Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 1

= November 1 =

Freemason job boards
Do any Masonic lodges provide job boards exclusive to their members? Neon Merlin  01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They do, but the jobs are only availible for positions in the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, the rest of us never know exactly which jobs are in the Illuminati. —Tamfang (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Freemasonry is not about preferential treatment. There may be jobs within lodges that are only open to Masons (due to seeing otherwise-secret rituals or materials), but Masons don't advertise jobs for Masons only. It's possible that, depending on the specific Mason involved, they will have a preference for hiring other members; one saying attributed to a Mason is (roughly) "If I leave a fellow Mason alone in a room with my daughter and my wallet, I don't even have to ask myself if I trust him." This may lead some Masons towards preferring to hire fellow members, as there is a standard of character expected. [ roux  ] [ x ] 09:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but would his daughter have nicked some cash from his wallet? Would his fellow-mason have ignored or stopped his daughter? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno... she had shifty eyes. [ roux  ] [ x ] 10:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't the whole point that the Mason would be too busy with the daughter to steal the wallet? With someone else you never know, maybe he's gay or more interested in the money then the girl. (No offence intended if you are a Mason) Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rod below barrel on WWII guns
Example on the Kar 98K: [[Media:En-Kar98k rifle.jpeg]] On the Arisaka:

What is the function of it? I'm thinking it's something like a cleaning rod. I've also seen some pictures without the rod below the barrel, so I'm guessing it's not critical for the operation of the rifle. 67.169.56.73 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's a removable cleaning rod. Most of the cleaning components are stored in the stock, but the rod under the barrel is a legacy of the days when muskets had ramrods stored in that position (and, depending on the length of the rifle, the rod may not fit in the stock). FiggyBee (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Photoshop
On photoshop the cursor doesn't do the function I have chosen for it (brush tool), and it just looks like the hand tool. I have tried making it do every function, but it stays looking like the hand tool and not doing anything. Does anyone know what I have done and how to fix it? Thanks. 92.0.148.25 (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you tried 1. closing photoshop and opening it again, 2. selecting a different tool, 3. trying it with a different image file? The answers to whether those work or don't work can diagnose the problem. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Need advice
I'm a hispanic trapped in a anglo's body. What should I do about it?DahiJynnuByzzuf (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop thinking about it and just get on with life.--89.168.224.110 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What you describe is physically impossible, because the body you are born with contains all of your DNA.


 * On the mental level, it's possible that after some soul searching you realize you feel some affinity toward Hispanic people? If that's the case, it doesn't matter what body you are in; you can be green with blue stripes and help them, though they might look at you funny. You could volunteer in various inner cities, if you're American, to help Hispanics. Or, you could join the Peace Corps, which is not just for younger poeple; anyone can volunteer. There are also other organizations which would allow you go go to a Latin American country and help with some volunteer projects.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Being hispanic/latino isn't an ethnicity, it's a cultural identity. See Latino.  Latin American people are of (literally) all different ethnic backgrounds. Darkspots (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * you need to go to sweden and have a race change operation. Gzuckier (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

contact lens usage
I reach for my glasses before getting out of bed. Those of you who wear contacts, where do they fit in your morning routine? I can't readily imagine making them the first agendum. —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people I've known who wear lenses tend to also have a pair of glasses. Glasses go on when waking up, lenses put in after the morning shower. YMMV. [ roux  ] [ x ] 09:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My contacts go in at the very last minute before leaving the house. I like to wake up and enjoy that sleepy feeling, where everything still looks blurry. I shower, shave, get dressed, have a coffee, all before the lenses go in. Its only when the lenses go in that I feel truly awake (because that's when the blurry shapes become real objects). But when I have a hangover I won't even go near the contact lenses all day, I'd rather walk around in the blurry haze.124.182.99.22 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I put them in after showering but before shaving. Can't shave without them in as I wouldn't be able to see what I'm doing, unless it's the weekend when I very often don't wear them at all.  It's good to give your eyes a rest from wearing them one day a week.  As for the evening I normally take them out soon after getting home from work.  --Richardrj talkemail 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally wear my glasses until I shower for the morning, then put my contacts in as soon as I get out (when my fingers are the cleanest, before they get gunked up with toothpaste and after shave and all that). I have never known anyone who wears contacts, even those you supposedly can sleep in, not to have a "back-up" pair of glasses.  I used to sleep in mine, and take them out only on weekends, but my allergies got worse as I got older, and my eyes just started to need the rest... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually wake up, start the coffee, sit on couch, smoke a cig, get up grab coffee, sit back down, have my coffee, then go put contacts in. I actually dont own a pair if glasses. Nick910 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
Are there any golf holes in the world that have never been birdied (or better)? 124.180.143.48 (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe at the l-o-o-o-n-g courses described here? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Where to get legal advice (New Zealand)
As Wikipedia cannot give legal advice, where can I go for free legal advice in New Zealand? To be more specific, I have resigned from my job and my employer wants to stop me moving to another company in the same field (I work in product development/technical sales). I'm looking for some free legal advice on whether or not they can do this. I will find an employment law lawyer if needed, but I just to find out if this is a necessary expense before I do. Thanks. 202.74.214.212 (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Does New Zealand have a Bar Association? A licencing/professional body for lawyers? They would usually be the best people to call about such a matter. [ roux  ] [ x ] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to its website, the New Zealand Law Society was established by statute and regulates all lawyers practising in New Zealand. The same website has a "Find a lawyer" page, which contains some very basic information about finding a lawyer.


 * The New Zealand government has a Department of Labour, which may be a source of information or help. Its website has an employment law page, which contains information about statutes and case law. A web search turns up a recent case related to non-competition clauses in employment agreement (Lee v Air New Zealand Ltd (AA 347/07, 5 Nov 2007, A Dumbleton)), a summary of which can be found in the January/February 2008 edition of Employment Cases Summary. I don't know the what significance that case may or may not have. (I am not a lawyer).


 * Before you seek help, you may want to gather some relevant information, such as a copy of your employment agreement and the grounds on which your employer is trying to stop you from moving to another company.


 * Needless to say, the above is not legal advice. Good luck. --98.114.146.32 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In your line of work, it is quite common for such a restriction to be written in to any employment contract that you signed when you started work there. If there is no such written agreement it's difficult to see how he can stop you. There are numerous websites where you can get free informal legal advice (mostly US or UK based of course), but since anyone could be supplying that advice you will need to follow up any leads yourself.--Shantavira|feed me 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Shantavira is right. You should start by taking your contract and look for the so-called no competition clause. If the contract you signed had such a clause it's likely your employer is in his right to stop you. - Mgm|(talk) 21:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe such clauses are unenforceable in some jurisdictions, so if the clause it there it's still worth asking for advice. Of course, if it isn't there and your employer tries to enforce it anyway, you'll still need advice. Depending on what your employer is actually doing, hiring a lawyer may be unavoidable - there's only so far free legal advice can take you. --Tango (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks all, at least I have a starting point now. 203.211.106.103 (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on their British equivalent, what about New Zealand Citizen's Advice Bureaux? They should be able to offer free help on legal matters.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How does OPEC have any members?
If a lot of petroplayers (Russia) are independent, why would anyone want to restrict how much they can drill when others are not "playing fair?" Second question: What about the minor players who are members of OPEC? What interest does Ecuador have in being a member? It's not like they can do much to influence the market so why would they voluntarily earn a little less money?

Lotsofissues (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OPEC is like a union for oil-producing nations. You might as well ask, "if there are a lot of potential workers out there, why would any union go on strike?" Obviously OPEC has to balance carefully when it under-produces, as it does open up a market for additional players, or even worse could lead to long-term energy independence investment or investment in alternative energy sources that would undermine their long-term profit potential. Ecuador gets more international clout being a member of OPEC than they would otherwise, most likely, but I don't know the details. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One important fact to consider is that any oil producing nation has a limited amount of oil available to drill. By choosing to produce less now they aren't earning less money overall, they are just deferring when they earn that money (as long as they're careful, as the anon says). They know they can't produce oil forever, so they want to only sell what oil they have when the price is at its highest (roughly speaking, it's a little more complicated in practice). --Tango (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally by agreeing to only produce a certain amount of oil (even if some members do cheat a little) OPEC can (partly) control global oil prices. If all the members of OPEC just produced as much oil as possible, global oil prices would tend to drop.  The larger producers could still make a profit just off the economies of scale.  However the small producers couldn't make much of a profit, and if they cut production would simply lose that revenue stream without affecting global prices.  For large oil producers it makes sense because they can make a larger profit then if there were other large producers driving down the price.  It's a sort of Prisoner's dilemma where everyone gets a slightly lower profit by cooperating but everyone comes out ahead. Tobyc75 (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But I think the question is, wouldn't Ecuador benefit from OPEC's control of global oil prices even without being a member of OPEC? TresÁrboles (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably would, but that's the wrong question to ask. What you need to consider is how much Ecuador benefits from countries with similar production levels being members (since if Ecuador wasn't a member, why should other small producers be members?). According to our article on OPEC, members with quotas under a million barrels a day account for 7% of the total of OPEC quotas, which is small, but still enough to have some influence on prices. It's also worth noting that Ecuador isn't actually producing its full quota, so it's not losing anything by being a member. --Tango (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

funding agencies to give grant to a indian ngo to awarness programme on environment protection project
GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMET CHANGE, 50HRS ENVIRONMENTAL VIEDO ” THROUGH WHERE THE RIVERS FLOW"NEED YOUR HELP.

WE “FHEP’’ FEDERATION FOR HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION’ IS AN ACTIVE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION IN INDIA.WE ALREADY DONE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTARY” THROUGH WHERE THE RIVERS FLOW". WE COMPLET 10 HRS OF 50 HRS DOCUMENTARY ABOUT A RIVER’ NILA' AND THE PROJCET IS SCREENED MORE THAN 100 VIENWS INCLUD THE INTERNATIONAL VIDEO Festivals and schools as awarnes on environment protection. IT TAKES you THROUGH COMTEMPORARY ISSUES OF DAMING THE FLOWS, SAND MINING, AND SILTING UNMINDFUL OF THE ATROCITIES BY MAN, THE DOCUMENTARY TELL US QUIET FLOWS THE NILA, BUT WE HAVE NO MONEY TO FINISH THE PROJECT.WE ALREADY INVEST MORE THAN 50 LAKHS TO THE PROJECT.which agencies are give the grants to a indian ngo to awarness programme on environment protection project —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAJITHANCHAL (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't type in ALL CAPS - it's the internet equivalent of shouting. Exxolon (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The India NGO awards, The UPS Foundation and the Small Grants Programme (SGP) .W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

About Starbucks
1. what is the supply chain of Starbuck?Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

2. what is starbucks supply network design?Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

3.how is starbucks supply chain configured?Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

4.what are the capacity of starbucks operation?Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer to all of these questions is: Do your own homework. Dismas |(talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You could try reading Starbucks and take it from there. - Mgm|(talk) 21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No clue about the last three, but Starbuck gets her supplies from one source. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Traditional method of hot riveting ships with twin skin hulls.
Were workmen requiered to be left inside the ships hull after hot riveting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.181.202 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, although it has been rumoured about many ships and structures that someone was accidentally sealed inside. See SS Great Eastern for one treatment of the topic. FiggyBee (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Current situation
Are things really as bad as they seem, or will everything sort itself out eventually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.214.156 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know how bad they seem to you - so we can't address that. But financial crises have always sorted themselves out in the past - it's hard to see how this one is any different. SteveBaker (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gas prices are down, so it seems to me that it got better already. Useight (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly a good indicator. The main reasons gas prices got better is because:
 * Oil is sold in US currency and the dollar increased in value (normally, I'd say that's a good thing - but right now, this will just kill US exports and encourage imports - which is the last thing US businesses need). Given the horrible state of the US economy - it's rather remarkable that the dollar would recover so strongly - but sadly that's because the rest of the world fell into the same hole that the US is in - and that meant that as bad as the US is doing - everyone else is doing badly too.
 * The global economy shut down really abruptly - that means that business is using less fuel and the laws of supply and demand drives the price down.
 * So no - I strongly disagree that the low oil prices are a good sign - they are symptom of just how bad things actually are.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course  just don't expect things to go back to as they were before. Pre-crash there was far too much debt to sustain an unreasonable lifestyle. On past evidence that will happen again in about 6o years. In the immediate future belts will be pulled in, and luxuries will cease to be regarded as necessities.90.9.215.168 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)petitmichel


 * We didn't really get enough detail from the OP. You are assuming the financial crisis is meant. But he/she could've been talking about their bad hair day. (In which case, maybe this is the answer.)  TresÁrboles (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Or climate change. Or the obesity crisis.  Or the health system.  Or the education system.  Or corruption.  Or godlessness.  Or the decline in moral standards.  or .........  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that the economy has always recovered eventually in the past, therefore it will recover in the future is an inductive statement, and inductive reasoning is notoriously hard to justify. The problem of induction states that the only way to justify induction is with induction, thereby creating a circular argument and rendering the reasoning invalid. In other words we have NO rational justification for a belief that that things will EVER “get better.” --S.dedalus (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't say things will definitely recover, but the fact that they always have before makes it highly likely. There have been X recessions before and we've recovered from 100% of them. I'm not a statistician so I'm not sure what the numbers are, but we can conclude with a 95% certainty that the probability of recovery is larger than some pretty big number. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * um... based on pure logic, yes things are as bad as they seem, and yes they will get better eventually. Gzuckier (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)