Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 16

= April 16 =

stocks vs. Stock funds
Please help; my husband is enrolled in company 401(k), highest risk cat stock fund. I am trying to explain to him that he doesn't own the company stock, but rather is invested in a stock fund under his company's options. He thinks he owns $15000.00 of co. Stock. Everytime i try to explain it...We fight. How do i make him understand? Aggravated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.221.12 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stock, Stock options and mutual fund should explain the the difference between them all. -- Jayron  32  04:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a thick pamphlet called a prospectus that you were probably supposed to be provided before making your investment decisions. There should be one for each fund choice.  Each one should explain its fund quite thoroughly.  If you threw it away upon receipt, you can ask for another one from the company's 401(k) provider, or perhaps from the company itself.  Note that although we don't do financial advice here, I would point out that the high-risk stock fund choice isn't always higher-risk than the choice of investing in the company's stock.  The Enron scandal and collapse totally screwed a number of employees who had invested all their retirement savings in the company stock fund.  When the company went bankrupt and the stock went to near-zero, they lost not only their job, but all their retirement savings.  Here is an example of a guy who apparently lost over 90% of his retirement savings in this way.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am wondering why you want to "make him understand". Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My bank offers one free (quite basic) investment counselling session to each account-holder. Perhaps such a session with an "expert" would settle the argument. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Show him his periodic (quarterly?) statements. --Nricardo (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian and the Lib Dems
I understand that The Guardian has a reputation as a left-liberal newspaper, and was unsurprised when they were lampooning the Conservatives recently ("Step Outside Posh Boy"), but in the last few weeks it seems like they are featuring a lot of positive coverage of the Liberal Democrats on their front page. Is the paper known to be especially favourable to that party (over say, Labour) or is it thought of as more non-partisan left? Thanks in advance, 86.45.150.20 (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it you've read The_Guardian in the article you linked to, although it's not particularly helpful in deciding whether or not the paper is more pro-Labour or Lib Dem. FWIW I've read the Guardian all my adult life and I've always understood it to favour the Lib Dems.  In the 2005 election, however, it endorsed Labour; see here. It'll be interesting to see who they back this time. --Richardrj talkemail 10:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richard, that's helpful. It may just have been the concurrence of the release of their manifesto and Clegg's universally-praised performance in the debate that accounts for my impression. 86.45.150.20 (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guardian has a brief summary of its own background. As the Manchester Guardian, it was a Liberal Party paper, then more recently has usually backed Labour - see .  At the 2009 European elections, it backed the Liberal Democrats, but also gave some support to the Green Party: . Warofdreams talk 11:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Most people I talk to tend to consider the Lib Dems to be considerably to the left of New Labour. Personally, I don't have a clue, so I'd give an WP:OR warning. Presumably some source material could be found to back up or refute the claim. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As Liberal Democrats points out, The Lib Dems have both social liberal and market liberal/libertarian factions. Libertarianism is often viewed[by whom?] as right wing, while social liberalism is not, making a simple left/right answer a bit tricky. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember being a bit surprised (given that by American standards I tend to be considered rather right of center) when I took the Political Compass quiz, and the world political figure it put me closest to was Charles Kennedy, at that time the LibDem leader.
 * I attribute this in part to Kennedy being a "market liberal", but also in part to the fact (well, fact in my estimation) that Political Compass measures not so much your positions as your attitudes. My attitudes tend to be to the so-called-left of my actual positions. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to [by whom?] tag in AlmostReadytoFly's post: by self-described left-wingers.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

translation
I am looking for the english words, the german, sorry for the spelling is Raus and snel. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Raus means out and snel means fast or quickly. Some of the first German I learned after bier. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)"Raus!" means "out!" or "go!", and "schnell" means "quick" or "quickly". FiggyBee (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In other words, German for "GTFO". -- Jayron  32  13:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the volcanic ash cloud
Much of the airspace over north-western Europe has been closed due to the danger of aircraft engines ingesting the volcanic ash cloud. News reports suggest this cloud is high up in the atmosphere (10-15 thousand metres up) and is spread by strong winds at altitude, so why don't the aircraft fly at lower altitudes and under the ash cloud? Astronaut (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe they just don't want to risk it. Chevymontecarlo . 14:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Because they would run into each other. The airspace over Europe is very crowded, and they need to spread the planes out at various altitudes so they can fly over and under each other.  Also, flying at lower altitude uses more fuel for long trips, since the air is denser.  However, for short trips, you'd waste more fuel gaining altitude than you would save at altitude, so staying low is most economical. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, at a guess, the risk/reward of operating in an uncertain and atypical environment. At least for commercial aviation, consider:
 * Air traffic control isn't used to routing planes at low altitude
 * Pilots aren't used to being routed at low altitude
 * Airlines aren't used to budgeting for fuel usage at low altitude
 * Aircraft can't avoid weather systems as easily at low altitude
 * Private aircraft that don't have the latest safety equipment, don't rigorously follow flight plans, and generally muck about at random do operate at low altitude
 * Potentially hazardous concentrations of volcanic dust may still be present at low altitude
 * Given the generally litigious nature of society, I can see why it's simpler (and safer!) to just shut everything down. Even before considering the dust problem, I don't think there's any good argument that commercial aviation should suddenly make a dramatic shift in how it operates.  &mdash; Lomn 14:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that 'litigious' is the wrong word here. The airline industry is very sensibly risk-averse. If your plane crashes because of glass and ash in its engines, or even worse, hits another plane or other object, civil lawsuits are the least of your worries, and both BA and NATS know this. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Precipitation may also bring down some ash with it. So, if this was a permanent condition, I'm sure they would find ways to operate, but, since it will clear out in a few days, they'd rather just wait it out. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another problem is noise. The "inverted wedding cake" of airspaces around airports (mentioned at Airspace class (United States), for example) was designed in part to avoid having a 747 flying at 8,000 feet above elementary schools and such.  The people wouldn't stand for it.  Yet another problem is that if you're in level flight that close to the ground, there's less room for error.  GA pilots fly at 12,000 feet and under all the time, but the big jets are bigger, more complicated, and having an additional 10,000 feet of air below you is a safety cushion.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered about the same thing; at least in Norway all emergency flights (ambulance planes, rescue choppers, etc) are grounded as well, couldn't they just fly at low altitude at least for shorter distances? Haven't seen it discussed in the news, but I guess Lomn's last point above (nobody knows the density at low altitudes) must be it... (a story that was in the news was that yesterday somebody near Bergen cut his hand nearly off, and had to take a six-hour ambulance ride across the mountains to Oslo, which has the competencies to sew it back on. That's where they normally use air transport...) Jørgen (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if you did have a problem with volcanic ash ingestion stopping your engines, altitude would definitely be your friend! The few aircraft that have survived this have done so by blowing the stuff out of the engines in a dive and repeatedly trying to restart them.  If you were flying low - you'd be dead before you had a chance to do a thing about it. SteveBaker (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Flights between Newquay in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly have been running as normal - - because it's a short distance (about 80 miles?) and the planes fly below the ash at about 3,000 feet.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, small-plane (Britten-Norman Trislander) flights between Southampton Airport and the Channel Islands have been stopped, along with all other flights to/from the airport. Perhaps it's organisationally impractical to only selectively close an airport. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, given that the grounding of ambulance flights has possibly caused its first casualty (link in Norwegian Google translate ("båt" means "boat")), though the article seems to be inflating things a bit. Still, I think I'll tip the Norwegian newspapers off about the Cornwall case. Jørgen (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption mentions this (has for a while) and also the fact that the RAF search and rescue flights are still operating. I'm not sure why the Norwegian authorities decided to ground the ambulance flights, maybe the situation there is worse or they're more cautious. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it relatively common to ground emergency helicopters for bad weather? APL (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some points in the other discussion may be relevant, particularly the part about VFR. I presume quite a number of emergency helicopter flights are VFR Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Flight in permanently ash-filled air
So, if we did have a permanent, thick cloud of ash at all altitudes, what type of planes could we use ? I believe Nazi Germany experimented with rocket planes about the same time as jet engines, would those work ? I imagine radar would need to be used, as visibility would be poor. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See today's Icelandic volcano and air travel at the Science desk where such things as battery powered helicopters are discussed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If we had a truly permanent, thick cloud of ash at all altitudes, flying airplanes would be the least of our worries. See nuclear winter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "world-wide". Perhaps a permanent ash cloud over Europe is just what we need to fight global warming. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)