Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 January 4

= January 4 =

Soccer
Which teams have won the Scottish Premier League for each year for the last twenty years 1988-2007?

thanks Sue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.173.219 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See our article on Scottish football champions which lists all of these. Foxhill (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Celtic and Rangers have monopolised the title in the last 20 years, Celtic in 1988, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007, and Rangers in all the other years. -- Arwel (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Old Wives' Tale?
When I was young I remember my mother telling me to dress warmly or else I will get a cold. Most likely, what type of cold is she referring to? is this possible? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * She was most likely referring to either the Common Cold or Influenza (flu). You may be interested to read Common cold and Flu season, cold weather does have an effect on transmission but it seems no-one is entirely sure why. Foxhill (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Click here to read a lengthy and interesting discussion about precisely this question on the Science reference desk a few weeks ago.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution workout
How many calories does playing Dance Dance Revolution burn per 20 minutes? --Candy-Panda (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on your weight. More weight means more effort to move your body. For a ballpark figure, I'd use this page and use the "Aerobics, Low Impact" as a guideline. EvilCouch (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd also have to take into account what difficulty you're playing at - playing a 1 foot beginner song will burn practically nothing, while a 10 foot heavy song is a real workout (then you've got to factor in whether you're playing Single/Double, whether you're holding onto the bar and just moving your legs or standing upright and moving your whole body weight, whether you're throwing some freestyling in ...) For Single 4-7 foot with no bar, I'd go with about the "Aerobics, Low Impact" from the table EvilCouch gave, and for a Double 10 foot probably a bit more than "Aerobics, General". Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

US Customs didn't search me
I went through US Customs in Miami and left puzzled. They thoroughly search everyone who steps off a flight from Haiti. All the contents of my bag were looked through: camera turned on, books flipped through, stuff sent through a machine, etc. But they never asked for me to empty my pockets, and I had a passport neck pouch hanging outside of my shirt that was never opened. WHY? I could have smuggled drugs through my pockets. Why were they so thorough about my bags but not me?

I could have smuggled a significant amount of drugs through use of my pockets and pouch.

Lotsofissues 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incomplete searches are usually just to speed up the lengthy screening process. Did they search other people's persons? If they were randomly deciding whether to search someone's person, their belongings or both, they would effectively deter people from attempting to smuggle things in by making it impossible to predict whether or not they would be caught. If, on the other hand, they were only searching bags, and do this on a daily basis, they're probably just poorly training and/or managed. EvilCouch (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * if you are not brown, there's no need to frown.  -- 'n1yaN  t  11:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In 2000 I was flying back from Rome through Amsterdam and had to go through the Dutch customs folk, I was wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt (I was like 15 at the time) and as I walked up to the counter to have my carry-on bag searched the agent just smiled at my t-shirt, said "Che Guevara, good man", and let me through. Funny thing was, I had a pair of nunchaku that I had bought in Rome in my bag. Moral of the story: customs/board control agents are human like the rest of us, they get tired, and stop caring.--droptone (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was in South Africa and brought several knives with me in my bag, when I got to heathrow, I walked straight through, and went up to the police dude at something to declare and told him I have several large knives in my bag and a samarai sword, all he asked is :do you live here I said yes and he say well then I dont care this was 2005 well after 9 11. South Africa did not seem to mind either. I told them and the lady at customs just looked at me and then said ...next... I could have hijacked the plane. if i was so inclined, but I am not that sort of person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd imagine you aren't. The most likely reason for not searching everyone is that terrorists know that some people are searched and are afraid of being caught, but those who bring that kind of thing with clearly aren't afraid of being caught because they have a valid explaination, so you don't need to search everyon.-- Phoenix -  wiki  15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If the CBP thoroughly searched everyone who entered the country every day, the backups at the borders would be enormous. Border delays are already causing problems at the Canadian border, and they usually just ask drivers a few questions and let them through. It simply isn't feasible to search everyone as if they were entering Folson Prison. They have to do a sampling, paying special attention to those who fit the profile of a smuggler or terrorist (such as a 25-year-old man traveling alone from the Middle East). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

BUT THEY SPENT A LONG TIME SEARCHING ME. All that effort was ineffective because my pockets were left unchecked. WHY? That is the question. Lotsofissues 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)
 * But it wasn't ineffective. Prior to them searching you, you had no way of knowing that they would only check your bag, and not your pockets or your pouch.  Had you been intending to smuggle something through, you could not have relied on placing it in these locations, as you would have suspected that they would have been checked. Warofdreams talk 06:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They also go off your reaction to a partial search.You didn't give off hinky vibes.hotclaws 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim
My English granddaughter plans to marry a Muslim. I dislike the idea and will find it difficult to talk to her. How can I cope with this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnluckie (talk • contribs) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you met your granddaughter's fiancé ? How much do you know about him ? Do you have any specific concerns about the proposed marriage, apart from the fact that he is a Muslim ? How would you feel if she were engaged to, say, a Seventh Day Adventist, for example ? If you have not already met him, I suggest you tell your granddaughter that you would like to meet her fiancé, and then talk to him with an open mind. If you then still have specific concerns about the marriage (and I don't think just saying "he's a Muslim" counts here), then you might start to think about how to share these concerns tactfully with your granddaughter or with her parents. But remember that at the end of the day you have to respect her right to make her own decisions. Think back to when you were her age - would you have welcomed advice on your love life from a grandparent, however well intentioned they were ? As to how you can cope with your feelings, I think that depends to a large extent on how important your relationship with your granddaughter is to you. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is he really extreme? Like will he force her to wrap up her head to go outside? -- f f r o  t   h  09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You should be more open to other peoples cultures, how do you think his parents felt when they found out he was going to marry a bloody christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, just be more open towards them, they're no different from us apart from their religion, and it's stupid not to talk to someone because of their religion.-- Phoenix -  wiki  14:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know she’s Christen 12-191? She could just as easily be an atheist. The OP didn’t specify. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Judging people based on one variable (their religion, for example) is not a very smart thing. Try meeting the fellow. Maybe you'll like him. Or maybe you'll find better reasons to dislike him, who knows. Replace "Muslim" with any other variable (Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Black, Conservative, Liberal, whatever) and you'll see how silly it is to judge on one variable alone. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, one way you could “cope” with this would be to learn more about Islam and read the Quran. Frankly it’s a book all educated people should have read (and I’m a non believer). Because it’s not the easiest reading I suggest you start by reading Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say foremost try to convince yourself to talk to her and to him. After all, she will be the same person after the wedding as she was before it, and if it's that important to you then you should try. Where there's a will, there's a way. Oh, and the Qur'an is very difficult to read, I am slowly beginning right now. Difficult, but quite rewarding. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

be glad,he's probably been brought up with a good work ethic and is family orinentated.Be greatful he's not an extremist cultist Christian with a cellar full of assault rifles,hotclaws 07:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't have a push button on his braces then it's quite probable that he's an alright guy. Don't forget that some of the greatest names in western history were muslims. -- Web H amster  13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A way eliminate poverty?
This ties in to previous discussions about "Will the poor always be with us?" a few weeks ago. This is a thought experiment and should not be taken too seriously. What would happen if the poorest fraction of society disappeared -- let us say the bottom 10%? I am not talking about these people getting richer, but simply vanishing in a flash in year X, by alien abduction, if you like. What would the effects be on society and the economy? Their housing would stand empty as the Marie Celeste -- who would occupy it, and how would that poor housing affect them? Their jobs, for those that have them, would go undone -- who would undertake them, and how would these poor jobs affect them? If we revisited this imaginary place a generation later, would the (X+25 years) society have identical problems of social exclusion and relative poverty to its former self? In other words, does society need the poor, and seek to create them in some way? I feel I need to add the caveat that I am neither a eugenicist nor a troll, but simply seeking information on a thought experiment. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you allowed the bottom 10% of the water in a swimming pool to drain away normally ie., through the drains, you would very quickly notice that the upper 90% would fall into the vacated space, and so rapidly and seamlessly that only those who were closely watching would notice the difference. Same with society. And like fish in a pool, the 90% of people remaining would expand and grow to fill the space and resources available. Result - no difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.131 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well firstly there would just be a new poorest 10% seeing as the figure is a reflection of their wealth compared to the rest of society. Secondly the rapid loss of millions of people no matter where in social-standings would be devestating for the economy because it would cause huge problems in the balance. Once things had settled it would be difficult to say what would happen. The lowest 10% of earners in society are quite strongly correlated with the lowest educaiton level of people in society, and rising education levels are a key factor in the increasing wealth of nations and its inhabitants. The society doesn't "need" the poor, it "needs" specific services that are associated with the poor to be carried out, but that doesn't mean that they must be poor to be carried out. 100 years ago they needed 1000s of people to do things machines can do with 10s of operators. Low-skill jobs slowly can become automated, or removed, or if they do not then the lack of demand to do them in a society of highly-educated people will mean that they may command a rising-salary because of under-supply. The poorest 10% will always be with us because obviously they are just a slice of an ever-changing pie. Relative-poverty has its merits, but the most important factor to me is raising the level of the very poorest to a good level, and not concerning ourselves with ensuring everybody lives within a small-gap of each other (more important is everyone can progress up the ladder of wealth/social placement if they have the drive to do that). ny156uk (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, an interesting response. But let me clarify -- I didn't say the poorest workers but the poorest 10% of people. Let us leave minors out of this.  Let us even leave those over the official retirement age out as well.  Let us discount those permanently in institutions (e.g. severely mentally or physically disabled).  A large chunk, possibly all, of that 10% will be people unemployed, probably long-term, or euphemistically hidden from official unemployment statistics by being deemed unfit to work (depression, bad back, etc.).  Does that change how you think about the answer? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just come across this term: Discouraged worker. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because I don't believe that with unemployment of around 5% (working population) that any significant amount of that unemployed group would be in the poorest 10% of society. There are the so called 'institutionally' unemployed and the long-term unemployed but at the level that unemployment hovers around in the most developed nations that amount is hugely important to flexibilty of labour markets. I think that while yes I didn't factor in the unemployed into the poorest 10% that would disappear, I still think the above would be the most logical outcome. Obviously it depends on what is the poorest 10% - does owning a home but earning very little pull you up? Does earning a lot but not owning a home pull you down? If we go purely on earnings then it would remove (in general) people from low-skill/low-danger work but those in low-skill/high-danger might be ok. If we go purely on assets then just-graduated up-and-coming job in a firm but not paid much may be at risk, particularly with their debts from college, but never-been-to-college stable service-industry worker might be ok. Often poverty is based on household income/disposable income, but I think regardless of which 10% of society you choose the affect would still be just as noticeable. The marketplace would struggle (at first) to react and then only after a long period of time would the answer change depending on which 10% of society it was that was 'removed'. ny156uk (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in A Farewell to Alms. Haven't read it myself, but from what I hear it concerns a theory that the poorer social groups in England prior to the industrial revolution had fewer surviving children than necessary for replacement, giving a slower version of your thought experiment. Essentially, this led to widespread downward social mobility and, in the author's opinion, created the conditions that enabled the industrial revolution. The conclusions they draw are, of course, controversial, but you may be interested. Skittle (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the book reference, Skittle. I have been reading Round about a pound a week, a classic of 100 years ago, a report from the not-quite-slums of London by the Fabian Society.  The people they studied were not the poorest, but it set me thinking. I like the analysis, ny156uk; you are right, I didn't think about assets.  I guess I was assuming the poorest 10% have no assets to speak of, but maybe with those crazy mortgages they do now.  You refer to "earnings" and "college"  -- my understanding is that most of the poorest 10% would be ill-educated, and most of them would have a large chunk of their (small) income from non-earning sources, usually state benefits (or charity e.g. food handouts).  If all those people, who don't contribute much to the formal economy, disappeared, would society need to find others to fill their places?  Do they contribute positively in ways which are not well measured, such that we would only find out once they were gone (but we can use our imaginations now)?  BrainyBabe (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I read Round about a pound a week about a year ago! Fantastic isn't it? I thought it was amazing how most of the recommendations have actually now been implemented, but some of them took decades. Also, how some of the problems and arguments surrounding them haven't changed. How far we have come and how far we have to go. Skittle (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I read bits years ago, and am reading different bits now. One thing that struck me on this reading is that the researchers decided that they couldn't help the poorest, and went a layer or two above them in the social strata - but still these were households in which children routinely died (one in ten at birth, and another one in five before adulthood). Even in the "superior streets", even with work and income as secure as it got for Lambeth, even with the extra food the researchers brought.  The modern review here makes the point that the problems have not gone away, and the book could be usefully studied by social workers today.  I have added a redlink to the book title to signal that it deserves an article: would you help if I started it? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still not defining "poorest". If you want to say "people on welfare" then just say it. In 2005, only 7.9 million people collected unemployment for at least one week. (2.3% of all USA citizens, aprox 4.7% of the workforce.) The average welfare payout for that year was only 15.3 weeks. So, if I've got my numbers straight (and I might not) then on any given week only 1.4% of the workforce is collecting unemployment, which seems awfully low, actually, given that unemployment is over 4%, how do the other two and a half percent eat?  (Someone check my math. Stats from here :  )
 * "Poorest" can mean many different things, and depending on how you count it, the answer to your question changes drastically. It's not uncommon for a college student to have a negative net income. (They're Accumulating debt, but working little or not at all.) Are you counting them? What about landed individuals with no jobs? Stay-at-home wives? Prisoners?  Who is poorer, a person on welfare that lives within his meager means, or a person working two jobs under crushing debt who can barely feed his many children?  "Poor people" is the sort of emotional phrase you use if you're making a political speech and you'd rather not explain exactly who the heck you're talking about.
 * In any case, I think any way you slice it, 10% would include a large number of people who are fully employed. Probably in horrible jobs. A significant number of the remainder would have part-time jobs or under-the-table jobs. So I think it's pretty clear that suddenly removing 10% of the working-age population would result in some things not getting done. (McDonalds and other minimum wage employers would suddenly  see a dramatic drop in their work-force. This could especially cause problems for them during the school year when high-school students aren't available for part-time help.) It would also cause a 10% (or more!) drop in demand for certain goods and services, which would not be good for people providing those goods and services.
 * If you've absolutely got your heart set on sending 10% of the population to the Moon, consider taking the bottom 5% and the top 5%. That'd shake things up. APL (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All of that, while interesting, is rather US-centric. Which I suppose just means that, on top of defining 'poor', we need to define 'society'. Are we asking what the effect would be on any society in a general manner, which would be assuming the same effect in different societies, or are we asking what the effect would be on a particular society, or are we removing the poorest 10% of the world population? (Seems likely the original question was assuming most of the 'poorest' 10% were on Income Support) Skittle (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. You're absolutely right. I was assuming that BrainyBabe was talking about 10% of a particular society, presumably whatever nation she's from. If we're talking about the 10% poorest worldwide suddenly the answer would be very different. APL (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pushing me on this -- that's why I proposed this thought experiment, to make me think. The examples of different sorts of poverty have made me reconsider; perhaps there is no one way to make this question straightforward. Yes, I was thinking of the situation within a given country (any industrial or post-industrial economy with some sort of welfare provision would do).  I agree that the numbers given, of adults who could be working but who are instead obtaining government assistance, seem low.
 * But the question changes with a worldwide focus. Again, how could we define poverty?  A subsistence farmer with secure land tenure may live in reasonable comfort on less than many Westerners spend on lattes, but are they poorer than someone in a nasty slum who has irregular work that gives them five or ten times the cash? What would be the effects of them disappearing?  Of course we can now see the effects of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, although notably the tranche of people who have already died are, speaking broadly, not the most impoverished in their nations.  BrainyBabe (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An even more interesting question for me is, if something happened to the people at the top, what then? See the Black Plague in England when the lower classes had the chance to fill positions previously held by the wiped out scholarly and trades classes for example. Who took their place? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or we could have another jolly old world war. Great method of culling. 86.147.70.110 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Black Death killed about a third the population of Europe, and pushed up the value of labour. Lords couldn't treat their villeins so badly.  Land that had been under cultivation reverted to forest.  Peasants migrated to the towns.  It was a huge social dislocation.  Is there an accessible scholarly precis of its effects? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sori, can't give you that, but vaguely the info came from a documentary called The History of English oops, The Adventure of English (ITV, 2003). The context was the social changes that meant positions that had been exclusively for Latin-educated people became available to the greater number of survivors ie people who only knew English. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Profit sharing
Possibly vaguely related to the above question, are there any comapnies that practice profit sharing, that is to say, that each person working for the company gets an equal share of the profits, therefore if every one works really hard, the profits will go up and they will get paid more, and also if they are lazy, the gross profits of the company go down along with thier pay. In practice this probably does not work as CEO's want to get rich. So as well as the above, every one gets an equal share but the MD gets twice this. Is this possible? does this happen? if so where, which company and basically who, what, where, when, why and how. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of a workers' co-operative. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * also co-operative and mutual company will be of interest. In practice most CEOs want to make successful companies because that is what makes them rich, the best businesses align their wages/bonuses directly to their performances. Many prominent CEOs take a small salary and the rest in shares in the company, as that way their 'earnings' are answerable to the share-price. Steve Jobs famously takes a 1c (or is $1?) salary and the rest in shares-bonuses, thus linking his income to performance. Sure he earns millinos and millions but then if we're honest with ourselves the role of CEO is actually extremely difficult, stressful, has huge responsibility, is hugely important and is worth a lot of money. ny156uk (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The John Lewis Partnership, a UK retailer, is run as a co-operative. All employees (who are known as "partners") have a say in the running of the business and a proportion of annual profits is distributed in an annual bonus scheme, in which all partners receive the same percentage bonus (i.e. the same percentage of their basic salary). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

structural steel detailer
I would like to know where and how to get started in this field.I am located in rochester,N.Y. I have over 25yrs. exp. as a welder/fabricator,but do to physical limitations can no longer work in my trade.I would like to speak with someone in this line of work that might be able to help me set-up a work study internship.Any help would be greatly appreciated thanks Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.96.204 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do't think we can refer you to anybody, the reference desk can just tell you what's involved, which you already seem to know. I did this google search though, that might help.-- Phoenix -  wiki  14:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Usually a state or fed government might have employment agencies/schemes/assistance/retraining specifically for people in your position? Speaking to a community social worker could help. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Lakotah
Has the United States Department of the Interior issued a reaction to this republic's "assertion of independence"? -- Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing on Google News indicating a formal response from the Department of the Interior (DOI). Since the Department of State has said that they're not touching it (referring the media to the DOI: ), it suggests (unsurprisingly) that the U.S. government has no interest in recognizing the Lakotah as an independent state at this time.  I imagine that our article on the Republic of Lakotah will tend to stay up-to-date with new developments, if any. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that the officially recognized governmental agencies of the tribe don't recognize it, it's pretty much a non-issue.  Corvus cornix  talk  17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in a previous exposition of government views on tribal sovereignty. Very informative!  :)  --Sean 13:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. But this has nothing to do with tribal sovereignty, since the declaratoin was made by no recognized entity.  There already is a tribal government, and they aren't the ones making the declaration.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)