Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 September 9

= September 9 =

dollar general
I just bought a 3.5 oz tube of name-brand toothpaste at dollar general. Is dollar general ever cheaper than other stores for name-brand goods? When? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Variety store and Variety store. Samw 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

praying mantis
i was just wondering if a praying mantis will attack a human? and how can you get rid of one in a house that won't leave on its own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.86.7 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of a praying mantis attacking a human. As a kid I used to pick them up, grasping them from behind, without harm to myself or them.  If you're really worried about being attacked while picking one up, you could wear thick gloves - but if you do then be careful of how much pressure you apply.  It is easy to misgauge and apply too much pressure when you're wearing thick gloves.  Be sure to release it outside your home, as they eat all sorts of insects of the unwanted sort.  When I was growing up, if I found a praying mantis egg sac in the woods, I would break that twig off and tie it to a stake in the garden so that the young would hatch in the garden.  They are great for natural pest control.  152.16.188.107 03:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shame on me but I have taunted a praying mantis into "attacking" my finger. No, it did not rip my finger off or inject large amounts of venom. (no, I'm kidding they have no venom) It caused a very slight pricking sensation as it grabbed at my finger with its front claws. No pain, but with alarming speed that makes you jump a bit. They are harmless to humans and can, as the previous advisor says, be picked up from behind. But be aware that they are surprisingly soft and easy to damage. An easier way might be to throw a light piece of material over it and then use this to carry it outside. Beautiful little creatures. Richard Avery 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming from the UK where most insects are small and boring, I've been amazed at some of the crazy ones there are here in Texas. I mean, I knew they existed from TV documentaries and such - but seeing them for real is really something else.  Stick insects and Praying mantises, things that look just like the leaves of the plants they live on...just incredible stuff.  But the Praying mantis is definitely the most cool.  That explosion of speed they have when on the attack - after sitting utterly motionless for days at a time beforehand is quite impressive.  Fireflies, Terantulas and Scorpions are also extremely strange animals by the standards of British insects.  I wonder what drives the evolution of these weird creatures here - but not in northern Europe?  I don't think I can recall a single kind of insect that I've seen in UK that I have not seen here (although there must be some). SteveBaker 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you see that question about the household centipede on /S a few days ago? Now that is a fast insect.. also more terrifying than velociraptors IMHO. --⁪frotht 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've noticed a lot of comments about these "terrifying" centipedes - mainly from Americans. Is there some sort of cultural phenomenon which cause Americans to be disproportionately scared of small harmless things? DuncanHill 11:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would hazard a guess: In the UK, the most lethal insect is probably the bee (if you are allergic to them), maybe the wasp (same reason).  But if you aren't allergic to them, there is nothing serious going on.  The only snake you have to worry about is the (almost extinct) Adder and that is shy by nature and can only seriously harm small children.  Here in the USA, we have spiders and scorpions that can easily kill humans, super-agressive "africanized" bees that can swarm and kill - and lots more insects that sting and bite, some much more painfully than bees.  Chiggers...yeah - not lethal but possibly the most itchy bites you'll ever come across.  Mosquito's in UK are a mere nuisance - here they can carry West Nile disease.  Ticks that you can pick up walking in the woods carry Limes disease...very nasty.  In Texas alone there are half a dozen species of lethally venomous snakes.  The UK has extremely 'safe' wildlife - you really don't have to worry about anything like that.  In the US, there are dozens of creatures that can cause you no end of problems.  I presume that this engenders more caution than a Brit might need to show. SteveBaker 13:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That would make sense. DuncanHill 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about tihngs like lyme disease or west nile, but the sheer quantity of painful crawlies in america has certainly engendered a widespread fear and hatred for all insects. I can't help it- butterflies are pretty flapping around a field, but they're disgusting up close and I'm not going to stick around if it starts trying to land on me. I guess also it depends on whether you grew up in an urban or rural environment.. I know people from rural environments that are astonished at my lack of fear of dogs, but there just aren't any dangerous dogs at all where I grew up and live. --⁪frotht 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that American dangerous bugs seems to pale in comparison to Australian bugs. They got some creepy scary bugs down under. --72.83.173.248 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Going OT here, sorry. As a texan I think you are over exagerating the lethality of our venomous animals. Bites from Brown recluses and black widow spiders are very rare and almost never lethal even though these spiders are exteremely common, the same goes for scorpions. Copperheads are extermely common, especially this very wet year, but their bite is not fatal, one of our dogs has been bitten twice and survived. Out of 4 venomous snake species, probably the only lethal one is the coral snake but I have read that bites are rare because their mouths are to small to get a good bite. You hit the nail on the head that Chiggars will easily cause you the most grief, If you avoid the tall grass on account of chiggars you will also avoid the snakes. I can speculate that the diversity of insects in the americas versus europe might have something to do with north-south axis versus the east-west axis as explained in Guns, Germs, and Steel. in Eurasia species could easily spread east and west due to the similar climate, where in the americas and africa there was more differentiation due to geography, just my guess. -- Diletante 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

meeting strangers on MySpace
Is it safe to meet strangers on MySpace? I'm meeting new people on MySpace everyday and I got a message from a user that I inviting to be my friend and she asked about me. Jet (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. You should always meet strangers. And get into their cars, especially if they offer you candy. Adam Bishop 05:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally, it's safe, as long as you don't give them any personal information and don't arrange to meet up. If you do arrange to meet up, I'd bring along friends, meet in a VERY public place, remain in public places, and have a specified time you'll check in with a friend or relative afterwards so if you don't check in, you've been abducted or injured. Kuronue | Talk 05:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After edit conflict :
 * They're only strangers if you don't know them. So once you've met them, they won't be strangers anymore. Then again, in line with Adam's remark, a conversation I once heard in a film. little girl: "I'm not allowed to talk to strangers." Big guy: "Oh, in that case, my name is Harry. There you go, now we're not strangers anymore." :) But seriously, one should always keep the possibility of bad intentions of other people in the back of one's head, but not let that get in the way of dealing with them. Most people are good. Just use some common sense. Contacts over the Internet aren't dangerous (well, physically, anyway) and if, for example, you agree to meet someone, you might make sure it's in a safe (public) place the first time at least. If your first assumption about other people starts to be that they're bad, then you'll become anthropophobic. I noticed this in the US - people were afraid of each other. Not good. Take the possibility of badness into consideration, but assume goodness. DirkvdM 06:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember a similar line from Forrest Gump.. the schoolbus driver tells him to get in or something, same situation. Are you sure that's not what you're thinking of? --⁪frotht 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Netherlands
Is the Netherlands called "The Netherlands" or "Netherlands"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The state is called "the Netherlands". In some written contexts, the "The" is capitalised.  However, it's possible to use "Netherlands", without the definite article, as a synonym for "Dutch".  --  JackofOz 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you write Netherlands, you need to write "the". If you write Holland, you do not. --69.150.163.1 --69.150.163.1 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC) User:Kushal_one


 * From Netherlands - The word Netherlands is sometimes used as an adjective in place of Dutch (e.g. the Royal Netherlands Army). --  JackofOz 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or the Netherlands Antilles (I should know, I was born there :) ). Of course, there is still an article in front of it, but that belongs to 'Antilles' (or 'Army' in your example). I suppose the article is needed because it is plural. In the Netherlands, we nowadays call the country 'Nederland', singular, without an article. The English word is a remnant from the time when it wasn't a single country in the modern sense yet, the 'low lands' (the originally meaning), which coincided roughly with present day Netherlands and Belgium (hey, notice I didn't use an article there - is that correct?). Not to be confused with the nether regions, which in a geographical sense might be taken to mean Australia. Note that Holland is something different, but is often used as a pars pro toto, such as 'England' for the UK (the opposite is totum pro parte, such as 'America' for the US). DirkvdM 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Food
i need info about Romania and the types of foods grown and eaten by this country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.115.13 (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Romania and Romanian cuisine.--Shantavira|feed me 12:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

National Football League Replica Jerseys
I was wondering how a replica jersey should be cleaned. Can it be machine washed or drycleaned.--logger 07:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't a tag with washing instructions inside the jersey? Either on the collar or along one of the side seams?  Dismas |(talk) 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's brightly coloured, wash it separately (perhaps by hand) for the first few washes.--Shantavira|feed me 12:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Netherlands
What are the most popular jobs in the Netherlands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Economy of the Netherlands might be a good place to start. FiggyBee 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose you mean relative to other countries, not in absolute terms. Trade has always been a very important part of the Dutch economy, and along with that comes banking. But this is based largely on the watery nature and location of the country, which gave it an ideal trade position, at least with ships. So shipbuilding is another important one. The Dutch are often world leaders concerning just about anything that has to do with water, such as salvaging, dredging and water management (the famous Dutch dykes and windmills). Also, the Netherlands is one of the most socialist countries in the world, so I imagine there will be a higher than average percentage of civil servants. DirkvdM 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Choirs
Saw Last Night of the Proms... why do choirs seem always to need song sheets (music) when other singers learn the words and music?86.200.0.185 09:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Patsy
 * This is not entirely true. Many choirs perform without song sheets. Did the choir you saw have a conductor? 81.93.102.185 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And the reverse is also true. In a performance of, say, any of Mahler's symphonies with solo voices and choir, or just solo voices, or just a single solo voice (eg. the 4th), the soloists usually sing from sheet music as well as the choir.  Also true for Mozart's Requiem, or Elgar's The Dream of Gerontius and so on.  --  JackofOz 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi - Yes the choir had a conductor. To be clear, what I want to know is why professional musicians/singers, etc., do not learn their parts. I understand the difficulty for amateurs, of course.86.200.0.185 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Patsy


 * I guess the sheer variety of songs that choirs will sing is much larger than most singers (who tend to only sing songs written by them/their band). As a result they may not always no every single word. If you are in a band you will have a set of maybe 35/40 songs that you sing - with the ocassional 'cover' thrown in. As a choir member you may be called upon to sing any number of 100s and 100s of different pieces. You may be lead solo in the song this week but then the same piece you might be backing a week later. Well that's what i'd guess as the reason. ny156uk 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Where's the 2,000,000th article?
Where's the 2,000,000th article? I cant find a link to it or anything. -OOPSIE- 12:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to be the article El Hormiguero --MoRsE 12:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's linked from the main page. Dismas |(talk) 12:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see any link -OOPSIE- 12:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, the link was taken down due to a possible counting error. Maybe we have the Florida elections committee doing the tabulating. :-) Dismas |(talk) 12:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should keep quiet about that. It would be such a pity to disrupt the party going on over at Talk:El Hormiguero.--Shantavira|feed me 13:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who certified the article? I know we were running around like chickens with our heads cut off trying to find 1.5mil, while 1 million came when the counter was still enabled. Anywhere we can find a discussion of who first noticed this? --YbborTalk 13:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a horribly messy business. There is always some debate about which article gets the honor.  The problem being that an insane number of junk articles are created here all the time - and as we get close to magical numbers like 2,000,000, that number skyrockets because everyone wants to be the person who created that article.  Junk articles are generally speedily deleted - but often require more careful deliberation and are more slowly deleted.  Deletions may be appealed and articles are sometimes reinstated.  But close to that magic number, the number of deleted articles becomes vastly more than the number of articles that stay the course and make it into the encyclopedia long-term.  So the number of articles crosses over the 2,000,000 mark - then drops back down again - then up again, then back down again.  It can take quite some time for it to actually stay up over 2,000,000 for any amount of time.  So - when do you declare a winner?  It's a tough call.  I think everyone agrees that we don't want to repeatedly bestow the title to articles that disappear soon afterwards.  Worse still, any article that does make it to being tentatively crowned as "The One True 2 Millionth Article" immediately comes under the microscope - and the deletionist flock towards it hoping to find a reason to remove it.  I guarantee that there are arguments going on about El Hormiguero already - wondering whether the TV show meets the criteria of notability.  All in all, it's a bit of a crap-shoot and many articles that were the 2 millionth at the instant they were created will be deleted - many others that were at 2,000,001 when the article just before them was deleted will be considered - but since one of the articles before THAT will inevitably be deleted too, then they'll be back at 1,999,999.  Even after we finally decide on one to award the crown to - something earlier on will be deleted.  I would bet that if you sorted all the articles in order of age and looked back even as far as the 1,000,000th one on that list - it wouldn't be the same article from one day to the next. SteveBaker 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

building with mansion at the top
this was in the nytimes some months ago. There was an art-deco mansion, including ballroom, at the top of a skyscraper in New York, and it was sold for 30-40million or something. what building is this in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea but this site (http://www.thecityreview.com/) is very informed about NY. You may be able to find out there. ny156uk 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As it's art deco it's either Chrysler_Building or Empire State Building which shouldhelp and if not try List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City (there's some more 1930's buildings there) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.77.35 (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a possibility; maybe not art deco, but built in the 1920s: There were articles in the New York Times on 14 January 2007 and 10 June 2007 about the penthouse at the top of 1020 Fifth Avenue, owned by the family of Samuel H. Kress since 1925, being listed for sale at $50million. The earlier article mentions that the apartment was called a House in the Sky when it was built, and that its 20ft x 40ft sunken salon was sometimes used as a ballroom. - brian the librarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.140.4 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably you're thinking of Fifteen Central Park West. According to an article by Paul Goldberger in The New Yorker (2007-08-27), a penthouse in that building was bought by Daniel Loeb for $45-million. --Mathew5000 06:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Links:      --Mathew5000 06:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Baseball rules
In what year did major league baseball "rule" that the home team always bats last (if necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.131.36 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The rule stretches back into baseball antiquity. Also, "if necessary" isn't really apt in the context of the question.  The home team always bats after the visitors in every inning; it's not a special case of ensuring that they bat last in the game. &mdash; Lomn 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the earliest years of baseball, because there were many variations of the rules. But on the professional level, when rules were standardized, the chronology went like this:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * 1871-1876
 * Coin toss for choice of batting first or last
 * 1877
 * Home team batted first
 * 1878-1886
 * Coin toss for choice of batting first or last
 * 1887-1949
 * Home team had choice
 * 1950-present
 * Home team bats last
 * }
 * Even though it wasn't a rule until 1950, the last time a home team opted to bat first was on July 16, 1908 when the Chicago Cubs batted first against the New York Giants in a game at Chicago's West Side Park. Also, before 1879, the home team still had to bat in the bottom of the ninth even if it was ahead. (Thanks to research from Baseball Almanac, Baseball Library, Baseball Reference and Retrosheet.) — Michael J  04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job, but one thing... in the very first Major League game in 1871, the home team did not bat in the bottom half of the ninth. -- Mwalcoff 07:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read that article again. In the second paragraph, it says "In 1871, the home team would often bat in the bottom of the 9th inning, even if they were ahead. Ft. Wayne did choose to do so on this day, while leading 2-0." And it in the play-by-play it has both teams batting in the ninth. — Michael J  02:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right. I guess what I meant to say is they had a choice of whether to bat or not. -- Mwalcoff 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * }
 * Even though it wasn't a rule until 1950, the last time a home team opted to bat first was on July 16, 1908 when the Chicago Cubs batted first against the New York Giants in a game at Chicago's West Side Park. Also, before 1879, the home team still had to bat in the bottom of the ninth even if it was ahead. (Thanks to research from Baseball Almanac, Baseball Library, Baseball Reference and Retrosheet.) — Michael J  04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job, but one thing... in the very first Major League game in 1871, the home team did not bat in the bottom half of the ninth. -- Mwalcoff 07:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read that article again. In the second paragraph, it says "In 1871, the home team would often bat in the bottom of the 9th inning, even if they were ahead. Ft. Wayne did choose to do so on this day, while leading 2-0." And it in the play-by-play it has both teams batting in the ninth. — Michael J  02:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right. I guess what I meant to say is they had a choice of whether to bat or not. -- Mwalcoff 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

what is meant by "native son"
what is meant by "native son" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.26 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally it is a poetic way of saying that a man was born in the certain country or place, with which they are associated, so for example Paul Simon is a native son of New York (and if he isn't, I apologise!)SaundersW 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also a novel by Richard Wright - see Native Son Kuronue | Talk 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

*Bleep*
Is there a standard frequency for bleepers? I'm tempted to make one myself for comical reasons. --antilivedT 19:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in lieu of some other kind of bleeper, many studios just inserted the 1000hz test tone that is found in nearly every professional studio. You can download one at the SMPTE color bars article. --Mdwyer 03:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Violating monarchy
I read somewhere a while ago about a queen (monarch, not homosexual, nor queen bee) that was raped while in power. Maybe it was a princess, I forget...anyway, are there any monarchs that have been raped while in power? --Montchav 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mary Queen of Scots was captured by Bothwell who raped then married her, to become her third husband.SaundersW 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Boudicca's daughters were raped by the Romans. Clarityfiend 07:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Edward II of England is said to have been killed by having a red hot metal tube inserted in his anus, but the story has its doubters. Corvus cornix 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Frozen ipod
My ipod nano has frozen and it won't reset or do anything. Got any tips on what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheaver (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Try... http://macs.about.com/od/ipod/a/ipod_frozen.htm or visit the Apple website (www.apple.com !!) for more potential fixes. ny156uk 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish language motto for Volkswagen commercials
What is the Spanish language motto for Volkswagen commercials? --Ericthebrainiac 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Speed limit enforced by aircraft
Travelling back to school after returning home for the weekend, I noticed some signs along the road in Virginia (US) saying that the speed limit is enforced by aircraft. Allow me to point out my suspicions that this is total BS:
 * It would be totally uneconomical- plane fuel is just too expensive.
 * It would be extremely difficult to automatically identify individual vehicles from the air. I mean ridiculously difficult. And as it doesn't fall under the massive trillion-dollar defense budget, I doubt the state government could afford to develop such algorithms.
 * It would be nearly impossible to measure the speed of vehicles relative to the ground. The plane is moving (at who knows what speed relative to the ground), the car is moving in a different direction, there are all sorts of doppler (and relativistic if you drive as fast as I do :D) effects at work, and on the complications go. Any sort of reliable accuracy is totally out of the question. (ie it wouldn't stand up in traffic court)
 * It would be even more nearly impossible to get a good shot of a speeding vehicle's license plate number.

I suppose the crew could assist in a few problems (maybe manually taking a picture of license plate), but it would have to be largely automated- you can't just point a distance finder at a car and get its speed without complicated calculations just to see if that single car is speeding.

Is this just a scare tactic initiated decades ago to sort of inspire a fear of unseen law enforcement or something (like today they might use "speed limits enforced by satellite imagery" for a similar effect)? Or am I totally off the mark and they actually do enforce speed limits from planes x_x --⁪frotht 22:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In that photo the helicopter looks photoshopped in...Anyway you must be right there can't be any economic/logical policy for aircraft to enforce something that could just as easily (and much more effectively financially and otherwise) by motor vehicles. I would just assume this is a prank/hoax, even as a government attempted 'threat' it is insane. ny156uk 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No the copter is real, that picture is taken from my camera phone. (of course it's shopped! o_O) --⁪frotht 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How very sweet! Wrong as all heck, though. In California, the CHP uses a combination of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to help enforce speed limits (as well as for other purposes). They're perfectly capable of timing a car as it makes its way past a pair of roadside markers; if they see you taking 10 seconds to go between two markers a quarter mile apart, they don't need radar to calculate you've been going 90mph. Then they'll just call the patrol car: "a red VW is about to pass you; I clocked him at 90." Poof, there's your ticket. The patrol car that got me said, "The pilot told me to tell you, good grief, you're driving a convertible; look up every once in a while!" --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Flatly: "oh". (I assume by sweet you mean cutely naive to expect law enforcement to make sense, or some similar sentiment) But is there any particular reason they need to be burning $100 per hour flying a plane around when you can pay 2 cops $20 per hour each to just chill at each point and call out the color and make of cars as they go by? --⁪frotht 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You might spot the Smokie taking pictures, but you are unlikely to see the Bear in the Air.10-4? Edison 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One aircraft can spot speeders for dozens of patrol cars - and it's very much more effective because no amount of radar detectors will help you. $100 per hour might sound like a lot - but the fine for speeding is around $100 - so they only have to catch one or two extra speeders per hour to be cost-effective.  It's certainly true that they do this though. SteveBaker 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In Chester, England, aircraft traffic enforcement is performed in the "downtime" of the spotter plane - i.e. when travelling to and from incidents. And of course, you forget the cost of clearing up after the crash - that $100 helicopter flight may have prevented a crash which would not only cost lives, but cost the taxpayer on average £1.4 million ($2.8 million) to clear up, investigate and, if necessary, prosecute the driver. As for inability to identify individual vehicles from the air, the cameras on police craft can regularly read licence plates from the air; indeed, some police chase shows actually have to pixelise the plates of cars from helicopter camera feeds, which would otherwise be clear enough to read on television.  Laïka  11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In New Hampshire, we have something like a few dozen "speed zones" scattered around the state, mostly (all?) on the limited-access highways. Smart drivers can spot them; they have a clear inverted-"T"-like marking on the shoulder as you enter the zone, a white bar marking every quarter mile, and another "T"-like marking as you leave the zone. If the zone is in use, chase cars will be stationed somewhere beyond the end of the zone. If you can believe the news articles that appear from time to tume, it's usually no challenge at all for the aircraft to spot the blatant speeders nor to convey an unambiguous description to the officers on the ground.


 * I do get the impression that in the age of instant-on LIDAR, these zones are used less than they used to be as LIDAR is far less detectable than the lazy-cop's old RADAR unit.


 * Atlant 17:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting into the archive to add a note that wasn't mentioned while the thread was live: airborne police also have the advantage that they can see dozens of cars at a time and immediately pick out the fastest ones. --Anonymous, September 27, 2007, 22:28 UTC.