Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 January 22

= January 22 =

secretary of state rice
who is condolezza rice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.27.89 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You want to read Condoleezza Rice. --Anonymous, 05:17 UTC, January 22, 2011.

Auto insurance rates
I live in Ontario and pay well over double the insurance premium my friend in British Columbia pays for the required basic third party liability coverage. We are both the exact same age, have very similar cars, and the same driving record, namely no record, just started driving. Why do we pay more than double in Ontario? How could the price difference be that big? 209.148.241.197 (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Same insurance company? Is exactly the same stuff covered? I'd call them and ask just what you have asked here. Is it possible that Ontarians (is that the right word?) are crappier drivers in general and therefore increase your risk? (Please don't take offence. I've been in the industry (not in Canada) and that's something insurers look at.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I don't know the answer to your specific question, but note that 'same age', 'same car', 'same record', does not mean that you'd get the same rates even if you were both in the same province. Each company calculates their rates differently and focus on different group of people, and one could charge you half of what another will charge you if you're 19, but charge you double than the other if you're 65. At least from my experience, but I'm no expert.  [CharlieEchoTango]  07:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Things like where you park your car at night can make a big difference. (It wouldn't for a pure third-party policy, but in the UK most third-party policies are actually third-party, fire and theft. I don't know if that is true in the US as well.) --Tango (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Three main reasons why B.C. rates are lower than Ontario in general are: That pretty much sums it up. Roberto75780 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Age/Sex/Marital status cannot be taken into account by law.
 * Minimum coverage is $200,000 in B.C vs $1,000,000 in Ontario.
 * Auto insurance is a non-profit government service.
 * "Auto insurance is a non-profit government service"... [that has people administering it that have salaries and job expectations and expect to grow their careers.]" like everyone. Shadowjams (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...but no shareholders expecting a profit. That would be the point. Governments can also decide to subsidise such systems, like public transport. (No idea if that's the case here.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Investors in public transit schemes are regularly looking for a hefty profit. In fact it's such a pain in the ass that James Madison thought about it, and we all know how much of a buzz kill he is. New Jersey, and occasionally New York, have been turned down at least 3 times (maybe more) in history regarding transit deals that appeared to have favored certain entities.
 * If you don't think shareholders extract a profit then I'd invite you to watch your local politics for a month. People have careers in government as they do in any other field, and government agencies, as any other agency, seek to improve their position. Where in this analysis am I mistaken? Shadowjams (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are conflating "managers" with "owners". You're saying that in a government, the managers seek to improve their station, just as in a corporation, its managers seek to improve their station.  Corporations, though, also have owners who demand dividends.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not allowing certain things to be taken into account would usually increase rates, since everyone would be charged the higher rate (insurance companies aren't going to sell policies where they expect to make a loss). If it's a government run scheme, it is possible they average out the premiums and high-risk drivers are being subsidised by low-risk drivers. A commerical insurance provider wouldn't do that. --Tango (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked your friend's insurance company for a quotation? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Some people here seem unfamiliar with the idea of government run schemes. (Poor Obama. No wonder he has so much trouble with his health legislation. It's too different a concept for some.) Government schemes don't have shareholders. Employees aren't shareholders. Such schemes tend to have no competition. Governments can charge as little or as much as they like. Their schemes are compulsory. If it operates in one state it's unlikely to be available to someone in another state. They work successfully in some form or another in most countries. The USA is the exception. HiLo48 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the USA, but in the UK your PROFESSION is a factor in calculating your insurance rate. Some professions such as actors attract much higher cost as they are considered to be a bad risk. Exxolon (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

One the biggest risk factors with automotive insurance is location of vehicle overnight - it's when it's most likely to be stolen, it's where it's most likely to get damaged e.g. bumped by a hit and run driver...or at least it's an address that the actuaries/underwriters can analyse and easily factor into a price. Address is a huge factor here in the UK and I doubt that it's different in other countries. ny156uk (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The insurance auto insurance providor in B.C. is a monopoly crown corporation called ICBC. Sure they have thousands of staff to pay, who each make a profit in that sense, but there is no ownership group at the top or shareholders who take any profit. Any suprlus in the budget is always reinvested in the service 100%. The government does not take the surplus/profit and spend it on any unrelated program. Also, the Age/Sex/Martial status thing has nothing to do with it being public/pravite. Its law. Private insurers who offer additional, non-mandatory coverage would also not be allowed to use that in B.C. The result is low-risk demographics subsidizing high-risk demographics, which is justified as anti-discrimination. Also, insurance companies in Canada generaly ask way fewer questions and take into account only very basic things compared to U.S./UK companies. For example, profession and colour of vehicle are not considered by many private companies even though there is nothing in the law preventing them from being considered. Roberto75780 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Capitalism is this crazy idea that if something can be done for $1 somebody who can do it for $0.99 will take the business from the $1 person. There's a kind of lazy math that concludes "well there's 'profit'... which we can cut out, and thus be cheaper". A freshman level econ class will tell you that making money has a lot more to do with having some advantage, like not letting competitors into the market, or being a lot better, or bigger, than any potential competitor. There's a lot of this lazy math going on above. "for profit" versus "government" is a ridiculous comparison for that reason. Shadowjams (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In a perfectly competitive market, profit will be reduced to the minimum that people think makes it worth running the business (rather than just putting the money in the bank and earning interest, say). That level of profit isn't zero, though, so there is still a difference between a for-profit and non-profit organisation. And that's before you take into account the fact that no market is perfectly competitive, as you mention. If you can provide a product or service others can't, or can only provide at a higher cost, then you can make more profit. That increases the difference between for-profit and non-profit, it doesn't decrease it as you seem to think. --Tango (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Drill Instructor Hitting Recruits
Are Drill Instructors/Sergeants in the US Marine Corp and Army allowed to physically strike recruits as depicted in the movie Full Metal Jacket? Acceptable (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically no, I've heard. But are you going to complain about that? Shadowjams (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The US Uniform Code of Military Justice Section § 928 Article 128 details the offense of Assault. Military instructors in Hand-to-hand combat naturally come in physical contact with trainees. In the movie An Officer and a Gentleman a military instructor accepts a challenge to fight by a trainee. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a legal matter assault is quite different than battery, although non lawyers tend to call "battery", assault. That's exactly what you've called potential battery here. The distinction of course is that people in the military are both trained differently, and expected to act differently, than are civilians.


 * The UCMJ, which we have an article on, goes on to discuss discipline, and other aspects of military law, all of which are relevant here. Shadowjams (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I expect the OP means striking recruits against their will as a form of discipline, rather than as part of their training. Obviously, you can't teach hand-to-hand combat without touching your pupils. For discipline, see Non-judicial punishment (that is, punishment not resulting from a court-martial). You'll see it does not include corporal punishment and it has to be issued by the commanding officer, not a drill sergeant. The drill sergeant can order a recruit to run laps, or something, since they have the authority to give orders, but they can't issue other kinds of punishment. --Tango (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So far from being acceptable in drill instructors it's unacceptable even in generals during time of war, as was shown when General Patton's career was almost ended by the famous slapping incident. --Antiquary (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Patton's slap was hardly an isolated incident. He had a bit of a reputation in that regards, and it's not as if he slapped a fresh faced trainee... he slapped a (what we'd call today PTSD) shell shocked soldier who'd been through hell. Incidentally, the Germans most feared Patton because they were paranoid that he was overly aggressive. Shadowjams (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, that he was batshit insane and unpredictable; the same qualities that kept him from being promoted in the U.S. military... -- Jayron  32  23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether that was meant to be sarcastic, but he was promoted rather frequently, as pretty much anyone in such a high-ranking position had been. Warofdreams talk 14:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, as an aside, that "allowed" is a bit of a slippery word; the UCMJ may officially forbid such actions, but there is also a lot of "off-the-books" sort of stuff that goes on. It probably depends a LOT on the local culture of the unit or military base in question; I suspect that it happens less now than it used to, but there is still (and has been in the past) a culture of hazing in the military; lots of stuff which is officially forbidden is "condoned" in a sort of "nod-and-wink" manner.  I would not be shocked if it were common (if not widespread) that some drill seargents, more likely in the past, but perhaps even today in isolated cases, behaved like Lee Ermey's character in Full Metal Jacket, without reprocussions.  -- Jayron  32  17:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

When battery is sparked by high tension, soldiers should have the capacity to induce resistance even if their potential terminates in a dry cell and discharge. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRANDY AND WHISKY?
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRANDY AND WHISKY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.96.217 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote from the top of THIS very page where you have posed the question:
 * Is there any way I can get a faster answer?
 * Yes, you can search first. Please do this.
 * In your case, you might look at the articles brandy and whisky. If you still have questions, come back and ask again. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

CRICKET SCORE OF LAST MATCH BETWEEN INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA?
CRICKET SCORE OF LAST MATCH BETWEEN INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.96.217 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news service. Please use Google or another search engine to look for this.
 * Also, please do not type in ALL CAPITALS: it is harder to read, and considered to be shouting. --ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Beeb reports on India's recent games. I'd imagine most of India's newspapers' websites will covert it more detail. CS Miller (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate question removed. --ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And please do not post the same question on different ref desks - it has been answered here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As well as here --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  23:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (cricinfo) generally has ball by ball coverage of all international matches between (men's) test sides and also often live scores and if not at least postmatch scorecards of many matches between women's and youth teams, non test sides and domestic competitions of test countries too. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

mechanical pencil mystery
I receved a very nice mechanical pencil for christmas. There is a thin peice of steel, like a needle stuck on the side of the eraser that fits inside the the lead tube. What is it for? --hacky (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Soft leads (2B and higher) can get broken inside the guiding mechanism (essentially it is a clamping chuck and a chuck ring) and get stuck. The lengthy pin attached to the eraser can be used to clear any such obstruction.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The things we never know --hacky (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes its for reaming out your tube.--92.28.87.165 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to get personal about it. :) --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch!Edison (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)