Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 July 10

= July 10 =

Gas prices
Why are Americans complaining about "high gas prices" when their gas is just 40% of the price of petrol in the UK? I just paid £1.22/litre (over $9/US gallon) compared to the $3.90/US gallon mentioned a few questions above. Astronaut (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most likely because they are not accustomed to the sudden rise in gas prices. $3.90/US gallon is high for them compared to what they enjoyed previously. Acceptable (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, much of the price difference is due to higher taxation in the UK. So for your £1.22, you're not just getting a litre of gasopetroline, you're getting the government services that those taxes pay for.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that most US cities are not set up in ways that conserve gas. How far in the UK do you have to go to get your groceries? How far to work? How far to schools? The US has had cheap gas for decades; most US cities are oriented around the idea that you drive everywhere and you'll drive relatively far. One of the main problems with the US's dependence on cheap gas is that everything falls apart in the economy if the price goes up much, because we've set up our infrastructure around the idea of cheap gas. Our biggest housing booms are in distant suburbs, some 5-10 miles away from everything else. Couple that with large, inefficient vehicles, almost no reasonable public transportation in most cities, and high gas means something for people in the US that it probably doesn't mean in the UK or Europe in general. My mom used to commute 35 miles each way to work, in her own car. That's not sustainable unless the gas is cheap. In the US equation, gas was always the cheap aspect, things like location the high aspect. So we spread out. Too far. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was reading an article in the New York Times a few weeks back that compared the gas mileage and weekly usage of the Ford Focus (The Uk's best selling car) and the Ford F-150 (America's best selling car). Amazingly, despite the disparity in the price of gas at the pump between the two countries, the average Briton driving a Focus will pay less per week on gas, than the average American driving a F-150. So even though US gas still seems relatively cheap to a Brit, when you compare the gas-guzzling vehicles and the large distances needed to be driven, it becomes a different story. Of course one could ask quite why millions of Americans bought a F-150 monster truck simply to sit in a traffic jam every morning.... Rockpock  e  t  01:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP above said "Keep in mind that most US cities are not set up in ways that conserve gas." This is true.  When we lived in Atlanta, we were 25 miles (40 km) from my wife's work (one way).  Now we are 11 miles from her work (17+ km).  The nearest grocery store is 5 miles (8 km) away.  (In fact, all shopping and doctors, etc, are at least 5 miles away.  The nearest drug store is probably 8 miles away.)  There are people we know that live 70 miles (113 km) away from their work, one way.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And Americans driving everywhere is completely true, as well. I live maybe a mile from my college campus and I drive there and back twice a day. Then I drive to work and back, which is about 8 miles each way. There's a bus stop within one block of my apartment and the bus would drop me off almost exactly where I needed to be for school or work. But I still drive. Useight (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)




 * Eleven of the states in the United States are individually larger in area than the entire United Kingdom . The relatively low population density means greater miles to travel to work or to shopping. The lower population density of the U.S., 80 per square mile compared to 637 per square mile in the U.K., means less mass transit available, necessitating automobiles. Edison (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)




 * I want to emphasize that it doesn't have to mean that. It only means that because we are used to cheap gas and have been used to it for decades, a few hiccups of energy crises notwithstanding. If travel costs were more expensive, it would put more economic incentive on having things not be out in the middle of nowhere. For example, the big chains that really make the money are the ones that go out where land is reeeeeally cheap, and build a giant warehouse, and then people from all around drive over there. That makes economic sense as long as gas is cheap. If gas is expensive, then that offsets the number of people who go out there, which then offsets the benefits to all that cheap land. I'm just saying: it's not inevitable that somewhere as large as the US has to be all about gasoline. Personally I think that if the gas prices continue to stay high over the long term, we'll end up with, in the end, a much more sustainable society that is not so contingent on the price of oil (and some cars with better MPG, at the very least). The Saudis think that too—and are afraid of the idea of a US not dependent on their oil. (I of course say this in the luxury of someone who currently lives in a pretty densely populated area with great public transportation and easy options for quickly and cheaply renting cars when they are needed, e.g. Zipcar).
 * You don't have to build a sprawling metropolis—for the last, I don't know, forty years, the US has been doing its development horizontally, rather than vertically. We build out, not up, or even over in many cases (how many totally dead strip malls and commerce centers are in your town? and how often do they just go out somewhere new to build something new? that's urban sprawl, plain and simple). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote from above he big chains that really make the money are the ones that go out where land is reeeeeally cheap - that is probably true. When WalMart opened here many years ago, they were pretty far out of town.  Probably out of the city limits too, where the taxes are cheaper.  I wondered why they put it on that road with nothing on it.  Now just about everything is in that area, and and it is 5-8 miles for me and most other people.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there is the Field of Dreams theory: "if you build it, they will come". If you build anything with sufficient attractive value, other busineses and housing will spring up around it, so even if it was initially out in the middle of nowhere, it won't remain so for long. StuRat (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A comment on public transportation in the US: it is often dangerous and filthy with limited routes, and therefore only used by those have no choice. This is because politicians, rather than viewing it as a benefit to all, view it as a "safety net", for those who can't afford to buy a car.  Then there is GM, which bought up public transportation throughout the US and then destroyed it, so people would need to buy their cars. StuRat (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Filthy? Sure. Limited routes? Oh yeah. Dangerous? Not so much, in my experience in a number of different regions. I mean, maybe in some really nasty parts of cities is it as dangerous as the city around it, but the metro is usually a pretty safe zone. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have to travel very late at night or very early in the morning it may be or at least seem fairly dangerous I guess depending on how far the bus stop/train station is from your house. Of course an interesting thing is that in most countries including I suspect the US, the actual journey is potentially safer since the bus/train is probably less likely to have an accident and you're less likely to die or be badly injured in any accident. Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * General Motors wasn't the one destroying public transportation -- that was Ford and Chrysler. GM made buses, so they bought up public transportation systems and converted them to use buses. --Carnildo (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was just a ruse. GM ripped out the old, efficient, non-polluting public transportation systems, like the electric trolley in Detroit, and replaced them with diesel buses belching black smoke, with more limited routes and fewer stops, in order to "convince" people that public transportation wasn't for them and they all needed to go out and buy GM cars, which were far more profitable for them than buses. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * an interesting discussion on npr the other morning; gasoline is one of the few things you purchase which you sit and watch the money get essentially extracted from you right before your eyes, penny by penny. thus, people tend to obsess more over the cost than is proportional, then go in and buy a bottle of water or cup of coffee which is not only more expensive per unit volume,but ridiculously so, without thinking about it; will drive halfway across town to save $1 on a tankful of gasoline; etc. Gzuckier (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * True. I've often thought other things should work that way, too, like your phone having a price readout that grows per minute spent talking.  As far as I know, however, none of them do that, although some do have minutes-used displays (because if the price was shown like that consumers would cut back). StuRat (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gas is also the only product whose price is displayed in foot-high numerals on every major intersection. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Banking in Turkey
Good Morning

can you give me the address of all HSBC bank branches in Turkey? can you advice which is the currency most used in turkey? which bank is most avaialble in Tureky??

thanks for oyur help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.139.47.41 (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good morning, We can't give you a list of all Turkish HSBC branches, but you can look here for your nearest branch. Turkey uses the New Turkish Lira (YTL). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture
I remember seeing a picture of someone with their head in a toilet and the caption "don't stop your curiosity," underneath. But where can I find this picture on the internet? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here. - EronTalk 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What did people with Asperger's Syndrome do before the Internet?
I have noticed a number of people on various groups who have mentioned that they likely have Asperger's Syndrome, and my hunch is there are at least twice that number who frequent the boards I'm on.

Now, obviously, there are varying levels of it - especially since it's a spectrum condition. Some people may have very specific interests but can manage - maybe even with little trouble - to maintain a normal daily lifestyle.

The ones I'm asking about are those who do have more trouble, and prefer the online world with no external body language and such to take into account. When engrossed in their interests, what did they do? Were libraries frequented a lot more?Did they simply make more effort to interact, and just get worn out from it easier?

I have never been the kind to say 'get a life" to someone; in fact, i felt very pained to see it on the Star Trek baords in the early '90s. But, it saddens me more now to know there were bullies out there saying that, when in fact some of the ones so totally engrossed in it may well have been so because of Asperger's Syndrome, though certainly not all. It's just that now, Aspies can really spend hours engrossed in any interest. But, what did they do before that?209.244.30.221 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Crosswords, jigsaw puzzles, stamp collecting, trainspotting... Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Crosswords, check
 * Jigsaw puzzles, check
 * Stamp collection, check
 * Internet forums, check... uh oh...  Plasticup  T / C  16:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But then again, far fewer people had Asperger's Syndrome before the internet. Recury (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Take self-reported claims of this sort with a grain of salt. Surely some of them do have Aspergers but, for a variety of reasons, people find it attractive to claim they have this disorder.--droptone (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-diagnosis is a big problem in this case. The criteria, when applied outside of a clinical setting, are quite vague. Have a look at the DSM criteria in Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and take criterion 2: "Stereotyped behaviour". From a non-psychiatric point-of-view, it would seem that doing something alot would qualify, but in psychiatric terms the word Stereotype means very unusual repetitive behaviours such as constantly standing up and sitting down. This is why these syndromes are best diagnosed by professionals and not internet forums. Fribbler (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Narrow shoes
My wife has very narrow feet(4A). It difficult to find this size shoe. We have tried searching the internet with little success. Ant suggestions?129.112.109.251 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, what search terms have you tried? Simply searching for Narrow Shoes for Women brings up lots of promising looking links.       Just to link a few...  Dismas |(talk) 16:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My personal recommendation would be Zappos.com (one of Dismas' links); they're real fast, real responsive, and real good about returns. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another way to go is just to get some padding, or wear thick socks. Obviously, this will work better with some types of shoes, like sneakers, than others, like formals. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet another option to consider is custom-made shoes. You might try http://www.otabo.com/ . They have a location in Arlington, TX. This is not an endorsement as I've never used them. --D. Monack | talk 16:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref. an earlier question on Genetics and Obesity.

 * The responses to that earlier question were extremely erudite and informative, and I have no challenge to anything said therein. But it occurred to me to question whether there existed any non-toxic, digestible compound, whether food or drink, that could possibly add more than its own weight to the recipient's weight, once digested. Conversely, might there be a non-toxic, non-corrosive substance that could safely accelerate the body's ability to process food and drink, beyond the substance itself, thus causing desired weight loss? 92.21.72.20 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know a substance that is non-toxic, non-corrosive and accelerates the rate of digestion. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 22:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Ward Character Assassination
A series of recent attacks has been posted on various sites by a cult adhering to Gnostic Cathar beliefs. Some time ago Dr. Ward aired an expose on television about such cults and also wrote an online article about them. These attacks are their response. They are attempting to link various online bloggers as one blogger whom they accuse as being Dr. Ward. They have attempted to link Dr. Ward with a certain "Manuel" which does not even believe the same doctrine as Dr. Ward. Manuel has been banned from several blogging sites, however, according to his overseers as well as he himself, Dr. Ward has never been banned from ANY web site or blog whatsoever. Manuel allegedly has some personal and professional problems while Dr. Wards reputation is impeccable. The cult attacking him advocates homosexuality, reincarnation, and various other new age beliefs. They are hiding behind generic, untracable names such as the recent BlazzinPaddles. I am Dr. Chuck Wilson, which has been quoted in the Oneness Pentecostal article, and have written much on Pentecostal history. I have personally met with Dr. Ward on occasions and am well acquainted with his overseers. The Wiki editor who recently took on the name of BlazzinSaddles put a write up in his talk page about Dr. Ward. He published his full name, address, IP address, and several personal details about him. This page falsley connected him with these various other bloggers. False accusations have been made against Dr. Ward. His character was intensly marred. The author of these false accusations has written these false accusations on other web sites and ANYTHING at all referring to Dr. Ward is deleted. Dr. Ward is somewhat of a subculture hero in certain Pentecostal ranks and this is sure to ignite an outrage. What do you suggest? Is Wikipedia legally accountable?Chuwils (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find the links right now, but several courts have ruled that the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for the content of wikipedia.org and implied that the responsibility lies with the editor. Thus the harsh wording of WP:BIO.  Plasticup  T / C  19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like some kind of a personal and/or religious argument between two people, this Manuel (whom I don't know, have never heard of and, frankly, don't much care about) and Dr. Ward (ditto). You certainly don't sound like an impartial observer here. It is my experience that on the internet, things like this often involve a lot of posturing and talk of legal trouble for either party or both of them, as well as other people for good measure, and more often than not, nothing comes of it. Generally speaking, though (and not related to this particular instance on any level other than the most generic), this is how society works: if someone commits an actual crime, such as defamation, it's a matter for the police. A person can call them up and report it, and they'll investigate it. Since you specifically mention Wikipedia, I would expect it to cooperate with any actual official investigation into a crime, just like any other organization. Anything beyond that is, frankly, just talk until someone actually makes a move. I could go into this in more detail than that, but that would constitute actual legal advice, which we aren't supposed to give here. Talk to a lawyer. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLP, a Wikipedia policy which requires that any controversial statements about living persons which are not reliable sourced must be removed, and may be removed by any editor without falling under the WP:3RR penalties for edit warring. There is a BLP noticeboard where a complaint may be made. I cannot find any user named BlazzinPaddles, so a link is helpful (copy and paste the URL at the top of the page where the problem is, after clicking on the "history" tab). Apparently you meant User:Blazinpaddles. That user has blanked his page, but the problem edits are still there in the edit history Ordinary admins cannot remove this. You could use the OTRS system to request that "oversight" remove all trace of it. You should complain at the Administrator's noticeboard when problems require the assistance of administrators, not here.Edison (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please read WP:BLP (BLP stands for 'biographies of living persons') to see that biographies are taken seriously, and that there is a mechanism to deal with incorrect, defamatory, or other harmful content.

Please go to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to report what you have said. Also mention the breach of privacy there. In other words follow the advice of Edison above.87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thumb work Method in Management
This does not explain what exactly Thumb method was, please explain in simple and understood terms. thank you. Sir,

F.W. Taylor's scientific management replaced the rule of thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.

So my question is What is Thumb Work method adapted in pre-scientific management principles by Taylor ?.

Awaiting your reply

Mathew Philip ETA STAR Group Dubai.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.209.117.23 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Email redacted. See Rule of thumb. It means that work was arranged without the sort of quantifiable measurements which were a feature of Taylor's method, and instead based on the best suppositions that the management could come up with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) A rule of thumb is an idiomatic phrase to refer to a general principle which can be broadly applied, but is not a specific rule or application for specific issues. Without knowing anything about the company, we cannot speculate on  what general rules they might have used.  It is quite possible that they were unwritten rules. (We removed your email address since we do not respond by email, and its presence here on this page might attract spam.)  Gwinva (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Frederick Winslow Taylor article should be helpful. Rmhermen (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It just means that Taylor's approach was to make management systematic, whereas before it was unsystematic, or ad hoc. It's the difference between me saying, "Oh, let's just do it how it feels like it should be done" and saying "Let's measure everything very carefully and find the most optimal, perfect way of doing it, based on our observations." The latter would be more like what Taylor was doing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dogfight
I wonder why a battle between airplanes is called a dogfight? It doesn't seem to do anything with dogs. Whenever I hear the word, I usually think of those money matches where owners pit their dogs to fight in the arena. 210.4.122.42 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's where the word comes from. The word was transferred to any scrap or disturbance, and then to the small air combats, which (in a way) resemble dog fights.  (The OED confirms this etymology.)  Gwinva (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * edit conflict: :Considering that another name is furball I think that animals savagely fighting is the image intended. Rmhermen (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (unreliable memory referencing a book I read long ago "Iron Men with Wooden Wings", an history book written to entertain rather than teach and thus perhaps a bit light on research)
 * I have read that dogFIGHT is not the original term. Early airplanes were first armed with unreliable guns with little ammo.  Pilots soon learned that they had too much going on to navigate, fly, aim the gun, and shoot, so they eliminated one job by fixing the gun facing forward.  Just point your plane at the enemy, and shoot.  However, he is also moving, so he won't stay in front of you unless you are directly behind him and facing him.  Thus, the best chance of a kill is to get directly behind him and as close as you can before firing.
 * If you have ever seen a male dog (always interested in mating) trying to get into position behind a female dog trying to avoid being mated, you can imagine what the first combat pilots called what they were doing before the newspapers cleaned it up for the public. "Uh, let's just call it dogfighting, okay?" -66.55.10.178 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Persian porn
Is there a porn site where Persian ladies liberate themselves sexually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.33 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rule 34 suggests yes. anonymous6494 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is considered to be a rule of the internet (rule 34, to be precise) that there is porn of everything, no exceptions.  Plasticup  T / C  02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Google is your best bet for finding it (if you turn off safe search). It might cost, but that would depend on your own budget. I am on a work account, so I will not do the search myself. Steewi (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)