Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 May 22

= May 22 =

Napoleon Bonaparte Quotation - coffee/cafe and politics
[Question moved to Language Reference Desk. ]

congressional districts in California
I don't have a clue as to how to change every entry for all of California's congressional districts but they are all wrong. Here is a link that shows them as they are today - http://c365736.r36.cf2.rackcdn.com/maps_congress_20110815_all.pdf

thank you Airean Andureal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.96.109 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning behind FCC rules for consumer products
What is the reason that my kid's Dora the Explorer walkie talkie MUST accept any interference, even if it causes unintended operation? Why does the FCC need toys accepting interference? I can understand certain devices needing to obey that requirement, but why do they extend that rule to even trivial things? What real situation could this be important for even a Dora the Explorer walkie talkie? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to a page stating this rule ? I'm guessing that there is no such rule, but that the interference is a result of their strict limits on the power levels of walkie-talkies.  This is so your devices don't interfere with others on the same frequency.  Also, you might be familiar with digital transmissions, which avoid interference.  However, those only work with strong signals.  When dealing with a weak signal, analog transmission is better, even though it does get static.  StuRat (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the rule: Title 47 CFR Part 15 RudolfRed (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Asker here, logged in. It's on a sticker stuck to the device. Emblazoned on my calculator in engraved plastic, too. So back to my question: why? "Did you hear the mandatory government message? Yeah, I caught it on my speak 'n spell!" Peter Michner (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The rule seems to be "Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator."


 * My interpretation is that this means "don't come complaining to us if you get interference on your device, as we won't investigate". This makes sense, of course, as they aren't going to send out a team to track down the source of interference on every Dora the Explorer toy.  It is written a bit strangely, though. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it means that if anything bad happens because of interference, the only entity that could legally be held responsible is the manufacturer. That is, you can't sue a radio station because it causes interference in your Dora the Explorer walkie-talkie.  This statement is not to be construed as legal advice. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Device must accept transmission" is a weird way of saying " transmitter not liable." Makes it sound like you're not even allowed to harden your calculator against incoming messages. Peter Michner (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got absolutely no knowledge about this sort of thing, but I wonder if it might actually mean 'accept' in the sense of 'not do something bad if interference happens'. Something along the lines of failing gracefully - that is, if the device picks up interference from certain defined, plausible sources, it should keep working and not explode, cause your children to get cancer, or transmit the nuclear codes to the Pentagon and start WWIII. Could someone in the know confirm if that's a plausible interpretation? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what I'd think too - that the device has to be tested to assure that it doesn't do something like explode because it received foreign interference. Of course, there are some forms of interference that simply cannot be accounted for.--WaltCip (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This ambiguous statement now has 3 possible interpretations:


 * 1) It must allow interference, that is, do nothing to prevent it. (OP's apparent interpretation.)


 * 2) It must not do anything dangerous as a result of interference.


 * 3) You have no legal recourse if it does receive interference.


 * This is as poorly worded as the mattress label warning that used to threaten prison terms for anybody who removed the tag. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In 2006 there was another discussion of this on the Ref Desk and a user there suggested that it really meant the manufacturer may sell products that accept interference if they put this sticker on the device. I dunno. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I'm not a lawyer (yet), thus notwithstanding my original response, I would direct the OP to this link which might be of interest. The source given here is one with "specialist professional experience in EMC and the application o standrads (sic) like the FCC rules." The answer given here seems to confirm the original beliefs of me and Cucumber Mike regarding the device's ability to fail gracefully, and it seems there is also court precedence on the matter too. I hope that the information here is comprehensive and sufficient enough without crossing into the realm of legal advice.--WaltCip (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A Part 15 device may not cause interference to licensed radio users. Owners/operators of Part 15 devices do not have any recourse if licensed services cause interference to it. You have no right to complain if your child's toy receives transmissions from the taxi company's two-way radio system. Conversely if the toy interferes with the taxi company's radios the taxi company does have a right to file a complaint against the toy manufacturer. Roger (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

USPS Priority Mail Deleviery Date (With Tracking Info)
'''I had ordered an iPod Touch 2g from ebay. It was shipped today and it is coming from Tunkhannock, PA 18657 to Vandergrift, PA 15690. It is the Standard Shipping. When can I expect it?

Here is the tracking infomation: Priority Mail®: Delivery Confirmation™/Insured <=$200

Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility May 22, 2012, 12:04 am PHILADELPHIA, PA 19116 Acceptance May 21, 2012, 3:50 pm DALLAS, PA 18612

Electronic Shipping Info Received May 21, 2012

Since it was last updated at 12:04 AM Could it come today? If not tomorrow? Thank You.'''

Cjc811 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't use it that much, but my experience was that they don't update their databases frequently. My reading of the zip codes makes me think tomorrow, the 23rd.  It doesn't look like enough time to get sent to your local facility and then on to your post office and on your carrier's truck today.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically, Priority Mail only offers delivery confirmation, not tracking. You may not see any other updates until you already have the iPod in your hands.  I would not expect a non-Express package to arrive in one day, regardless of the distance.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your item is probably at a Pittsburgh sorting facility now or on its way there. It will probably get to your local post office tomorrow, but after your letter carrier has collected mail to be delivered that day.  I predict that you will get it on Thursday.  Marco polo (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wm Kay Blacklock
My grandson has a painting by Wm Kay Blacklock titled 'Strolling in the Shade' Do you have any informaion on this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.123.137 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have an article on the artist (perhaps we should), but prints of this painting are available at most on-line print shops (, for example). Tevildo (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ayers Rock Airport
At Ayers Rock Airport it says that Connellan Airways used aircraft known as butterflies. Other than the DC3 mentioned what type of aeroplanes were they? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * V-tail? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought about that but most seem to be too small plus the sentence mentions a Douglas DC-3 which doesn't have it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just realised that Connellan got the aircraft from Qantas so the types would be at History of Qantas. So does anybody know why they were called butterflies? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misreading the sentence in the airport article, CBW. My reading is that Connellan used "Butterfly" hand-me-downs from Qantas and DC-3s and a few other aircraft, not that the DC-3s are an example of Butterflies (whatever they are). Deor (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a photo in the Connellan Airways article that shows a plane called a "Fox Moth", which I assume is the de Havilland Fox Moth, and there seems to be an indication that Qantas had a couple of them. Perhaps those were called butterflies?  It's all Lepidoptera to me.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, the editor who added this information is unregistered and he did not provide any citation. He has made a total of 5 edits to Wikipedia, two of which were inappropriately POV edits to the Qantas article. He appears to be an aviation industry insider, and my gut says this Butterfly info is legit jargon.  But we'd be well within our rights to remove it as unreferenced and, so far, unverifiable.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Earlier on I spent about half an hour looking at this, and going round in circles trying to get it right. Then I had to go out, and without thinking I turned off my PC and lost everything I'd found. But I think that the 'butterflies' in question were some variation on the Beechcraft Bonanza, which was offered with the aforementioned V-tail. The only problem is that when I looked up Conellan's planes, I could only see that they had a D50 variant, which seems like it was one without the v-tail. I'm afraid I've run out of steam on this a bit now, but maybe someone else could pick up the baton? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Various combinations of the search terms "Conellan", "Beechcraft", "Baron", "Bonanza", "C35", "D50" and "butterfly" seemed to be useful, if anyone does want a go. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. I can't believe that I never looked at the page history to see who added it. Nor why I didn't ask one of the pilots while at work. As editors we really need to stop using jargon, slang and country specific terms. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)