Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 July 24

= July 24 =

Keeping a Good Job Past Retirement Age
Just out of curiosity, what are the odds of keeping a good, successful, high-paying job past retirement age? And by job, I meant jobs excluding those where you or your family runs the business. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is another ridiculous close, Medeis. Now, to Futurist, it would help if you narrowed down what you're looking for. Are you asking about a specific country? It shouldn't be too hard to find, for a developed nation, statistical data on the income distribution with respect to age. It may be harder to find out what proportion of the unemployed elderly voluntarily left their jobs versus being forced out, or what proportion of their income comes from their job as opposed to age-related benefits. I should note that many companies have mandatory retirement due to the concern that the elderly may not be as good at their jobs anymore. And the standards vary by country. In France (in the past, I'm not sure if this is still true) government employees had mandatory retirement regardless of job performance, including academics working for public universities. In the United States, on the other hand, many academics are still working into their 80s. So actually, the best answer would require a country and an industry, and even then, some companies may have policies that land them outside the norm. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Someguy, this is a perfectly reasonable question, it just needs more information. Country and industry would be a good start. Also relevant is current age - if you are reaching retirement age now then we can just look at the current situation. If you are still 20 years from retirement age, say, then we would need to project forward 20 years, which is much more difficult (but a lot has been written on the subject, so we should be able to find some useful references - they will mostly be speculation, but at least there should be some speculation by people well-qualified to speculate on the subject). --Tango (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting that our job is not to answer questions for which valid references can be given, but to rewrite a reader's inquiry for him so that we can imagine a valid answer to a question he didn't ask. Since we are speculating with our crystal balls, the answer here is easy, Futurist110 will never have a good job to retire from before he dies. μηδείς (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So point out to me where Futurist110 said "will I have a good job...". What he/she actually said was "what are the odds of...". It is not the same. I think you're the one rewriting questions here. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mandatory retirement varies by industry and country. Rmhermen (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Medeis is the one who is rewriting my question/inquiry for me. I asked about the odds of someone right now being able to keep a good, high-paying job past retirement age (not about the odds of me keeping a good, high-paying job past retirement age. As for the 2012 stuff, that's just extremely funny. As for the job details, let's try something in regards to computer science/computer programming. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The chances are poor, it seems, in the US. Amongst the presently retiring American workers, almost half of them want to work past the typical retirement age, but only 13% actually managed to. The vast majority were either unable to keep working due to medical issues, or were fired. However, that second reason may be exacerbated by the recent economy. One anecdotal report of a computer programmer being mandated to retire by his company is brought up. Amongst retirement-age individuals who leave their job to start a new one (voluntarily or otherwise), the chance of finding a job appears to be very low , but again, that may caused by the poor economy. One of the common themes I see in these reports is that looking into the past may not serve as a good estimate of post-retirement-age employment. And the reason is that until recently, there had been a growing shift toward retiring early or at least on time amongst Americans. Prior to the housing bubble, pension funds had been mostly rising for decades, making retirement seem more and more desirable. It has only been recently that many 65 and older Americans are looking to keep their jobs or find new ones, and at about the worst time to be doing so. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am simply overwhelmed (I'm getting a little verklempt) by the quality speculation so far, especially given the inquirer is asking for opinions about a question he hasn't even formulated coherently in his own head, let alone this page. But by all means, let's debate our opinion of future events. I for one maintain the OP will be dead long before retirement age as a computer programmer. (That's two links to wikipedia articles me, zero everyone else.) μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not much point in making that sort of tally when you have no respect for the question and have argued that it shouldn't be answered at all. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, Jack, you don't seem to have formatted your the link in your answer properly. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to have any attitude in here. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Peking Beer
I have a 6-pack of Peking Beer, brewed and bottled by Peking Brewery of Peking, China. It was given to me over 20 years ago and the provider cannot recall how, when, or where he obtained it. I can find nothing in internet searches on this product. Peking became Beijing in 1949. The writing on the bottle labels and carton are in both Chinese and English. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.41.222 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that they might use the traditional name for the beer long after the city name officially changes. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Between 1928 and 1949 (when the capital was Nanjing), Beijing was called 北平 Beiping, see Beijing. "Beijing" and "Peking" are just different romanizations of the same name, Hanyu Pinyin and Chinese Postal Map Romanization. —Kusma (t·c) 04:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Google Books shows scattered references to "Peking Brewery" from the 1970s and 1980s, but nothing that seems particularly informative. I gather that is was one of a couple of breweries in Beijing at that time. Looie496 (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone on nationalgunforum.com posted a picture of a bottle and a guess that it was bottled in 1949 (no substantiation or details). Hopefully it wasn't brewed in 1970, when the New China News Agency announced that the Peking Brewery was "busy producing hydrogen, medicines, insecticides, polycrystalline silicon and potassium-sodium tartarate." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the official website of the former Peking Brewery: http://www.beijingbeer.com.cn, now a joint venture with Asahi (of the Superdry fame). Their flagship brand seems to be the "Beijing White".
 * The website says that the company was founded in 1941 (during Japanese occupation? fitting that it is now majority owned by Japanese companies), and the "Peking Beer" brand was always colloquially known as the "Beijing White". It says that it is the oldest beer brand produced in Beijing, was at one time widely sold as a Beijing local specialty and was served at state dinners. 55% of the company was sold to a Hong Kong investor in 1994, followed by the participation of Japanese investors in 1995 and the substitution of Japanese investors for the Hong Kong investor in 1999. The factory was moved in 2003 out to the "more pristine" suburbs ahead of the 2008 Olympics. The new factory commenced production in 2004, with a new packaging and new recipe. All current products are filtered (not pasteurised) beer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Try searching google images for, for example "北京啤酒 50年代" or "北京啤酒 60年代" ("Peking Beer 50s" and "Peking Beer 60s" respectively) (without quotes) for some example images of packaging from the 50s and 60s (or substitute the numbers for 70s, 80s, etc) - do these look like what you've got? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As a general clue as to dates, if your bottle has the characters "國營" at the start of the Chinese text near where it says "Peking Brewery", then it definitely dates from the 1950s or after, since those characters mean "state-run", and nationalisation did not happen until the 1950s. If it says "国营", then it dates from after the 1960s, because these are simplified characters and the simplification of Chinese was not rolled out until the mid-1960s.
 * Whether it says "Peking" or "Beijing" is actually not a very good indicator. Many older brands in China still retain the old-style spelling even today - "Chung Hwa" cigarettes, for example, or "Peking" and "Tsinghua" universities, even "Tsingtao" beer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Query on article on Bernard Sherman
I searched for Barry Sherman on wikpedia and have hit upon the below reference. On trying to learn more about the below from the reference provided, the page is no longer available. Can I please request help with the source of the below statement.

4.^ Barry Sherman is known to law enforcement intelligence to be a business associate of Vito Rizzuto and other members of the Montreal Canada based crime family. The Rizzuto family own a large indirectly held share position in Apotex. In Pictures: 10 Billionaire Family Feuds - Forbes.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. It seems that Forbes have changed their directory structure, rendering the link invalid. The article's still available, though, at http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/22/billionaires-lawsuits-pritzker-biz-cz_lk_1022billiefeuds_slide_7.html?thisSpeed=undefined and the parent article that the slideshow comes from is Billionaire Family Feuds (10th October 2007). I'll also update the reference in our article - thanks for bringing the error to light. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, on further investigation, the statement in the article wasn't supported by the reference. Someone removed it before I could get there - good call. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was me. I didn't have time then to check the source, and it seemed like a risky thing to have in there unreferenced.  Seems sneaky to put your accusation in the reference itself, so we have to go against our instincts and remove a source from an article.  Rojomoke (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Presence of elements on asteroids and meteorites
Are elements really present on asteroids and meteorites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please review our articles on Meteorite_classification, meteorites and asteroids. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything is made of elements. Rojomoke (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Elements are the basic substances from which all matter is made of, everything you see and feel around you is composed of at least 1 element. Therefore asteroids and meteorites are composed of many elements just like rocks here on Earth. If you are referring to less common elements found on asteroids, it is mainly an inference by astrophysicists that there are rare elements on extraterrestrial objects based on the fact that the rare elements found on Earth's crust today are thought to have come from meteorites. The reason that they do not appear in greater quantities here is that during the 4.6+ billion years the Earth has been around, the heavier elements, which are usually the rarer, have been pulled down deep into the core by gravity. Asteroids have much less gravity than our planet and are much smaller, meaning that these heavy elements would not have undergone the same gravitational pull and therefore are more abundant and probably easier to obtain. Tombo7791 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And, conversely, the gravity on meteorites may not be sufficient to capture and hold lighter elements, which, on Earth, are captured and held, "diluting" the heavier elements. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This question has been asked repeatedly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_June_19#Inventory_of_asteroid_contents_per_body.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_June_19#Inventory_of_asteroid_contents.3F

μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Youtube Webcam uploads
Recently I was trying to direct upload from Webcam to Youtube, however, the Start Recording option was greyed out completely and there was no way to get it back. It only worked the first time when I uploaded a webcam video, however after that nothing seemed to work. I have tried this on a different computer, but nothing seems to be working, any ideas?? 184.149.138.18 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * YouTube will have a help section, and possibly even a contact support number or email address. They are your best bet. I would provide the exact address but I'm not able to access YouTube on this computer... gaz hiley  11:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't access it here either but googling uploading from webcam to youtube returns a lot of useful-looking results. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * YouTube's so-called Help is virtually nonexistent. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Airline industry
Why do flag carrier airlines only fly to and from their base countries? Surely, they could make more money if they had bases in other countries as well such as low cost airlines do. 176.27.223.180 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They may not be allowed to; see Freedoms of the air for a summmary. They may also want to concentrate on the long haul market and let the low-cost carriers compete for the cheap domestic flights (which is what intra-EU flights essentially are). Ryanair can get away with removing toilets; BA not so much. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do they really not have any toilets ? That would seem counterproductive, in that it would result in some rather nasty messes to clean up. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have said "reducing toilets". Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, to make a profit, it's important for an airline to have large volumes on each of their routes. Adding routes outside their normal area would likely only result in small volumes for those routes. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your premise is wrong. QANTAS is Australia's flag carrier and they have a hub in Singapore. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryanair is another counter-example: though based in Dublin with a hub at London Stansted, it flies a wide variety of direct routes between other cities. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryanair is not considered a flag carrier, which is what the question was about. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Unique countries
When learning about the relationship between the OECD, the CoE, the APEC, and the NAM, we were asked to find out countries, as many as possible, each of which is uniquely-definable - without indicating any country name - but rather by using names of international organizations of the following eight only: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Euro zone, Schengen Area, European Economic Area (EEA), European Union (EU), Council of Europe (CoE), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

Up to now, I've found ten countries, as following:


 * 1) A unique country, being a member in the OECD and in the Euro zone, yet not being a member in the Schengen Area (see solution).
 * 2) A unique country, not being a member in the OECD, yet being a member in the Euro zone and in the Schengen Area (see solution).
 * 3) A unique country, not being a member in the OECD nor in the Schengen Area, yet being a member in the Euro zone (see solution).
 * 4) A unique country, not being a member in the OECD nor in the EU, yet being a member in the EEA and in the Schengen Area (see solution).
 * 5) A unique country, not being a member in the OECD nor in the EEA, yet being a member in the Schengen Area (see solution).
 * 6) A unique country, being a member in the OECD and in the Schengen Area, yet not being a member in the EEA (see solution).
 * 7) A unique country, being a member in the OECD and in the EU, yet not being a member in the Euro zone nor in the Schengen Area (see solution).
 * 8) A unique country, being a member in the OECD and in the CoE, yet not being a member in the EU (see solution).
 * 9) A unique country, being a member in the OECD, yet not being a member in the CoE nor in the APEC (see solution).
 * 10) A unique country, being a member in the OECD and in the NAM (see solution).

Can anybody here think about any additional countries, each of which is uniquely-definable - without indicating any country name - but rather by using names of international organizations of the eight (mentioned above) only? . Cohneli (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your number 5 is questionable, as that country is only a de facto member of the Schengen Area. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it will no longer be questionable - once I add the term "at least de facto" - to the word "member". Cohneli (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With 8 categories, there are 2^8=256 combinations - a given country is either in or not in (2 options) each category (8 categories). That's not many, so you could just go through each one in turn and see how many countries fit into it (you can probably exclude quite a few of those combinations very quickly, so you don't have to manually check all 256 - you could also automate the process quite easily if you know some computer programming). --Tango (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not exactly what you're looking for but this image could be helpful. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "not exactly", but rather "definitely not" (since I know all of those details by heart). Cohneli (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the details that are meant to be helpful, but rather the concept. If you draw the complete Euler diagram for all of your 8 categories the countries that are in a region of their own are the unique ones. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, but the technique of Euler diagram is well-known, so it was definitely not what I was looking for. Why didn't you use it - yourself, instead of using Excel? That's why I didn't want to use it either. Cohneli (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an excel spreadsheet that determined all of the other unique nations. They are: 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) A unique country, being a member in the NAM and in the CoE (see solution).
 * 2) A unique country, being a member in the APEC and in the CoE (see solution).
 * 3) A unique country, being a member in the OECD and in the EEA, and in the APEC (see solution).


 * Sorry 203 but I think something went wrong with your spreadsheet for you to end up with USA in the EEA... - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the first two countries you've added. As Cucumber Mike has pointed out, the third country you've added - proves that your program was wrong. Maybe, if USA hadn't been included in your EEA list, your program might have yielded some other unique countries - that your program can't (currently) consider as unique - as long as USA is included in your EEA list. Cohneli (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, that must have been a transcription error when I copied the tables into excel (I couldn't find a table for the EEA, so I copied it out manually and must have put down US instead of UK). I corrected that in the excel sheet and it doesn't name any new unique nations or remove any other nations, it just removes the USA. Logically, there's no way that another unique country could have been precluded from being listed as unique by the USA being listed as in the EEA, since the USA was listed as unique under that false categorisation. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, USA was indeed listed as unique under that false category combination; However, logically (as you've put it), there could have been another category combination, containing the EEA category, and satisfied by both USA and another country (say: India), so that if USA hadn't been included in your previous (wrong) EEA list, then that (second) category combination would have been satisfied by a unique country (i.e. India - in my example above). Cohneli (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that were the case then USA would not have been marked as a unique country by the excel spreadsheet, because it would have had the same category combination as India. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if it was in APEC and OECD. There are still all the other possible cases involving EEA besides any specific subsets you listed above (or that have otherwise already been mentioned or ruled out) which involve any of the groupings the US is part of. To use an example, if country Y is in APEC and EEA and no other country is in both of these and given that the US is in APEC, country Y would not have shown up in your spreadsheet because as far as your spreadsheet was concerned country Y was not unique because the US is also in EEA. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what I'm trying to explain is that if country Y was in APEC and EEA and the USA was incorrectly listed as being in APEC and EEA, then neither would be indicated as being unique by my sheet because they would both be the same. But the USA was listed as being unique when it had that incorrect categorization. That means that there was no genuinely unique country that correctly had that combination. If there is a mistake in the combinations of any of the unique countries, whereby they are listed as being in an organisation that they are not, then correcting that mistake will never lead to a new unique country being indicated, but it may lead to that country no longer being unique (which is what happened in this case) i.e. if A, B and C are in state X and D is in state Y changing the state of D can never lead to A, B or C having a unique state. If A and B are in state X and C and D are in state Y nothing is in a unique state to begin with. If you still don't believe me, try it; find a unique country for which you can change one of it's affiliations and thereby make a different country become unique. It's not logically possible. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please notice that every country may belong to more than one category combination (unless you don't interpret the term category combination as I do); For example, Germany belongs to the combination: EEA, Euro zone, OECD, but it also belongs to the combination: EEA, EU, Schengen Area; Doesn't it? Your (incorrectly) classifying USA as belonging to the EEA list, caused USA to be (incorrectly) marked as belonging (uniquely) to the category combination you were talking about, but - logically - this may also have (theoretically) made USA belong incorrectly to another category combination, in which USA was not unique - because India belongs (truely) to this (second) category combination as well. Now, after your removing USA from the EEA list, USA no longer belongs to the first category combination - to which USA was incorrectly marked as unique, nor does USA belong any longer to the second category combination - to which India truly belongs, so that: theoretically, after your removing USA from the EEA list, India may now be marked as unique in the second category combination (unless you don't interpret the term category combination as I do. How many category combinations did you check out?) Cohneli (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking maybe I haven't even done what you were asking because we seem to have different understandings of the term "category combination". This is the table I used to sort out the countries. They were assigned arbitrary scores for being members of the different groups; 1 for CoE, 10 for NAM, etc. The sum of those scores were calculated and any total score that only occurred once caused that nation to be marked as being unique. When I transcribed in the wiki format below, I didn't include countries that have the same total score as 2 other already included countries, because that's already enough to exlude them from being unique and it would have taken me hours to do.

It's pretty clear to me from the table that changing the categories of any unique country can never make a non-unique country become unique. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please notice that Monaco is a ("de facto") member in Schengen Area. Your classifying Monaco as not belonging to the Schengen list - caused Monaco to be ("incorrectly") marked as belonging to a category combination, in which Monaco was not unique - because India (for example) belongs (truely) to this category combination as well. However, when you ("correctly") put Monaco on the list of ("de facto") Schengen members, Monaco no longer belongs to the category combination to which India truly belongs, so that: theoretically, after you put Monaco on the Schengen list, India may now turn out to be marked as unique in its category combination.
 * Additionally, if you had interpreted the term "category combination" as I did, so that Germany (for example) had been marked as belonging to both the combination EEA EZ OECD - and the combination EEA EU Schengen (and some other combinations), then - theoretically - you could have found out countries belonging uniquely to more than one "category combination" (interpreted as above), and this could have enlarged the domain of unique-definitions (yet not the domain of solutions - which admittedly was what I originally requested); However, your excel spreadsheet is unable to enlarge the domain of unique definitions - even if this domain is really larger than what you've found out. Cohneli (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I already tried it and gave you the hypothetical example in my earlier answer. Read what I said again. If country Y is uniquely in EEA and APEC, it would not have been picked up in your list. According to your list the USA is in EEA and APEC, therefore according to your list country Y is not uniquely in EEA and APEC (as both the USA and country Y are in EEA and APEC). So it would rightly/wrongly been excluded. But as I've said several times now, in reality country Y is uniquely in EEA and APEC. Country Y is obviously not in the OECD otherwise the USA would not be uniquely in OECD, APEC and EEA. (I'm not saying such an example actually exists, simply that it's possible.) P.S. Looking at the list above, the risk of error is actually fairly small because the number of categories the USA is in is small, only APEC and OECD and these are also bodies with many overlapping countries (so too EEA with OECD) but this doesn't change the theoretical possibility. P.P.S. Looking futher at the OP's original comments, it seems the OP was also interested in anything which can be defined by nots if necessary, I don't know if people here have considered these possibilities. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If country Y was uniquely in EEA and APEC, but not in OECD, the USA being incorrectly listed as being in EEA, APEC and OECD would not have ruled it out at all. Country Y would be the only country with that exact combination. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By that logic Liechtenstein (which is in Schengen, EEA and CoE) would not be unique because Latvia is in the same organisations plus the EU. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here As I mentioned, the OP used 'not' in the answers, for example when they mentioned Liechtenstein. I'm pretty sure what they gave was enough to uniquely identify each country, whether or not the countries we also members of other the other unspecified categories. For example, Liechtenstein is also a member of the CoE,, similarly it's not a member of NAM, the EuroZone or APEC none which they specified as it was I presume superflourous information. (It's possible there are other possible sets of non superflourous categories which would specify Liechtenstein, I'm not sure if the OP considered this as it probably didn't matter to them.) Similarly Ireland is EEA etc. I don't think I was the only one who assumed since you didn't mention 'not' it wasn't needed for your answers. If you're trying to say in your examples above you meant that the countries were not in any of the other categories, this was entirely unclear to me. If this is what you're saying it still remains unclear whether this is actually needed for your answers or you simply didn't consider the possibility (it sounds like you didn't). As I explained below with the hypothetical correct case of the USA being in the EEA, specifying a country in the EEA and APEC would have been enough to identify the USA which seems to be what the OP is interested in. The USA also being in the OECD and not being a member of the rest was superflourous information unneeded to uniquely identify the USA. (This of course means if the USA was also a member of some other grouping like NAM, this would also make no difference as to whether the EEA and APEC would identify the USA although it may mean some other non superflorous set of categories would identify the USA.) P.S. Chile is a good real world example of the hypothetical USA example. Presuming the OP is right, OECD and NAM is enough to identify Chile. The fact it's also in APEC and I'm pretty sure none of the rest, is superflourous. In fact in this case at least, I'm pretty there's also no other non superflorous set which would uniquely identify Chile; APEC and NAM (Malaysia, Vietnam, ??) wouldn't nor would OECD and APEC (Australia, New Zealand, USA, ??) and adding not wouldn't help (none of the example countries I gave are in any of the other cats). P.P.S. I just realised Cohneli is actually the OP so I'm even more sure their thoughts are akin to mine. Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything you have said about the superfluous information is absolutely right as far as I can see. The way I've described Russia and Azerbaijan is correct in that those are unique ways to identify the countries with the least amount of information. The USA was not correct in that regard. It should have just mentioned EEA and APEC as you've noted elsewhere. The fact is that I just tried to name the countries, not so much correctly express the identifiers. Other than that, because my spreadsheet takes into account both what organisations a country is in, and what organisations it is not in, what I said about it not being possible for other unique nations to be indicated when I corrected the mistake is still true, though perhaps no one else could have understood what I meant, because they didn't know how my sheet worked. I took it as implicit that any way of determining the answer must take into account the "nots". 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Er yes it would. You seem to be forgetting that the USA was incorrectly listed as being in EEA for all your calculations, not just the one where you got the USA. The USA being in the EEA incorrectly, would mean that the subset of countries in the EEA and in APEC are country Y and the USA according to what you did. Country Y would not be uniquely in EEA and APEC since both the USA and country Y are in EEA and APEC according to your data. The USA is also in OECD but it's irrelevant here, we're concentrating on whether country Y is unique according to what you did it wasn't even if it was in reality. If you still don't get it my only suggestion is to try it on paper. Nil Einne (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See my table above. If county Y was in EEA and APEC it's score would be 10100. The USA's incorrect score was 10010100. The USA's correct score was 10000100. Country Y's score is unique irrespective of whether or not the USA is in the EEA. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * EC/Edit: From my second response above, it's possible country Y would not have been missed, since it's entirely unclear to me what you did. If you considered all the nots will all your analysis then it's true the country Y wouldn't have been missed by merit of it being in EEA and APEC but not the rest whereas the USA as in EEA, APEC and the OECD but not the rest. After EC: I saw your score table after my replies above but couldn't/can't be bothered trying to work out what was going on since I've already spent way too much time on this. (Edit: And I think the more important consideration now is that someone probably wants to look in to your examples and work out what exactly is needed to uniquely identify the countries listed since the cats you gave and none of the other cats probably means superflorous info.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I basically just translated the countries' affiliations into binary identifiers (1s for being in an organisation, 0s for not being in it) and then compared those to each other to determine the unique ones. So yes, the "nots" are part of the analysis. I think I get what you mean now; that Country Y would not be uniquely described by saying "is in APEC and EEA" if the USA was described by "is in APEC, EEA and OECD" - you would have to add the "but not in OECD" into the description of Country Y. Because I worked this out mathematically I was probably somewhat imprecise in the way I put that back into words in my initial response. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, I don't think it matters, I believe the nots aren't needed for either Azerbaijan or Russia. (Although if I'm thinking about what you did correctly, there was some risk, e.g. if country α and β where in NAM, CoE and the EEA and no other groupings you wouldn't have identified either as being uniquely identifable since they weren't and so had the same number. But Azerbaijan would still have shown as being unique under NAM and CoE although specifying it was not in the EEA was needed to seperate it from α and β.) Ironically if the earlier example of country Y had existed, this confusion probably would have been avoided since you would have mentioned country Y being in APEC and EEA and the US being in EEA, APEC and OECD. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW I would add one of my assumptions (as I think others) which may not have been correct was that when you said the US was uniquely a member of OECD, EEA and APEC, you weren't also going to mention if they were also for example a member of category C. Obviously the US would also uniquely be a member of catC, OECD, EEA and APEC but it was a moot point. If the US could be a member of other categories then those 3 there were far more possibilities a priori. (I didn't really think about what you would have done if the US was uniquely a member of catC, OECD and EEA, it wasn't that important. If you would have specified that, since you didn't that implies the US was not uniqely a member of these 3, therefore some other country may be but you missed it. If you wouldn't have mentioned it because you already had a way of specifying the US then the absence provides no further info.) Note however even if my basic assumption was incorrect, it doesn't change the fact that provided there were at least 3 total categories the US was in, the US not being in one of them means a priori you may have missed additional countries (making the assumption the category you incorrectly tagged the US in has more then one member). Of course with only 3 total categories, there are only 2 possibilities, the more categories the US was a member of the more possible unique combinations you may have erroneously discarded. Looking more carefully, an this particular case since as I expect there is no one in both APEC and EEA and several countries in both the OECD and EEA, you can't have excluded any countries uniquely identifable erroneously (presuming this was your only error). Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually now that we're actually looking in to the combinations, it occured to me that since there is indeed no country that is in the EEA and APEC (I checked again), the OECD part while true wasn't necessary. If the US was in the EEA, APEC and EEA would be enough (at least IMO, it would have been better to specify that the US is uniqely idenfiable by being in the EEA and APEC but are also a member of OECD). If you did notice the US was uniquely a member of the EEA and APEC and didn't mention it in your original post remember this may have ruled out the possibility of some other country being unique identiable by being in the EEA and APEC for you, but not for us without looking in to the countries/categories. Knowing what you did here, I guess my assumption was wrong and it's not surprise to you the US is not in any other categories. But this still didn't a priori rule the possibility there was some uniquely idenfiable country in OECD and EEA but not APEC. (And if you weren't aware EEA and APEC was enough for the US in your original analysis, I'm not sure you properly ruled out this possibility either.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

17-year-old drinking 16 cans of beer
I just read today's Ilta-Sanomat down at the local pub, and it said that a 17-year-old who had killed a 18-year-old in his apartment had drunk 16 cans of beer during the day. Even if they are "small" cans (one third of a litre as opposed to one half), that amounts to over five litres. I remember my worst ever drinking experience, when I had drunk three litres of beer, one small glass of red wine, and three shots of Salmiakki Koskenkorva (about 12 centilitres put together). I remember that I could go home all OK, but once I went there, I had to vomit in the middle of the night. And that was when I was over 30. How the heck can a 17-year-old stand five litres of beer in one day? J I P &#124; Talk 19:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please review our articles on Alcohol tolerance, Alcoholic_beverages, Alcohol intoxication, and Blood alcohol content. Your question is mostly addressed in those. Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't mark questions as "done", at least until it is clear that the OP has all the information they were looking for. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See alcohol tolerance. If he's a large man, has drunk large amounts regularly for several years (which would mean starting quite young, but some people do) and spread them out over a long enough period and ate enough food with them, then 16 cans of beer isn't really that much. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not read our article Kastenlauf or even de:Kastenlauf showing 18-year-olds drinking 5 litres of beer (or 6 litres in the Bremen Kastenlauf) or more if penalty beers are drunk. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the 17 year old was drinking over the course of the whole day, say 8 hours, that's only 2 drinks an hour. Certainly enough to get someone drunk, but not fatally so. Vespine (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends a lot on the person. 2 beers per hour is not a fantastically large amount of beer, and depending on how you define "drunk", he may have not been there even.  -- Jayron  32  02:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Two beers an hour isn't an amount of beer, it is rate of drinking. How much beer it is depends on how long you maintain it - maintaining it for 8 hours results in drinking a large amount of beer. --Tango (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See David Boon. Zoonoses (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pen names on news stories — and other works
There's a bit of a to-do in the news lately about Journatic's employees' use of pen names in news bylines. I don't see what the problem is: books use pen names all the time and for any number of reasons. Our article on Journatic says, as if by way of explanation, that "The use of fake bylines would cause higher search engine ranking". (The source for that claim is in Norwegian, so I haven't checked it.) Is that really the problem here: the use of pen names for SEO purposes? That seems odd, as (a) it seems like a minor offense (relative to the to-do made over it) and (b) it seems some of the problem with the pen names was in print media. Or is there some other reason the use of pen names in Journatic's case was viewed as bad? 68.188.73.250 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not the fact that they use pen names; it's why. This Guardian op-ed states that the pen names were assumed not for SEO but to hide the fact that Journatic was running the journalistic equivalent of a sweatshop. This SFWeekly blog  claims that Journatic was trying to protect its writers from legal threats - and makes allegations of plagiarism and fabrication, which to me sounds as if the company might have been worried about legitimate lawsuits, not frivolous actions.


 * There are many reasons why non-journalist writers use pen names, from euphony (Lipshitz is a fine Eastern European name; would you want it on a kids' book?) to clarity (one writer I know uses a different pen name in each genre he writes in) to legitimate safety reasons (novelists are not uncommon targets of crazies). --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Guardian op-ed, while deriding the sweatshop, doesn't explicitly say (or even, to my mind, imply) that that was the reason for using fake bylines. And the SFWeekly blog post mentions "the professionally unethical practice of chronically using fake bylines", as if the practice is unethical regardless of purpose. Why would it be considered unethical? Anonymous 21:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Norwegian source does indeed say that the bylines were written to improve Google rankings. The whole article is a bit lengthy, but I think it could be useful in understanding this further, so I've gone ahead and translated the whole thing here (click "show" to un-collapse the box if you want to read it). I could probably improve the wording in some places, but going through it once as I have is sufficient to render an English version that is easily understood, I think.

An American firm employed Asians to write hyperlocal articles for newspapers under false names. [N.B. 'hyperlocal' basically describes content written and targeted to a very specific local demographic, from what our article says.]

By Glenn Slydal Johansen

This past week, the largely-unknown company Journatic has sparked debate in American media. The reason for this is the discovery that several major American newspapers have published articles from the news outsourcing company using false bylines.

Hyperlocal The radio programme "This American Life" was the first to reveal the fact that "thousands" of articles like these are published in several papers. Chicago Tribune, whose owner is a Jounatic shareholder, has been named explicitly in connection with their having confirmed that the issue is undergoing review. Later, the Chicago Sun-Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Houston Chronicle were also identified in the scandal, according to the Chicago Tribune itself.

The outsourcing company delivers large amounts of information, generally with hyperlocal connections, to these newspapers. Such information encompasses, among other things, local arrests, sale of real estate, and even the week's school lunch menu.

Written by Filipinos Journatic freelancer Ryan Smith said on the radio programme that he has worked on articles that were written under aliases by employees. He has also written his own stories for newspapers in places he's never even been.

"There's something fake about the whole process. The picking of false names for these writers in the Philippines is just one symptom of it," says Smith in the programme, according to NPR. Smith went into detail about his experience in The Guardian.

It is said that Journatic, in addition to its 60 full-time employees, consists of 200 freelancers in the US, and 100 employees in foreign countries.

[Journatic founder] admits there's a problem "How do you get police notices from 90 cities? It's not easy. But that's what we do," says Brian Timpone, who founded Journatic six years ago, according to NPR.

He admits that the use of false bylines was wrong, but adds that the issue has to do only with transaction data for property transfers. [I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean; translated loosely.] The bylines were added to rank higher in Google search results.

Failed Former chief editor Tim McGuire with the Minneapolis Star Tribunes says to NRP that the scandal is a short-sighted measure taken to cut costs.

"It's not a long-term solution to bring local news to people who want it," says McGuire, who currently is an instructor for press ethics and media economics at Arizona State University's Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

He says that, in the long run, readers will reject papers that make heavy use of Journatic.

"They're engaging in forgery, and some would even call it swindling. They're pretending to produce local news with people who aren't local. I think it's naïve to believe that local news is only about things that are happening locally. I think local news must also be produced locally," says McGuire.

Ensuring authenticity The revelation has created strong reactions in the US. Columnists for several papers have written about the issue, according to media website Poynter. One of them is Fred Grimm with the Miami Herald, who ensures his readers that he is real.

"Don't wory about it—Fred Grimm has yet to be outsourced. It's just me," writes Grimm

New York Times-columnist David Carr described Journatic as a "content farm".

"The content provider Journatic is based on the brave notion that the writing of local news articles can be driven with a call-centre kind of model, where employees can serve the wishes of clients regardless of affiliation and geographic location," writes Carr. He adds:

"The publishing houses ought to remember that to cut corners is to ignore a fundamental fact: good journalism, regardless of the platform, is the only sure safeguard against irrelevance."

dalahäst (let's talk!) 09:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama Logo
Is there any hidden signifigance to the decal Obama uses. He was reported to have recently replaced the American flag on the tail of AF1 with this abomination. What does it mean? I'm sure you have seen it - a blue circle around a white core with flashes of red and white across the bottom. Is this some esoteric emblem of Islam? Even worse is it the Soros emblem?

Duane (Ted) Dahinden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.160.104 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reported"? I suggest that you verify your facts before asking a question that may not even be valid.--WaltCip (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since he has no control over how Air Force 1 is painted (it isn't his plane, it belongs to the U.S. Government) it seems patently rediculous that a) he'd even consider doing so and b) even if he were stupid enough to want to (and I have seen no evidence that he is) that he'd be allowed to. The question seems patently absurd.  -- Jayron  32  23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the original poster's question is disappointingly ignorant (and borders on the trolling, as a trivial Google search for Air force one tail or similar keywords immediately finds the source I've discussed in more detail below) in all fairness I can't grant your assertion about Obama's authority – or lack thereof – to paint the plane. As commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and leader of the executive branch of the government, I suspect that Obama may well have the authority to issue orders regarding the decorative finish on military vehicles without requiring additional Congressional approval.  Whether such a move would be politically or ethically sound is, of course, another matter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then there's the guano crazy question about it being an "esoteric emblem of Islam"... Islam is a religion that people have to choose to join, it is not a race you are born into.  Obama is a member of a Christian church, enjoys beer, and has been seeing praying to Jesus, all of which pretty much disqualifies him from being a Muslim.  The few Muslims who don't like America would be horrified by the idea of a "secret" Muslim.  I suppose it's pointless pointing this out to someone who can't obviously see the fnords, but if one less person gives up that dishonest bit of stupidity, the world will be better off.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Jesus was an Islamic prophet and the largest Muslim nation on earth had a state owned brewery for a decade. Most Muslims I know drink at least the occasional beer, and my Muslim wife drinks a lot more than that (though she would never claim to be a good Muslim). Neither of those things disqualify you from being a Muslim. All that you have to do to be a Muslim is faithfully recite the Shahadah. Being a member of a Christian church certainly indicates very strongly that one is not a Muslim, but many Muslims have historically practiced other religions to keep their true faith a secrect. See crypto-Muslim and Taqiyya. Oh, and the idea that Obama is a Muslim is patently absurd. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been secret Muslims and some who drink beer, but those behavior are rather at odds with the militancy of the anti-American schools that Obama is accused of being a part of. Praying to Jesus still goes against (mainstream) Islam's interpretation of monotheism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Variations on this theme have been extensively debunked; see Snopes. The two 747s that are most often used as Air Force One retain their traditional paint jobs, including the U.S. flag on their tails.
 * During the 2008 presidential campaign, the Obama campaign leased a 757 from North American Airlines and repainted that aircraft to include a campaign logo on its tail. The trademarked North American Airlines corporate logo includes a stylized representation of a portion of a U.S. flag (the flag is truncated and folded over, and the 17 stars that are visible are incorrectly arranged).  A charitable interpretation of the situation is that there has been an innocent confusion of the campaign plane with Air Force One, and an innocent misidentification of the North American corporate mark as a U.S. flag.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not mentioned in the Snopes article is that he can't remove the US flag from the tail of Air Force One: AF1 routinely flies to other countries, and the flag is part of the required markings for such an airplane. --Carnildo (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reality is not a Dan Brown novel. Presidents, whatever you think of them, do not choose their logos based on esoteric conspiratorial symbolism. It would be idiotic to do so (and they cannot be simultaneously the craftiest conspiracy ever and total idiots). They run them through endless focus groups to find logos that appeal to their "base." The Obama campaign logo is clearly a play on the first letter of his name, a "rising sun" over a field of crops, and the colors of the American flag. The symbolism is pretty blatant — Obama, a new day, traditional appeal to rural life as an American trope. (This is obvious even if you don't then read the article we have on the Obama logo which states it explicitly.) This isn't rocket science. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would almost be tempted to hat this question as incomprehensible, but I am afraid the answers are even worse than the question. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)