Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 September 12

= September 12 =

undergraduate business courses for career in banking/finance
I have my eye on a career in the banking/finance field. My second preference would be working in an auditing/tax/financial advisory firm. I'm in year 2, not too sure about my job, but I'm planning in advance about my future courses. I will have a limited number of elective courses for my bachelor degree in business and I must choose a few subjects (among many) so that my business degree will have a focus on something (instead of just a "general" business degree). I am leaning towards accounting and finance subjects, but that's a lot. I have some questions for a better short list:

Is a course on monetary economics particulary relevant for a banking career? I heard some say that monetary economics is not difficult and reading a textbook will do? Is that true?

Financial accouting or management accouting? Which of these two is a better set of courses for my career field of interest?

How relevant is Auditing knowledge to banking? What about taxation? What about Cost management? If I must choose between those three, which path will be most benificial for my intended career field?

thank you very much 210.245.10.203 (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about business or finance, but I do know a thing or two about picking classes, so here's my stab at it. Your school probably has class advisors/career counsellors/business dept people who will be able to help you the best with this, since they'll know what all the options are at your school and will know what classes you'll need either for further education or a particular career. If you're not sure what person would be the best to talk to or how to contact them, my personal experience is that starting at the registrar's office and going from there is usually helpful. They'll be able to direct you to whoever can answer your questions well. Also, try talking to one of your professors who specializes in the field you want to go into. They'll have experience and knowledge in that field and will be able to tell you what will be most useful to you. 75.159.150.149 (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Corporate parenthood
Has a corporation ever been legally declared a parent (and not just a guardian) of an individual? Neon Merlin  07:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the answer is no in the U.S. (or anywhere else for that matter). You probably need to tease out what exactly you mean by both "corporation" and by "parent." The state regularly assumes a parental role over children, in probably all nations, and perhaps specific offices (although probably part of the state) will be guardians of children. I haven't conducted a 52 jurisdiction review, but my instinct is no state allows parental rights to a non-individual. The Truman Show was a bit too soon. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is sex protection needed in the following situation?
In a relationship between two guys who are both are free of sexually transmitted diseases, and both don't have sex with anyone else, is unprotected sex okay? Like, are there still any significant risks involved that the use of a condom could protect against in a situation like this? 162.84.129.238 (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We cannot give medical advice. I suggest you talk to a doctor. You can usually do so completely confidentially and it doesn't generally need to be your usual doctor. --Tango (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. Kainaw's Dictatorium makes it clear that this is an OK question for us to answer.  Tempshill (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is, NO, it's not necessarily safe. See your doctor for further information. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends how much you trust each other not to shag aboutAllanHainey (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Activities that involve the sharing of body fluids all have their hazards. Condoms can likely reduce them (I give out a few free every Saturday volunteering for Planned Parenthood), but you really want to talk to a real doctor about this. (I'm thinking of a halftime show many years ago where the Stanford Band, whilst the Cardinal were playing the USC Trojans, made a formation simulating the installation and usage of such a device.) PhGustaf (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? In America? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It comes down to three simple things:
 * 1. Are you 100% sure both are clean? (Some STDs can be hard to detect for long periods of time.)
 * 2. Are you 100% sure both are not going to be having sex with anyone else? (I know it's a horrible thought, but it's what your doctor will say.)
 * 3. Are you 100% sure both are not going to be exposed through a non-sexual route? (Neither use needles or in circumstances that would expose them.)
 * Those three conditions can never really be answered 100% positively in anyone, but depending on the people involved and their individual health and life circumstances (which we can't get into on here—that's the "medical advice" part we are avoiding), one can make estimations about what the risks are and what the trade-off is. In my experience, doctors are especially cautious about question #2—nobody expects their partners to sleep around, especially at early stages in their relationships, but obviously it happens a LOT more often than most people expect. I've had doctors who basically said to me that you can never make the assumption your spouse does not cheat, no matter who they are. I can see where that is a valid public health position, though it is not necessarily how one wants to live one's life.
 * It's always going to be a trade-off, no matter what you do. Nothing is 100% effective for avoiding STDs, not even true abstinence—there are non-sexual ways to get most of them too, however uncommon. The trick with sexual health (like many things) is to weigh what the appropriate trade-offs one makes between safety and living a worthwhile life are (at the extreme, living in a full-on latex suit is probably fairly safe, though a lousy trade off; on the other extreme, unprotected sex with many strangers is probably lots of fun, but not safe at all). This is not medical advice, and your situation will vary a lot, and discussing it with a doctor might help, though in my experience, doctors don't know all that much more unless they really know about you, your partner, your life histories, etc. (They do, of course, know the right questions to ask, most of the time.) And no, folks, I don't think that giving general public health information about how STDs spread and what kinds of social factors are involved for couples generically is "medical advice".) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A gynaecologist I once worked for used to say that he did an STD check for every patient "outside of the nursery and the convent". That was 40 years ago. Now, he might even check them. // BL \\ (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is a homosexual relationship there's also risks listed in anal sex. --antilivedT 00:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though, let's be honest, there are many heterosexuals who have anal sex, too. (And I'm not sure the specifics of anal sex risks are really what the questioner is asking about—which is about whether they need to use condoms or not, not whether they should have anal sex or not.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably of some relevance since it increases the risk of successful transmission if one the partners does get a STD somehow. However as you say, this is not exclusive to male-male relationships nor is it something all male-male relationships will have to consider. Also the risks are high enough that relying on you not getting something from a regular partner whether its anal, vaginal and probably even oral sex is not a good idea Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two words: Farrah Fawcett. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What she died from and cautions about what causes it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anal sex is one of a number of risk factors for anal cancer; smoking is another. I'd be surprised if it's publicly known what the specific cause of FF's cancer was; I doubt we can put it down to anal sex.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting OT here. The question was about two committed male partners not using condoms. It wasn't about the health risks of anal sex. Anal sex with multiple partners is a strong risk factor for anal cancer and is likely caused by HPV infection so using a condom should reduce the risk (although our article doesn't mention any specifics on the reduced risk). However the risk from unprotected sex with a committed partner, even one who cheats on you, is unclear and likely to be far less. As I've mentioned STDs or probably should have said STIs in general are one concern and the risk is increased when anal sex is involved, but I don't see any reason to single out anal cancer as a concern. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for Farrah Fawcett, I have to agree it was a completely irrelevant example. As far as I can tell, we have no idea if she ever even engaged in anal sex. If she did, there's nothing wrong with that, it is her private life, but saying someone who had anal cancer must have had anal sex is ridiculous. From what I can tell, it's not even certain if she has ever smoked (it's likely but not definite). Remember we're talking about risk factors here. It doesn't mean you have to have any of the known risk factors to get the disease, your just much more likely if you do. If you aren't aware of any of this, you may want to read our articles on cancer and risk factor. And think about how you will feel if you or your family and friends ever get a disease and people say the person who got the disease must have done something they didn't do simply because they got a disease. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If any anal activity is in the mix, intercourse or otherwise, there is the risk of various nasties that hang out where the sun don't shine. Hepatitis is the most common concern, but there are others.  --Sean 13:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

are you saying farrah fawcett was killed by sex in the ass? i told my buddy (who is sitll in the bath with the oyster and has eaten some) and he says that is NOT TRUE. does anyone have a copy of her death certificate? Robo-Doug (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Ohhhh!!! are they saying that ass sex counts as "innovative treatment"?? You are surely a madman to say that Robo-Doug (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your buddy would have no more certainty that that wasn't the cause of her cancer than Baseball Buggs has certainty that it was. Whether anal intercourse was a factor in her disease or not is something that only she and Ryan O'Neal and her medical advisers would know.  I'm guessing they haven't broadcast the details of her sexual practices all over the internet.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Walking a mile in these (formal) shoes
I've been looking about for (mens) work/smart casual shoes recently & I've seen some really nice designer pairs, only they all have really thin smooth soles with no tread or grip, or just a tiny amount of grip. None of them look like you could walk a few miles in them regularly without them falling apart. Now these are £90 odd shoes, and for that money I'd expect shoes that'd last, are they really that fragile? Is there a general range as to how much walking (pavements) you can do in this type of shoes before they give out? as I regularly walk to & from work & walk home after a night out. I figure at most 5 miles a day. If such shoes do wear out how easy/pricey is it to resole them? AllanHainey (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You used to be able to get stick-on rubber soles to mend outdoor shoes with: I'm not sure if they're still made. However, if you're walking 5 miles a day, I'd seriously suggest you consider doing that amount of walking in proper walking shoes (training shoes). --TammyMoet (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I walk it in work shoes with proper soles with a good amount of tread on them, trainers wouldn't work for my place of employment or for going out. That said the shoes I've got aren't very dressy & I can't see any that are that look like you can walk in them. AllanHainey (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For to-and-from work, a lot of people, male and female, wear proper walking shoes and then change footwear at the office. This is a bit trickier when going out fot the evening, but should extend the wear of your dressier shoes. // BL \\ (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did consider that, it'd make it a bit more awkward to polish them but I may do that. AllanHainey (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my strategy. I keep the dress shoes at the office.  There is a shoe-shine guy across the street who polishes them for a very modest fee.  Maybe you can find one near you.  Marco polo (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Allan is probably in the UK (since he quoted cost in £s); unlike in the USA, street-based shoe-shine services have never been common in the UK, in fact I can't remember ever seeing one. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My experience with ecco brand shoes has been very good. The dress models look good enough for business, and they have replaceable Vibram soles.  $200US a pair isn't that bad, considering.  Usual disclaimers. PhGustaf (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With "designer" shoes (or any other such items of clothing) you're paying money mostly for the kudos of wearing a "fashionable" item, rather than necessarily for genuine high quality and robustness. "Dress" shoes are primarily designed to look good in formal (or "swanky") social occasions and possibly to facilitate dancing (hence the smooth soles), not to be hard wearing.
 * Although I'm primarily an office worker, my last couple of jobs (over 12 years) have involved going into workshops and other areas where safety shoes, with internal toe protectors and chemical-resistant soles, are mandatory wear (in the UK). I've found that such shoes are generally very comfortable, even for walking long distances, and hard wearing. The manufacturers' ranges generally include both slip-ons and lace-ups that look perfectly acceptable in the office and in most formal situations. They're not cheap, but of course if they're required for carrying out one's work duties, one's employer should both supply and pay for them, and many employers will allow you to buy additional pairs through them at the lower-than-retail prices they will have negotiated with the suppliers. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Try shoes with vibram soles. My favourite shoes of all time were Dr Martens (sp?) shoes with very thin - repeat very thin - but solid rubber soles. They were very comfortable, quite smart, and very long lasting (much more hard wearing than the thicker soled "airware" type which wear out quickly) because the solid rubber very thin soles would flex and stretch rather than crack when worn, which is what thick soles do. I wore them all day every day for a very long time before they gave out. Unfortunately they no longer seem to be any Dr Martens *thin* soled shoes being sold that I can find, and I did make enquiries some years ago - but maybe in the age of the internet someone might be able to find them? In any case, it used to be said that most people waklked around four or five miles a day just pottering around, but in these days of sitting at computers, I'm not so sure. I expect four pairs of £20 shoes would collectively last longer than one pair of £90 shoes. The secret to long lasting soles is not in having thick soles - because in actuality they are largly air and they split when worn - but in having a comparatively thin sole of solid - repeat solid - flexible rubber - not some plastic - which will flex rather than split and which probably after disregarding the air and the 'cardboard' typically found in thick soles actually have more substance to wear away anyway. Hence suggesting vibram shoes. Being a skinflint who walks a lot, I'd be very interested to find out which were the best value for money hardwearing smart shoes. You could try investigating shoes designed for the police or the armed services for example - I saw some so-called "dress uniform" RAF shoes on the internet that I rather liked. I do not think you need much or any of a tread for walking along the pavement. Edit: looking at some comments about the durability of Dr Martens what I would call thick soles, they seem to be reported as long-lasting by ladies who only wear them occassionally, and who I imagine being light in weight do not put strain on them. I remember other shoes that that were very long lasting, and the feature they had in common was comparatively thin soles that were solid rubber without air-pockets or cardboard anywhere in them, including not in the heel. Some manufacturer who makes genuinely long-lasting durable shoes is going to eventually get a lot of trade. 78.146.166.183 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

what things influence you??
im doing a project for school and i need 15 things that influence me. Three of them have to have 3 positives and 3 negitives? you dont have to fiinish it all but has anyone got any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaf23 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On top of not doing your homework for you, how are we supposed to know what influences you? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you write down everything you can think of that influences you, then try to categorize them as "positives" or "negatives", and then select the subset that seems like it could work for the project. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're stumped by thinking about what "influence" means in this question, it could be something grand or something trivial or something silly: a particular preacher, writer or statesman; a book, film, show, song, TV character, video, poem or cartoon; family, friends, school; some embarrassing moment (for you or someone else) that you're determined never to repeat; the fear or love of something like speed or fire or funny smells. What's changed or reinforced the way you think or feel or behave? If the color red attracts or repels you, was there some reason or association? Your teacher's asking you to write down fifteen because it's hard to pin down any one influence, then you're being asked to pick the three that influenced you most positively and the three that influenced you most negatively. For heaven's sake, don't just take my list and copy it, because it's not a list of influences, it's a list of the kinds of things that influence many people; in your particular case, it's just a blind stab because I know nothing about you. And the things that have influenced you might be of a completely different nature. If after thinking about this, you find that (say) a pet or advertising or a particular commercial has influenced you significantly, put that down instead. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The easiest thing to do would just be to pay a little attention as you go through the next day or so. How do you come to decisions? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on our only interaction with this person, I'd argue that one of their key influences by that definition is the Wikipedia Reference Desk. ;-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am influenced by my friend, the one in the bath of oysters, and also by my uncle jo as he is the wisest man ever to smoke a pipe. I also like a sunset and also smoking a pipe myself, especially if it's packed with rave puff. I am also influenced by metallica (esp metal in your ass!) and by the movie Jaws and in fact the novel and the fact that a diver like peter benchley could write such an awesome book and make an even better movie and make the world hate sharks, also that movie with hitler and dinosaurs. and in fact that other book about hitler where the second world war came out differently "Fatherland". Also the book by Umberto Eco where he's a monk and they all get killed in a fire. also one time I dropped these hella goofballs and I was drawing crazy pictrures. also actually a few more of my firends and this band called the Dark Horses that taught me to play my bass, and Les Claypool out of Primus. is that 15? Robo-Doug (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Internet? Wikipedia? People on the reference desk? That's 3... Juliankaufman (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)