Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 November 7

= November 7 =

Socks
Why don't socks come in a left and right pair like your shoes? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some do. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know why they'd need to since they stretch to conform to your foot. Dismas |(talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For the same reason why they don't need to make lefthanded screwdrivers. -- Jayron  32  00:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but socks have a habit of slithering away in the dark or magically disappearing from the dryer, so in a short time, you'd be left with a drawerful of right- or left-footed socks, and what good would that do? Textorus (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously they became extinct due to evolutionary selection. They couldn't play footsie and beget little sockettes with the same efficiency as their hermaphrodite rivals. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, mine are all asexual, it seems. They never reproduce, they just dwindle away.  Textorus (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The same process of unnatural selection appears to apply to biros: sometime late at night, all the pens that actually work and were located near your phone (be it home, work or mobile) somehow mysteriously disappear... --Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

are these walking sticks dngerous to humans and dogs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.46.212 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * PowerSox (Gold Toe Brands) makes the APF (Anatomical Performance Fit) line for competitive athletes, complete with left/right socks. Looking on the Internet for reviews, it is claimed that the APF left/right fittings are more comfortable than any other sock on the market. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tabi come in left/right pairs.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Socks for ships captains come with right sock in green and the left sock in red.85.211.229.139 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and only GBP 4.96 from this website (halfway down the page). Alansplodge (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that the concept of left and right shoes is only a relatively recent invention itself. According to our shoe article "Until around 1800, shoes were made without differentiation for the left or right foot." I didn't actually think it was quite that late, though I guess the rich people may have had them a bit earlier and it would have taken quite a while to filter down to the masses. Back in the day shoes were a relatively expensive item of apparel, and you can bet the left/right shoe thing was a real marketing gimmick at the time and you would have paid quite a premium for them when they first came out. I guess the left/right sock thing could still catch on. --jjron (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article contains a certain amount of unreferenced bollocks. On the talk page, somebody has said that left/right footed shoes were common in Roman and mediaeval times - and provided citations that the main article lacks! (The part about the sewn-on sole appearing in the 17th century is 100 years too late, too - as turnshoe says, welted (outer-soled) shoes were a 16th century innovation.) The person says that undifferentiated shoes followed from welted shoes - but I don't know what would motivate this, and I'm dubious about whether they were ever really popular. Card Zero  (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't even like socks with heels, as that requires more work to get them into the proper position. Tube socks also wear better, without getting holes on the big toe, ball of the foot, and heel. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Holes are one of the reasons why I wear socks with a guarantee. I just had a number of pair replaced free of charge (though to ship them to the manufacturer was my cost).  Sent holey socks out, got new socks back in less than a week!  Dismas |(talk) 04:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I love love love my KEEN left-right hiking socks. To my great surprise, it makes an enormous difference. It does, however, make sorting socks more annoying. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical legal question
Before anyone makes the 'no legal advice' comment I'd like to say that I am not thinking of doing the following, the scenario is purely my imagination.

Does anyone know if the following actions would violate any laws. If my friend applies for a telecommute job and is told she has got the position. Little do the company know she actually already has a job an applied on my behalf. My friend continues to work for her previous employer but I (from my home PC) complete the work for her telecommute job. At the end of the month my friend receives salaries from both companies (and pays income tax on both) but after the deducted taxes transfers the salary of the telecommute job to my bank account. Thank you for any replies, I know this is pretty far fetched but I can't stop thinking about it due to the nature of MY job which is a telecommute jobs but never involves any interaction other than via computer which would theoretically make this scenario possible. Best, --91.49.56.249 (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There would be tax complications, if nothing else. She'll pay taxes on both jobs (pushing her into a higher tax bracket) and then she'll pay you. At that point you'll probably need to also pay taxes on the money. There may be ways around this, but I think they would involve setting up as a business.
 * There would also be contract issues. Non-disclosure agreements come to mind as potential problems, but there may be other contract issues as well.
 * All that said, it wouldn't surprise me if there were contract workers who over-promised and then tried to secretly sub-contract out to India. APL (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That was originally what made me think of this. Many people in India do the same job and earn about a third of what us European workers would earn, if not less. Why would I have to pay tax a second time? Surely my friend would merely be transferring my a 'gift'?--91.49.56.249 (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty detailed speculation for someone who is "not thinking of doing this." But while I cannot give legal advice, it seems obvious that Uncle Sam would come after you for tax evasion (not only income tax, but also Social Security and Medicare taxes, which you would be liable for the full amount of, say 15% of wages, as an independent contractor) as well as tax fraud because the taxes are not being paid by you or in your name.  Plus the company would surely fire your friend immediately for fraudulence and maybe even sue her for recovery of wages paid.  And maybe several other legal penalties would apply to either or both of you, I don't know.  And then you would both be out of a job and likely have great difficulty getting another one in that industry.  Definitely a very bad idea all around.  Honesty is the best policy, in the long run.  Textorus (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * " fraudulence "?! Fifelfoo (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A cross between flatulence and fraud - smells bad. Nah, perfectly cromulent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd need to check the specific laws where you live or better yet, ask a professional, but I'd think you'd find the definition of gift in basically every country when it comes to tax purposes, usually excludes someone paying you for work, and your friend is obviously doing this. (Think about it carefully, if someone could pay someone for work by giving them a 'gift' then presuming any gift tax is lower then the income tax, this is what everyone would be doing and no one would need to pay income tax.) As APL said there may be ways to limit the double taxation but it's likely this will be difficult to set up likely requiring your friend setting up a business and also the cooperation of the company paying your friend and you'd probably want to speak to an expert about how to go about it anyway (well some could do it themselves, but probably not anyone who has to ask on the RD if their friend can give them a 'gift' in exchange for work and avoid paying income tax). Of course, as has been said there's a fair chance there will be other legal complications. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were to be a prospect in real life, then you would definitely want to check with an attorney. The attorney could advise you whether you would need to speak to an attorney in another jurisdiction, depending on which court would have jurisdiction over your arrangement. However, if the employment contract, company policies, or other (e.g., nondisclosure) agreements did not forbid subcontracting at the employee's expense, then your friend who had the job could conceivably hire you as an assistant, deduct the cost of your services (perhaps equaling her pay for that job) from her income and then pay you after deducting income, payroll, or other taxes in your name as any other employer would do.  Giving you the money as a "gift" in return for your doing all the work would almost certainly not fly in court if the IRS were to bill you for back taxes and you were to contest, but again, that would be a topic to discuss with an attorney.  Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Euro slot / Delta slot / (that hole at the top of products that hang on shelves in supermarkets)
If you Google-Image-Search 'euro slot' you'll see a picture of a hole that's ubiquitous on supermarket products -- and yet I can't find the Wikipedia article on it?

Same goes for a 'delta slot'.

49.180.19.119 (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Giles Calver (2004) What is packaging design? only mentions the euroslot twice, and in passing. Packaging engineering and design don't seem to publish reliable sources specifically discussing the euroslot.  Deltaslot seems to have no scholarly attention in packaging design and engineering at all.  The reason we don't have an article seems connected to the fact that there aren't reliable sources that discuss euroslot/deltaslot in sufficient depth to sustain an article. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'm looking to buy a punch for the euro-hole and I'm not happy with the results when I search on eBay, so I was trying to find out other names for it -- such as a standard or something -- to find more options. Again, thanks for your previous input 49.186.61.122 (talk)


 * A little Googling suggests hang hole may be an appropriate term. --Bavi H (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can the Police be served in a shop when on duty ?
My question is - can the police (someone in uniform that is) allowed to be served in a shop when they are on duty ? The reason for the question is that someone mentioned to me that English/British police are not allowed to go into shops to buy anything even if it's on their lunch break because of some old law or rule that goes back I think a hundred years or so that was passed to stop them from going into pubs and drinking. And the way that my friend was talking, that law/ rule (not sure what they said it was) not just covers the drinking bit but buying anything from any shop. One of the things that they mentioned was tha a shopkeeper was threatened with to be arrested because she said this to two uniformed police (that uniformed police cannot be served in a shop). She also said that she could get prosected if she did serve them. Is any of this right? 92.27.75.60 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In 2004 Tesco in Northallerton refused to sell alcohol to North Yorks Police Chief Constable Della Cannings until she took of her hat and epaulettes (which they decided made her off-duty) - see this story. That article says the law was due for repeal the following year (2005). I don't believe there's ever been a general prohibition against serving officers in uniform in general, just alcohol. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The relevant law appears to have been the Licensing Act 1964, section 178; it's an interesting note wrt CC Cannings, as it allows the exception given the "authority of a superior officer" - I don't know if a CC has, in the terms of the act, a superior officer (the HS is superior, but not an officer, I guess). That section was apparently repealed entirely by the Licensing Act 2003. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) The Licensing Act 1964 Section 178 forbids serving alcohol or refreshments to a police officer on duty in licensed premises. Perhaps it's the vagueness of 'refreshments' and 'licensed premises' that causes the confusion. Most supermarkets and corner shops have off-licenses and all serve 'refreshments'. Nanonic (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, a related article on Finlay's link Pc banned from buying snack from 2003. Nanonic (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, "refreshment" is an odd word. According to DCMS, in terms of the 2003 act, a "refreshment" is "the supply of hot food or hot drink to the public" (link). So he'd have been okay if the sausage roll was cold. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The DCMS website is referring to the concept of "late night refreshment" under the 2003 Act - see Schedule 2 which defines the provision of "late night refreshment" as:
 * "(a) at any time between the hours of 11.00 p.m. and 5.00 a.m., he supplies hot food or hot drink to members of the public, or a section of the public, on or from any premises, whether for consumption on or off the premises, or
 * "(b) at any time between those hours when members of the public, or a section of the public, are admitted to any premises, he supplies, or holds himself out as willing to supply, hot food or hot drink to any persons, or to persons of a particular description, on or from those premises, whether for consumption on or off the premises"
 * subject to exemptions. "Hot" food or beverage is further defined as food or drink which (or any part of it)
 * "(a) before it is supplied, is heated on the premises or elsewhere for the purpose of enabling it to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature and, at the time of supply, is above that temperature, or
 * "(b) after it is supplied, may be heated on the premises for the purpose of enabling it to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature."
 * In any case, I think it was established earlier that the offending proivision was under the old Act, and it seems pretty dangerous to me to try to apply the definition for a different term under the 2003 Act to a concept under the 1964 Act.
 * "Refreshments" doesn't seem to be defined under the 1964 Act, but reading in context there doesn't seem to be anything contradicting the natural and ordinary meaning of the word. A cold sausage roll would not, it seems to me, fit within this usual meaning. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the"The legislation is due to change anyway this year." line is telling. Presumably the 2003 Act narrowed refreshment in some sense from the regular meaning, which I would take to include sausage rolls. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the 2003 Act completely repeals the 1964 act (p154 of the PDF of the 2003 act). It seems "refreshment" is a term in common law that we're just magically supposed to know what it means (when evidently it's not obvious at all). It's been in related laws since at least the Licensing Act 1872 (which talks about "refreshment houses" without adequately defining one).   The Street Offences Act 1959 does help, a bit, defining such houses as "houses, rooms, shops or buildings kept open for public refreshment, resort and entertainment between ten o'clock at night and five o'clock on the following morning, not being licensed for the sale of beer, cider, wine or spirits".  So clearly it's not limited to alcoholic beverages only, but some (but presumably not all) foodstuffs.  I expect the enumeration of what exactly constitutes a "refreshment" is enumerated only in countless otherwise trivial rulings about the sale of pizzas or pies or packets of crisps. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But the thing that we are arguing non stop about is if it's just alcohol & licenced premises that this is about or if it's any product from any store, shop etc 92.27.75.60 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're arguing about much, if anything. All the stuff everyone has found above shows:
 * There was a law.
 * It covered alcohol, and hot sausage rolls. It's not very clear what else it covered, but no-one has found a case, or a law, where it covered anything that wasn't food or drink. It may, or may not, have covered cold pies and cans of Tizer.
 * It applied to on duty officers, and it didn't take much uniform tweaking to render an officer off duty.
 * I think it's safe to infer from the poverty of news reports that actual prosecutions of merchants for furnishing an on-duty officer with a hot macaroni pie was rare or unknown.
 * The law has been repealed (at least in England & Wales)
 * -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Macaroni pie. Strange north-of-the-border delicacy, apparently.  Never heard of it before.....  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well in Australia they can certainly be served in regular shops, and many Aust laws are obviously based on English antecedents. In fact it used to common for food outlets (Fish & Chip shops, McDonalds, etc) to give uniformed on-duty police free food (a way to encourage their patronage and presence, and, ipso facto, discourage criminals), though I seem to remember hearing that does not happen so often now due to increased scrutiny over corruption, kickbacks, etc. --jjron (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said WE were arguing I meant my friends & I who have been arguing about things like this for ages.92.27.75.60 (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(Commodore) brand rebooting - How many times...
Preamble - I've been a Commodore brand owner/user in my youth. Vic 20 then the Commodore 64... and then at the pinnacle of my Commodore 'career' I was owned an Amiga 600 to which I bought a then super expensive 2'5" internal IDE HD with 200 MB of storeage space.

This last personal Commodore epoch was from around 1992 or so to Playstation time. In the time since I've read multiple times in the media's that the Commodore brand was somehow being used for a new computer thing - latest a a bit 'strange' launch of a PC packed into the C-64 breadbox form factor.

So...here it is - apparently somebody got some right's that they can assert (trademark or whatever) legally in a business environment that still for said somebody makes sense to monetize with something (Not really Commodore) that in my mind is a bit removed from the original brand-idea.

I would guess exercising your trademark right would need tangible products to be available in the market - or maybe the 'licensee' / trademark holder can just once every few years announce some product that was related to the original product group and still have the trademark be 'in effect' - even without having the product to be commercially available....

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_International for background.

Question is - Commodore as an example of an 'undead' brand - Is there any other recognized examples of this - Some (well-known-then-but-now-obscure) brand that just keeps being kept alive.

85.81.121.107 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Pan-Am airlines has been resurected about half a dozen times in different contexts. The story behind the Atari brand is so convoluted you need an advanced degree in information management just to be able to keep track of it all.  Eagle Snacks has been passed around a few times as well.  Not exactly the same, but AT&T is not the AT&T you remember from the Ma Bell days, the modern AT&T is a rebranded version of the Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC).  Digital Equipment Corporation, once a major player in the computer industry in the 1980s, is now a bank.  See Digital Federal Credit Union.  Similar to the AT&T situation, when First Union Bank acquired Wachovia Bank, they dropped their own name and took Wachovia's name instead; this has very recently become moot as Wachovia/First Union was acquired by Wells Fargo, and all remaining Wachovia branches have been rebranded "Wells Fargo".  -- Jayron  32  18:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, Norwest actually acquired Wells Fargo, and as with the First Union / Wachovia situation, they went with the more interesting brand. These mergers can take awhile, With Wells Fargo, it was done in stages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there. :)  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * . Stages.  I totally didn't get that until just now.  How punny.  -- Jayron  32  07:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Common in car brands, as badge engineering - one company buys another, keeps its brands (just the badges), but throws out its designs. Card Zero  (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice - Great examples - I knew Atari, DEC, Pan-Am and Wells Fargo rang a bell as well. I was a little biased towards thinking about tech company brands - the badge engineering link made me think about companies that sells electronic equipment with little to no modification to their products except for maybe a 'brand' logo visible as. (Chinese robot vacuum cleaners comes to mind - I bought a for me not known brand two years ago and 1½ year later  bought virtually the same cleaner but with a Melissa brand stamp.)


 * It's all bout their money it seems: Brand_equity - but it still baffles me that some 'undead' brands keeps getting funding for a relaunch of whatever the rightholders can 'sell'.


 * Seems like 'dead' brands who have not been ultimately tarnished get's some vanity points in the investment world, thus equals money flows anew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.121.107 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is, there usually is no such thing as 'negative attention'. There is attention, and there is a lack of attention.  There is nothing negative, from a marketing point of view, of a brand whose name is known.  Changing people's opinion of the positive/negative aspects of a brand is probably easier than just getting them to recognize the brand as existing in the first place.  With legacy brands, people are already aware of them.  -- Jayron  32  19:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There might be an exception for the Edsel. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Another computer company: Acorn Computers (2006) --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For length of time before resurrection, I don't know if any can beat Spanish car brand Izaro, a short-lived company in the 20s, recently resurrected as a brand for electric cars.. MG Cars is another automobile example: after a long, mostly British ownership, nearly dying in the mid 70s, limping on (latterly as rebadged Rovers) until defunct in 2005, and now resurrected by Chinese carmakers SAIC (who also own less celebrated British car brand Austin-Healey but haven't yet resuscitated it). --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Centronics went from casino industry products to printers to cookware. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See this article about reviving dead brands like Salon Selectives and Brim coffee. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)