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tagishmon asked me to come back to him once I had read the articles he /she recommended in response to my question (which I have now read) - and since then both Smurrayinchester and Ny156uk and 79.69.14.132 have all come on board too (sic). I can only say how impressed and grateful I am for those contributions, save to ask, how are you folk able so quickly to identify such authenticated sources of information that I was having difficulty finding for myself? Well done them, but well done too Wikipedia. One criticism away from the main thrust - do many other Wiki users like me find that increasingly, the more I discover I don't know by consulting Wikipedia - the more I am driven to discover how much more I want to know? Thanks again folks. This is truly a wonderful site. And thanks again to all the foregoing respondents. I wish I could buy you all a drink. 81.145.240.74 (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thanks. It's always good to know RD answers have hit the spot. In this case, it was just luck that I read the Wired article when it came out, and it made a big impression on me. Meanwhile I think all of us are to lessor or greater extents lost in our fascination with acquiring & organising information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A friend worked for a shipping company in the mid 80's; they wouldn't ship to some south american ports because they wouldn't reliably get an empty container back. Incidentally, a fair condition 20 foot container can be bought in Australia for about AUS$2000. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember a story about an American who bought or rented a container, made it into an habitable space and shipped himself from Europe to America. I wish I could find the reference to the book he wrote about his "adventure". Keria (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A bit of an aside, but the plot of season 2 of the sublime television show, The Wire is largely concerned about the stevedores at Baltimore harbor and how they manipulate the system for logging and tracking containers. Its a lot more dramatic than it sounds. Rockpock  e  t  00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

‘Atlas Shrugs’ website
Hi to you all! I do not know whether it's the right place to put my question or not… If not, please excuse me. Though living partly in France (68 days so far), mainly because I'm a reporter and France is only a secondary residence, I can feel how things go there. Searching for news about the latest riots in the Greater Paris area, I dropped into 'Atlas Shrugs' and their somewhat personal vision of these (France: Punk Jihad 2007 — and more of this, like Riots in France: THEY'RE BAAAAAACK). Really surprising… But I could not find reliable information about this website (neither here or elsewhere) and their authors. Does somewhat know something about them? And wouldn't it be worth an article (I may say I'm not ready to write one, because my experience — I reported two years ago about the roughly same kind of riots in the same département — and my own opinions are basically on the opposite side of their views, this could be a cause for non neutral point of view)? Thanks forward for answering. — Lemon Blue (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The website name is an allusion to Atlas Shrugged, a novel by Ayn Rand, who developed a philosophical system she called Objectivism. And which, co-incidently, IIRC, Jimbo Wales, the founder (or co-founder) of this site, buys into it quite a large way. I don't know much about the Objectivism, but suggest that the website may well be looking at the riots from an Objectivist viewpoint. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And note that "looking at them from an Objectivist viewpoint" usually translates to "looking at them from a right-libertarian viewpoint." --Fastfission (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note the typepad.com domain; it is simply somebody's weblog, aka blog. Such sites are not generally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading the articles you linked to it is hard to consider this more than some sort of opinion journalism or comments on articles published in papers. Their apparent problem with using grammar and the habit of interjecting opinions every 2 lines, would not encline me to take them seriously. Sentences like "Six? Shooting at cops? That's a capital punishment crime." or "How dare they destroy one human thought, this is base and savage" or "How can Paris survive in the middle of such a jungle that is constantly set on fire and sacked by its own inhabitants?" are quite unjournalistic and/or completely misrepresenting the facts. As a - bad - opinion piece I could see some interrest in digging deeper into their background and motivations but they seem to be looking at the problem they describe from a loong way away. Calling it a "French Intifada" or "punk jihad" and systematicaly labeling the rioters with religious motivations won't help much either towards credibility. The comments posted under each article are really appaling and frightning. The site seems really big on defending Israel of any kind of wrongdoing Reading a few of their articles this blog seems primarily concerned with the relations between Israel and their Arab neighbours and seem to take a very self-centered view that drives them to see any news in the light of a menace against Israel from the Arab world or the Muslim community. To go back to the French riot, I was listening to the French wireless at the end of the 2005 riots while driving in the south of England and I remember that amazing statement from the newsreader: "It seems that things have gone back to normal and we are having a typical week with only 60 cars burnt this week-end." There is definitely a big problem there and unfortunately it doesn't seem to be close to finding a solution Sarkozy not having adressed the problem at all since he was elected in May, this after having run his campain on security issues. Keria (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to you all. I was so astonished (and still am) that people could pretend reporting this way, it astounded so much that I could have been amazed that way (though reporting for some 25 years now) etc. that I needed to know. But no one told whether this would be worth at least a few lines or not…
 * This quote, I received today via Logos Quotes, is somewhat comfortable: «That the vulgar express their thoughts clearly, is far from true; and what perspicuity can be found among them proceeds not from the easiness of their language, but the shallowness of their thoughts» (Samuel Johnson). — Lemon Blue (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Military Aviation
Hi, I'm trying to track down information and pics of a particular aircraft. It was designed by Grumman, USA, and called the Peregrine military jet trainer. It was a two seat side-by-side design. Developed and built by American Jet Industries. It was flying in 1981. I've tried to find it by searching but can't locate it. Would appreciate your help please.

Many thanks. Nick Betts-Green, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.248.73 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you be talking about the Gulfstream Peregrine 600? It fits your description except for the company. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Grumman sold American Jet Industries to Gulfstream Aerospace in 1978, so it's possibly the right one. See also this link. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Headroom
I've read the page on headroom and understand the basic concept, but when applied to something like this: "The studio quiet Vari-Mid 3B EQ allows you to modify and color those tones as much or as little as you want - the 18-volt circuitry provides much greater headroom than found on standard active EQ's." What exactly does that greater headroom mean to me (the user) and what does it mean to my sound? (if it's of any importance this in reference to a 3 band active eq installed on my Ibanez BTB Bass.) 12.155.80.115 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Transient sounds won't be distorted by the equalizer. There's no guarantee that downstream equipment will like an 18 volt signal, of course; the downstream equipment may clip.


 * Atlant (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

driver's license forgotten
if i drove my car and was pulled over by police and realized i left my driver's license at home, would i be arrested? or would they just want me to come to a station at a later date and show it to them? it's a valid license btw. oh and i'm talking about ontario, canada.--Anoid101 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't give legal advice, of course, but around here (New Hampshire, USA), the cops all have computers so they'll usually just look you up on the computer and if you possess a valid, non-suspended, non-revoked operator's license, they'll just bawl you out and tell you never to be seen driving garbage around again not to do it again. But they did stop you for some other reason and that will still apply. And if you are suspended or revoked, they'll arrest you on the spot and have your car towed away.


 * Atlant (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (I am not a lawyer or a Canadian etc) You would most likely be issued with a Producer/TTP as in this FAQ. This may be dependant on whether you have ID on you that they can check up via the police computer, however it is worth noting that the issuing of a TTP notice is entirely at the discretion of the officer involved. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * TTP, of course, stands for The TTP Project. --Trovatore (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I live in Ontario too, and I have been told that if you are pulled over and are not carrying a license, you have 24 hours to go to a police station and show it to them. I have never tested this however. Acceptable (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here in the UK, you have to present your license at a Police station within seven days (I think) GaryReggae (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's normally what happens yes. Exxolon (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Further to User:Acceptable's response, IIRC the 24 hour time is discretionary - that is they could just give you a ticket and you'd have to fight it in court. I too have never tested this, but I suspect that if you are polite and contrite, you'd get the 24 hour allowance. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been stopped in Ontario, only to discover that both my license and my insurance certificate were in another wallet. I was polite and contrite, and was given 24 hours to turn up at any Ontario police station with both in hand. This was after the officer confirmed I had not been drinking, and, via the computer in his car, that my licence was currently in good standing. Bielle (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Grit on Toilet
$$Insert formula here$$

I have some black grit that keeps showing up on my toilet, even after I clean. It spreads out over the toilet over time. Does anyone know what it is?

Stavner

74.229.224.168 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It may not be possible for us to guess without some chemical analysis, but two possibilities are 1) microbial (bacterial and/or fungal) colonies, which might be eliminated with a disinfectant and anti-mold treatment; and 2) soot, which should also appear on other surfaces in your home if you live in an area with a lot of industry or heavy traffic. Marco polo (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Any diabetics in the house? -- Web H amster  03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the link there? Kuronue | Talk 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Diabetics tend to have a lot of sugar in their urine. The crystals stick to the porcelain and manifest themselves as a black grainy deposit.-- Web H amster  05:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ferrari or lambo
Does any one on wikipedia oun a ferrari or a lambo if so i would like to here whet its like to oun a ferrari or a lambo. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.183.131 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend visiting an Italian sports car forum like Automotive Forums where you are far more likely to get a range of opinions on that topic. Manning (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore and Washington
Do Baltimore and Washington share the same metropolitan area? Heegoop, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you could say that, although "metropolitan area" is not a well-defined term. See BosWash. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, metropolitan areas are well-defined for statistical purposes. Baltimore and Washington comprise the main parts of the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV Combined Statistical Area, as well as each being the center of its own defined metropolitan area. FiggyBee (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dating
In New York, is it legal for an adult (18yrs old) to date somebody that is a little under 4 years younger, as long as they don't have sex?--Omnipotence407 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't answer questions about legality, sorry. If you do find out that it *is* legal, someone doing so would have to be *very* careful to keep themselves out of suspicion. I would imagine that many laws regarding statutory rape can cover non-penetrative acts. They would also want permission from the younger person's guardian(s). Steewi (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some useful links for you might be Age of Consent and http://www.ageofconsent.com Dismas |(talk) 01:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Age of consent only deals with sexual acts. The OP stipulated "as long as they don't have sex".--droptone (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that the links provided might give info that is useful to the OP. They may get to reading the pages and think, "Hey, that's good to know!" about something related to what they want.  Or the pages could have info such as "... and if you're not engaging in sexual acts..."  Dismas |(talk) 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Talking to the younger person's parents is an excellent idea, assuming they're reasonably sane. (And if the older person is too anxious to talk to them directly, he or she probably shouldn't be dating their teenage child.) --Masamage ♫ 01:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the father is reasonably sane, telling him that you, an 18-year-old hormone-ravaged slutdog, want to date his 13-year-old-daughter is a very unexcellent idea. If the father is not sane, you have a better chance. If you do decide to bring that up, first ask the father politely if you can pat him down for weapons, and be reasonably sure you can outrun him and any brothers the girl might have. Don't reckon without the mother, either. The legal system is the least of your worries, dude. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but imagine what they'd do to him if they found out from someone else. --Masamage ♫ 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as no sexual contact occurs, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't legal. --Carnildo (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i ended up asking the SRO at my school. He says that its perfectly legal, as long as theres no sex, groping, feeling up, or the like. In addition, I dont think it is law, but he says that the minor's parents definitely should know and consent. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I see in this question is that the word "date" is so hopelessly vague. If it means "play tennis with", "meet for lunch" or "watch television with on a sofa" (and no more), then no problem. But if it means "take to see a movie", you have to start asking 'What movie?' If it means "drink in a bar with", then in some places you are starting to get into deep waters. Xn4  04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it's in New York, both parties would be in deep waters. X) --Masamage ♫ 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Shortest lived nation, anyone?
Does anyone have any idea what the shortest lived nation ever was? Thanks for any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.217.169 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Short-lived states might be a place to look. The best I've found through glancing at that is the Alsace Soviet Republic, at 13 days. Algebraist 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * forgot a colon/ Algebraist 01:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In a subcategory, Category:Client states of the Great French War, two of the entries are italicized. What does that mean?  —Tamfang (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Italicized entries are redirects. The redirect may have the category applied if it is a historical name; or, it could be that it is the result of a merge and someone forgot to remove the category.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was Biafra, a short lived republic in Africa. It tried to break away from another nation during a civil war. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The hard thing about answering this question is figuring out what constitutes a "nation". But the Republic of California should deserve at least a mention. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Trovatore is right. Unless these entities received any form of international recognition, they were never nations/countries/whatever at law. Quote from the CSA article:  "Although British commercial interests sold it warships and operated blockade runners to help supply it, no European powers officially recognized the CSA. Thus, by the definition of a sovereign state, as defined in international relations, the CSA was never an independent country (e.g. one of the requirements to be considered a sovereign state is to have the recognition of other states).".  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, now, that's not exactly what I said. I said making that determination was the hard part; I didn't offer any specific criterion myself. Note also that "nation" is not exactly the same thing as "state", in the view of those people who believe in nations and/or states. --Trovatore (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies if I seemed to put words in your mouth, Trovatore. --  JackofOz (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Petoria at less than a half hour. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do the Confederate States of America rank? --Masamage ♫ 00:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If we think about states that were internationally recognised, the Baltic States existed between 1920 and 1940, only 20 years. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't noticed, they regained their independence in 1991. So it's more like 20+16 = 36 years. J I P  | Talk 07:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. But for those 20 years it was only 20 years.  Trumped by the Ukrainian example below, however (5 years).  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Staying in that general region, the West Ukrainian National Republic (WUNR) was set up on 19 October 1918 and merged with the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) on 22 January 1919. There’s no indication the WUNR achieved international recognition in those brief 3 months.  The UPR itself was set up on 17 March 1917, and was recognized de jure by Soviet Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Holy See. De facto recognition was granted by Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Persia.  It  joined the USSR in 1922.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange Maps cites "Carpatho-Ukraine, Independent For Only 24 Hours" in 1939. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fascinating story, Tamfang. However, forgive my incredulity, but in what possible sense could a nation be independent for only 24 hours?  Merely declaring independence doesn't make you independent.  There's a lot more to it than that.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Carphatho-Ukraine arguably fails because it was in anarchy for the full 24 hours. Some of the previous posters noted the chaotic conditions in the Baltic in 1916-1922, but if you dig deeper you'll find a handful of nations that barely meet the standard for independence (which, I'd argue, is met when a government exercises a monopoly of force over a defined territory).  Check out Autonomous Governorate of Estonia, Duchy of Courland and Semigallia (1918), United Baltic Duchy, Kingdom of Lithuania (1918), and Kingdom of Finland (1918).  Kingdom of Finland (1918) might be the winner out of that bunch, as it was the least disputed, and only lasted 1 or 2 months, depending on how you count. --M @ r ē ino 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for fun: we had the Conch Republic and a number of others in Category:Secession in the United States. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The 13 former British colonies in America arguably were "nations" from the recognition of their independence by the King in 1783 to the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. The “United States” were recognized by the British King in theTreaty of Paris (1783) as "free and independent states” .  The term “United States” may have started off as a descriptive combination of words, in which each “state”  was a sovereign nation in a weak alliance with the other former colonies. According to the book "Arc of Empire" by Dale Van Every (1963) the  governors of some frontier states negotiated with foreign powers such as Spain, France, and the Indian nations, thereby assuming a degree of sovereignty they would not have after the ratification of the Constitution in 1787.  The Congress of the Confederation "had all but ceased to function (Van Every, p 9) by 1784. It often lacked a quorum, and functioned on voluntary contributions from the state governments. "Every power to decide or act was reserved to the states" (p. 9). In the months before the initial convening of the United States Congress under the Constitution, the Congress of the Confederation“ as Wikipedia terms it, or the “Second Continental Congress” as the Library of Congress calls it rarely had a quorum. Added to this was the desire for sovereignty asserted by the frontier residents of Kentucky in 1785 that they be recognized as a "free, sovereign and independent republic" (p103) and that they be allowed  to join the confederation with the original 13 states. It took about as long to travel by land from the frontier to the capitol in Virginia as it did to travel across from London to the Atlantic port cities of the US.  The United States was the "collective "nation" but the individual states held some degree of sovereignty and the frontier west of the Appalachians often generated incipient states which threatened to become either independent nations or states allied to Spain if not admitted to the United States due to the neglect they felt by eastern states of which they were technically part. "What goes around comes around" is a 20th century philosophy, but the British of the 18th century might have noted the simmering grievances of the Tenneseans and Kentuckians against the Virginians and other eastern state governments with a similar relish. Edison (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One could point out that the OP asked for "nation" not "sovereign state", and that the existence of the word nation-state implies that they are two different things. But by the original definition of nation how would you recognize a short-lived one as existing at all?  —Tamfang (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The United Arab Republic could, I suppose, be considered a brief existence of the Arab nation. Similarly, there presumably was a Czechoslovak nation between 1918 and 1992, but not before or since.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)