Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 October 6

= October 6 =

Chargeable interstate vs. non chargeable interstate
What is the difference between chargeable interstate. Because I-110 in California is chargeable interstate, I-710 is non-chargeable interstate. shows I-110 is add on the highway document system in 1979, does chargeable interstate mean the interstate is allow to be post once government approves it. Because common types of renumbering is dual signing, so in December 1978 I-110 was approve by FHWA, are they allow to do the renumber at 1979. What is non-chargeable interstate. I hear non-chargeable interstate means they aren't allow to sign as interstate unless it is fully upgrade and meets qualifications. I-710 Long Beach Freeway is that sitution.--69.229.6.251 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The construction of the Interstate Highway System was funded 90/10 with the states (the states paid 10% and the feds paid 90% of the costs of the building of the roads: see ). This funding covered the contruction of a specific 42,000-mile system of roads, these 42,000 miles are the "chargeable" roads in the system.  States are allowed to build additional roads into the interstate system, which are numbered and signed as interstates, at their own cost, so long as those roads meet the Interstate Highway standards.  These additional roads are funded 100% by the states, and so are considered "non-chargable" interstates.  For the driver, there should be absolutely no distinction between them.  The difference is just in how the roads were funded; either with federal funds as part of the initial 42000 mile system, or as a later addition to the system funded by the states.  See Interstate_Highway_System and this external link:  which explains the breakdown of chargable and non-chargable routes in California specifically.  -- Jayron  32  02:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

seminar help
Hi As I would like to present seminar about wikipedia in my company, kindly provide me with neecessary documents or previous presentations in order to have a effective presentation and i need these documents/slides for power point presentation for reference. kindly send these to my mail ID. REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.68.25 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're not allowed to post email addresses here. All replies are made on the board.
 * Perhaps you could tell in more detail what you would like the presentation to be about, and we can point you to relevant information. Wikipedia contains a lot of information on Wikipedia (e.g. history, criticism, benefits, policies, how people can be involved). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers
The Chicago Bears vs Tampa Bay Bucs match at Wembley Stadium is coming up and I've been noticing some publicity for it, notably a radio ad I've heard on Absolute Radio (other radio stations are available, and indeed, may be carrying the same ad).

In the course of the advert, it describes Tampa Bay as "the youngest and most dynamic team" in the NFL. Now, while I know that adverts don't carry the same restrictions as we do over WP:PEACOCK and therefore I'll ignore the "most dynamic" bit, they do have to comply with legal requirements to be truthful and I wondered what was meant by "youngest".

AFAIK, (and I don't know masses about American football - I prefer the type of "football" that's mostly played with feet) a number of franchises have been created in recent years and Tampa Bay have been around as long as I can remember. So either I'm wrong, or they're talking about something else.

So, what do they mean? The average age of the squad maybe?

Cheers in advance --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That would likely refer to the average age of the players, yes. If it was about the team as a franchise, they would probably say "newest", and there are a number of teams newer than the Bucs in any case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it true? And if so, why would the marketers think that was an attractive aspect for fans? Smacks me as a bit desperate/random, even if true, like "most piratey", arrr? --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Younger people tend to have more energy maybe? Rookies play harder to make themselves stand out in order to progress their career?  Also, just to give you a heads up, Americans would call this contest a game, not a match.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the advert, done in OTT American accents, calls it a "match-up". Which makes it sound like they're getting married. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, match-up is used some by the media (rarely by people who aren't on tv), but I have never heard them call it a plain match. Googlemeister (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A younger team connotes unpredictability, which might make for an exciting game; and if you go and see them now, there is always the chance that in 40 years when you are a graybeard you will be able to fondly and loudly reminisce about the time you saw Jack Smith play American Football before he became a star. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * According to ESPN, which is generally considered the expert on this sort of research, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers do indeed currently have the youngest average player age in the NFL. In the NFL, as in most professional sports, younger players tend to be much faster and more agile.  However, NFL football places a lot of emphasis on strength, which tends to peak mid-career, as well as tactical knowledge and emotional composure, which tend to peak near the end of one's career.  In other words, younger teams tend to be fun to watch, because they'll go flying around the field looking amazing, and then screw it all up by doing something stupid.  --M @ r ē ino 14:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Bucs are a mediocre team without any big-name stars, so in the absence of anything better to say, the advertisement makes them out to be an "up and coming" team. (I'm guessing the Bucs were picked for the game because of their owner's UK connections.) I find it interesting that British people will turn out in such numbers to watch games like San Francisco vs. Denver. I can't imagine a game between, say, Sunderland and West Bromwich Albion selling out the Meadowlands. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They might, if there were only one soccer game per year in America. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the Bucs a mediocre team. They are in first in their division, the NFC South, a division that also has the Atlanta Falcons, who have been decent for a few years, the New Orleans Saints, who won the Super Bowl two years ago, and have been a regular playoff team for some years, and the Carolina Panthers, who have the most exciting rookie player (Cam Newton) in some time.  The NFC South may be one of the more competitive divisions in the League, the Bucs at 3-1 are doing quite well for themselves.  They have a genuinely fun Quarterback to watch, Josh Freeman, who plays a LOT like Ben Rothlisberger, and their running back LeGarrette Blount is a great runner, the Bucs may be one of the only teams this year who has a reliable running game capable of closing out games at the end.  They're young and unknown, and they get a few too many penalties, but the have the defense and running game that most of the league lacks this year.  This may be their breakout year; I wouldn't be surprised if they went 10-6 this year, and 2012 is likely to be the year this team blows it up; if they can keep this young core of players together they stand to win the Division next year with 12 or 13 wins.  The Bears also have a very good running back, Matt Forte, which is good because their QB Jay Cutler is a bit of an enigma.  The Bucs-Bears game in London stands to be an excellent old-school football game with a focus on rushing over passing.  As far as WHY the Bucs get to play in the UK this year, check out who their owner is.  That will answer a LOT of questions for fans of UK (association) football... -- Jayron  32  23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Beating Indianapolis and Minnesota doesn't count. And look at who they beat last year: the four teams in the NFC "Worst" division, Carolina twice, the Bengals, the Browns, the Redskins and a Saints team that had clinched a playoff spot and rested some starters. They lost every game they played against a good team that was really trying. Had Tampa played a schedule of average difficulty, they could just as easily have finished 6-10. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am surprised you think the NFC South is more competitive then the NFC North, when the North has the only 2 undefeated teams, including last years Superbowl champ, Green Bay. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The North has, IMHO, only two teams capable of making the playoffs this year (GB and Detroit), and their last place team, Minnesota, may be the worst team in all of professional sports, worldwide. They are dreadful.  So yes, comparing the top 2 teams from each Division, the North is better, but teams 3 & 4 from the South are better than teams 3 & 4 from the North.  The NFC North has a better top end, but the South is more competitive top-to-bottom.  -- Jayron  32  14:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, you mean more competitive across the division, I was thinking more competitive to win the Superbowl. My bad.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

should these be in humanities?
is lobbying essentially bribing? what would happen if political parties were banned, and people were limited to one time in ofice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.78.36 (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the first, see lobbying, if you have not yet done so. For the second, it's asking for opinion, which we do not provide, but I guess it would be a shake-up and thrusting that particular political system a few hundred years into the past. That's an unprofessional opinion of a layman. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Several countries do not have political parties: see List of countries without political parties, and others have one-party systems. Even without political parties, political factions tend to form.  The article Term limit may also be of some interest to answering the final part of the question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lobbying is just advocating for a position. It doesn't involve any transfer of funds, so it cannot be bribery. Campaign contributions, however, which may be offered by lobbyists, could be seen as bribery in some cases.  Marco polo (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, a standard lobbyist position is, "Vote this way, or our PAC will spend $2 million against you in the next election." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, our term limit article is really brief and needs a lot of expansion. A standard argument given against term limits (by those who have been elected many times in a row, of course, along with their cronies) is that you end up with a bunch of non-"experts" in Parliament and/or Congress, who don't know the ins-and-outs of what makes good legislation and how to effectively negotiate legislation.  The standard counterargument is that the above ignores the fact that in the US, at least, elected officials spend about 90% of their time on the phone talking to rich people in order to raise money to get elected next time; and their support staff are doing most of the work anyway; sounds like a net gain to me.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience, people are very much in favor of term limits for representatives from districts other than their own. That might be why we don't have a term limits amendment (except for the president). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the oldies vs. the newbies, whether that's good or not depends on which side you take in the recent debt-ceiling crisis, in which the idealist newbies held America hostage for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Arguments against term limits include (1) if a politician isn't standing for re-election what incentive do they have to do a good job? Standing for election keeps politicians honest, and we can always kick bad ones out after a single term (2) a politician approaching the end of a term limit may be a lame duck without the time to implement a long-term plan (3) more tenuously, rather than discouraging corruption it may encourage people to corrupt quicker. On the other hand, incumbency advantage (the tendency for incumbents to be re-elected - see incumbent for details) is one of the imbalances that can be cured by term limits. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the above answers, I can't work out whether the primary task is to advise whether the Humanities desk is the proper place for questions like these, or to answer the 2 questions, or both. The header is supposed to encapsulate the main idea or main point of the post.  So, fwiw, yes, this is the correct place for questions like these.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)