Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 June 15

= June 15 =

30th Street in Manhattan?
Does it not exist? 30th Street (Manhattan) redirects to List of streets in Manhattan, but there's no real discussion of it. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They exist. They are West 30th Street and East 30th Street. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @ the OP: Why does it need a Wikipedia page if it exists? The street I live on exists, but has no Wikipedia page. What is special and distinctive about 30th Street that places it on standing with thoroughfares like the Appian Way or Rodeo Drive or the Lincoln Highway? -- Jayron  32  02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing particularly special about 30th Street in Manhattan. 34th Street is the nearest major street, and 23rd in the other direction. Even 31st Street is of greater note. Pfly (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

please suggest
i just had a broadband connection installed, is there some ways wherein i can use my internet raher than just chatting/facebook/songs as i had them enough. cann i i put to some learning use. i mean make it worthwhile.. any advice is appriciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.72.95 (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For the most varied of educations read this page every day and be astonished at the variety of questions and the erudite (usually) answers.--Artjo (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also check out our articles and maybe HowStuffWorks. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Click on the "Random article" link in the top left corner of any Wikipedia page. Though, I generally get articles about roads and stub articles on small towns.  If you're into computer type things, you could try w3schools and read a tutorial.  Dismas |(talk) 07:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TED, for a start. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Try youtube! I can spend hours on there sometimes... I learn a hell of a lot about the world around me from that... It's not all good stuff, but I've certainly learnt a lot! In amongst the daft and stupid people there are occasional moments of absolute genius captured on camera... The latest video I watched on there is American chat show host Conan O'Brien addressing graduates of Dartmouth College in New Hampshire with this year's Commencement Speech... Search for that as it's well worth a watch... It's 22 mins of some of the funniest yet amazingly inspirational public speaking I've heard in a while...  gaz hiley  10:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Google is your friend! Type in what you are interested in and follow the links. But beware: not everything you read on the Internet is true. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Learn a foreign language for free, courtesy of the BBC website. --Viennese Waltz 12:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You've already found Wikipedia - I suggest you stay here. You can learn a lot. There is a search box at the top of every page - just search for something you are interested in, read an article about it and follow whatever links look interesting. Before you know it, hours will have passed and you'll have learned a lot about fascinated subjects you didn't even know existed! --Tango (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and if you really want a challenge, start to contribute to Wikipedia. It is a fantastic way to learn. A real challenge! (But not for everyone, of course.) BrainyBabe (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

photosensitive issue
do children watching teletoon retro or baby tv have been exposed to photosensitive seizure like pokemon.i need you help.please respond.my son had a seizure while watching teletoon retro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.227.125 (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to get your son proper treatment from a doctor, and not rely on random anonymous people on the internet. We do not give medical advice.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You could contact the regulatory authority for television in the country in which you live. Many nations have regulations on TV broadcasts to ensure images likely to cause a seizure are not broadcast: Ofcom in the UK do; I can't find any information from the US Federal Communications Commission but they might.  The regulatory authority may be able to provide information on whether there have been complaints about a show, and on how they regulate images likely to cause photosensitive epilepsy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Judging by the location of the OP's IP, the authority to contact is the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. Here is their web page with contact information. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No medical advice i kan reed (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

London 1940
For a major birthday I have just been given a copy of the Daily Mail of 30th December 1940, the day after the first massive German air raid over London. The newspaper lays heavy emphasis on the lack of 'Fire Wardens' on the commercial buildings in the city and called for the Government to compel companies to employ Fire Wardens. Does anyone know if this law/regulation was ever enacted please? It so happens that my father was an acting Fire Warden on the roof of the Daily Mail offices that night.--Artjo (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no personal knowledge but I found your question interesting. It looks as if commercial premises were required to provide fire watchers "The Fire Watchers Order of September 1940 contained so many loopholes that recruitment was poor. New regulations of January 1941 introduced compulsory service in areas where insufficient volunteers came forward" and so the regulations were strengthened as the war went on "The legal obligation upon business premises was further increased with the Fire Prevention (Business Premises) Order, 1941" and a parliamentary debate. You will be aware of the WP article Second Great Fire of London but other people looking here may be interested. The famous photograph was taken from the roof of the Daily Mail building. There is also the article Civil Defence Service but that does not seem to directly answer your question. Thincat (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard that fire wardens, or some similar term, were in charge of ensuring homes and businesses limited the light they emitted at night so they'd be harder to target from bombers. This might be what you're referring to, but it might be broader too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Air Raid Precautions wardens were in charge of enforcing the blackout, making sure people covered their windows and didn't show external lights; they seem to have been different from fire wardens. The BBC has information on one person's experience as a fire warden; he was a volunteer in the Auxiliary Fire Service. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Thincat for a quick and informative response, much appreciated.--Artjo (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A Brief History of Civil Defence suggests that fire wardens and fire watchers were neither ARP nor AFS but part of an organisation called Fire Prevention Services (page 17 or 19/80 of the pdf doc). Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For interest - a short mention at the start of the foreword of "The Trial of Harry Dobkin" (a 1944 book reporting a 1942 trial in which the defendant was a fire-watcher):
 * FUTURE GENERATIONS, studying the second phase of the World War, will discover that one occupation which absorbed the services of vast numbers of British subjects (many of them, no doubt, otherwise unemployable) was that of 'fire-watching'. By some Order or other–there were so many of these that only experts can distinguish them–every business firm after the first aerial devastation of London was obliged to provide a night watchman for its premises who would give prompt notice, and so prevent the spread, of fires started by the enemy airplanes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My grandmother and her sister talked about the war a lot, and whenever fire-watching was mentioned they always giggled and smirked at each other. I was too young to understand but I was later told that, as they were both still living at home, the roof of the buliding where they worked was the only place they could guarantee an uninterrupted night with their boyfriends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.129.211 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Starbucks in Salt Lake City
The book 'Starbucked' mentioned that in Salt Lake City you can buy a cup of coffee with no logo on it. Presumably so that Mormons can hide their caffeine intake. Can anyone find independent verification of this claim? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since all Starbucks, as far as I know, sell decaffeinated coffee on their regular menu, it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. I don't believe there is a Mormon proscription against drinking decaf.   So the rationale seems suspect to begin with.  Also, I did find this review of a Salt Lake City Starbucks which indicates that the coffee cup does indeed have the corporate logo on it.  That doesn't mean that at some time in the past, at some stores in SLC that the Starbucks cups were not unadorned... -- Jayron  32  14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If Mormon policy is simply a ban on caffeine, then that implies Mormon consumption of decaf is forbidden. Decaffeinated coffee is not caffeine free coffee, as explained here Decaffeination. The amount of caffeine in decaf is comparable to Green_tea. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite correct; though it should be noted that there are hot beverages on the Starbucks menu which are genuinely devoid of caffeine: some of the herbal teas, hot apple cider, and probably others. That said, the letter of the Mormon prohibition forbids "hot drinks", which has been interpreted in practice to actually mean tea or coffee.  This article gives a quick rundown of what's in and what's out.  There's no explicit mention of caffeine in the relevant rules.
 * Herbal tea is iffy, but probably okay. Green tea is right out.
 * Chocolate is permitted, despite containing theobromine (a very close chemical relative to caffeine).
 * Hot cider and hot chocolate are fine.
 * Decaf coffee is probably on the naughty list, though there's been no absolute statement from the church. Iced (caffeinated) coffee and iced tea are definitely forbidden, despite not being 'hot'.
 * Confused yet? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Salt Lake City article indicates there is a signifiant non-Mormon population in the city, who are presumably not bound by Mormon rules about caffeine and such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also not seeing anything offhand that indicates that alcohol is legally prohibited, and that's certainly very high on the Mormon no-no list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? I don't think anyone is talking about legal restrictions. People have suggested that Starbucks in Salt Lake City may offer brandless cups so it's not clear where the cup came from as it may be socially uncomfortable for Mormons to be seen drinking something likely prohibited. However as has been pointed out there's currently no independent evidence of it happening. And whether it's likely to be a problem is unclear because you can probably get hot drinks from Starbucks that aren't generally considered prohibited. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How sure is everyone that it's the caffeine that is the reason? Could they be bothered by the logo itself?  After all, as the Starbucks article points out, there has been some resistance to the breasts in the logo.  Dismas |(talk) 09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or that the logo might look to them like a pagan goddess, i.e. an idol, which is forbidden (unless it looks like a seagull). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

worlds worst
What human being in human history has personally, intentionally and directly killed the most people outside of acts of war? Googlemeister (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have List of murderers by number of victims which follows your stipulations pretty closely, I think. Recury (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually think it would be someone like an executioner, who would actually have been operating within the law. Googlemeister (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Vasili Blokhin. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the majority of his executions came during World War II. If those aren't counted, another possibility is Charles Henri Sanson, the Executioner of Paris during the Reign of Terror, who is reported to have personally executed over 3000 people. Looie496 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jim to Bart, in Blazing Saddles: "I must have killed more men than Cecil B. DeMille. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think another one of the problems is 'personally' and 'directly' may sound simple but it's actually not so easy once you think about it. It seems possible someone involved in one of the extermination camp during the holocaust could qualify since it's possible there was one person who dropped enough of the Zyklon B tablets to beat Vasili Blokhin. Considering the numbers involved in some of the camps, it wouldn't be that hard. Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalin intentionally killed approximately one million people in Great Purge, which is an act outside the act of war. Pol Pot killed approximately 2 million people outside the act of war. --999Zot (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And if we take Holodomor into account and consider the Holodomor was an artificially orchestrated genocidal famine (not a natural one), then the number of people murdered by Stalin will be much higher. --999Zot (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your examples fail on the "personally" criterium of the OP. Dismas |(talk) 09:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Stalin only swung a metaphorical axe, not an actual one. I don't know of any evidence that shows him personally pulling the trigger on hundreds of people rather then just signing death warrents.  Googlemeister (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Stalin and Pol Pot were parts of a modern bureaucratic state apparatus, and assigning individual responsibility to these people is as ridiculous as the thesis putting responsibility directly and exclusively upon Hitler. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)