Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 February 25

= February 25 =

Percentage of small, medium and large law firms in the United States
What is the approximate percentage of small law firms (10 or fewer attorneys), medium law firms (11 - 99 attorneys) and large law firms (100+ attorneys) in the United States? 74.215.53.6 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As in a breakup of where attorneys work? I would guess that the majority of attorneys work at firms of less than 50 lawyers, but that's pure speculation. This might be a place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but finding out might be a huge task. When I looked in a US yellow pages, there were nearly 200 pages of listings for lawyers, attorney's at law, law firms, etc.! Astronaut (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This may or may not help: http://new.abanet.org/marketresearch/Pages/StatisticalResources.aspx --Nricardo (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically: http://new.abanet.org/marketresearch/PublicDocuments/Lawyer_Demographics.pdf --Nricardo (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Better? (still 10 years old): http://new.abanet.org/marketresearch/PublicDocuments/lawyer_statistical_report_2000.pdf --Nricardo (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

i
What happens when you take a number to the power of i? (i being $$\sqrt{-1}$$). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.232.203 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Exponentiation to start with, and if you have further questions, I suggest asking on the Math reference desk. --Anonymous, 04:00 UTC, February 25, 2010.
 * What happens is that you get a complex number that is a periodic function of your number. This is because, as the link Anonymous gave explains, the result is evaluated using cosine and sine functions that are both periodic functions of their variable. Viewed as a vector on the complex plane, the result lies within a circle radius=1. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * xkcd has a good take on this. PhGustaf (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

what flag is this??
recently i came across a flag.I will describe it here. shield shaped.Blue background. sailing ship with three line of water shown in white on one half(left side) and a shining light house in white on the other half(right side). whose flag or emblem is this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.146.200 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where were/are you? I don't believe any national flag fits that description, so it may be specific to your locale. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly the flag of a shipping line. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

also it has got something to do with ireland and britain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.145.17 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the same way that Woody Allen is a British/Irish Civil Engineer?--Frumpo (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Picking up on Jarry1250's point, a lot of counties or councils in the UK have flags or coats-of-arms, generally styled around something to do with the county. Take for example the Suffolk coat of arms harking back to Ipswich's port days, or similarly that of Essex, whose seaxes represent the fact that it was colonised by Saxons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain. I think this narrows down our search to counties or cities on the coast, near a lighthouse, but I could very easily be wrong since I'm no vexillologist. Brammers (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I though it might have been this but there's no lighthouse on it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * New word for me: "lymphad". --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Haifa? 87.113.109.44 (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Shield-shaped" sounds like a coat of arms and not a flag. Basically, it's like the base of this on the left, and the right of this on the right? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been having a fun time looking for this one, to no avail. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escudo_de_Barlovento.svg has the shield, lighthouse, ship, wavy lines. But still doesn't seem right. Not a flag and can't see anything to do "with ireland and britain". --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This enquiry is 'continued' at WP:RD/M. OP has a link to their Tineye search. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of Portsmouth FC 's badge.I wonder of it is a football/rugby club?..hotclaws 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of this File:Portsmouth FC crest 2008.png matches the description above apart from the shield shape and blue background? -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * None of it, I'm afraid. —220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a flag of one of the British colonies? The blue blackground and shield shape are covered-and something to do with Britain/Ireland. It seems very likely a colony would have a sailing ship on water and a lighthouse-now we just need to find the right one.St.Helena has the sailing ship,but no lighthouse.Aden has the three wavy lines and sailing ship-but no lighthouse. I thought the Antarctic or Indian Ocean Territory flags,but they don't quite match. Lemon martini (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aloe Vera
Does applying Aloe Vera on the face decrease the blemishes and marks and prevents acne?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but if you can find good-quality Aloe Vera juice from a local Chinese grocer, drinking it may have a similar effect, with the added bonus of tasting amazing. Vranak (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

--TammyMoet (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be a freshness issue. Vranak (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Vranak, please refrain from wild, misleading, and foolish speculations. There is no evidence that aloe vera is good for acne, much less than drinking the juice would have any such effects on the skin. There is some evidence that aloe vera is good for skin care in general and for burns and maybe for wounds (see Aloe_vera). The juice is used for heartburn and irritable bowel syndrome and that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that topical application is a wiser treatment than direct incorporation (digestion)? Very well then! But it is a good idea to practice good health from the intestines outwards, not from the skin inward. Vranak (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you eat soap? Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Soap is about subtracting unwanted substances. Aloe vera is about addition. Vranak (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. What you just said right there is nonsense.
 * You're just spouting weird sayings and pseudo-truisms with no basis in fact. If I didn't know better I'd think you were proposing some variant of Humorism, but I suppose it's just the normal logic-less new-age nonsense.
 * Even if we take, as fact, your assertion that topical Aloe is good for acne, what evidence do you have that it has the exact same effect no matter how it is applied? Aloe is certainly not a vitamin that our body needs, it is a medication. It is entirely normal for medications to have different effects on the body based on how they're administered. APL (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what's funny? I never knew that moisturisers present in some soaps were about 'subtracting unwanted substances'. Similarly I guess all the substances in Hair conditioners. At the very least however, I guess Vranak agrees that hand creams aren't solely about 'subtracting unwanted substances' so I guess he/she does eat them. Perhaps also he/she'll start a webpage promoting the consumption of makeup, since they work so much better at addition of substances to your skin to make it arguably look better that way. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
How accurate is it that a law was passed in December of 2009 stating that in July of 2010 Puerto Ricans must apply for a new birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.238.80 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I googled puerto rico new birth certificate and this link, along with many others, seems to say, astonishingly, that it appears to be true. The new certificates are only available after July 1.  The government of Puerto Rico apparently passed a law invalidating the old birth certificates, for identity theft reasons.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk about being "born again". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you procrastinate procrastinating?
Can you procrastinate procrastinating? If you do so, then you're not actually procrastinating something now, but only later. But that means you're actually procrastinating something now. Does this lead to a contradiction?

If this question is not suitable for the Reference Desk it can be removed. J I P | Talk 20:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We'll get back to you on that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This question is completely unsuitable. I'll remove it later. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll start procrastinating when I get around to it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you can't procrastinate procrastinating, because there would be no way of distinguishing the procrastination from the procrastination of the procrastination. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't procrastinating (putting off) your procrastination mean that you're doing whatever you intend to do without delay? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would. That is a good point. I hadn't thought of that. Then the answer is that you technically could procrastinate procrastinating. I stand corrected, and as you point out, one would do so by not procrastinating. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I think you can, but you have to work very hard at it. -- Ludwigs 2  00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree - procrastinating means putting off (possibly indefinitely). If you were procrastinating about procrastinating, you couldn't get on and do the thing because then you've done it and thereby find yourself unable to procrastinate about it in the future.  By getting on and doing the thing, you wouldn't be putting off the time when you'd be procrastinating - you'd merely not be procrastinating - which is not at all the same thing.  I think the correct answer here is "no". SteveBaker (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can think of one way. "Procrastinate" basically means "for tomorrow". If you procrastinate, you've decided to defer some task until tomorrow at the earliest. If you procrastinate about procrasinating, you could be deferring the decision, of whether or not to procrastinate about the task, until tomorrow at the earliest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→


 * I tried to do this once. But it wasn't pretty.  I ended up looking at my own spleen from the inside.  I decided I wouldn't do it again.  -- Jayron  32  06:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No no, I think what you're talking about is division by zero. Avoid that at all costs as well. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you have an infinite amount of time to kill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got around to reading this one. Am I too late to comment? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the answer can be found in those who aren't answering, but I would say the answer is yes. I'm going to give you an example later in hopes that someone who isn't answering will do it sooner. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  13:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah --- Just do it. 92.30.86.130 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been planning since early in graduate school to write an authoritative and scholarly book about it, but circumstances have interfered with the effort. My preliminary notes are somewhere in the attic. Edison (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Shadingfield Hall, Suffolk, UK
The Prime Minster went on holiday there a couple of years ago. He was the first guest they had. Is he the only guest they've had? It costs around £5000 a week, and this http://www.holidaylettings.co.uk/avail.asp?home_id=62930 suggests they have zero bookings for 2010, and similarly for (what I assume is) their website which seemed to include odd blank pages on it. You heard it here first. 78.147.93.182 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This will go on your permanent record!
You know how when you're at school, the teachers are always saying, "This will go on your permanent record!" Well, how permanent are these permanent records? When I was at school (in England, in the nineties), the Special Needs department kept a quite detailed file on me, with my name on the front: I know because I often saw the Head of Special Needs filing things in it. I was never allowed to read it, and I don't think my parents were allowed to either. Thinking back on it, I'm dead curious as to what it might have said. Is it likely that if I contact the school or the county council that they a) might not have thrown it away, and b) would let me have a copy? The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Under the Data Protection Act 1998, you were/are entitled to look over any material that they held/hold about you. There are detailed instructions available at the UK government site for such matters – though if the school is acting responsibly, they should have destroyed your records if you've been gone more than a few years. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) They would probably be obliged to share it with you if they still have it under the Data Protection Act. These kind of things are often disposed of after 10 years, or so, but I think that is up to individual schools. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it actually does go on your permanent record, and everyone gets to see it anytime they want, except you. Everyone will always know that you blew it. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason they put stuff about your behaviour on your permanent record is so that the next school you move up to have an idea of what you are like. I guess a college or university would have access to this data when you move up too. Chevymontecarlo. 17:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, revealing any information to any other institution or organisation without the pupil's consent (a confidential reference would be at the pupil's request) would be illegal under the DPA. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They might get that permission when you join the school - there are often things to sign. (It would be the parent's permission required for a minor, I think.) --Tango (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can imagine how preposterous it would be for someone to hold your actions as a child against you past the age of 15, well, that's your answer. Not very permanent. They can record what they will, but if no one cares then they are sad fools. Almost as foolish as those who might care. Vranak (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't care whether anyone holds anything in the record against me *now*; I just want to know what it said for my own interest. They spent many hours interviewing me one to one and following me into lessons and so on, far more than they did for any of the other children in the class. I'd like to know what they thought they were looking for, you know? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no harm in asking them if they still have the records. The DPA allows them to charge a reasonable amount to cover the cost of finding and collating the information (usually about £10). --Tango (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Transcipts can be kept at the high school level for a couple decades at least in the Untied States, and another question months ago drew resopnses that some of these might be stored in an old box from 50 years earlier. I guess "permanent record" is somewhat different, from what others are saying (and you are describing).


 * But, that being said, another purpose for the record is that the school is not liable themselves. if someone was to come back and claim that you, as a person with special needs (from what I'm understanding in your post) were not helped properly, they can always come back and show that you were. I don't know British law on statutes of limitations, but that means that it's not only likely to be around a while, but they might be more than happy to show you for your own interest. Just to say, "See, we provided you with all the help we felt you needed, based on your situation."209.244.187.155 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Schools in the UK are advised to keep records until the pupil's 24th birthday, after which it is usually too late for the (former) pupil to bring any legal action against the school. Many schools destroy some information before this, keeping just academic information that they might be asked about at a later date.  Information can be released only on written permission from the former pupil, or to those authorities who have a legal right (Local Education Authority, Police [very rarely] ).    D b f i r s   16:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading, perhaps erroneously, that the Chinese government centralizes all such school records and keeps them forever as part of a permanent file on each of their citizens. I don't know if it is true or not, but it certainly sounds possible at least. Dragons flight (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Permanent records in China are indeed a bit more permanent than their counterparts in the West. The file is carried through school, passed onto the university, then passed onto one's "work unit" (i.e. employer), though this was more assured in the past when everyone was employed by state owned enterprises, whereas today whether one's permanent files are of any interest or value to an employer varies widely from employer to employer. They are, however, not generally stored in a centralised location, except for those who become "of interest" to the state.
 * For some bizarre reason, "Chinese permanent records" have become known in some circles by the transliteration "Dang'an", which is the Chinese word for "file" or "record". Our article on this is at Public records in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)