Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 January 1

= January 1 =

Lowest temperature possible with 90% humidity
I need to maintain a minimum of 90% humidity in a controlled environment for a research project. What is the minimum temperature that will allow the test environment to maintain 90% humidity?Silasalbert (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Er - I think you have a slight terminological misunderstanding here! The amount of water the air can hold is indeed less at lower temperatures - but when we talk about "90% humidity" we mean ninety percent of the humidity that the air could theoretically hold at that temperature.  So 90% humidity air at 1 degree Centigrade is pretty dry air - but 90% humidity at 38 degrees is like breathing soup!  So I guess you can have "90% humidity" at any temperature above freezing...at which point the term becomes somewhat meaningless. SteveBaker (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Even below freezing there is a equilibrium vapor pressure . So one can continue to talk about the "humidity", though in practice no one does.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt responses. I'm still grasping for undersanding.Silasalbert (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want 90% relative humidity at 0 degrees Celsius, make the dewpoint -1.44. At -20 C, make the dew point  -21.21. At -100 C, make the dew point  -100.48. At -200 C, make the dewpoint  -200.04. At -273C, make the dew point  -273.03, per, which also cheerfully calls for a dewpoint of  -273.18, lower than absolute zero, at absolute zero(-273.15), for 90% RH. Edison (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the other posters have pointed out, there's no _theoretical_ lower limit. The _actual_ lower limit will depend on your environmental chamber, and you'll have to look in at the manufacturer's datasheet to find out what that is.  Heraeus-Vötsch's range can regulate humidity between 10 C and 95 C (see page 4 of the datasheet), and other manufacturer's ranges will be similar. Tevildo (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Age of loss of virginity in the UK
I read somewhere (thestudentroom.co.uk I think) that 75% of people are virgins at 16, 50% at 18(?), and 25% at [i forgot]. Can anyone help? Thanks and happy new year. 81.129.216.86 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * People lie when asked about such things, so such statistics are very unreliable. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True. However, this survey suggested that the proportions are about 70% at age 16, 30% at 18, and 8% at 20 - a broadly similar breakdown to this one.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would refuse to answer such personal questions, so those who do answer may be an untypical subset. Even if the surveys are similar, then it just shows people lie in the same way on average. 92.24.83.55 (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * only 8% at 20? I find that very unlikely.  There's a lot of uncool, unpopular, or plain ugly people out there, more than 8%.Aaronite (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes...because you'd have to be one of those subsets to possibly be a virgin... Anyway, some people have mentioned self-selection and sampling bias, which I may as well link you to. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "loss" of anything, instead it's gaining something about which Queen Victoria allegedly said Oh Albert, this is far too good for the ordinary people. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough Vic said this to Al when he was in the can. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)



thank you. 81.129.216.86 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Car key remote
Is there a machine which would enable a thief to flip through car key codes so as to unlock strangers' cars? Rather like a radio receiver flipping through the air waves looking for valid transmissions. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably possible, but: the number of total codes is probably quite large, to the point of making such a brute force attack pretty pointless. The car itself can probably only evaluate only one code at a time, which cuts down on the possibility of parallel attacks. And if the car has any kind of delay in evaluating codes (e.g. 1 second per code or something like that), then you're talking about it taking thousands of years to hit the right one. Now all of this is speculative, but assuming the people who made the key codes had any serious interest in their security, and didn't want it to be trivial to unlock all cars, they would have implemented at least one of the above safeguards. (See Brute force attack for a general discussion of the problem.) It is probably easier to just break a window and hot-wire the thing, but I wouldn't know about that. ;-) A far more useful and clever tool would be one that intercepted car codes as people locked or unlocked their vehicles—though there are probably safeguards in place to make that more difficult too (the lock code is probably different from the unlock code, for one, and the infrared signal is probably fairly directional, for two, and if they were really interested in security it would be some sort of challenge-response system that would prevent against interception so easily). Now, of course, all of this might be wrong—it would hardly be the first time that a commercial enterprise used really bad security mechanisms for something important—but that would be fairly surprising, as most of this stuff is Security Thinking 101. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In my experience (in Australia), car alarm/immobilizer remotes use radio, not infra-red. Also they use a rolling code to prevent replay attacks. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless there's something in or about that specific car that the thief really, really wants badly, he's going to spend his time busting into unlocked cars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily at all, Bugs. Yesterday's copy of my local daily newspaper, the Southern Daily Echo, carries a police warning about a current spate of thefts from cars in Fareham both locked and unlocked. ". . . Many of the [13] vehicles were broken into, but a number of cars were left unlocked." Someone broke into my own car a few years ago by putting a brick through the front nearside window (though nothing in it proved to be worth stealing). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically, thieves are going to go with the path of least resistance. "Typically", though, is not the same as "always". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Windows don't offer much resistance to bricks. Since nobody pays any attention to car alarms it isn't really any more difficult to steal from a locked car as an unlocked one and there are far more locked ones. Therefore I would expect most cars stolen from to be locked. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the details of hot-wiring a car to steal it, but ... If I saw someone simply open a car door, get in and drive off - even after poking around about under the bonnet/hood - I wouldn't be suspicious. But if I saw someone put a brick through the window, I would almost certainly call the police.Mitch Ames (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See KeeLoq for (alleged) and (theoretical) vulnerabilities in one (fairly old) device. Tevildo (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two Mercedes cars were unlocked, stolen from and relocked 2 nights ago in Chelsea, London. Within 1/2 mile of each other. How? One of them had been done twice before. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the lesson to be learned there (which I learned through bitter experience) is to keep any valuables in the trunk, and keep the trunk release locked, assuming it uses a conventional key. That will protect better against the low-tech thief. There are no guarantees, though. So here's another question: In the KeeLoq article it mentions a higher level of incryption. Is it possible or practical to have one's car re-keyed with the higher encryption level? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in-situ. MicroChip's range of security devices have the algorithm hard-wired into the chip - they can't be re-flashed or anything similar.  You could, of course, replace your existing central-locking system with an OEM model that has a more secure form of encryption. Tevildo (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Biedrzycki
Is Paul Biedrzycki notable enough for an article in Wikipedia? --Aiden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.211.127 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably know more about him than we do. Read up on the criteria at WP:Notability (people) and see if he meets our standards. If you have any questions after that, feel free to ask again here or at the help desk. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that a simple Google search demonstrates that there is more than one plausible candidate with that name. Do you mean the Milwaukee health official, the film director, or someone else? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly a "film director" www.imdb.com gives the guy credit as "Stills Photographer" on just one movie - YouTube suggests he produced a rap band's video. So, no - I don't think anyone of that name has sufficient notability. The Milwaukee health official seems somewhat more notable - but I don't see anything there that would warrant an article. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent featured pic
In a recent featured picture of the USS Annapolis which is was taking part in the 2009 Ice Excercise, there's some strange formation of marks in the background of the shot... It's multiple straight lines forming almost a "Tv aerial" shape in the ice...

I was wondering if anyone had any idea what they are? I assume they are part of the Excercise, but I can't think what they would be used for... They seem very random to me, and very pristine.. If they were part of the Excercise I would expect the area around them to have been scuffed by multiple men running around or something...

Thanks... Gazhiley (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the centre of this cross with arrows pointing inwards marks the position that they were supposed to emerge through the ice. Mikenorton (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that, but I would hope they have a higher level of accuracy that that! Plus why so large an area covered? Why not such a simple cross? And it's so sharply marked too, almost as if it's meant to stay a while, which would not work with it just being a target for surfacing... Ta for your input though... Gazhiley (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more of it being to allow a visual check from the air, rather than for the submarine itself to use. Mikenorton (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would _guess_ that there was another submarine - er - parked? moored? - there, which has submerged, leaving a straight gap in the ice which is in the process of freezing over.  However, this is just a guess. Tevildo (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The marks form a symmetrical cross, each arm with 4 inward pointing chevrons, as far as I can tell and allowing for foreshortening. Mikenorton (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly guess that either another submarine came up there previously - or perhaps the Annapolis made two attempts - the first one merely cracking the ice - and the second being successful. If you pushed up against the ice with a fairly small object (such as the conning tower) - the resulting cracks could easily be roughly symmetrical.  But this is all guesswork. SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The marks are man-made from the surface, nothing else would produce such straight lines, most fracturing (as seen around the conning tower of the Annapolis) is pretty disorganised. There appears to be a track extending from the left-hand end of the leftmost arm of the cross. This US Navy report describes this as a joint exercise with the Applied Physics Laboratory Ice Station(APLIS), so I'm guessing that they made the marks. APLIS is established on a drifting ice floe about 180 nautical miles north of Prudhoe Bay. Mikenorton (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input... I certainly agree that they are man made from the surface du eto the sharpness of them, but i suppose the only definative way of knowing why would be from someone who was there or involved in this sort of thing... Gazhiley (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The girl who took the photograph is not difficult to find. I got her with a quick Google search. Her unusual name helped. She was there, wasn't she? Maybe she knows what the marks are. I personally reckon that it was some sort of mark put down at a geo location where the sub was supposed to surface. Looks like a close shot. Richard Avery (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well, not difficult to find articles about her and this pic, but no idea how to get hold of her... Any ideas? Gazhiley (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno if anyone is still watching but you can try contacting her via the US Navy. Either contact someone and explain you want to contact her and why (tell them you don't mind if they forward on your message and leave it up to her whether to respond) or alternatively just try sending a message addressed to her C/O US Navy (or whatever) of course explaining why you are contacting her (they may open it wondering about the strange letter or who the heck you're trying to conact so it will help in more ways then one). Will probably help if you're an American yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

something untoward in the food
If you find something untoward in the food served to you by a host, is it proper to speak up about it? Or should a guest just remain silent and shunt the offending entity off to the side and cover it with mashed potatoes so as not to cause anyone any embarrassment? Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What kind of untoward thing are you thinking about? If it is something that could have contaminated the food and made it dangerous, it is important to speak up to avoid anyone else being poisoned, however that is an unlikely situation. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I usually make a joking mention of it (pet hairs are not uncommon when there are many pets in the house), but if it was really dangerous (eg: glass, plastic, metal, ice in cooked-from-frozen food, etc.) I would definitely mention it to the host.
 * It is a different matter in a restaurant, they have cleanliness standards to uphold and regular inspections should be carried out. So a couple of months ago in a restaurant, I found an earwig - dead, and well fried - under the fried fish I had almost finished.  It didn't upset me too much, but I did complain to the waiting staff who seemed pretty horrified and quite apologetic.  However, I was surprised to later learn that we didn't get a discount.  Astronaut (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's something like a (head)hair in the food that won't make you not finish the meal, you can just subtly pick it out and continue, leaving that portion to the side, even if it's a little bit gross. With a good friend, you can make it a joke, but not at a formal dinner. If it's a formal dinner, or you don't know the host well, discretion is best, and the default reaction. If it is something like you've noticed that the meat is off, then mentioning it is possibly better than condemning everyone to food poisoning. Generally, etiquette says that avoiding embarrassing the host is of high importance, so it would take something that might later cause embarrassment (i.e. making others ill) for you to draw attention to it. If you still wish it drawn to the host's attention, it's best done privately, after the meal. If the untoward thing makes the whole portion of food inedible, a polite excuse of a food allergy or intolerance can get you out of that course. Steewi (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaining about the food. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is your duty as an agreeable guest not to engender any feelings of inadequecy or regret in your host. For heaven's sake, remove it without a fuss and say nothing of it. If you find several small nails in your casserole, however, all bets are off. You can have a good laugh or if you find it very alarming then you may question their intent and/or sanity. Vranak (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Does anyone know where one can look to locate their family Coat of Arms ( Family Crest) Norwegian ancestry ? lundofwi at core dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.57.91 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In what country would it have been matriculated? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Families don't have Coats of Arms, individuals do and they are inherited by another individual when that holder dies. Unless you have some reason to believe you are entitled to a specific Coat of Arms, then you almost certainly aren't. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tango's is a particularly British point of view that is correct for Great Britain (and perhaps Ireland) but not elsewhere. In other European countries, including Norway, burgher arms are an accepted tradition.  The tradition of burgher arms has been widely adopted in the United States, even by families of British descent. For help with arms that may exist for a Norwegian family, you might try searching this site or contact the Norwegian Genealogical Society, which should have more authoritative information.  Marco polo (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That article on burgher arms isn't entirely clear, but it seems to be talking about individuals rather than families (except for one mention in the lede). --Tango (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) Nothing in the Burgher arms article explicitly states that they do not, once granted/adopted, generally follow the same rule of inheritance as Tango describes, though in unregulated jurisdictions varying practices are likely; perhaps someone with appropriate confirmatory citations could amend it?
 * That article could also be read as wrongly implying that in Britain arms are still restricted to the upper classes, whereas for many decades anyone of good character (i.e. without a criminal conviction or similar 'black mark') has been able to apply for a grant of arms. Incidentally, one of its citations ([5]) is to an incorrect page number, and I cannot immediately find the intended material in my copy of the volume, though I will continue looking.
 * Finally, it is quite possible that the OP has some traceable armigerous ancestor(s), and might therefore be able under his/her current heraldic jursidiction to apply for a new grant of arms suitably differenced from them. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You need a little more than a clean sheet to get arms in the UK, but not much. Any university degree will do it, for example. You also need £3950 to burn - you have to have the heralds at the College of Arms design it and, as you might expect from such a monopoly, they have high fees. --Tango (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the College of Arms has no significant income apart from the fees, they don't seem to me inordinate, but YMMD. Note that the Lyon Court's fees (applicable only to Scots, obviously) are somewhat less, at £1,926 for non-corporate arms with crest and motto.  87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read this dialogue, I stand somewhat corrected. It seems that in Norway, too, coats of arms belong to individuals and not families, although apparently there aren't many Norwegian individuals "entitled" to coats of arms.  Nonetheless, it is quite common for Americans to adopt or display a "family" coat of arms.  I guess that from a European point of view, most do so "illegitimately". Of course, the United States is not Europe.  Marco polo (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd call it "illegitimate", just "unregulated". It can only be illegitimate if there are legitimate ones, which there aren't. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It could at least be considered in poor taste, considering that most USAians with any interest in heraldry could legitimately apply for valid arms from an ancestral jurisdiction (The College of Heralds, for example, will consider applications from anyone of English, Welsh or Northern Irish descent).
 * It would become illegitimate if they should visit the jurisdiction from which their 'usurped' arms originate (assuming they then used them there), and in the case of Scotland (where the Lyon Court is still a functioning arm of the criminal judiciary) they would be liable for prosecution, fines and the confiscation of anything marked with the arms in question. Using another's arms amounts to impersonation, and may be deemed to involve obtaining money, goods or services by deception.
 * Moreover, if one does have an armigerous forebear, many heraldic jurisdictions recognise regular systems of 'differencing' by which slightly modified versions of the forebear's arms are deemed appropriate for and usable by the descendent in question, which they will advise on and which may not require full, or any, rematriculation fees. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell from their website, the English College of Arms (or Heralds, as you call it) doesn't care about your descent. They will grant arms to anyone, anywhere as long as they are considered eligible (from their website, linked above: "There are no fixed criteria of eligibility for a grant of arms, but such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account." - it sounds like it would be easier for someone from the Commonwealth to be considered eligible, but that isn't a requirement). I think you need to be reasonably closely related to the armigerous forebear (or heirs thereof) for differencing to work - if you have to go back more than 2 or 3 generations then you would end up with a complete mess. However, our article on Cadency did lead to me to this part of the College of Arms website which seems to say all sons of a bearer of arms inherit the arms and the use of differencing is optional (daughters inherit the arms for their own lifetime, but can only pass them on to their own children as a quartering and then only if there are no surviving male heirs). That does somewhat contradict my first statement in this section - while I was correct that it is individuals that bear arms, the same arms could be used by a whole family. --Tango (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On your last point, they wouldn't be the same (i.e. identical) arms, but slightly different or 'differenced' versions of what could be called the 'family' arms, so each individual's arms at any one time would be unique, (though similar), which is the most fundamental requirement of arms in the first place: if standard cadency marks were being employed, these would then change as the undifferenced arms were inherited by successive heirs; with other systems the differences (which can also be charges and/or tincture variations) may be inherited permanently by a given cadet line. As far as optionality goes, I understand that to mean an individual doesn't have to use the arms at all, and if he does (yes, the system is still a bit sexist) he can choose to use either the standard cadency marks which don't require formal 'College 'clearance', or other means that the CoH would have to approve.
 * As far as eligibility under the CoH goes, books I have (some written by members of it) state variations on the theme that it covers anyone of English/Welsh/Northern Irish descent, and also citizens of some (unspecified) Commonwealth countries who lack their own Heraldic Authority (others, such as Canada, having established their own): of course, given that the CoH website is more up-to-date than any printed book, things may have changed. I fear however this is all drifting rather far from the OP's concerns, which fall within a Norwegian context. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been told (by a herald, if memory serves, but it was a long time ago) that grants may be made to any subject of the Crown. Clearly this includes any British citizens, and may well include (if we ignore the fact of the separate crowns) citizens of other Commonwealth realms.  I was told that if a citizen of a country other than a Commonwealth realm is granted arms by the CoA, this is actually a posthumous grant to their most recent ancestor who was a subject of the Crown, and cadency will do the rest.  I have also (again, if memory serves) seen a grant to an American man who was eligible by his membership of the American priory of the Venerable Order of Saint John, of which the Queen is sovereign.  I apologise for the monumental anecdotality of this comment. Marnanel (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian wikipedia has an article no:Slektsvåpen, i.e. family coat of arms, which briefly discusses whether these should be regarded as personal coats of arms or family coats of arms. Translating from that article:
 * A family coat of arms is usually a coat of arms that someone themselves have aquired/created, and that their descendants have continued to use. This was done in the middle ages, in later centuries and by many heraldry-interested persons today. Family coats of arms have not been a priviledge for nobility - at least not in Denmark and Norway.
 * The borderline between a family coat of arms and a personal one, can raise several questions*. Most family coats of arms were first used by one person, and later used by their descendants and/or other relatives (for example the nephew of Tordenskiold). * This sentence doesn't read particularly well in the Norwegian version (a borderline asking questions); I've tried to keep the translation faithful to the original. None of the relevant statements are sourced. --NorwegianBluetalk 14:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

White working class of London
Where is the white working class area of London? I had been told it was South London, but there are many immigrants and gentrification. Others said Ilford/Redbridge, but I have found this is not a "traditional" white working class community. It has also been suggested to me that there really isn't such a place in London anymore--that the north of England was the only spot where there is a strong majority of white working class people. I am curious to find such a community to compare it to the rest of London where I am living for six months. Thanks. I have a reference question (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, the East End of London was the working class area (and would have been predominantly white). I'm not sure what it is like today... --Tango (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This review of a revised version of Family and Kinship in East London, discusses whether the local authorities in Bethnal Green discriminated in housing either for or against Bangladeshi immigrants as against the white inhabitants: Kin Outrage from The Guardian, 25 April 2007. As a traditional dockside place for arrival, the East End has seen Huguenot, Jewish and Commonwealth immigrants. The British Union of Fascists under Sir Oswald Mosley led provocative marches in the Jewish areas of the East End in the 1930's. See London's East End: Point of arrival (1975-6) by Chaim Bermant (ISBN 978-0025100909). —— Shakescene (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The prevailing wind in London is westerly, which means that the industrial areas concentrated on the east of London and therefore homes for the workers are similarly concentrated there. However there are many working class areas outside the east, and in any case almost all of the inner city has seen substantial population shifts so that there are many non-whites living there. For the few places where there is a substantial working class population and the population is almost all white, try looking in the London Borough of Havering: South Hornchurch ward is 94.5% white (London average 71.2%) and has a workforce that is only 20.1% professional and managerial (London average 34.3%). Gooshays ward (a council estate on the far side of Romford) is 96.4% white and 18.0% professional and managerial. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the most common wind is from the south-west. The factories, and hence the working class areas, concentrated in the east I would imagine because they could more easily transport things along the Thames, and hence around the coast or abroad, and that is where the docks were. Which reminds me - a solid working-class area may still be Dagenham which is said to have or be the largest council-estate in Eirope. Some years ago the place in Britain with the lowest proportion of graduates was I recall Basildon - but that is a commuter suburb rather than London proper. 92.24.69.222 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are similar areas in south east London: Cray Valley West, on the south east fringe of the city is 94.9% white and 21.1% professional and managerial. Warofdreams talk 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) Personal Observation -- My recent visits to the area (in which my father was born and raised) suggest that its population now has a very substantial Commonwealth Asian (Indian, Pakistan, Bangladeshi) component as well as other 'non-white' and 'white non-British' communities, but not necessarily that they are now in the overall majority, rather that the area is much less racially/culturally homogenous and is 'patchworked' on a small scale. The Jewish community (with which my father's family were quite closely associated socially, professionally and possibly by some descent) seems now much less evident.
 * The UK Office for National Statistics obviously collects relevant information via the decennial UK National Census and otherwise - the OP could pursue enquiries through the web pages linked from those articles, but there may be restrictions on the availability of some of the most recent data. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Should perhaps have said that my information is from the 2001 Census. The website to go to is this one although it can be a bit complicated. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

London is a palimpsest. You'll find elite and working class neighbourhoods next to one another all over the place. It's extremely hard to generalise about such a large and complex place. Direct marketers use tools such as ACORN and MOSAIC to help them find the kinds of people they want, but they're still quite likely to end up sending promotions for lawnmowers to residents of towerblocks. Taking East London as an example, yes, there are some very impoverished areas, but there's also fantastically expensive properties in London Docklands. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notting Hill and Notting Hill Gate are classic examples of districts whose prestige and composition seem to have changed at least once every couple of generations since the 18th century, from extremely fashionable to dangerously desperate to hip and trendy to ordinary working class, and then back and forth again. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Find the Middle Point between locations
Is there some of website that mashes with Google Maps and allows me to find the geographically middle point between 2 or 3 locations? Acceptable (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like http://www.geomidpoint.com/ perhaps? --jpgordon:==( o ) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work so well on my old PC. But I wonder how it would deal with entering two points that are on exactly opposite sides of the globe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just entered the north and south poles and got the answer: "The center of the earth". Personally, I would have preferred "Error. No unique midpoint exists for antipodal points.", but each to their own. --Tango (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They opted for humor over a factual answer. Because, based on that premise, any point-to-point of more than a very short distance should be subterranean! The right answer for the north and south poles would be "the equator", and for any other two points would be some particular great circle. That might require some extra programming, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of the equator or a meridian, they could give that line as an answer. For other great circles, it would be very difficult to describe (not impossible, but it wouldn't be easy to understand for most people). That's why I would just have not given an answer at all. --Tango (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it gaves the same straight-through-the-earth answer to any opposite points or only to the poles. An easy example would be the points where the Greenwich meridian and the international date line cross the equator. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it gives the same answer. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The website worked quite well for my intentions. Thanks a lot guys. Acceptable (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)