Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 March 1

= March 1 =

Polish tourist's anonymity
If a person from Poland were to visit the US, would they blend in both physically and verbally without anybody being the wiser? Sarujo (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Physically, I can't see why not (Americans have ancestors almost everywhere - including a lot from central Europe), but 'verbally'? Doesn't that depend on (a) competence in American English, and (b) lack of a noticeable Polish accent? Why would a tourist be over-concerned about 'blending in' anyway, though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If they knew the language sufficiently well (which for Polish people is not that difficult - we haven't got the strong accents of Germans, Russians or the French that give us away), and got acquainted with the traits of locals (i. e. awareness of history, places, cultural references including slang, etc.) then they would blend in for the most part, yes. Do you have a more specific concern You wish to address? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One of my students here in Poland got a job in Atlantic City. She said that several times, random strangers came up to her to ask what's wrong because she was not smiling. The converse is also true. When I first came to Poland ten years ago, I was constantly asked by strangers for cigarettes (foreigners are much more likely to be generous about this than Poles, and a constantly smiling foreigner even more so). Now I totally blend in and can't remember the last time anyone tried to bum a cigarette off me. By the way, all of my grandparents came from Poland, so I physically look just like any other Pole (except a bit bigger, as Polish-Americans are on average noticibly larger than Poles in terms of both height and weight). As far as language is concerned, Americans will more than likely recognize that a Pole is a foreigner with seconds, unless their accent is really good, their vocabulary is rather large and their usage is natural. I have met one 18-year old Pole who had never been outside of the country whose English was so impressive that I assumed he was an American, but after about ten minutes, he had made enough subtle mistakes that I realized he was not. People like him are very rare, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I spent a year in Lausanne and found that I could often spot fellow Americans by the looks on their faces: not whether they smiled but how they smiled. Seems there are dialects in facial expressions as in much else. —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that they would blend in physically, but I can certainly detect a Polish accent. Many Americans wouldn't know it was Polish, but would know it was foreign.  StuRat (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as language is concerned, Americans will more than likely recognize that a Pole is a foreigner within seconds, unless their accent is really good, their vocabulary is rather large and their usage is natural. I have met one 18-year old Pole who had never been outside of the country whose English was so impressive that I just assumed he was an American. But after about ten minutes, he had made enough subtle mistakes that I realized he was not. People like him are very rare, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of more or less subtle clues about national origin to be found in someone's physical appearance: their clothes (style and brands), haircut, makeup, fragrance, brand of cigarette, habits like gum-chewing, manners/mien, etc, as well as obvious things like race. You'd probably have to be an expert or central European to identify someone as Polish from these factors, but they may well stand out as non-American.  Of course, tourists are easily distinguishable from natives by many things, from the way they look around, to their cameras and sensible rainwear. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) But you don't have to blend in as sounding American to blend in as a local - surely there are Polish-sounding immigrant Americans who aren't tourists? What are the chances that the hypothetical tourist blending in as a resident rather than a visitor? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think many Americans can identify a Polish accent. Polish Americans are a major ethnic group in the country, especially in the Midwest. Over 600,000 Americans speak Polish at home. Others of the 10 million Polish Americans have a Polish accent, even some who were born here. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's almost impossible to master any language, including American English, to a level that passes for native-speaking ability to native speakers, without spending a lot of time in the place where that language is spoken every day. That said, someone has made the point that the United States has lots of immigrants.  A person from Poland could appear to be an immigrant rather than a tourist if he or she went to a local Walmart (or someplace similar), picked out cheap clothes worn by local people, got a local haircut, and if he or she did not spend much money.  Few immigrants in the United States (other than people, mainly Asian, with advanced degrees) have much money.  Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

An American probably wouldn't be able to tell a Polish person by his or her appearance. After all, many Americans are of Eastern European ancestry, and it's not like Eastern Europeans wear clothes that are that different from ours nowadays. An accent would certainly stick out, especially in places where there aren't a lot of European immigrants nowadays. In Manhattan, they might not blink an eye, but in Wichita or somewhere, they're likely to say, "Oh? Is that a foreign accent? What country are you from? Poland? Wow! I guess I shouldn't make any lightbulb jokes! What brings you to Kansas? How long are you staying? My boyfriend's family is from Russia originally. Is that near Poland? etc." Dominus's comment about frowning is telling. Americans are a lot more smiley than Eastern Europeans. I remember taking a train from Berlin to Prague and seeing immediately how much grumpier everyone looked than when I was in Germany. (And Germans aren't considered overly friendly from an American perspective.) However, Americans wouldn't assume the person is foreign; they'd assume something was wrong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people seem quite able to identify Polish people by appearance. And most in the US would recognize the accent as "foreign," and "Eastern European,, without being able to specify Polish/Bulgarian/Russian etc.Edison (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Global Insurance Company Need to Report the Investment Made by Non-US Business into Schedule D?
I have a question regarding foreign insurer regulation. Not sure if anyone can kindly help answer it. Thanks in advance for your help.

My question is: Do foreign insurance companies doing insurance business globally need to disclose the investments from their non-US business?

For example, Prudential, the multinational life insurance company headquartered in London, has several US subsidiaries/affiliates, many of which are registered with NAIC and report their investment schedule in Schedule D filing. However, I'm not sure if these companies need to report the investment made by their related companies that are non-US subsidiaries/affiliates of Prudential in their Schedule D filing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yu229 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This looks like a request for legal advice. See a lawyer. Or an accountant at least. Answers you get on the internet are unlikely to be particularly useful... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

excavators
Hi. There is an excavator working just outside my office, digging a hole in the road. What would happen if it tried to move something immovable? [eg trying to move a massive granite mountain]. Would hydraulic fluid squirt out of the joints? Would the engine stall? Would it seize up? Robinh (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First thing that came do my mind: the hydraulic action might work against it, i. e. the piston would contract (or whatever), but instead of lifting the soil or whatever else, it would raise the excavator off the ground, endangering it and maybe tipping it over. But then again there are so many ifs and maybes in this... --Ouro (blah blah) 08:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not being clear. What I meant was, what would happen if the arm simply could not move due to some ultra-rock-solid-and-un-get-roundable constraint, but the operator tried to make the arm move regardless? Robinh (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the engine would stall if the arm was somehow prevented from moving.--Shantavira|feed me 08:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like if you took a spade and tried to lift a truck with it. The most likely results are that you would reach an impasse (your arms will not move any further, because you are using all of your muscle strength, and aren't strong enough) or you would break the spade.  The same physics apply to an excavator trying to move something too heavy (such as a mountain) - either nothing would happen (the arm will not be able to move, because the engine is not strong enough), or something would break.  Then, as Robinh pointed out, there's the possibility that instead of moving the mountain, you'll move the excavator, and tip it over. Falconus p  t   c 10:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the excavator would move instead of the immovable object. You sometimes see drivers using the bucket to push down soil - they stop when the tractor unit starts lifting. I have seen one pull itself out of a hole by digging the bucket into the ground and then pulling the arm in. If it ever does come to hydraulic fluid squirting out, don't put your hand in the way - the pressure is so great that it will pierce your skin and put lots of oil inside you. Warning - unpleasant image of a hydraulic leak injury. Alansplodge (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related is this Youtube video (relevant part from 1:44) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even better is the digger climbing a tower. Buddy431 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(OP) I am still not making myself clear. An excavator is not infinitely strong. So, the arm can be stopped by a sufficiently robust object. Suppose that the excavator itself cannot move (ie it is trapped by another infinitely strong object, such as a mile-high granite cliff). Then the operator tries to extend the arm. What (literally) gives? Does the engine stall, or does some hydraulic pipe burst, or does the metal of the arm buckle? Robinh (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So basically, leaving infinite granite cliffs aside, you want to know what fails when a hydraulic ram exceeds its safe working load? I would imagine that the hydraulic pump (that forces the fluid into the cylinder) cuts out at a certain safe pressure. So the answer is nothing gives, it just stops working. Does anyone know for certain? Alansplodge (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What I want to know is why are you not working instead of just looking out of the window and pondering...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.149.63 (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen a mechanical digger lift itself off the ground using the hydraulic power. If the shovel/bucket gets stuck, it can lift the digger.  A couple of videos.  Of course, if the body is stuck as well, something will eventually break.  My guess is, in the absence of a safety cut off valve, one of the joints in the arm or maybe a hydraulic seal somewhere would be the first to go.
 * You're in luck - our friendly neighbourhood engineer, Darren, just dropped in. He says that there's a safety by-pass valve that diverts the fluid from the cylinder when it gets past a certain very high pressure. But, he says, it's more likely that a hose will blow before you get to that point. I did find a picture of a broken excavator arm, but that was more likely caused by metal fatigue than simple overload. Alansplodge (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sony Bravia and BBC iPlayer
Hoping someone here can help resolve a mystery.

We have a Sony Bravia television. It's connected to the internet through a router. For a year or so, since we bought it, we've been able to watch BBC iPlayer directly through the TV - it's one of a dozen or so internet services the TV offers when it's connected.

Just recently, the iPlayer began loading very slowly and now it just won't open at all. All the other internet services still work fine, so it doesn't appear to be the connection that's the problem. I'm guessing it might have been a software update glitch, but what do I know?

Can anyone point me to something useful, like an active specialist forum for Bravia or iPlayer users? Or even a discussion where others who have encountered this problem are already discussing/resolving the problem.

Otherwise, I might just wait until the digital switch-over in London in April, because that might prompt a slew of software updates, before phoning Sony's tech team. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can contact the iplayer team via https://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/templates/bbciplayer/emailForms/emailPage or email BBCiPlayer@BBC.com This may or may not help, but it's probably a good place to start. --TrogWoolley (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was good advice, thanks. I've sent them an email. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could just be a problem with your ISP. The BBC uses Akamai Technologies to distribute iPlayer content and this can sometimes slow down while leaving the rest of the Internet working as normal. See this article for an example.  Blakk   and ekka 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Plausible, but I can access the iPlayer on a laptop reasonably well - and that's using wifi, rather than the wired connection the TV has. --Dweller (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Washing powder reformulation
I called out a repair man because my washer dryer was leaking from the detergent drawer. He told me that, since the reformulation of washing powders over the last couple of years to make them more concentrated, in hard water areas such as where I live, the dissolution of powder in the drawer had become next to impossible and made the drawers clog up regularly. His advice was to add the powder directly to the washing in the drum or to use a liquid detergent. I'm asking whether anyone can confirm this situation? I did a search and found that Procter and Gamble had reformulated their powders last year, but this side effect of the reformulation wasn't mentioned. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I use a liquid in my washing machine. Even though I'm in a very soft water area, I found powders didn't dissolve and clogged the machine.  I think if you add powder directly to the drum, it would get stuck in the folds of the clothes and not dissolve.  The liquid that I use comes with a cap that you fill and then put said cap in the drum, and the liquid is supposed to come out with the water.  I have found this doesn't happen and most of the liquid stays in the cap, or it comes out on the spin cycle, which is really useful!  I either use the liquid in the drawer or dissolve it in a bottle of water and pour that into the drum before I start the wash.  I don't know about your machine, but mine works better if the washing is damp before it starts. --TrogWoolley (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I found liquid too expensive, I can control the amount of powder I use much easier than with liquid. I'm currently experimenting with washing towels to see if the powder dissolves if put in the drum. Also I have a washer dryer so a dosing device wouldn't work. I haven't got time to pre-dampen the washing I'm afraid! --TammyMoet (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In wondering whether to suggest washing tablets (I won't!), I found this where some people recommend using half as much powder. Thincat (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised they can change the concentration of a powder. In a liquid they can manipulate the concentration simply by adding more or less water.  This won't work in a detergent, so they will need some other inactive "filler".  I wonder what they use.


 * As far as suggestions, how about premixing your dry detergent in a container full of water (with a top, so you can shake it to fully dissolve the detergent) ? StuRat (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was exactly what I was going to suggest. My mother does that because water in this area is hard, the detergent was dissolving sufficiently and she wound up with caked detergent all over her cleaned clothes.  I use liquid.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The filler they use is zeolite, which is a mineral. I'm very reluctant to pre-dissolve the powder because I have problems with my wrists and won't be able to shake or stir hard enough to dissolve the powder. I already don't use the full amount of powder - I frequent Martin Lewis's forums too! The experiment with the towels seems to be working, in that there doesn't seem to be any stray powder present after the wash.--TammyMoet (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I second the suggestion to use liquid detergent, then. As for cost, I suggest you buy it at a dollar store.  I stocked up on 64 ounce (half gallon) "ultra concentrated" bottles for $1 each at Dollar Tree.  I figure that's under 10 cents a load, which I can afford.  It's a generic brand, but seems to clean my clothes just as well. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Singular/Plural?
I've noticed that it's very common to say something like: "There's stuff missing from my bag", or "There's those who hate ice cream and those who love it." and not be pulled up for wrong grammar. But honestly, shouldn't it be "there're", an abbreviation of "there are", no "there is", since both "stuff" and people are plural? 117.227.122.140 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In the first case, "stuff" is a mass noun, which takes the singular. You wouldn't say "there are three stuffs in my bag" - there's always just (a) stuff, so it's always singular, and so "there is" (and thus "there's") is fine. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "There's stuff" is correct, but "There's those" is not. You are right, in the second case, that it should be "There are those".  Marco polo (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * More specifically, singular BE in there-existentials with plural subject is nonstandard in English. In written English it will likely be considered incorrect. In nonstandard dialects and casual spoken English, it has always been common and may be getting more so. Lots of academic research on this, e.g this. jnestorius(talk) 18:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

too much of a good thing
Slightly awkward question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. After a man has 'pleasured himself' as they say, is it uncommon for the nice feelings to continue for quite some time after finishing? Like say, half an hour or so. I get the impression that for most people, it just sort of stops at that instant, then they get up and do something else.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Male orgasm only lasts for a few seconds (regrettably). See Ejaculation.           Anonymous.translator (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Slightly awkward answer, but yes, it is uncommon. A continual emotional high following an orgasm is generally only present after having intimate sexual relations with a partner.--WaltCip (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Original research, but what I've always called "afterglow" is a euphoria that can last for half an hour or so. There doesn't seem to be much written about it, and what there is (Google "afterglow" and "sex") doesn't quite square with my experience, so I assume it is not common.--Shantavira|feed me 21:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of academic literature about the "afterglow" or whatever you want to call it. Males and females have distinctly different post-orgasm responses, which is one of the many little tricks evolution uses to mess with us. From what I can tell, the term used in most literature is "post-orgasmic state". It also seems to be, at least in part, related to prolactin release, although there's also some suggestion that partner based orgasm is more satisfying than self stimulation. Despite what WaltCip may suggest... these are biological processes and there are definitely chemicals in your brain that mediate this process... it's not just an "emotional high." You may find this article especially interesting. Shadowjams (talk)


 * The OP could have originated this oldie:
 * Preacher: Is an hour of sin worth a lifetime of regret?
 * Young church member: How do you make it last an hour?
 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to study this, as the volunteers all fell asleep right after. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And they were all a bunch of wankers anyway.... Lemon martini (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Epilepsy
OK, follow up question, when someone has an epileptic fit, how does it feel? Do they remember it at all afterwards? (before anyone asks, yes, he is seeing a doctor, but the appointment isn't for a while, and it seems likely to be nothing serious, I just want to calm both our worries a little before that) 148.197.81.179 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that question ventures a little too close to medical advice. If you have worries of this nature, you need to speak with a medical professional.  If you want to know what that person feels like after they have an epileptic episode, you should ask them.  -- Jayron  32  18:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But I don't know anyone with epilepsy, we're just trying to prove that my friend probably didn't have a fit earlier, just some sort of involuntary spasm, because from what I can vaguely remember of someone with epilepsy that I knew years ago, he never remembered them at all, never mind actually enjoyed the feeling. The doctor is being really slow, and I get paranoid about little things quite a lot. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry, but we can't do anything that might help you decide one way or the other whether your friend has or has not had an epileptic fit. If you have concerns about your own or someone else's health, use NHS Direct (since your IP address suggests you are in the UK - if not, contact the health authorities in your own country). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, we'll just wait and see what the doctor says this evening. At least I tried, though. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone who has epilepsy, I understand why you would like to know. But I hope you can also understand why we can't help, however much we would like to. The only people who can/should help are trained doctors who are able to see and examine the patient. However, I can say that in terms of epilepsy, try not to worry too much. Even if it does turn out that your friend had a fit, chances are he may never have another in his life. And even if he does get a diagnosis of epilepsy, life will still carry on pretty much the same as it always has. Worse things happen at sea, as they say. Tell your friend to keep his pecker up, and best of luck with the doctor. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've known a couple of folks who were epileptic, and it's fair to say that if they appear to be having some kind of seizure, try to keep them from hurting themselves. And call 911 as soon as you can. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The advice I've received on first aid courses regarding epileptic fits is, as you say, to make sure they don't hurt themselves (ideally by moving things away from them, rather than restraining them, since that can actually do more harm than good). You wouldn't neccessarily call an ambulance, though. If they've been diagnosed with epilepsy and they regularly have fits, then there isn't any need for them to go to hospital. You are usually better off waiting for them to wake up and then asking them. If you are ever in any doubt, though, you should always call an ambulance (better safe than sorry). There is advice here from St John Ambulance that is quite good if you are curious about the seizures from a first aid perspective. --Tango (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, from a personal point of view, I find it really frustrating to come around from a fit to find that I've attracted a massive audience, who are all saying 'Don't worry, the ambulance is on its way'. Epileptic fits, whilst, I am sure, disturbing to watch (although I've never seen one 'live') are completely painless (secondary injuries excepted) and temporary. I do find myself a little groggy on coming round, but all I need is to sit down for 5 minutes and then I'll be right as rain. Having to deal with a crowd of well-wishers, as well as explain to the paramedics that I'm fine, that no, I'm not on drugs, yes I do have these from time to time, yes I feel fine now, no I don't need to go to hospital, is just a bit too much straight away though. Having said that, of course, I appreciate people's assistance. But the best advice I can give is just 'let it happen'. As noted above, don't restrain the person, and an ambulance should really only be necessary if it's someone's first fit, if it goes on for a long time or if some other injury occurs. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are, in essence, giving medical advice, and that's not appropriate. Your "audience" has no way to know whether or not something's wrong - and it's better to err on the side of caution. Even if they know you have epilepsy, it could be that you're suffering a worse attack than usual and/or that your medication has failed. Better to let the experts decide that to jump to an uniformed conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's first aid advice, which is rather different from normal medical advice in that it is specifically intended for non-professionals. I gave a link to advice from one of the most respected first aid training organisation in the world that says exactly the same as Mike and I have been saying. You really shouldn't call an ambulance for a routine epileptic fit. In fact, doing so could cost somebody their life because an ambulance was wasting time on you and not saving them. If they don't regain conciousness after a few minutes, then you call an ambulance, but otherwise you wait until they wake up and ask them what they need. It's going to take the ambulance a few minutes to get there anyway, a few minutes more while you wait and find out if it is actually needed isn't going to do much harm. --Tango (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong. How on God's green earth is the casual observer supposed to know that someone suffering a seizure before their very eyes is having a "normal"-anything? Unless you've got ESP, you aren't going to know definitively what's going on. Supposing it's a reaction to a drug, or a stroke, or who knows what? You think you "know best", so you don't call for help. Then if they die, what do you do? Quote Texas Governor Perry? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I Think Bugs is right here. This isn't an appropriate place to give 'first aid advice'. While I'd say that learning first aid is a highly-desirable thing, we can't teach it here. Anyone who relies on something they read on Wikipedia in a medical emergency situation is making a mistake. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't expect people to just take my word for it - that is why I gave a link to a reliable reference. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may disagree, but I am citing the guidance given by every first aid organisation I know. I've already linked to St John Ambulance. Here is the same advice from the British Red Cross. The chances of someone dying because you waited a few minutes before calling an ambulance in order to see if one was really needed are very low and not worth the risk of wasting time the paramedics could have used to help someone else that actually needed their help. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the type of fit. There are many different types. I myself have had four fits in my life - all the same type, with flashing lights and eyes wanting to jump out of my head. You never forget that bit, but after you lose consciousness, there is nothing to remember. It also takes a few minutes to get back to reality even after you wake up. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  04:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Types of colleges and universities
What is difference between all types of colleges and universities? Mean there are community college, junior college, regular college, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. Junior college and Community college are two year schools that offer AA or AS degrees and lower level course work. Universities are larger schools that offer Bachelor (four year) degrees and graduate degrees (some offer Masters and others offer PhDs).  Specialized graduate schools for law and medicine offer JD and MD degrees.   Wikipedia probably has articles on all of these.  It is probably similar in other countries.  RudolfRed (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read the Wikipedia articles titled community college, junior college, college, and university?-- Jayron  32  21:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Phrase for scolding
In an earlier question, I just used to the phrase "pull someone up" as a way to say "scold someone". But later, a Google search turned up no results... I've used this phrase for quite some time now. Is it wrong/uncommon/unheard of? 117.226.152.94 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of it and I've lived in various areas of the US all my life. Dismas |(talk) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * British English here - I think I've always used it. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's common in the UK. Pull up = to rebuke.--Shantavira|feed me 21:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, it's pretty common in British English (googling, it looks like it's used in Australia and/or New Zealand too, at least if the fact it was used in a discussion of an Aus vs NZ football match is significant), although it's usually followed by "on", eg. "The teacher pulled him up on his spelling". I don't think I've heard it on its own. It's pretty slangy - the only professional publications I can find that use it are sites like that of Heat magazine, which mentions in this piece about I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! that "Holly pulled him up on his flirting, though, saying: “Well you were flirting – you gave her a full frontal at one point!”" (WARNING: article is dangerously banal and describes someone as "burger nips"), and some of the more informal bits of The Guardian website ("Chris is pulling the occasional mad face, which the child ballet dancers already pulled him up on"). Googling "pulled him up on his"/"pulled her up on her" finds a fair few other examples from forums etc (Edit: "I pulled him up on it" gets far, far more results, including uses by the BBC and The Telegraph). Smurrayinchester 23:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * American here--I've lived all over the US and never heard it. From the context that Smurrayinchester posted, it sounds like the US equivalent would be "call out", as in "Holly called him out on his flirting..." Meelar (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds about right. The only difference is that I've always thought that "calling someone out" is generally a public thing, while "pulling someone up" can be more private. Smurrayinchester 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I should add that "I called him out" is absolutely alien to British speakers, to the extent of appearing weird unless the listener frequents internet forums populated by American-speakers. Many English speakers of English are used to it, but it still seems odd to most of those residing in England. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To me I called him out means "I challenged him to a fight" (usually a fistfight). A locution I haven't heard much since high school, but that's still the meaning I'd give it without contextual cues to the contrary. --Trovatore (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There could also be a variant in "chewing someone out", which is a common phrase in American English (especially in the workplace).--WaltCip (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that "chewing someone out" is better in that it can't be misconstrued to mean you challenged them to a fight, unlike "calling someone out". However, the phrase "he just chewed out his girlfriend" could have an unfortunate double meaning.  Another US phrase is "caught it", like "I just caught it from my Dad for not telling him his car was on fire when I parked it in the garage last night". StuRat (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've been using "call someone for" for some time, to describe publicly making someone aware of their behaviour. Think it's a refereeing term from rugby, but I can't be sure. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, to "call someone for doing something" (meaning to admonish) is common here in northern UK, but definitely has no connection with rugby. The OED seems to think that this usage is now dialectal.    D b f i r s   17:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified gadget in London underground station
Please help to identify this. The lower black gadget is about 10X10 cms in size, attached to the wall. Thanks! Etan J. Tal 22:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For clarity, it looks like the photo is looking down at this thing (with the tiled floor in the background), so the red part of the thingmabob is facing horizontally. Is that correct? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is correct. There were several of those attached in various heights. Definitely not a vacuum cleaner opening. seems optical lens (?) inside. Etan J. Tal 23:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Random, uninformed guess: Maybe the duct for a Central vacuum cleaner. -- Jayron  32  23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Was this close to an entrance or exit? In other words, could it be part of the passenger counting system to monitor the flow on people in and out of a platform. Was there any thing at the same height on the other side? --Aspro (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. these were not counting passengers since far from entrance and "directed" to a plane only few cms from the wall. No "counter gadget" seen anywhere nearby. My first guess was it is a sort of measuring device, or detector... Etan J. Tal 23:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a reflector for a laser theodolite. They're affixed to buildings likely to be affected by movement - most often arising out of building work. Kings Cross station has hundreds of them, for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tagishsimon, It seems to be the answer. Where is the source of light (laser) located? Does it send the info automatically to some center? Etan J. Tal 14:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These kinds of things are usually used during construction, where they're fixed to things prior to their being finally located or, as Tagishsimon says, to measure post-construction settling. You would hope a structure as old as a tube line (you didn't say which one it's on) would be done settling, but maybe they're just being cautious.  I imagine if you look carefully at the floor of the station platform, you'll find metal points into which the feet of a theodolite could be secured (they need a fixed point, so they can compare measurements over time). Presumably TFL's surveyors come down in the early hours (I wonder how frequently) and take measurements to verify the station is roughly the same shape it was the last time. 87.114.90.137 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This one appears to be at Tottenham Court Road tube station, which has just been remodelled, so maybe it was used in that work? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tottenham Court Road tube station is correct. Googleing I found a better photo which shows the wall - see http://anonw.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/tottenham-court-road-reopens/dscn6546/
 * Regretfully my tourist smart-phone photo quality is too low to be included in WP... Thanks to all of you. What a wonderful WP-cooperation we have! Etan J. Tal 17:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't expect just remodelling would be cause for the fear of settling. But Tottenham Court Road will be a Crossrail station, which means they'll need to excavate two new bores, two platforms, and the various interconnecting passageways and utility ducts that a whole new line and station entails.  I don't know the respective depths of the Central and Northern lines at TCR, never mind the depth of the Crossrail bore there, but surely they're concerned that all that excavation risks shifting the Victorian works into exciting new configurations. So presumably they added these markers and did an accurate survey, before the works began, so they have a baseline allowing them to determine any unwelcome saggage that Crossrail may cause, in time to ameliorate it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Think I can add some further citable  info here. This may be useful to anybody that wants to update the total station article. It appears that during engineering  works this monitoring is done continuously with the aid of an automated Total station, as shown in this video. An explanation of what they are/where doing at King's X is given here on pg 47 (spam filter stops me linking to it directly)  ache-tee-tee-pee
 * //ebooks.narotama.ac.id/files/Introduction%20to%20Tunnel%20Construction/Chapter%207%20Ground%20Movements%20And%20Monitoring.pdf (Note: on some browsers just skip the "ache-tee-tee-pee" (http) and the :// stuff and just enter the address starting with "ebooks...")  The yellow boxes which appear in close juxtaposition to the reflectors, may be where the other sensors such as vibration or tilt are housed. --Aspro (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Google maps driving times
Google maps says that the interstate driving distance between Norman, Oklahoma and Salina, Kansas is 259 mi and should take 4 hours and 11 minutes to drive. Without fail, every time I drive that route going home on a weekend it takes me 3 hours 45 minutes ± 5 minutes. I wondered at first if this was just due to the fact I set the cruise control about 3.0 mph above the speed limit but it appears not, given that my average speed is 69.07 mph and the speed limit of the route in Oklahoma outside Oklahoma City is 70.0 mph and in Kansas outside of Wichita is 75.0 mph (both Oklahoma City and Wichita are 60.0 mph). It turns out that Google Maps' average speed for the route is 61.96 mph, which seems surprisingly low given that at least ¾ of the route has a speed limit greater than 70.0 mph. Why would Google Maps assume such a low average speed and what is the best way to correct for it when I'm using Google Maps for a route I've never driven before? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Google wants to err on the side of caution. It's the old practice of underpromising and overdelivering. If Google tells you it will take 6 hours and it takes 5, you're pleasantly surprised. If Google tells you it will take 5 hours and it takes 6, you're angry at Google. (It's also possible that Google doesn't take the high speed limits of those states into account.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * From my 20 years of driving experience (in the UK), plus that of relatives and friends with whom one (if a bloke) discusses such matters, I would not normally expect to be able to average more than about 50mph at best over a 250+ mile trip. One is generally delayed by lower-than-maximum speed limits around one's beginning and end points, if not also in intermediate places, by heavy traffic and the occasional tailback here and there, and by the sensible precaution – if not necessity – of stopping after 2 hours or so for a rest/nibble/drink/pee/leg stretch. I have done long journeys faster, but only in the early hours on certain routes with little traffic (and no speed cops or cameras) on the roads, by deliberately speeding, though I no longer do that after a serious crash a while back taught me more sense.
 * I can't say how much typical US driving conditions differ from ours, but it may be that a combination of a particularly trouble-free, restriction-low route and your own familiarity with it allow you to do better than what Google might assume to be a typical journey of such length as driven by a typical driver. Does anyone know if Google assumes a typical speed for all roads of a given type, or if they use more sophisticated data drawn from actual journeys on specified routes?
 * As for estimating unfamiliar routes, it's always wise to allow more time than you think, because you never know what unanticipated permanent or temporary (roadworks, crashes) delaying factors you might encounter. It never hurts to be too early, as you can always stop somewhere and wait: having to drive faster than is safe in the prevailing conditions because you've fallen behind schedule can range from expensive (speeding tickets), through inconvenient (damaged or written-off car, license suspension) all the way up to fatal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.59 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An average of 60 mph seems reasonable. Maybe you yourself can put the pedal to the metal and drive 4 hours straight. But if you've got passengers, especially kids, you're going to have to stop a time or two, and that adds to the trip time and cuts your average speed down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think Google Maps accounts for stops. I see the time between downtown Cleveland and downtown Cincinnati is listed at 4 hours, 13 minutes for the 250-mile trip. The only way you can get there in that time is if you avoid construction (a laughable idea in Ohio, especially in springtime) and don't stop for food or gas, or if you make up for that lost time by speeding. Speed limits in Ohio are 55-60mph in urban areas and 65mph in rural areas. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are some stats. Table 2 in the document gives average speeds for various road types (in Northern Ireland, but the principle is the same). For a rural motorway, with a speed limit of 70mph (comparable to the roads you're talking about), the average speed observed is 58mph. On a 60mph A-Road, the average is 49mph. It seems to me that Google's estimates, based on average conditions, are pretty much spot on. You mentioned that you drive this stretch on a weekend - I suspect that during the working week, the average speed would be lower. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Maps is pretty close to accurate for weekend trips in the urban Northeast United States. I am usually close to their estimated time, though I stop every two hours or so for a quick pee break.  On the other hand, I attempt to maintain close to 14 mph above the speed limit where the speed limit is 50 mph or greater, though speed limits in this region never exceed 65 mph.  Google Maps times have also worked for me for non-rush-hour long-distance trips in northern California. When I have driven out in the wide open West (and that's what I'd consider most of Oklahoma and Kansas), I agree that Google Maps times are a bit slower than I actually achieve.  I don't think that their algorithms account for the complete absence of traffic in most of that region.  On the other hand, I once spent 2 weeks driving around Great Britain, and I agree with our friends from that island that Google Maps times are unrealistically fast for most of Great Britain, which has much more congested traffic (or construction and speed-zone-ridden roads) than all but the most congested US metropolitan areas (think New York and Los Angeles).  The only area where I came close to Google Maps times was rural Scotland, which kind of makes sense, since it is the least dense part of Great Britain.  But Kansas and Oklahoma are even more empty than rural Scotland (or at least the roads are straighter and wider than in Scotland), so the Google Maps algorithm is too conservative there. So, I think we can see that Google Maps algorithm is designed to optimize time estimates for non-rush hour trips for moderately fast drivers, not including break time, in the parts of the United States where most Americans live.  Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Google Maps tries to build in a small amount of traffic, but gets completely flummoxed when it encounters any density. I just put in two journeys that I did yesterday in south west england - the latter journey, from a city to my home village, GM way overestimated the time - it reckons an hour & ten minutes, in reality it takes 45 mins (without speeding) - to be over by half an hour on a 45 min journey is a lot.  On the other hand, the other journey I suggested to it, it had two options - one around the outskirts of Bristol, one through the city centre.  It believed that going through the centre would make the trip 1 mile longer, and add 5 minutes.  This suggestion is..... sweet, naive, and ludicrously fast.  My working assumption has always been - if you're driving in rural areas, take time off GM's estimate.  If you're in urban areas, add to it. --Saalstin (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing Google is using LA/NY math for a Kansas/Oklahoma problem, thus the flawed result. It's been a while, but last time I drove that part of the country traffic was not exactly bumper-to-bumper on the interstates. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)