Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 December 4

= December 4 =

How are pedestrians protected at this crossing?
Could anybody please expain how the crossing man light (i.e. the red/green man shown to the pedestrians on the crossing) at this example junction would be timed compared to the traffic lights on the junction? I imagine that when the north-south lights are green the man is red, but does he turn green when they turn red, and what about traffic coming from the east and turning north?

There is no light to directly "protect" the crossing (i.e. there is no traffic light in front of the crossing, preventing traffic from entering the crossing), so I don't really understand how it works. There is a button on the lights from the pedestrians to press, but what does it actually do? Perhaps it prevents the east side lights turning green, so that vehicle can't enter the junction from the east and turn north? Thanks JellyTelly (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The green-man lights only come on when the lights are red for any traffic that might enter that arm of the junction. The trouble with that (in the USA at least) is the "right on red" rule that allows cars to turn right - even though the light in front of them is red - so long as they stop first - and so long as the road is clear.  Since there is absolutely no combination of lights to prevent cars from going right on red - you're left with two possible fallbacks:
 * Sometimes there are "No Right On Red" signs. The seem to do that at junctions with pedestrian lights here in Austin, Texas, but drivers don't seem to notice them - they might as well not be there!
 * No matter what - you are only allowed to turn right on red if the way is clear...which means no pedestrians. So in theory, if you're crossing a pedestrian crossing with a 'green man' or 'walk' sign - then the cars that might be thinking of doing a right on red should not do so because you're crossing the street.  Sadly, that doesn't work worth a damn - so people get hit by cars anyway.
 * Note that the "right on red" rule is not universal - it's not legal in New York City (presumably because there are a lot of pedestrians there). Aside from the USA - there are very few countries that allow right on red. SteveBaker (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most drivers will look out for pedestrians, most of the time. As a pedestrian, you need to realize that the one coming up to your intersection may be the exception.  The most dangerous situation is when he's looking the other way for oncoming traffic.  Before you step out in front of him, make sure you see his eyes!  That'll take care of the problem almost all the time most of the rest of the time.
 * Of course there are always exceptions even to that, but as they say, we all have to die of something. --Trovatore (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple - in the UK, traffic cannot pass a red light - a regulation which is almost always obeyed - and is not permitted to enter a box junction (marked with the yellow diamond pattern on the road) unless an exit is clear - a regulation which is more frequently ignored. So lights turn red to stop traffic in every direction, and after a short interval, to allow traffic to clear the box junction, the crossing lights turn green and it is safe for pedestrians to cross the street. Warofdreams talk 02:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no "turn on red" rule in the UK. The safe way to phase the lights would be to repeat:
 * Stop all traffic on red and turn all the pedestrian lights green
 * Pedestrian lights to red everywhere except St. Thomas's Rd and traffic lights on Seven Sisters Rd to green
 * Pedestrian lights on St. Thomas's Rd to red, traffic lights on Seven Sisters Rd to red and on St. Thomas's Rd to green.
 * The pedestrians crossing St. Thomas's Rd get longer to cross because the traffic there also needs to wait for the traffic on Seven Sisters Rd. At very busy times, I can imagine the junction getting filled with vehicles and ending up stuck in the yellow box while pedestrians cross (a situation the yellow box is there to prevent).

Maybe there are too many laws there. Shadowjams (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the UK, the green "filter left" arrow controls and regularises the equivalent of the USA "right on red", making pedestrian crossing much safer. Is there no "filter right" signal in the USA?    D b f i r s   18:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is obviously no need for a "right filter" light where there is right-on-red, so you don't see them at 99% of junctions - however, in those few places where right-on-red is disallowed, there are sometimes right-filter lights. I bet you find them all over the place in New York city - where right-on-red is prohibited. SteveBaker (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does a right filter light look like? Googlemeister (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Steps and Stairs
Why are stairs inside a building called stairs, but when outside a building called steps? This is a very important issue in my life right now. --20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I am pretty sure that the words, in this case, are pure synonyms. I have heard the terms "steps" and "stairs" to be used for the same object, regardless of location.  -- Jayron  32  13:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The posters above notwithstanding, I refer to steps and stair in exactly the fashion you mention - the steps of the library are the ones out front leading to the entrance, the stairs of the library are the ones that take you to the second floor. While some apologists might claim that we're experiencing a regional variation in terms (are you in S. Ontario?), an impartial observer would conclude that you and I are completely correct and that Dweller and Jayron32 are verbal deviants who need to be severely punished. (In the future, you may want to ask questions like this on the Language desk). Matt Deres (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What the OP is saying squares with my experience and, yes, this is more of a language question. If I were near my dictionary, I would look it up. Stairs have steps, by the way. I think stairs is a more specific term, possibly related to "stories". There is also the term "stairsteps", which is usually used in reference to indoors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the indoor/outdoor distinction is just an artifact of the fact that the very steep architectural climbing devices are usually called "stairs", while the broad and non-steep architectural climbing devices are usually called "steps". For reasons of space, cost, and safety, the former are much more likely to be indoors and the latter outdoors.  --Sean 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically only outdoors when used as fire escapes. Basically at a 45 degree angle, or even steeper. Outdoor steps, like at the front of a building, are typically at a lower angle, i.e. the risers are shorter than the steps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The city of Montreal is known for its its neighbourhoods with steep outdoor stairs leading to upper floors see here for example. No one would call these "steps". --Xuxl (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't "stairs" the totality and "steps" the individual components? "The stairs were very convenient for ascending the height, but one of the steps was broken." Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really - in English we talk about "A flight of stairs" when we're talking about the totality. If "flight" is a collective noun then "stair" is a singular.  I don't think there is a proper linguistic difference between "steps" and "stairs" - but I do concur with our OP that there is more common usage of "stair" for indoor applications. SteveBaker (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite - a flight of stairs is specifically a continuous run between floors/landings. If you have something like a stairwell, the whole 16+ floors/landings are "stairs", but may consist of multiple flights. I agree with Bus Stop that conventional usage (at least in my experience) is that "stairs" references the ensemble, and a "step" is a single tread+riser. I would never say "there is a stair" (referring to a single tread/riser)- it sounds awkward to me. The closest I come is "there are the stairs", or "there is a stair step". And if there are only one or two steps indoors between one room and the next (e.g. in a ranch home), I would never call them "stairs". My gut impression is that the stairs/steps distinction is due to rise, or rather what it's leading to. If it's leading to another level/floor, then it's stairs. If it's on the same "conceptual" level, it's steps. The Spanish Steps or the Rocky Steps are still "steps", despite there being a large number of them, because they start at "ground level" and end at the "main/ground level". Likewise with front steps. However, if you have, say, basement access, they're stairs because they go from ground level to a subterranean level. Likewise with access to an elevated rail platform/pedestrian bridge/boardwalk (ones which have an open "below") those would be "stairs" to me.  -- 128.104.112.95 (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The online etymology dictionary states that 'stair' was originally a collective plural. Samuel Johnson gives this:"STAIR, stayr, n. s. steps by which we rise in ascent from the lower part of a building to the upper (stair was anciently used for the whole order of steps, but stair now, if it be used at all, signifies, as in Milton, only one flight of steps)."Milton is 'III.540-1:"Satan from hence, now on the lower stair, That scaled by steps of gold to Heaven-gate,"so, originally, a 'stair' was not just a single flight but the whole lot used for ascending and descending within a building. To find more, google: to find various pedants discussing the etymology and arguing as to whether or not the phrase is proper.&mdash;eric

So where do sets of steps that can be carried around come into this argument. These range from simple 3 or 5 steps for hosehold use to 16 or more for professionals.Froggie34 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC).


 * That is a relevant point. They are commonly called "steps" as a shorthand version of referring to them. 16:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's short for stepladder, i.e. a ladder made of steps (not rungs which are narrower).--TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in the UK and always use "stairs" for those indoors, "steps" for those outside, with the proviso that I would also use "one step on the stairs is broken" or "sitting on the bottom step of the stairs", also "where do we keep the steps" as short for "stepladder". I would say "sitting outdoors on the steps" but not "on the bottom step of the steps". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would never say "sitting on the bottom step of the stairs" - I'd say "sitting on the bottom stair". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Halfway down the stairs / Is a stair where I sit: / There isn't any other stair quite like it." Now, you can't argue with Christopher-Robin can you? Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also "As I was going down the stair / I met a man who wasn't there / He wasn't there again today / Oh how I wish he'd go away" - my kids used to love that. Mikenorton (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I saw a mouse! Where? There on the stair! Where on the stair? Right there! A little mouse with clogs on. Well I declare! Going clip clipetty clop on the stair. Right there." 86.166.148.95 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Steps are the things that stairs are made of. Many steps together are called stairs. Only a few steps together are just called steps. Because you often find a few steps outside the main door of a building (for example a doorstep) then steps are mostly commonly found outside. By extension, outdoor stairs are also called steps, especially since outdoor steps are rarely used to get to an upper floor. So a rule of thumb may be: if they lead to an upper floor and there are lots of them, then they are stairs. Otherwise they are steps. Case closed. 92.29.42.147 (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow didn't expect to cause such a st(a)ir but thanks for all of your answers. I'm actually fron England so maybe that's something to do with it. I was asked by a girl at work and promised her I'd find the answer out and now I'll look like a real hero! --Coolcato (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer I've given quite a few times before --Dweller (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the difference is not the location, but the length. Stairs are usually longer and higher than a set of steps. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so sure on that, you have the steps in front of the US Capitol Building, not the stairs, even though there are several dozen steps. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Finding a company on the stock market
How do I find a publicly traded company on the stock market? I believe that their stock is listed as a 10&Q (?) fund.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikfan6200 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know the name of the company or a part of the name? You could try e.g. finance.yahoo.com or finance.google.com, they have a search function. Or are you trying to find a specific company in the first place? Please explain your question some more. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you've misinterpreted something you've been told -- particularly easy to do in an industry that's (1) full of acronyms, and (2) regulated by government agencies. "10-Q" is the name of a standard form, the Quarterly Report, that companies file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Perhaps you were advised to "look at a company's 10-Q" and took it to be their name?
 * As said above, the finance sites of Yahoo and Google have built-in search functions which recognize trading symbols, company names, and so forth. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Would have been nice of you to say which stock market you mean. 92.29.42.147 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Low Profile TV Stand
OK, so I'm about to buy a new LCD and I would like to fit it into my present entertainment center. The demensions of the TV says that the TV is 28 inches tall, but when the little TV stand that keeps the screen upright is attached, it goes up to 30.5 inches. The problem is that the hole in my entertainment center is only 29 inches high. So my question is, do they make a low profile stand that would allow me to get it to fit? Or is there any other way to safely stand my TV up without the extra height? All my google searches just come up with low profile wall mounts or low profile tables to set your TV on. Neither of those are what I'm looking for. Any help would be appreciated since I don't want to buy a smaller TV or get rid of my entertainment center. Tex (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are handy or know someone who is, you could build a wall inside the appropriate compartment at an appropriate depth from the front of the compartment and then use the wall mounts, or alternatively you could build your own stand. Marco polo (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on the entertainment centre perhaps a wall mount will work? Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

writing books
1) So, I have finally finished my first novel, actually two different versions of the same story, I was unsure which would be the better of the two, and now would like it to be published. I know, I know, I'm supposed to get an agent to read it first and send it on, but I would like at least to try by myself. I was wondering therefore, 1)a Can I send both versions and ask them which they think is best? 1)b Do I have to print out the entire manuscript to send, or can I put it on a CD or such like data storage device? 1)c Does anyone know where I can find the addresses of publishing companies, the only source I have ever heard of was long enough ago that all I can remember was it being very expensive.

2) While I'm here, for my next novel, does anyone have any idea what sort of things a small group of school children can do as a charity fundraiser event at their school, that would involve them being able to organise the whole thing themselves and spending a while each day for perhaps three weeks working on the whatever? It's a school project they volunteered for, and at least one of the teachers will be very interested in how well they do. Also, what sort of advice might they get if they had asked about it on here?

148.197.114.158 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no published author, but it strikes me that 1a: I would not. You need to sell them on publishing it at all first. If they think it has promise, they will then want to talk more turkey about the editorial decisions. Overwhelming them with text, or asking them to do (before they've decided to take you on at all) tough editorial work is likely to be an instant trip to the reject pile. They will not read two copies of your novel right off the bat. Frankly I do think that trying to send it directly (without an agent) is almost surely a waste of your and their time. If you can't get an agent to pick it up, you will probably not be able to get a "real" publisher to pick it up. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1a) No, you're the author, you need to take ownership for everything that happens; the end should be an inevitable consequence of what has gone before. 1b) Most want paper (call them); in practice received manuscripts are filtered by a barely-paid Sarah Lawrence grad called Moon who has to get through twenty books a day - so send the first chapter, a precis of the rest, and a cover letter saying the whole thing is finished. Moon is so overworked that if she doesn't like the first paragraph, she'll bin the book without reading the second, so you need to grab her attention and keep it (it's no wonder that so many books have someone dying on the first page). 1c) Your local bookshop will sell a handbook for professional writers, which lists publishing companies, the genres they work in, and their editorial addresses. That generally has notes about format (single or double space, single or double side, binding). The thing about the precis leads to a (perhaps sad) reality about fiction publishing - it's very faddish.  A few years ago anyone could get a magical-child novel published, now no-one can, no matter how good it is; so a lot of professional (middle-ranking) authors just write the precis, and only write the book if their publisher thinks it'll fly (saves the work and the heartache when they don't). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm not an author nor ever tried to be one, I've looked at these guides for writers before and they will also tell what the above two have said, as will a lot of webpages. I.E. if you're thinking the publisher is going to decide which version is better for you you're sadly mistaken. In fact as you can probably guess from the above, even if you have a decent story if it has sufficient problems or simply something a publisher isn't interested in, they're liable to reject it outright. They're not likely to help you work thorough the problems. For these reasons and others I think it's highly recommendable to look at one of these books or guides first. Understanding how the publishing world works will likely save a lot of heartbreak and wasted time. It may be worth remembering you're almost definitely going to want an agent at some stage. Remember a literary agent doesn't just helped you get published, they now how things work and ideally make sure you don't get screwed. I can understand why you may feel the fees an agent something to aboid but as I'm sure I've read many times before there's a good chance you'll still be making more money when you have a good agent working for you then when you try to go solo. Perhaps as a final word of caution remember the multiple rejection stories of a number of authors (who do usually enlist agents), J. K. Rowling obviously being the most prominent. Some people may take away from this 'if you keep trying eventually you'll be published' but I think a better thing to take away is 'even if you do have a very good story it may still be very hard to get it published' and think of what that means if your story isn't so good Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, if you are really still having major plot issues, you need to show it to people OTHER THAN publishers right now. Friends? Family members? Members of a "budding writers" club (of which there is almost certainly one nearby, if you look for it)? Getting a book published by a major publisher is not quite like getting a good part in a movie but it is probably pretty close in terms of difficulty. You need to have your stuff together WELL BEFORE you start trying to shop it. You will not be able to shop your novel an infinite number of times—get things sparkling BEFORE trying to pitch it to the big leagues. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I can speak from some modest success writing for magazines. Magazines are a good market for an aspiring writer because they constantly need fresh material. But it is vital to know the magazine's preferences first i.e. type of article/story, length and level of language. The material that you submit first must be simple to grasp and properly laid out. There is good advice above to begin by sending a precis. Paper is still the best medium for introducing yourself. Consider also enclosing a brief description "About the author" of yourself with a photograph, such as could be used on the back of a book's dust jacket. I think that will encourage a publisher to take you seriously.
 * 2) The children could have an idea for recycling some material that is presently treated as rubbish, that turns it into something saleable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a cautionary note, you may wish to review the material at Writer Beware, which discusses some of the more common ways that disreputable publishers and agents may try to unethically separate an author from his money or rights. Relevant to this discussion is their page on The truth about literary agents' fees.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As a reader, I suggest throwing away the first chapter (as happened with Golding's Lord of the flies and also ruthlessly cutting out any introspection that is more than the ocassional brief sentance. 78.146.29.54 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I guess that makes sense, I'll try to remember it all. There aren't really any major plot issues, I was just getting toward the end and thought 'maybe it would be better done more in this sort of style instead' which, as it happens, did actually cut most of the introspection. I'm not sure I can cut the whole first chapter, it simply wouldn't make any sense then. Perhaps cutting chapter three might help instead? Anyway, it looks like I have a lot to do before actually sending the work to anyone, lots of letters and introductions and such like to write. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After you've read Writer Beware, try http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums They've got all the info you'd ever need on publishing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

California middle schools totally ban soda sales
When did all the middle schools in California ban soda machines. Is it 2005 or 2006? I thought the all the high schools stop soda machines in 2008 7 01.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A law was passed in 2005 to ban them all by 2007.  --Sean 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What are they selling instead? Water? Carrot juice? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They might not even have beverage vending machines at all - see drinking fountain (actually, despite being a regionalism, bubbler is a better article). But anyway, the answer is in the news article Toto linked: "From 2007, students will only be allowed to buy water, milk and some fruit and sports drinks that contain a controlled amount of sweeteners." -- 128.104.112.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Let's hope there are no diabetics there that would be in need of a hefty dose of sugar after some coma-inducing sugar level lowering. Schools like that would kill them. What's wrong with having them learn from mistakes? Alcohol still hasn't been banned from the world... - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because kids do not learn from mistakes that take years to show up as mistakes. Children will not get obese from drinking 1 sugary drink, they will get it from drinking 4 a day for 8 years.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

amount of insilation in a coat
This for a few day i have been trying to find a new jacket to wear for snowboaring. so far i have found to awsome coats that i would LOVE to buy. they both look awsome but im worried they arent insilated at all or only have a little bit of insilation. I have been looking around franticly trying to find out but i have been reletivly unsuccesful. if someone could give me any information it would be GREATLY apretiated! here are the links to websites with the jackets. http://686.com/products/mens/jackets/acc/20/acc-spyro/ProductInfo.php http://www.overstock.com/Clothing-Shoes/Nomis-Touch-Shell-Mens-Large-Yellow-Buffalo-Snowboard-Jacket/4389306/product.html?cid=123620&fp=F&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=12353820 Thanks much --99.89.176.228 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The second one you link to (on overstock.com) appears to be a shell, which probably won't have any insulation (it'll be like a thick raincoat). The idea with those is that you wear a fleece or something under it, the fleece provides the insulation and the shell stops it from getting wet.  The first one says it's insulated but who knows how much.  I think your best bet would be to go to and REI or something, try one on there and ask them about it.  TastyCakes (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What you really need to find out is the "Tog value" of the coats you are considering. That gives you an objective measure of the insulation value.  Sadly, I don't see many places on the web that indicate what the Tog value is for their jackets. SteveBaker (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry about insulation. Snowboarding is a physical activity and you'll quickly warm up. In my experience, layers are more useful than insulation. I usually wear 3 layers: a T-shirt, a reversable fleece (fleecy side in) and a waterproof outer; and I often find myself too hot. The fleece and the outer are actually 2 parts of the same jacket from Nordica. Of course, I take extra shirts and long-johns in case the weather forecast takes a dramatic turn for the worst. Astronaut (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's only a physical activity when you're actually doing it! When you in a long line waiting for the ski-lift - or (worse) sitting above the tree line with icy winds cutting through your skimpy jacket...you may wish for that extra insulation.  But the point of dressing in layers is well taken - when you're actually heading down the mountain, it's good to be able to lose a layer or two into a handy back-pack. SteveBaker (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe Steve has a point. I did once get very cold sitting on a stopped chairlift in icy winds, but I had a nice bask in the warm sun once I got back over to the sunny and sheltered side of the mountain (so much so that I caught a little sunburn on my head!) However, snowboarding is a physical activity; though I have noticed that some boarders spend in inordinate amount of time sitting around (usually in large groups right in the middle of the piste).  Astronaut (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)