Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 12

= October 12 =

Credit Crunch
It is said that the credit crunch is affecting a lot of people, but has anyone actually changed their lifestyle/spending habits. I haven't, and I want to know how many people are affected. Thanks. 92.5.37.195 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I talk to a lot of people, and I haven't found anyone affected in any way, except by the misery from seeing their 401K decrease proportionately to the drop in the U.S. stock market indices. Small businessmen in particular say it has not affected their supply of goods to sell or the credit terms they grant their customers. Edison (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's a very good question. In short we are all affected. And the fact that you are even asking this question illustrates that you are affected - as are we all. How? Who? How many? How much? Who knows? Who even cares anymore? Me? I feel lucky. I have a house with no mortgage. I have an inflation-proof pension. I have no debt. I live within my (very limited) means. I can live without a 46 inch television (in fact, I can live without television, period), and I know how to make a chicken feed my family of 8 for a week. Heating? Lighting? Fuel for the car? What car? That's for TV shows. And continental holidays? What a joke - to give up your own home comforts for crappy and basic alternatives? - for what good reason? Let's get real - people - we are in the grubber - and we will survive - maybe differently for sure - but yes - we will survive. Trust me. 92.9.41.68 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Live without a telivision, impossible! I'd rather die. LOL. Thanks for your answers, especially to Edison.92.5.37.195 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly affected me. The property market effects have drastically changed my behavior/lifestyle.  Faced with a need to relocate my family across Texas for job reasons, I decided it was better to buy a (super-cheap) foreclosed (and vandalised) nearly-new house to move into in the short term - and to rent out my old house rather than to try to sell it.  A little 'sweat equity' went into the new house - and now it's looking pretty good.  This strategy makes sense to me because this way I am "buying low" on the house we moved into - and I'm not "selling low" on my old house.  I'm taking a risk - I now own more property without evidence that property values will increase in the future...but I figure that if people are losing their homes because of junk mortgages - they still have to live somewhere - so they must be renting...hence property rental values ought to slowly climb.  The snag of course is that credit is hard to find - so getting a mortgage on a second house was tough...but we had plenty of equity in the first house and a big enough deposit on the second one - so we managed to sneak in under the wire before the worst of the crisis bit home and loans became unobtainable.  Anyway - the crisis DOES directly affect some of us. SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * An ex-girlfriend of mine works for a new restaurant in Connecticut. Being a new business, it has been relying on loans to cover short-term expenses until things get rolling, but with banks having to tighten their lending standards it can no longer get the loans that it needs. Her hours have been cut in half as the restaurant cannot afford to pay her without these loans. That is a direct effect of the credit crunch.  Plasticup  T / C  03:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a piece on NPR a few days ago about a doorman outside a fancy hotel (who mostly works for tips) who has been tracking the amount he collects in tips against the stock market indices - and concluding that his tip-income correlates very closely with the state of the stock market. If that carries through to restaurant tipping then Plasticup's ex- may be in more trouble still.  But that's a very direct, "first-order" effect.  In general, the effects of this crisis are going to filter through into 'real' people's lives rather gradually.  It takes time for the consequences of a fairly obscure banking weirdness to filter through to people working in some industries.


 * But if banks can't lend money to restaurants and they downsize this week - then the companies that produce the food that those restaurants sell will start to suffer over the next few weeks as new orders decrease. They will then order less produce and a few weeks after that, the farmers that provide raw produce to those companies will go down.  If this doesn't get fixed fairly soon - then before the next harvesting season, the companies that produce equipment for those farmers will suffer...but that won't happen for maybe another six months.  Then the workers at those companies will be unemployed and...and...and...and eventually, YOUR job will be on the line.  But if each of those dozen or more steps takes an average of month to filter through - then it may be a year or more between the failure of a restaurant in Connecticut causing a computer programmer in Texas to get into financial trouble.  Different people will be affected in different ways depending on how far they are along that chain.


 * However, it's not all bad. Gasoline prices just dropped through the $3 barrier here in Texas...I didn't think I'd ever see that happen - but oil is now selling at almost half what it was at it's peak.  This has a short-term benefit for people like trucking companies and airlines - but the benefit will be short-lived as their customers scale back on transportation needs.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And here I was glad that diesel had gone down by 15p from the peak!
 * In the UK at least, builders such as Taylor Wimpey have been cutting large numbers of jobs, and unemployment is rising generally. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold skies
Why is it, when it is rather cold, the skies seem to be sort of brighter than they would be if it were warmer? I've always wondered this. CL — 03:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The cold air condenses water vapor in the air and turn it into rain, so that there's less fog/cloud in the sky? --antilivedT 05:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere rather than letting it radiate straight back into space. Thus it's probably more accurate to say that it's colder on clear days, rather than clearer on cold days. FiggyBee (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The greenhouse effect is not noticeable on such small scales as your regular day-to-day weather phenomenon. I was hoping that linking to weather or meteorology would provide sufficient context, but both of those articles suck. Sorry.  Plasticup  T / C  06:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the day-to-day effect is more like a real greenhouse than what has become known as the "greenhouse effect". I still stand by my assertion that clear -> cold, rather than cold -> clear. FiggyBee (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are mixing up cause and effect. The ground absorbs heat from the sun during the day - and radiates it back out into space at night as infrared light.  When the sky is cloudy, much of that infrared gets reflected back to the earth by those highly reflective clouds. But when it's clear, the heat is lost to space.  Hence it tends to be warmer on cloudy nights and cooler on clear nights.  Hence cold nights often seem clearer than warm ones.  This is really a form of "greenhouse effect" - water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas.  However - it may be cold for other reasons...for example, (in the Northern hemisphere) if the wind is blowing from the North - then colder air is being moved into an otherwise warmer region - and it's possible to have a cold night even with overcast conditions.  If the wind is blowing from the south then air from a warmer latitude is being moved into colder areas and you may get a warm, clear night.  So it's not ALWAYS the case that cold nights mean clearer skies - but it certainly helps. SteveBaker (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Text of Obama's recent speeches
Obviously the candidates speeches vary a little from event to event and from day to day, but their conclusions are often the same bits of well rehearsed rhetoric. I am looking for the text of Obama's recent speech, which ends as so: "Some of us have parents who said I'm never going to be a United States Senator but my son may be. I will never be President but my son or daughter may be. That's what America is about, each generation working, fighting so that the future is better than the past. Thats the moment we're in, thats why we're fighting right now. Thats what elections are about. Thats why I'm running for president"

Before that (powerful) conclusion he speaks about parents who can't afford to go to college, but if they work hard maybe their children can go to college. Ditto for owning a home and owning a business. I can't find an online transcript, but maybe Wikipedians have access to sources that I don't.  Plasticup  T / C  03:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this transcript or it's many other google results? Of course, as any political speech it's repeated ad infinitum here there and everywhere by the same person and others - so whether it's the original airing of this paragraph or not I can't tell. Nanonic (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a beautiful speech, to be sure, but that is not the one that I am looking for. His most recent one (of the last 5 days) specifically contains the phrases above, and uses similar rhetoric to describe the struggle of parents to send their children to college.  Plasticup  T / C  05:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another possibility: La Crosse. The top notes that this is "as prepared for delivery," and I bet that's true of a lot of these; the stuff you're quoting about might have been extemporized. Maybe check for a video of this one. --Masamage ♫ 04:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I found it! The speech he actually gave is indeed different, and is the one you're looking for. Here's the version based on what he really said. (For future reference, I figured out what speech it was by Googling "'fighting so that the future is better than the past' obama", which gave me a single news article that identified the location.) --Masamage ♫ 04:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom teeth extraction
Why is it that dentists recommend pulling out wisdom teeth even though it doesn't bother the patient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.127.208 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are often extracted to preempt future problems. See mandibular third molar and the Bush doctrine.  Plasticup  T / C  05:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What kind of problems? 75.63.127.208 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially if the person has had corrective braces in the past, there may not be space for the wisdom teeth in the patient's mouth. When they erupt through the gum they can "impact" against other teeth and start pushing them around. This may be both painful and unattractive.  Plasticup   T / C  05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As well, they are often difficult to keep properly clean and are more prone to cavities. Note though that not all dentists want to get rid of all wisdom teeth. For example, my dentists have decided that I keep one of my original four, simply because it does match with the teeth above it and therefore is used for chewing. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 06:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As Plasticup points out, the main issue is whether the teeth coming in correctly will disrupt the positions of the existing teeth. If my wisdom teeth had been allowed to come in they would have crowded all of my existing teeth something horrible (the existing teeth had been moved around already with orthodontics). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

During most of human history, by the time your wisdom teeth came in you would already have lost several of your original adult teeth to decay, so there would have been room. Now that we have good enough dental care to keep our other teeth, the third molars are extraneous and have no space to move into. Eventually, it messes up most people's mouths. (Then there's me: I don't have wisdom teeth or second molars, and no room for 'em either. o_O) --Masamage ♫ 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All four of my wisdom teeth came in, but my dentist said my mouth was big enough, so I still have them. Useight (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the odds of super-ebola emerging?
airborne, long incubation, 100%

Lotsofissues (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, didn't you hear? We all already have it.  By tommorrow, every person on earth will be dead.  Good night! --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How could anyone possibly know this? It's impossible to put a number on such a thing.  Since such a disease doesn't exist now - it would require at least one very specific mutation (probably a lot more than one).  Mutations are entirely random - and whether a mutated version would survive (for other reasons) is hard to predict.  Hence you aren't going to get an answer.


 * One point though - "super-bugs" are at a strong evolutionary disadvantage - if you kill off your host organism - the odds are that you'll end up getting buried under 6' of dirt or burned to ashes - and your host will start seeking medical attention. It's in the interests of disease bacteria/virii to cause as little damage to the host as possible - spreading as asymptomatically as possible.  The most successful infectious agents are things like gut flora (which either cause no symptoms at all - or are actually beneficial) - or colds and influenza strains that only cause symptoms like coughing and sneezing which help them to spread.


 * This is why disesase are most often fatal when they've just crossed a species barrier and have not had time to evolve a behavior that suits the new host. It's notable that in most cases, the fatality rate of diseases naturally DECREASES over time as they evolve to spread more efficiently.  Hence the smart money would be on an ebola virus that is less fatal to humans - not more.  The big concern is with entirely new diseases (Bird flu, for example) that have not yet fully crossed the species barrier and have therefore not evolved into a less-fatal-to-humans version. SteveBaker (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't even require a species barrier. What had been nuisence disseases, or at at least had been controlled, in Europe in the 15th century, depopulated the Americas in the 16th.  Disseases like Small Pox, Measels, and Typhus are estimated to have wiped out something like 80-90% of all native peoples in the Americas.  Likewise, it is widely suspected that Syphilis was introduced to Europe at the same time.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, if a high-morbidity variant did evolve, it wouldn't know that it had a poor long-term strategy, possibly until it was too late for both it and its host species. --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "long-term" in this context means long enough to infect a significant number of people. We're not talking about wiping out the entire host species we're talking about killing the specific host before they pass it on. High-morbidity isn't enough to prevent it spreading, though, it needs to have a short incubation period too. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

1819 one cent penny
How much is a 1819 one cent penny worth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcelica (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this guy: - an 1817 penny (must be kinda similar to yours) that's been circulated and used could be worth between $5 and $10 depending on condition.  If it's in uncirculated ("mint") condition, it could be worth thouands.  If you type '1819 penny' or '1819 cent' into eBay.com - you'll see there are coins just like yours at "Buy It Now" prices of around $24 - but right now, there is one on regular auction for $9.99 with not one bid...suggesting that $5 is more likely than $10. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. If you are from the US want to see an online database about US coins, see http://www.coinfacts.com. Here is your coin, if it's an American coin. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The only way to find out what an old coin is really worth is to take it to a coin dealer and see what they offer to pay for it. This will depend greatly on the condition of the coin, i.e. how worn or damaged it is. (Do not try to clean it before taking it in; you can do more damage, and wear is what matters.) Some coins may have a minimum price based on their metal content, but for bronze coins like a penny that won't be worth mentioning. Catalogs may show prices for coins in various conditions, but the dealer's opinion of the condition is what matters, not yours. If you don't like the price offered, you can always try another dealer.

Above, someone gave an answer relating to a different date of coin. Coins made in different years can differ considerably in value even if they are otherwise similar, if they were produced in different quantities. Most US coins also show a mark (or the absence of a mark) to indicate what city they were minted in; coins from different mints in the same year are priced differently. --Anonymous, 20:20 UTC, October 12, 2008.


 * You didn't read what I wrote. I very carefully checked for that. The blog response was indeed for a coin two years older...but the eBay numbers were for that year - and they don't lie.  If anyone wants an 1819 penny - they can easily get one on eBay for $10...yet there are several unsold ones there at that price - so the true value must be less than $10.  Worse still, a dealer has to buy at well below that price because he has to make a profit in selling it again.  So $5 is almost certainly the most you'll get...unless it's in unusually good condition.  This agrees entirely with the blogger who said $5 to $10 for a circulated coin (depending on condition) - but thousands of dollars for one in mint/uncirculated condition.  So I don't see that a year or two either way is making any difference to that guy's comments in this case - he's clearly 100% correct in his estimation. SteveBaker (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Industrial experience
Some engineering courses offer the choice of a year of industrial experience as part of the course. How important would you say this? Is it harder to get a job without any experience when you graduate? --RMFan1 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of experience, plus degree. But be sure that the work experience is in the area in which you want to work, and with a company with a top reputation - so your reference will bear weight. If necessary seek out your own placement, do not blindly rely on the Uni. If you can get to a blue chip firm and do well your CV will be impressive, and interviews will be so much easier to obtain.86.197.169.155 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)petitmichel

Im going to be studying Electrical/Electronic Engineering and I know I should look to ensure that the courses are accredited by the appropriate institutions such as the IEE and IET. Some are only accredited by one of these. How important is this? --RMFan1 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vital.86.197.171.254 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)petitmichel

England football colours
Why do England not play in their traditional strip of white shirts and black shorts ?86.197.169.155 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)DT
 * Possibly you were watching an away match against a team who also wore white? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * According to our article, entitled England national football team, the away colours are red shirts, white shorts and red socks. Photos on the 2010 Wold Cup portal certainly show them wearing these colours in some matches.  Their "home" colour in the group matches (but not normally) seems to be all white.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is common for teams to wear different colour shorts to avoid a kit clash. Traditionally England tend to wear white shirt, blue shorts, white socks. If the team they are playing against wears blue-shorts (or has a sufficiently blue strip) they may choose to wear white-shorts to help prevent a clash. Personally i've never seen England where black shorts before (I can only recall England games from about 1990 onwards). Nowadays the teams will often wear their 'away' shirt regardless of whether there is a clash - this is apparently due to kit-sponsorship agreements that say the shirt will be worn x% of games (some teams will ocassionally play a season in a league where there are no teams that 'clash' with them. Norwich City springs to mind as a club that probably doesn't clash with many other teams home kit). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand about changing to avoid a clash. But I can't remember when England last wore their traditional colours. If they have changed to all white - when and why ? After all Wales still wear red and Scotland blue and white, so why not England's white and black ?86.197.171.254 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)DT


 * When have England ever worn black shorts? I've never seen it - only every dark blue (or white). This page seems to confirm that: http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamUnif/Colours/1954-74.html and http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamUnif/Colours/1974-date.html ny156uk (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer the second part of the Q: The last time they wore white-blue-white (which seems to be most common) was August 2008 vs Czech Republic. It seems they haven't stopped wearing it - they just wear all white to avoid clashes. ny156uk (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wa-Hoo Rules
When playing the game of Wa-Hoo, and you land on the apponets marble, when is that move complete. Is it complete once you place your marble in thier hole and remove your finger from your marble. Or is it a completed move after they place the apponets marble back into thier starting place.

And can you role again after roling a 1....just like you do a 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee304 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wahoo (board game) for more information. Cheers!  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a question...
I like DVDs. ANd I like DVD menus. I always wanted to see how a DVD's menu is like. I just saw Saw IV's DVD menu and it looked like a side view of John Kramer lying on a flat table with his throat slit. I was wondering if there is a site where I can see descriptions of DVD menus of movies. So, does anyone know of some sites like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard of one. Do a search on a popular search engine. 92.4.229.8 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You might try some of the results from this google search. --JoeTalkWork 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)