Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 October 1

= October 1 =

unions
have unions ever had any proven dealings with the mob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.195.89 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Proven, I don't know, but if there is a mafia somewhere, then they will run all sorts of businesses, and inevitably get to deal with unions. Or do you mean the other way around (your question suggests it)? And what kind of dealings do you mean? It seems to me the mafia is just the sort of thing unions would want to fight (very bad working conditions, to put it mildly). But if they could take them on is an entirely different matter. In such a situation, bribes would be a likely outcome, I suppose. DirkvdM 07:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an account of a report that the Teamsters no longer have dealings with the Mob, which indicates that they once did... SaundersW 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Hoffa, need we say more. Rmhermen 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm saying nothing, OK...NOTHING. :-) SteveBaker 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that was just a film. And a bad one by the way. I stopped watching after about an hour. DirkvdM 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it was real. I live in Detroit, where he disappeared.  Whenever they tear down an old building or dig up an old street, we ask "Did they find Jimmy Hoffa ?". StuRat 20:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Detroit? I thought he was buried in the end zone of the Meadowlands.  Corvus cornix 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Contempt of court
Can a defense attorney be imprisoned just for representing a guilty client? This seems to support that.. what exactly happened there and why were the attorneys found in contempt of court? --⁪frotht 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This page says that "using the criminal justice system to reinforce the government's contention that communism was outside the law had its drawbacks. There were few laws under which the offenders could be tried, since being a Communist was not a crime, and the statute of limitations precluded most espionage prosecutions. As a result, the charges that the cold war defendants faced--usually perjury or contempt--often bore little relation to the presumed offense for which they were on trial." A.Z. 05:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the lawyer for one of the Guantánamo prisoners prosecuted for quoting her client in public, on the theory that she might be passing coded messages to his allies on the outside or some damn thing? —Tamfang 06:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting McCarthyism aside, it is illegal in most jurisdictions for a lawyer to mislead the court by defending a client who they know to be guilty. If you tell your attorney that you're guilty as charged, but want to plead not guilty anyway, they'll either pretend they didn't hear you, or refuse to represent you.  The one exception to this is if you think the prosecution can't make their case (in which situation the defence will offer no evidence and their entire case will be "prove it"). FiggyBee 15:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, I'm really amazed. Could you please provide some source for it? As I understand the concept of having the right to an attourney, you shouldn't have to lie to them, it's their job to use their better understanding of the law to argue your case, no matter what you did. Is this an effect of the American view that each case has a guilty/not-guilty verdict, rather than it being the court's job to determine the truth about the event in question and give an appropriate sentence? /85.194.44.18 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just an American thing; it's the case in all common law countries as far as I'm aware. While it is the lawyers' job to "use their better understanding of the law to argue your case", that doesn't extend to presenting false evidence on your behalf.  Note that even if your lawyer finds out you're guilty and stops representing you, attorney-client privilege still exists; they can't tell anyone why they've resigned from the case. FiggyBee 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

By an attorney telling the court that you are not guilty, when the defendant has already confessed to the attorney, the attorney is committing perjury/ It the attprney does not speak, but allows for the defendant to comment, then the attorney is suborning perjury. 141.238.20.224 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Lexington Landon Hunter Esq

Clarification: To the people implying it is illegal for a lawyer to "defend a client they know to be guilty" ... these answers are either a tad over-simplistic, or flat-out incorrect (not sure which because they don't specify enough information to be evaluated properly). In most U.S. jurisdictions for example, an attorney has a duty to zealously represent the interests of the client. This includes thoroughly pursuing any legitimate legal claims necessary to secure a favorable outcome for the client, regardless of whether the client personally claims to be "guilty" to her attorney.

Moreover, even representation that is potentially subject to sanction is excusable if the "defense was initially presented to the court as a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law" (See e.g., F.S. §57.105(2)). If it were "illegal" to represent "guilty" clients, it would be impossible to make a good faith argument that the law was unjust in the first place. (See also FRCP Rule 11, Legal confidentiality for other important clarifications). dr.ef.tymac 22:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, yes, over-simplification or possibly misleading construction - I've been trying to think of a better way to put it. The significant phrase is know to be guilty; obviously, if there is a valid defence in law for the client's actions, then there is a valid defence in law for their actions, and that can be argued.  The problem only arises when the client is asking his lawyers to present evidence which they have admitted is untrue.  I should probably also stress that I'm coming at this from a Commonwealth background rather than an American one. FiggyBee 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe a plea counts as testimony, or even any sort of assertion of fact. It's basically just saying "I'm going to insist that the people meet their burden of proof". Even if a lawyer knows 100% for certain that his client factually committed the act alleged, he can still plead "not guilty". What he can't do is assert that his client did not factually commit the act; he would try rather to show that the prosecution had not met its burden.
 * Disclaimer: I'm not any sort of lawyer; this is mostly from my extensive experience watching TV legal dramas. --Trovatore 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, actually I see above that you've addressed this point to an extent. That looks right except for the part about not presenting a defense. As I understand it (again mostly from TV) you can still present a defense; it's just that your defense won't say "I didn't do it". Rather it will attempt to poke holes in the prosecution's case -- show that there are alternative explanations of evidence, impeach prosecution witnesses, that sort of thing. Is that really not allowed in the UK? That would seem very strange to me. --Trovatore 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly, they will still challenge the prosecution's evidence, and cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. They just can't (okay, let's say shouldn't, because I'm sure it happens) call their own witnesses and build a defensive case based on evidence which they know to be rubbish. FiggyBee 07:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be talking about cross-examination. I'm talking about a direct case. As I understand it, they're perfectly free to call their own witnesses to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. For example, if the prosecution used PCR evidence, the defense could call an expert witness -- during its direct case -- who would argue that PCR was unreliable. If the prosecution had eyewitnesses, the defense could call witnesses who would say the eyewitnesses were drunks or had a grudge against the defendant. As I say, I'm no lawyer, but I think this is all perfectly allowable even if the defense lawyer knows with all humanly available certainty that his client is factually guilty. What he can't do is call his client as a witness and have him claim to be factually innocent, or argue in his closing that his client is factually innocent. --Trovatore 07:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds about right. What I should just point out that in criminal cases there's a very high burden of proof on the prosecution, and the defence relying entirely on the flimsiness of the prosecution case is not at all uncommon; so if anyone's ever watching a criminal case and notices that the defence lawyers haven't introduced any significant evidence, don't take that as a sign that they know their guy did it! FiggyBee 07:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See also False confession. --S.dedalus 23:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the first half of these responses, but got bored, so forgive me if this has already been said. A lawyer (or anyone else for that matter) cannot lie in court. They can definately represent a guilty client - they could get them off on a technicality, for example. Aaadddaaammm 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was addressed starting at the part that says Clarification: above. dr.ef.tymac 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK so back to the original link, those lawyers were just convicted of whatever the judge could think of, just because the judge didn't like that they were representing communists? So the only reason they were convicted of contempt of court is because the judge's witness is all that's required to convict someone of that, so the judge just slapped it on all of them and warned lawyers not to help people accused of being comminists? As in, it's not a fault in the law, just a fault in the judge --⁪frotht 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds messy doesn't it, it's worth noting that in many jurisdictions, the duty to zealously represent a client applies even if the attorney might personally suffer negative consequences for doing so, it's part of the fiduciary duty. That's why we have Appellate review. dr.ef.tymac 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

south park's portrayal of canadians
why do they have their heads split in half? nationalistic symbolism? consistency? other reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.195.89 (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To distinguish Candians and normal people? Also, as an interesting addition, Saddam Hussein is also drawn in the same fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.147 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From Terrance and Phillip: Terrance and Phillip are geometrically-figured with small beady eyes and Pac Man-like heads which flap up and down whenever they speak. This may originally have signified they were a crudely-animated series within another crudely-animated series, but was quickly retconned into a distinguishing feature of Canadians (other notable examples of this include Kyle's adopted brother Ike and the episode It's Christmas in Canada). Lanfear&#39;s Bane 10:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Auto vs Manual
Which is the more common for cars, auto or manual transmission? I'd guess manual, but does anyone know for sure which is used more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends on your location. In the States, autos are much more common.  Europe has more manuals than the States but I don't know if there are more manuals than autos.  Dismas |(talk) 09:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely it has to be manual when all the non-advanced countries are taken into account.86.197.40.148 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)DT
 * Actually it's more likely to be the other way around if you take 'non-advanced' countries into account. You should have a peek at the manual transmission page. They tend to use older cars which would not be fitted with automatics and because a manual is cheaper and more efficient, including when it comes to fuel economy and requiring less maintenance. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not "advanced" versus "not-advanced" countries. It's driver qualification laws.  In the UK, there is a predominance of manual transmission cars - and the reason is a rather subtle one.  When you take your driving test in the UK, if you take it in an automatic, your license does not cover manual transmission cars.  Here in the USA, you can learn to drive in an automatic - pass your test and then immediately go out and drive a manual - this is INSANE - but it's the law.


 * So in the UK, if you learn in an automatic, you have to drive only automatics for the rest of your life (unless you re-take your test). If you take your test on a manual, you're OK to drive automatics though.  Because that's a rather nasty restriction, almost everyone learns to drive manual - take their test in a manual - so they have freedom to drive anything in the future.


 * This means that driving schools only very rarely have an automatic car in their fleet because few people want to learn in them (it's mostly disabled drivers who take the automatic-only test) - so it's almost impossible to learn on an automatic even if you wanted to. As a result, most nervous newly qualified drivers prefer to drive manual because that's what they are used to - so most cars sold to these people are manuals...then when they come to buy their next car, they've become so used to driving manual that they rarely want to swithc...and so on up the chain...to the point where VASTLY more people drive manual than automatic.


 * This demand also makes manuals much cheaper than automatics (in general) - so that pushes yet more people to drive manuals. I drove for nearly 25 years in the UK before moving to the USA - and the first time I ever drove an automatic was when I came here to Texas! SteveBaker 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that's a factor, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that. We have the same restrictions in Australia (Automatic Licence vs "Proper" Licence) yet we have a relatively high proportion of automatics.  I suspect another factor is the size of cars; cars in the UK and Europe are on average smaller than those in the US or Australia, and you really need the extra oomph a manual gives you in a smaller car. FiggyBee 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of paragraphing Steve's contribution.


 * From my point of view, the point Steve makes was a non-issue. Why would I want a license to drive manual-transmission cars when those are obsolete technology?  I was trained in an automatic, took my test in an automatic, was originally licensed to drive only an automatic, and even after for some bizarre reason that restriction was removed from my license, I've never driven anything else.


 * Of course the view that manual transmissions are obsolete is not universal, and that's part of why the original question was a good one. However, I have no idea of the answer to it.  --Anonymous, 16:38 UTC, October 1, 2007.


 * Many driving enthusiasts are anti-automatic, considering it to be 'lazy'. Personally I just prefer manual because I feel like I have more control. I can be driving in 4th gear, low-revs/unresponsive and that's fine - but I can then drop it into 2nd/3rd, picking the revs up quickly and perhaps getting me that switch of pace I need to get by something/feel a bit of power from the car. Entirely preference, but certainly every single driver I know in the UK owns a manual car (though automatics are strangely popular in the big-luxury vehicle market). ny156uk 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) It doesn't sound like you know what obsolete means. Manuals are still widely used on new cars.  As for why, well, wouldn't it be nice to know you could drive someone else's car if you needed to?  Why purposely make yourself unable to drive certain cars?  Even if you have no intention of ever owning one, it may be useful to know how to drive one.  Friday (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've traveled around the world and I only noticed a predominance of automatic gears when I entered the US. I didn't pay extra attention to it or anything, but if automatics were predominant in a country I surely would have noticed, because where I come from (the Netherlands) there are virtually no automatic transmissions. Concerning the 'oomph', I noticed that in the US when I bought a car there (actually a truck, a Ford F100, but in the US that seems to count as a normal car). It had a staggering 7 liter (!) engine, yet it's acceleration was quite sluggish because it had an automatic transmission (retrofitted). This made me wonder why on earth someone would want to exchange a manual for an automatic transmission. The only good reason I heard was that with an automatic you can put your arm around your girlfriend while driving. :) Of course, that requires a bench like the F100 had, so the argument even only applies there. DirkvdM 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another possible factor in the higher number of auto transmissions in the USA is the fact that petrol (gasoline) is much cheaper there than elsewhere. The difference in efficiency won't make a huge difference economically speaking to your average USA driver. In the UK where petrol is around £1/$2 a litre the difference makes a manual much cheaper to run over time. Exxolon 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dirk, there are some very powerful vehicles with automatic transmission and engines far smaller than that, so I don't think it's the issue there. That truck was most likely geared for hauling and towing, as many trucks are.  Was it a diesel by any chance ?  Those are always geared that way, and have relatively low horsepower (but high torque), in any event.


 * I started on a manual, but said "screw this" as soon as I had to start at a traffic light, heading up a steep hill, with cars right on my bumper. This seemed to require one foot on the gas pedal, one on the brake pedal, and my third foot on the clutch pedal.  I now drive an automatic. StuRat 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a diesel (although it did 'diesel' (verb) often, but that had to do with bad 'distributor' adjustment). But is was owned by a park ranger and fitted with an extra heavy rear axel, so it may have been geared for torque, although I don't know what means, really. DirkvdM 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That means it has low gear ratios, meaning the wheels don't turn much per engine cycle. This makes it slow, but great for hauling and towing. StuRat 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the same low gearing that's good for towing is good for acceleration. You're sacrificing speed for increased torque.  Friday (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe for low-end acceleration, but for highway passing the low gearing certainly doesn't help. StuRat 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is called a Hill start (which we don't have an article on!) The correct way to do one is to use the handbrake (parking brake) once you've stopped. Once you're ready to move away you apply revs to the engine and bring the clutch up to it's bite point so the car is just trying to move, then release the handbrake and raise the clutch all the way and apply more throttle. It takes practice to get the timing and pedal positions correct! Exxolon 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would use both feet (gas pedal and clutch pedal) and both hands (steering wheel and parking brake). But Americans must leave at least one finger available, for communication with other drivers. :-) StuRat 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A hill-start, as described by StuRat, is part of the driving test in the UK. You start on a hill by using the handbrake, not the footbrake. DuncanHill 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never known anyone who does it that way, except perhaps temporarily while learning. Once you're competent with a manual, I don't see why you'd want to use the hand brake.  Or maybe this maneuver is more common in the UK for some reason? Friday (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How else could you do it? If the gradient is only slight and you're fast you can release the footbrake and engage the clutch/throttle fast enough to avoid rolling back. On any kind of steep hill you'll want to use the handbrake! Exxolon 20:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they just don't have steep enough hills any place I've driven, but I've always just taken my foot off the brake and then immediately let the clutch out enough to start moving forward. I'm sorta surprised to hear the handbrake trick described as a common technique- I've only heard it suggested for people who are still learning.  Friday (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hill start = you are parked on a hill, and have to start. You have to have the hand-brake on in order to be parked. DuncanHill 20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do they actually care what order you release which brakes in? If it were me, I'd release the handbrake as soon as I had the normal brake on and was ready to go.  Friday (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you would fail the test. And probably screw up the gears, and possibly roll into cars behind you. Why on earth you you move from parking with the handbrake to sitting still with the footbrake? That's not ready to go, that's ready to stop! And it reduces your ability to control the car. The clutch alone is only good for a little power; it's not going to keep you paused on the hills where I learnt. 79.65.119.193 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not real sure what ya mean. What I do is standard practice, as far as I know.  Yes, you don't want to hold your car in place by slipping the clutch- that's what brakes are for and you wear your clutch needlessly to use it that way.  Friday (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a number of techniques that instructors teach to learners, knowing they'll probably ignore them once they've got their licence. These include: stopping at red lights; obeying the speed limit; and indicating when leaving a kerb, changing lanes, or turning.  --  JackofOz 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh Jeez...let's spell out what you're supposed to do with a manual transmission car at a stop-light in slow, careful steps.
 * When you stop - press on the clutch and the footbrake to stop the car.
 * Pull on the hand brake.
 * Put the shifter into neutral.
 * Gently release the clutch. Don't take your foot off of the foot brake.
 * When you see the lights are about to change: (Be observant! Watch other cars!)
 * Push in the clutch. Put the car into 1st gear.
 * Pull up on the handbrake a little to release the ratchet and push in (and hold) the button on the end.
 * Release the foot brake and move your right foot over to the gas pedal.
 * Apply a little gas to make sure the car won't stall.
 * In one smooth move (takes practice) release the clutch, press the gas and push down the parking brake.
 * (Beginners - and people on ridiculously steep hills - can gradually release the clutch until they feel it 'bite' and the nose of the car pitches slightly forward before releasing the handbrake - but this is one of the reasons why driving school cars all have knackered clutches).
 * My sister is a UK driving instructor...I'm very sure that this is what you do to pass your test in UK.
 * It sounds complicated - but it quickly becomes second nature - you don't even have to think about it. There are three common errors that people make:
 * Many people don't bother putting the car into neutral - they leave their foot on the clutch. This will wear out your clutch thrust washer...don't do that.
 * Some people take their foot off the foot brake - those are the ones that die when someone rear-ends them and pushes them out into cross-traffic - the hand brake isn't always enough because in most cars it only brakes the rear wheels and those are often lifted from the road when you are rear-ended - resulting in you having nothing holding the car!
 * Some people don't bother with the parking brake at all - balancing the car on the clutch...these people get to replace their clutches much more often than the rest of us.
 * SteveBaker 22:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I've never sat with my foot on the brake whilst the hand-brake is on, never realised it wouldn't serve the purpose as well as the foot brake. I used to be guilty of the first point, but then found (to my annoyance) that replacing the thrust (bearings?) is not fun, nor particularly easy! ny156uk 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah - in most cars (not all), it uses a separate system to the foot brake so that it can act as an emergency backup - and because hydraulics are not good for holding the brakes on for a long period because master cylinder pistons leak a little. The hand brake is typically a cable system and often only operates on the back wheels for simplicity and cheapness.  When you get rear-ended, your back wheels can easily come off the ground - and for that critical moment you have no hand-brake! SteveBaker 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, now you're suggesting people do this every time they stop? Bizarre.  What's the advantage of using the parking brake versus not?   Am I crazy or is this totally not a common practice in the US?  I'm sure I was never taught to do this by my driving instructor.   We were taught parking brakes were for parking, not stopping (except in an emergency of course).   Friday (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Every time. The advantage of the parking brake is that if you look through the sequence I've described, there is never a time when the car does not have brakes on.  If you do it with the foot brake alone, there are times when you have no brakes - so you could roll backwards or (much worse) forwards. SteveBaker 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Our traffic light article links the use of the handbrake at red lights to the four-phase lights sequence. It says "In many of these jurisdictions, such as the UK, it is customary for drivers to select neutral and/or use the handbrake at red lights; the additional phase  gives the driver time to select first gear or release the handbrake before the light turns green". In the UK, I was taught to apply the handbrake if you are going to be stationary in a traffic queue for more than a few moments, and to absolutely always apply the handbrake if you are at the front of the queue at a red traffic light. Gandalf61 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah - in the UK we have a red+amber phase on traffic signals between red and green which tell you to get ready to go. In the US, there is no such thing.  However, you can see cars coming from the sides stop - and that's a clue to let you know to get ready to go.  But in any case, the high prevelance of people running red lights in the USA means that you'd be unwise to hit the gas right as the light goes green if there are cars coming from the left and right still. SteveBaker 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You aren't crazy Friday. I drove a manual (in the US) and never used the handbrake while driving, and until now have never heard of anyone using it in such a way.  In the US the handbrake is often called the parking brake or emergency brake because thats the only time we use it, In many cars (automatics) it is acutally foot activated. When doing a hill start I would just try to be quicker when going from brake to gas, sure I'd slip back some but only a tiny bit. You'd have to be in an extremely tight spot for this tiny rollback to matter IMO. As SteveBaker explains it, the advantage to using the handbrake is that you can eliminate the rollback because you don't release the brake until you've already got your foot on the gas. -- Diletante 00:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I used to own a (US) Ford Ranger pickup that had a left-foot-operated parking brake - and it was a manual gearbox! Thank god we live in Dallas which is F-L-A-T - so no hill starts required.  I was very happy to be rid of that crappy truck.  (It was also the only vehicle I've ever driven that would go fast enough to drive the needle off the end of the speedometer!)  Some US cars force you to apply the parking brake using your foot - and to release it with a handle you pull on...even worse!


 * In an automatic, it's less necessary to use the parking brake at the lights or for hill starts because you have an automatic clutch. The problem with "going quickly from brake to gas" is if the car stalls or you screw up and miss the pedal or something.  This is also much more of a problem on a manual where poor clutch control will stall the car - and on a steep hill, that's possible even for an experienced driver.  Then you'll roll back a lot further while you 'unfluster' yourself and hit the brake.  What's worse in lots of cars is that when the engine stalls, you no longer have power-assisted brakes - so you have to push down REALLY hard.  If you're used to driving new cars - you'll be in deep trouble the first time you drive a 'clunker' that vapor-locks and stalls one time in three when you stamp on the gas.


 * It's dangerous...don't do it...if you have a hand brake, use it. SteveBaker 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've probably never been to San Francisco. DirkvdM 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I learned to drive in Brighton in the UK - not quite as bad as SF - but definitely a good place to learn the importance of good hill-start technique! I drove for a couple of weeks through downtown SF - it's an amazing place to drive - one of the greatest cities in the world IMHO. SteveBaker 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Going somewhat more off-topic, LA traffic scared the shit out of me. You mentioned people in the US running red lights. I'll raise you people passing on the right, which gave me a scare several times (good thing I come from Amsterdam and have a habit of not assuming others to abide by traffic laws - but passing on the right on a highway was new to me). On top of that, turn-offs (or what are those called?) are not always on the right side, as they are on European highways. They can be anywhere. Driving on the 'fast lane' you may find yourself being on a turn-off lane. At which time you want to quickly move to the lane to your right, in which case it is very wise to first check if someone isn't passing you there. Nerve-wrecking. I decided to choose for survival and left the next day (and got lost in Beverly Hills I believe). DirkvdM 08:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Search for a special glue
I am looking for a special glue to bonding polyurethane to steel. could anyone help me?Chavosh 11:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't recommend an individual brand but you could start at Category:Adhesives here . Lanfear&#39;s Bane 11:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this stainless steel ? If not, I'd expect it either to have a thin layer of oil or rust, either of which will be a challenge for any adhesive. Another concern is the coefficients of thermal expansion of the steel and polyurethane.  Unless they are close, I'd expect problems during temperature changes.  A type of adhesive that stays tacky might work, in this case, since it would allow the two materials to slowly move relative to one another.  This won't be acceptable for many applications, however. StuRat 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know there are flexible glues used to bond gaskets to cylinder heads which might work?hotclaws 09:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (excellent site! Thanks JeffJon!) says LePage's Metal Epoxy, J-B Weld or Faststeel Epoxy Putty if you have gaps to fill. It also recommends cleaning and roughing up the surfaces as much as possible. SteveBaker 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about Pulau Sekudu
I have read from wikipedia that the area of pulau sekudo is 3.5 square kilometers, hence, I have a few questions to ask... Does pulau sekudu have any forests or vegeation growing?? and is pulao sukudu suitable and big enough for having an adventure learning campsite?? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.131.183 (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just having a look on Google Earth, Sekudu looks to be a rather desolate little sand and rock outcrop. It might be interesting for a short boat trip but for a camp I'd say Pulau Ubin looks like a much better idea. FiggyBee 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, this depends entirely on what kind of adventure you have in mind. On a tiny island like that there can't be much to do, unless you focus on the sea. If there are sharks, the adventure might be even more than you wished for. :) DirkvdM 18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Solvent
I am looking for a product that I can buy online to clean the dust, grease and rust off small peices of metal, the machinery I wish to clean is the Floyd Rose locking system on my guitar. I also wish to purchase a grease of some sort to protect it once i put it all back together. Are any of you able to help me? thanks guys. 81.144.161.223 12:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WD-40 should cover all this. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 12:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can actually buy guitar cleaning fluid - I bet it's overpriced and no different from some domestic cleaning fluid or other. But I agree - WD-40 is your best bet.  It's an oil that'll dissolve grease, float off dust and displace water - it'll also lubricate the parts and leave them with a fine coating of oil that'll go a long way to preventing more rust formation in the future.  It also comes in a spray can so the oil can get into the small gaps and crevices in machinery like this.  It's unlikely to actually remove rust but it'll make it look a whole lot better.  Rust removal is tricky - a trick that us car restorers sometimes use with irreplaceable parts is to soak them in something like 'CLR' (A commercial Calcium/Lime-scale remover for bathrooms) - but that's pretty agressive stuff and you might want to try a small, unimportant part like a screw first!  Do that AFTER a first WD-40 treatment and be sure to wash them carefully afterwards, dry completely, then treat with WD-40 a second time.  You'll want to wear rubber gloves - CLR is nasty stuff.  But rust isn't just something coating the metal - it's actually eaten away at the metal.  So even if you remove the rust, you still have eaten-away metal that will never look 100% like new.  I guess most guitar parts are chrome-plated, so if the rust (which is iron oxide) has formed, it probably broke through the chrome and removing the rust will still leave blemishes in the chrome. SteveBaker 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You also get a wee straw type object that you can attach to the can of WD-40 to improve accuracy when spraying in small gaps / areas. A gentle scrub with some wire wool might remove the rusting if it is not too heavy and will smooth the area. The WD-40 will then help prevent further rusting. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 15:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder what's in that CLR stuff you mention: from your description, it sounds a lot like it might be a solution of phosphoric acid, which is commonly used for rust removal. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any of the stuff at home right now so I can't check. But that got me thinking.  There was a piece on Mythbusters a while back testing myths about Coca Cola - one of which was that it could remove rust from chrome car parts (they found that it could).  Since phosphoric acid is one of the principle ingredients of most soda drinks, that suddenly makes a whole lot of sense!  So perhaps we should suggest that the OP soaks his guitar parts in coca cola. SteveBaker 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed rust from parts by soaking them overnight in what we call paraffin and you might call kerosene depending where you live. I'm assured by experts that this does not work as the hydrocarbon in question is a non-polar solvent and rust is an ionic compound. Be that as it may, the rust and the solvent don't seem to be aware of a problem. (From the article, it seems that kerosene in Sri Lanka also behaves this way.) SaundersW 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WD40 is 'parafin' in a can - really.87.102.43.162 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No - really not. Check out WD-40. SteveBaker 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

micro nano pico
What is the source of this system: Deci(10-1), centi (10-2), milli(10-3), micro (10-6), nano (10-9), pico (10-12), femto (10-15), atto (10-18), zepto (10-21), yocto (10-24) ? In what language/s is it? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.174.130 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The language is typically either greek or latin depending on the unit (e.g. nano is from the Greek, centi from the Latin. See International System of Units for a table with all the prefixes and links to their articles, which will tell you the origins. - Eron Talk 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting - I had assumed each SI prefix was derived from either Greek or Latin, but I now know I was wrong. Without giving too much away, exceptions include femto- and atto-, and there seems to be some dispute over pico-, on which our article disagrees with Wiktionary. Gandalf61 13:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Chambers Dictionary has pico- deriving from the Spanish, as does Wiktionary. DuncanHill 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster also say Spanish. Our article said Italian, so I have fixed it. Gandalf61 12:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Music from flash animation
Does anyone know what the music in this animation is? http://pown.alluc.org/?uid=277, thanks alot88.110.203.63 17:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears as if it were sampled out from a movie or something, but i'll be damned if i have any idea which movie it was. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the remix of Lux Aeterna from Requiem for a Dream used in the The Two Towers trailer. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats it, thanks alot, (sorry i am the OP and i forgot to log on when posting first time) RobertsZ 16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Asking for receipts in Ireland and being regarded as having 2 heads?
Just got back home to Scotland after visiting Ireland (the Republic) for 2 weeks. Was impressed by the standard of housing and car ownership, but couldn't understand the appalling standard of non-urban road surfaces (abysmal). Prices to me (a UK resident) were truly scary, especially food in supermarkets, alcohol, and restaurants, but understand that taxes are very high in Ireland compared to UK. But what really puzzled me was the apparent acceptance by the Irish shops, restaurants, petrol stations etc., that receipts were never given, unless firmly requested, and then were offered in hand-written form only, and many businesses refused my plastic credit and debit cards, dealing exclusively in cash, again, with no offer of a receipt for goods purchased. I can't believe that the Irish Government are unaware of this suspiciously double-book-keeping scam, but am curious here to discover whether I am being unfair in my assessment of Irish economicss at ground level. Interested in responses. Thanks. 81.145.241.146 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd guess that it's a result of the high tax rate, which inevitably leads to transactions "under the table". It might be so bad that companies which declare all their transactions can't compete and go out of business. StuRat 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine it is a result of high-tax, I thought they had one of the lowest tax economies around don't they? Taxation in the Republic of Ireland. Of course it could be a desire to exclude themselves from tax, and also keep themselves out of the system (or at least a portion of their sales). It looks like VAT is quite high going all the way to 21%, but not sure why they wouldn't give receipts - was it a particularly remote area? ny156uk 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If they give receipts, then there is proof of the transaction, so they had better report it and pay taxes on it or risk legal problems. StuRat 00:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Irish_pound. Guy I know finds it cheaper to book a flight to England and have a weekend out drinking with friends over there than in Dublin. Also why I no longer book my holidays out of the South, used to save a fortune on the exchange to the punt. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 11:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)