Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 20

= March 20 =

Universities and Endowments
A University's yearly spending derives from both its endowment and its operating budget right? For example, the University of St Andrews has £34.8 million in "the bank or reserve" and uses a bit of that per year in conjunction with its operating budget? Why is the operating budget so seldom quoted? Acceptable (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * St Andrews website seems to be slightly borked right now. So let's choose the University of Manchester to test your assertion. 2008 accounts. Shows income & expenditure accounts: check. Shows balance sheet: check. Other than being borked,, St. Andrew's appeared ready to disgorge the same information. So we can at least say that the universities do not seem to be hiding the information.
 * As an endowment is a cash producing thing and an operating budget is a cash consuming thing, it is not true to say that yearly spending is the sum of the two. Expenditure in the year is the sum of operating budget and capital expenditure. Income in the year is yields from endowments, and various strands of other income: fees, research grants &c. All of this seems fairly clearly spelled out in their publications. I'm at a loss as to what information you think is not being disclosed.--Tagishsimon (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I was being vague in my original question. On the Wikipedia info box for each university, the endowment is almost always stated; but why is the operating budget not stated? Acceptable (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endowments are used as a prestige figure. Universities that are well-liked by their graduates will generally receive large donations, which generally translate into large endowments. Wikipedia is probably just following the lead of the academic community here; if you think that we shouldn't be you might raise the issue on the WikiProject Universities discussion page. –  7 4   03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, most universities invest their endowments, and live off of a combination of operating income (usually tuition) and interest off of the endowments. The purpose of an endowment is not to provide day-to-day money for spending, but to provide backing for an investment.  Think about it; if you constantly tap your endowment for day-to-day expenses, it continually goes down until it runs out.  If you live of the interest of the invested endowment, then it can provide for you in perpetuity.  Some endowment money may be spent, but only in situations where there is expected to be continued donations to the endowment.  For example, if you average 10% growth in your endowment annually, it may be feasable to spend 5% of this as part of your operating budget, and still see the endowment grow.  See Financial endowment for more info... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. One major difference I see between U.S. and British universities is the size of their endowments. Top American universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT have endowment figures in the tens of billions, while one-tier down, schools such as Duke, Penn, Cornell, UChicago, have endowments in the billions. The two top British universities, Oxford and Cambridge, both have endowments less than 10 billion USD, but are yet ranked, in terms of academics, with the top American universities who have significantly larger endowments and endowment to student ratios. Furthermore, other top schools in the UK, such as LSE and ICL, do not have endowments that surpass half a billion USD.

Why is there such a discrepancy between the universities in these two countries? If research is such an integral part of a university's status and if money is such an integral part of research, why can Oxford and Cambridge still remain, on a global level, with the listed top American universities, whose endowments are significantly larger? Acceptable (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is probably because UK universities are mostly funded by the State, and endowment income and fees form a minor part of their overall income. US universities are completely independent of the US State. The Higher Education Funding Council is the funding body: "Working in partnership, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) promotes and funds high-quality, cost-effective teaching and research, meeting the diverse needs of students, the economy and society." This link shows how much each institution gets from HEFCE. Universities charge top-up fees to students in order to gain extra income. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, U.S. universities are mostly government funded as well. It is important to remember that when comparing a Unitary state like the UK with a Federal state like the U.S., its somewhat apples and oranges.  In the U.S., the federal government does not directly fund universities, HOWEVER, all state governments DO.  All states run a state university system, and the vast majority of U.S. university students attend a state-sponsored or state-supported university.  Even private universities receive some government funding, in the form of Student financial aid.  Courts have ruled that a university accepting student financial aid from the federal government makes that school subject to laws, such as equal access laws like Title IX.  From a legal point of view, "private" universities which accept federal student financial aid are essentially receiving public money, and are thus must obey laws as though they were a public university.  The American university system is probably just as much funded by the state as the UK one is, its just that the American university system is more convoluted due to, well, the entire American system being more convoluted (i.e. Federalism)... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  11:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some state funding for tuition, but is there much funding for research? In the UK, Universities get lots of public money for research. --Tango (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As they do in the U.S. The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other agencies of the federal government provide HUGE amounts of research funding to universities, both "public" and "private".  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless the U.S. universities with the huge endowments - the ones that give rise to the question - are private institutions (a few public institutions are high on the list, but they are vast, so endowment per head is small). There is only one private university in the UK (the not very notable University of Buckingham). I don't have much doubt that Oxford and Cambridge get far more state support per student than Harvard and Yale overall. (This could be checked, but it might take some time, as I doubt that Oxford and Cambridge produce accounts that consolidate the income of all the separate colleges). Mowsbury (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Splenda: calories or no calories?
I'm just a little confused about the wording of Splenda in the reference to its caloric contents. When a "Zero calorie drink" such as Fresca or Coke Zero is sweetened with artificial sweeteners, such as Splenda, the drink contains zero calories? But in the little tear-open packets of Splenda, there are actually calories (3.31 per gram)? Acceptable (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The calorie count in foods is usually rounded down and/or be split in such a way that the "serving" conveniently has less than a listable amount. Our article on nutrition facts label mentions that the same system is used for the fat count, "Products containing less than 5g of fat show amounts rounded to the nearest .5g. Amounts less than .5g are rounded to 0g. For example, if a product contains .45g of trans fat per serving, and the package contains 18 servings, the label would show 0g of trans fat, even though the product actually contains a total of 8.1g of trans fat." Matt Deres (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to our article on Splenda, "Splenda products that also include bulking agents contain 12.4% the calories of the same volume of sugar". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * However, those bulking agents are only used in commercially availible splenda, the stuff you buy in the yellow box at the grocery store. When used in soft drinks, the manufacturer has no need for those bulking agents, and so can use pure sucralose.  Its the same with other articifical sweeteners, like Acesulfame potassium and aspartame.  Basically, the artificial sweeteners are SO sweet, that they need to be diluted to be of a practical volume for the home cook to use them.  However, on the industrial scale used at cola bottling plants, the amounts are large enough so that the pure sweetener can be used.  So while retail Splenda may not be calorie-free, Diet Soda may be very close to it... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if diet sodas aren't quite calorie-free, I think they're often close enough to make the difference effectively negligible. The bottle of Pepsi Max in my fridge, for example, has 0,4 kcal per 100 ml -- so the entire 1,5 l bottle contains about 6 kcal of energy. That's really not going to make any difference to anyone, unless someone is drinking several bottles of the stuff a day, and even then he'd have to drink about ten bottles of the stuff to match the calories in a single apple. (Which is not to say that diet sodas are necessarily good for you, but in terms of the calories they contain, they're not really a problem.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but much of these calories comes from any number of sources, such as Caramel color or the "natural flavors" and not necessarily from the sweetener... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 15:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Barbie Millicent Rogers?
Hi, there is some confusion with the true full name of Barbie. It is said she was modeled after one of America's most fashionable and talented heiresses, Millicent Rogers. The first Barbie dolls look very much like her. It would make perfect sense as well. Barbie Millicent Rogers makes perfect sense, and I think "Roberts" is a mistake. Are any of the family members of the Handler family still alive to verify this? There are so many conflicting sources of this possible error, and recently, with the 50th anniversary, most of the media seemed to have it wrong as well. Can anyone help with this? Millicent Rogers was an incredible woman of multiple talents, as well as being incredibly stylish and beautiful. Naming Barbie after her is very interesting because she was a pioneer and multi-faceted Renaissance woman, and this could debunk much of the "dumb Barbie" image which is very negative. AntoniaS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.136.162 (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Barbie was designed after the German Bild Lilli doll, which in turn was based on a German cartoon. The names "Barbie" and "Ken" were taken from the daughter and son of the designer at Mattel, Ruth Handler.  So, the name should be "Barbie Handler", I suppose, although that sounds like someone who plays with the dolls, doesn't it ?  And if it's also "Ken Handler", this makes their dating relationship rather incestuous. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, Stu. Franklin Roosevelt dated Eleanor Roosevelt before they were married, and only on marriage did she change her name from Roosevelt to Roosevelt.  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe they were related. Of course, you can't blame FDR for bending the rules when it comes to such a beauty as Eleanor, just as Prince Charles did with Camilla Parker Bowles. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, FDR and Eleanor were 5th cousins once removed, nowhere near enough for it to be incestuous. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the news reports on the 50th anniversary have called her Roberts, not Rogers or Handler. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

copyright law question
Who is the owner of the copyright in the case of a work produced for valuable consideration at the instance of another person?

In the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein. This is according to the Indian law. Are there similar provisions in the copyright laws in US and Britain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundardas (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See copyright, specifically pertaining to "work for hire". There are many criteria involved, but essentially "instance and expense" are, as apparently in India, the two main ones. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How to adjust the watch strap?
I recently purchased the watch casio illuminator module no. 2524 from ebay along with its manual. The strap is too big for me and I tried to remove one of the 4 links by pushing into a small pit the direction indicated by the arrows with the screwdriver. The other side of the strap also has last 4 links that have an arrow. you can see the arrows and small holes here: http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8991/watchm.jpg. Information about the strap is not in the manual. Could you please say how to remove the links and reattach them?. thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.25 (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see and www dot ehow.com/how_4428182_adjust-watch-band.html. (second link cannot be saved in normal manner so you have to repair it). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have an awl and a small hammer, you can punch out the rods that hold the links (unless they are clearly screws, its hard to see). Your best bet would be to just take it to a jeweler. Livewireo (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing links is quite a big adjustment. You can get an easier and smaller adjustment by moving the point where the strap joins to the outer part of the buckle, to one of the other holes (I can see about 4 small holes on the far right of your photo).  You will need a small, thin screwdriver (or maybe an unfolded paperclip) to compress the small spring-loaded rod.  Astronaut (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I used a small screwdriver and pliers and now iam wearing it!. A small disappointment as I researched more about this watch.. it is called DB37HD-7AV and costs only about 20 bucks. I bid perhaps a little too much on ebay since the watch does not look that cheap and that it is a casio. Long live consumerism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.26 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy Rajoelina
I wasn't sure where to ask this question at...so I asked it here. Should this information in the article Antananarivo be changed? "The Mayor is currently Andry Rajoelina, [1] currently involved in a political standoff with Marc Ravalomanana, the president, over closure of a TV station." As opposed to this article 2009 Malagasy political crisis where it says that he is the new president. Just wanted to make sure before I change any information. Thanks! :) :) Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not much myself familiar with the Malagasy political situation; but if you have reliable sources which you can cite to back up your statements, then you can and should change articles to accurately reflect the current situation. You may also want to read WP:BOLD.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do update this. It shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources as this has all been widely reported, but it seems that nobody has got around to updating the Antananarivo article. Warofdreams talk 12:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

✅ I updated it. If you're interested, feel free to reword it. I worded it to the best of my ability, but I'm not perfect. It's updated now, though. :) Papercutbiology♫ (talk) (Sign here!) 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth Hour
I wanna know at what time i should turn off my lights (Pakistan Time) on the 28th of March to support Earth Hour 2009. I live in Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.37.47 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 8:30 PM local time, no matter where you live. So not everyone in the world will turn off their lights at the same time, just at 8:30 their time. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 13:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to show your support more meaningfully, though, you should start turning off your lights whenever you can function without them. Algebraist 14:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think earth hour is a noble idea. That is why I am burning an effigy of Al Gore with 1 gallon of gasoline during earth hour.  Since everyone will have their lights off, It should be well visible.  16:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Last year, I just opened the main electrical breaker for the house for an hour at 8:30 local. At that time I lit a kerosene lamp and turned on a battery radio for entertainment. This year, to get a smaller carbon foot print, I will use solar powered lights and perhaps play some records on a wind-up cylinder phonograph. Edison (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

High Pressure lighting fixtures
Moved to Science Ref Desk

Katowice Airport (Poland) gate guardian
Hi. I flew from Katowice (Pyrzowice) Airport in Poland earlier this week, and arriving on the bus I noticed a 'gate guardian' at the entrance to the Airport complex. Can anyone identify the type of plane, or provide any photos of it? Thanks 62.6.252.139 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can just make it out in the right hand side of this image http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/2/8/6/85535_1234181682.jpg and identifies it as a MiG-21MF 6503 (large image). I see from the polish article on the airport that both MiG19's and 21's were stationed there in the past. Nanonic (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And there are quite of few pics of it on flickr here. Nanonic (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats great, thanks :-) 62.6.252.139 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)