Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 June 7

= June 7 =

"Do not duplicate" on keys
Many organisations stamp "Do not duplicate" on keys that are given out to patrons, such as college dorms that give keys to the students that live there. What do these organisations do if they need to have a new key made, such as if a dorm resident can prove that a key was flushed down the toilet? Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OR warning. If the organization is large enough, like a large university, I would think that their facilities/buildings and grounds/maintenance staff would have a bunch of key blanks and a key grinding machine.  Otherwise, they likely have a contract of sorts with a local hardware store or locksmith.  Dismas |(talk) 02:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do a Google search on the phrase "keys marked do not duplicate", you will see a number of web sites discussing this. Several of them only talk about what the specific company whose web site it is will do, and they say that they will duplicate such a key if a suitable letter of authorization is provided.  At least one web site acknowledges that not everyone would respect the "do not duplicate" in any case; apparently it's not enforceable by law, although in some places it might be. --Anonymous, 03:22 UTC, June 7, 2010.


 * A further point: many of the keyway profiles for such keys are licensed by the manufacturers, who won't provide blanks to anyone not a licensee. In other words, Home Depot or Ace Hardware won't have the correct blanks.  Acroterion  (talk)  04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A few links in support of Acroterion alexandralocksmiths and integrity --220.101 (talk) Contribs 05:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Flush a key down the toilet? That's an awesome toilet you have there. And just how would he/she prove it? Seriously though, most key cutters, at least here in the UK, are only interested in making a sale and would ignore anything like that. And they can get blanks for any key, if not from the original manufacturer, then from someone else. Practically any physical key can be copied, which is why all big organizations are changing over to electronic keys and RFID tags.--Shantavira|feed me 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah. In the UK, getting a 'Do not duplicate' key cut is pretty easy, and I've been told twice before that there is no law on it - it's just like, "Not for resale" on multipacks of crisps. They don't want it to be resold/duplicated, but the law doesn't protect it. To answer your question - companies like Universities will have access to companies who can cut the keys professionally, probably the people they buy the keys from in the first place. There's a place in Liverpool which, unofficially, claims to be able to cut ANY key. Smoking Newton   (MESSAGE ME)  09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the companies selling "multipacks of crisps" really care if the individual packages are resold; it's your government that cares, as the individual packages don't have things like ingredient lists and nutritional information required by labeling laws. I could be wrong, though; I have no reference to cite.  --Anon, 02:55 UTC, June 8, 2010.
 * While this source makes the same claim and there are some examples where it's part of the reason, e.g., I'm unconvinced this is the sole reason at least here in NZ. Some products with not for individual sale do have the required ingredient lists and nutritional info, AFAIK all the info required by law . E.g. cans of softdrinks . I have a can of coke marked not for individual sale right now and it seems to have all the important info including an expiry date. Comparing a can of Mountain Dew and the Coca-cola can I can't see anything in particular that it's missing other then the EAN-13 bar code and if I were to get a can suitable for individual sale it wouldn't surprise me if it's more or less the same plus the bar code. As I mentioned it does lack a EAN-13 bar code, but I don't believe there's any legal requirement for that in NZ (many large retails stores may of course require it). Definitely given that it contains the expiry date and is precisely the same size, I can't see any reason why it would be cheaper to produce this 'not for individual sale' variant unless there is some compliance cost I'm not aware of. I don't think having the barcode raises costs does it (well there's probably a small cost to secure a barcode in the first place but for Coca-cola this cost would likely be irrelevant I would think and back to my earlier point they could just use the individual sale cans)? Edit: In fact further proving my point, I've taken a look at the box and the info seems the same as what's on the can except for adjustments like 24 servings per package and other then irrelevant stuff like how to open the box and of course the bar code. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a little more information at Key blank. I've googled around. Basically, the way 'Do not duplicate works,' is this: Different companies make different keys. Some companies make the 'blanks' fully available, others seriously restrict them. If a company wants their keys to be impossible to duplicate, they will release no blanks and make copies themselves. These keys are more expensive. Note that third party manufacturers have been known to reproduce these. Smoking Newton   (MESSAGE ME)  09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be simple to put a little paint over the "Do not dupe" stamping, get a duplicate from the hardware store (if they have the blank), then dunk the original in paint remover to restore it to original condition? Edison (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but clearly the security gained from writing it on the key is meant to be quite slight. It's basically just an advertised honor system. If the institution needs real security, presumably they will use more complicated measures. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the OP's original question, the answer is likely that the organization holds on to an original in a secure place that doesn't have the "Do Not Duplicate" stamp on it. If a dorm resident loses his key, he just needs to let the organization know he needs a replacement and they can make one from the unstamped original. This allows them to have some idea about how many keys have been handed out.
 * Another possibility is that the organization makes a fixed number of "Do Not Duplicate" keys and that when they run low on their supply, they change the lock rather than make copies under the assumption that too many keys are out there for the lock to be secure anymore. —D. Monack talk 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At least in the USA, many locksmiths will not copy a key with a "Do not duplicate" notice on it. The reason being is that many mailbox keys also say the same thing, and making a copy of a key that might be for a mailbox could have bad repercussions. If someone uses this copied key to steal mail, which is a federal offense, then the locksmith may be held as an accomplice to a federal crime. Note: This is only the excuse I have been given by different locksmiths when I tried to get one of my own keys copied with this warning on it. Just my 2¢. Avic enna sis @ 16:42, 28 Sivan 5770 / 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What other buildings keep/kept their height a secret?
As many people know, the Burj Khalifa kept its height a secret until opening day where its height was revealed to be 828 meters. I was wondering if any other building keeps/kept their height a secret. Apparently Burj Khalifa may have been the first but I am not sure... Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe Burj Khalifa was the first, though I don't have a source for that. It wasn't exactly a secret - they weren't sure! They'd never built a building nearly as tall as this, they didn't know how certain forces and environmental factors would affect it. The architecture regularly revised the upper components during building. Smoking Newton   (MESSAGE ME)  09:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good answer, but my question is if there were any other buildings before or after that kept its exact height a secret (at least until opening day). After a search ""exact height is a secret" -dubai -burj -khalifa" I could only find at least one other building (in Saudi Arabia), but that was the only one I found. I wonder if there were any others. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Famously, the Chrysler Building's final height was kept a secret until the spire was erected. Warofdreams talk 10:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they pulled the same trick at the Empire State Building. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Capella Tower was "officially" built one foot shorter than the IDS Center, out of respect for the older, more well known building. However, during construction it was discovered that they needed another 14 inches or so for some ventilation ducts, so the architect tacked on another two feet, extra height that was largely ignored in the official literature.  (The IDS still holds the "tallest building in Minnesota" record due to a window washing shed later being built on the roof). Buddy431 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Some proposed buildings have suggested their final height might be kept secret or have frequently changed their proposed height. See Nakheel Tower for an example of this kind of strategy.  Astronaut (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Gulf War
Was the gulf war started for resources ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carllica4 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was about resources. See Invasion of Kuwait. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a shortage of Titleists in Iraq, and Kuwait had plenty, so Saddam went after them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the real issue was resources, but the stated reasons (on both sides) had nothing to do with resources. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was rightfully an Iraqi possession based on how boundaries were drawn within the Ottoman Empire.  The United States and its allies countered that Iraq did not have a valid claim to Kuwait and that Kuwait's sovereignty had to be defended.  So, according to the public statements of combatants, the war was about sovereignty and territorial disputes.  (Of course, a critical observer could argue that Iraq would not have made the claim or attempted to enforce it were it not for those resources. A critical observer might also argue that the United States might not have intervened were it not for those resources, just as, for example, the United States did not intervene when Morocco occupied Western Sahara or when Israel occupied the West Bank and other territories.)  Marco polo (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I don't want this to flare into a political debate, but my own sense is that the gulf war was initially a political reaction to 9/11. The fear, anger, and insult caused by the world trade bombing called for some sort of political response, and the Bush administration (which was a bit hawkish to begin with) thought a war would be the best thing for recovering national pride and reassuring the populace.  Afghanistan and Iraq were mostly targets-of-convenience - not really intended to resolve any particular problem, but easily warped (rhetorically) into a position of responsibility for the WTC, easy to punish without too much risk.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about these conflicts myself, but the Gulf War article states it started in 1990, some 11 years before the 2001 attacks. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "(Persian) Gulf War" without any modifiers, at least in the United States today, usually refers to 1990 conflict. Occasionally, it may mean the Iran-Iraq War (especially in publications before the 1990 war), or else the ongoing Iraq War (sometimes called the "Second Gulf War", or even the "Third Gulf War" in reference to both the Iran-Iraq war and the 1990 Gulf War). Buddy431 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, that was the first gulf war. I thought you were referring to the second.  Again, though, this was largely (IMO) a political move.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union some 9 months before, The US was left in the position of having an absolutely huge economic commitment to the military without any opponent even remotely close in power.  That placed the Bush I administration in a precarious position: scaling back the military would have a profound economic impact on many regions of the nation that rely on tax revenue from military contractors or from income from local bases, as well as undermining the 'strong nation' ideology that was a Republican trademark even back then.  But leaving the military commitment as it was with no real justification for a military was (eventually) going to look very bad.  It was just a matter of time before people started asking why we were spending billions/trillions on weapons systems for use in 'machete' wars in central America.  Iraq became the poster child of the new American Military - America as a kind of unilateral global peacekeeping force.  Ultimately that was what hamstrung the B1 administration, though: B1 (unlike his son) was unwilling to go the extra mile needed to depose Hussain (it was one thing to act as a peacekeeper and drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, but another thing entirely to act as an invading force and depose a foreign ruler).  That ultimately cost him the next election: he lost votes from people who hated the war to begin with, and from people who hated the fact that he didn't finish it.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to stick a on that last comment.  The idea that anyone would start a war to avoid shrinking the military is a pretty outragous assertion.  Where are your sources?  If you don't have any - then this is Original Research which we frown upon here.  So either produce your sources or delete your comment please. SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a second one on that last ridiculous comment, because Ludwigs2 has forgotten all about how G.H.W. Bush actually had a giant boost in the polls after the end of Gulf War I, and Clinton won because of "It's the economy, stupid". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought G Bush Sr lost because of Read my lips, no new taxes. Googlemeister (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * United States presidential election, 1992 reminds us that there were a hundred factors, probably; but the point I was trying to make is that Gulf War I was a positive for GHW Bush in the subsequent election, not a negative as Ludwigs2 claimed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder what Ludwigs2 would post to turn this question into a flaring political debate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Steve: start with military-industrial complex - that article is a bit thin but outlines the problem, which is a well-established debate in the political science literature. Google it if you want more information.  In brief, the issue is conflict of interest.  ideally, the purpose of the military is to defend the interests of the nation (and by extension of the world at large) against dangerous foreign powers, and should be applied by political leaders for that specific purpose.  Pragmatically, however, the military also has a number of other faces: The military can be a significant source of political pride or embarrassment (the military is always politically charged, and extremely sensitive to questions of legitimacy), and military bases and military contractors constitute a significant source of revenue for specific congressional districts and states.  There is nothing inherently wrong with congress-people trying to secure revenue for their districts, or with political leaders trying to improve patriotism and national pride through judicious use or improvement of the military.  However, it does create an unpleasantly symbiotic relationship between foreign policy and domestic politics/economics.  The theory that the Gulf War was related to a shift in US military policy after the fall of the SU was also established in academia (though it was drowned out in the media by the left-win 'No Blood For Oil' stuff and right wing jingoistic stuff).  Bush himself mentioned the end of the cold war in his speech announcing [the war] "We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order -- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations." (interestingly, he talks about UN peacekeeping as the ultimate goal, though the UN had almost no participation in the invasion itself).  And Clinton's "it's the economy, stupid" campaign worked mostly because Bush had been busy prosecuting the war without enough concern for the domestic situation.
 * Plus, this is the reference desk, not the encyclopedia. I assume that anyone reading this will be doing their own research on the matter, and that responses here are designed to give them insights in to places to begin looking.  Your citation concerns are noted, but do not worry me excessively. -- Ludwigs 2  17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Cuddlyable3: you have no idea - lol. would you like me to post something politically pointed, just for some festive flaming fun-ness? -- Ludwigs 2  17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So - military-industrial complex doesn't say - or even hint that what you said before is true. Your quote from Bush also doesn't say or even hint that it's true either.  Nothing else you just said supplies any actual evidence beyond your own thoughts on the subject.  So basically, you're making this stuff up as you go along - and you should have the honesty to admit that and retract your previous unsourced (and unsourceable) comments. SteveBaker (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably we should take this to the discussion page, since we seem to have a disagreement about the nature of the reference desk. -- Ludwigs 2  04:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From a UK perspective, I believe there was a concensus (though many were opposed) that we were going to war because we had promised to help Kuwait if they were attacked. The UK entered WWI and WWII on the same context - neither Belgium nor Poland supplied us with anything useful; we were simply standing by our commitments whatever the cost. The sight of 5 year-old British hostage Stuart Lockwood standing up to Saddam put the bulk of public opinion firmly behind military action. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging from the level of protest at the time, I think the exact opposite was true - the British public were firmly against UK involvment in another war at the behest of the USA. Only Tony Blair and some other dimwits were convinced by Tony's sexed-up dossier.  Astronaut (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong war. See Gulf War. John Major was Prime Minister in 1990. Alansplodge (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

barbers
Do barbers have to dispose of waste in a special way? Or do they just put bags of human hair out in the trash like normal waste? Question Factory (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This would almost certainly depend on the local rules of the country. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably if there was a special collection service for bags of human hair,it would be done the day before and marked with special signage..'Hair Today,Gone Tomorrow.' cue applause.I thank you Lemon martini (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a voluntary program, not an official waste management policy, but you may be interested to read about the activities of Matter of Trust, an enterprise that uses human hair clippings donated by barbers to make products that are used to fight oil spills, such as the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico . Ka renjc 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)