Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 April 3

= April 3 =

in 50's America, what could you get in trouble for saying?
apart from Communism/labor activism and homosexuality, I suppose. I've been watching What's My Line and I'm honestly curious about the era.

By trouble I mean being fired from your job or landing on some government list. Asmrulz (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In parts of the nation support for the Theory of Evolution or racial equality might get you in trouble. Support for the legalization of marijuana might, too. StuRat (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong music taste was suspiciously un-american. A letter sent to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover warned that "Presley is a definite danger to the security of the United States. ... [His] actions and motions were such as to rouse the sexual passions of teenaged youth." AllBestFaith (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Even in 1966 saying something like that the Beatles are more popular than Jesus resulted in reactions like these. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The word "pregnant" or claiming to be "bigger than Jesus" or any sort of perceived blasphemy.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do people (partially) re-post the stuff I write, and add their comment above mine? This happened a couple of times now, I'll try to remember the most recent one. I do not get it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's called an edit conflict --William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Six minutes later? No, edit conflicts happen when people edit the same page at the same time. And that doesn't explain why the information I post gets repeated, and it doesn't explain the incorrect order of the posts. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. It's quite a simple concept. Obviously I clicked "edit" before you but it took me longer to compose my reply (copy/paste my links, show preview, reword my reply, correct misspelled some words, show preview again and then click "Save Page"). Only upon saving was I able to see that you had posted something similar while I was in the editing screen. Because I clicked "edit" first, my post was automatically placed above yours. Because you clicked "Save Page" first, you have an earlier time stamp. As for the information being "repeated", literally millions of people are aware of that incident with John Lennon (I mean, WP even has an article about it), not really anything original. --William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is more complicated than you seem to realize. You wrote: "Because I clicked 'edit' first, my post was automatically placed above yours". That does not happen on my computer. When I get the edit conflict screen I have to go back, copy my text, reload the page and insert it in the correct spot, both in Chrome and in Firefox. Am I doing it wrong? I found another example and in that case the comment was written hours after I wrote mine, so it seems unlikely that that was an edit conflict. To be clear, I am not claiming that this was information from a divine source only I have access to, and I know other people can use Google too, it is just weird to see someone else post pretty much the same info above my comment, and I noticed that a couple of times in a relatively short time period. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * as somebody who edits WP as a diversion while focusing on actual important work in other open windows/tabs, I quite often click "Save Page" loooong after (sometimes >an hour) clicking "edit" and I've seen this exact situation happen on talk pages very often in those cases. When it does, I never see edit conflict screen; my posts just get placed wherever the software puts them. I only see the edit conflict screen when the section has been substantially changed in the intervening period, or (apparently) when I click "save page" very close to the same time as another editor (the software can't save two versions at the same time, hence the edit conflict screen, but it does fit in posts where it "thinks" they should go). For example, right now, in another tab, I have the article Surin Province open in an editing window which I opened yesterday morning and have been working on in my down time. Goodness only knows what's going to happen when I finally click "Save Page". As for your other example, I can't speak to that as I had nothing to do with it, nor am I (or you, for that matter) privy to what the other editor involved was doing at that moment. --William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, it seems like our browsers handle edit conflicts differently. Out of curiosity (yes, I am a nerd), which operating system and web browser are you using? We should probably use the Collapse top and Collapse bottom templates to not derail the thread too much. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Supporting Naziism wasn't well thought of in the '50s either, though supporting fascists such as Franco wasn't as risky. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone able to call bullshit on this article?
So a guy supposedly has eaten baked beans all life. I call bull on this. Anyone agree?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3089167/Could-survive-just-beans-toast-Man-25-eats-student-staple-meal-doctors-say-perfectly-healthy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.34.223.57 (talk • contribs)
 * Our reliable sources noticeboard has previously concluded that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source on its own, and many times there was almost a consensus to completely forbid citing them. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The only source for this claim is he himself. See Hitchens's razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". This is probably an advertisement for a producer of low quality food. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The source is reliable for what the person says he eats.  Note the article also includes caveats from nutritionists as well, and is reliable for what the nutritionists state as their opinion of such a diet.  Is the article of substantial importance? Likely not. Collect (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We have to be a little careful about what he actually eats - it's not just beans. Beans plus toast - sure.  But he says that he drinks milk, and that can make a huge difference.  He also mentions that he sometimes eats chips (ie French Fries) - but he's not really telling us how much.  Also, note that these are British-style baked beans which have a richer, sweeter tomato sauce than the US varieties.


 * The linked article said that nutritionalists had said that the beans: "...also contain enough fat to provide him with energy, although his levels are likely to be low. However, they warned his immune system is likely to be low as he never eats antioxidant-containing fruit and vegetables, so fighting off diseases, colds and flu may become a problem, As he ages and requires more calories, he may become frail and his bones may become brittle, they added." - but if he's adding full-fat milk, then he's getting all the fat and calcium he needs, so we must assume that the nutritionalists were not told about his milk intake. The bread surely contains plenty of calories too.  So we're left with low "antioxidant" levels - which presumably means vitamins A, C and E.  Milk is giving him the A in good quantities, and there is some C and E present in all three foods...but not in huge quantities.
 * I think it's plausible that he could survive OK on those things. The article also talks about a girl who died eating "a similar diet" - but perhaps she wasn't drinking milk with it.  The devil is in the details and "similar" may be quite a bit different than "identical". SteveBaker (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, it wasn't stated what sort of milk he drinks. I'm not convinced he'll be getting enough fat even if he drinks 1L a day of skimmed milk (as it's called in the UK ) as he'll only be getting an average of 3.1g of fat from the milk.  In fact, depending on how often he "travels" he may very well get more fat from the chips. It's also unlikely he'll be getting vitamin A in good quantities from the milk if it';s skimmed. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure - if he's drinking only skimmed milk, that would be a problem. But why are you assuming that?  If he's drinking "whole" milk (aka full-fat milk) that has not had almost all of the cream removed - then he'd be getting around 40 times as much fat as from skimmed milk.  Because Vitamin A is fat-soluble, you'd get about 40 times more of that vitamin from whole milk than from skimmed.


 * I agree that we're not told whether it's whole or skimmed milk that he's drinking - but in terms of proof that the article is bullshit, we can't say (on the basis of what is written there) that it's definitely bullshit. If he drinks enough whole milk, then he can reasonably beat the problems that the nutritionalists predicted - which means that he could indeed be completely healthy (as claimed).  My bet is that the nurtitionalists were told only the headline information ("HE ONLY EATS BEANS ON TOAST!!!") and were not given the extremely important information that he drinks lots of whole milk and occasionally eats fried potatoes - which together are sufficient to cover the nutritional gaps that they identified.


 * So what we conclude from this is that, yes, the article could be bullshit - but we have absolutely no proof that it's anything other than completely true. However, I would say that it's a little misleading and under-reported.  The headline should say something like "Man eats only beans on toast, whole milk and chips - and seems healthy".
 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Vitamins also come in pill form, which is very useful for those who are scared of fruit. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fructophobes? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Political position of professions
Are doctors generally quite left wing as a profession? Especially compared to other professions. 82.132.238.119 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't expect so. A couple reasons:


 * 1) Being wealthier than most, they benefit more from conservative governments, which reduce taxes on the rich and benefits for the poor.


 * 2) (Mainly an issue in the US.) Being doctors, they would not benefit from socialized medicine, where price controls would be put in place to limit their salaries and keep medical prices down. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Right-wing radio called the current system "socialized medicine" with extreme scorn, lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that a Conservative government is labelling NHS doctors as being extreme left-wingers should tell you just how far to the right Britain has lurched. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The doctors in which country? Worldwide? Compared to who? All humans on the planet? The citizens of the country they live in? And what do you mean by "left wing"? If you live in the USA then the words "left wing" have a completely different meaning than for example in Europe. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, QP. This is question is what we in Rusnak call polno hovno. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you translate that into English? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Full of shit, I'd say. Russian is polno govno.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what nation you're from, so like any good American, I'm going to pretend you're from the USA. :) According to the Kaiser polls, the profession is pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.  According to this JAMA research, though, the profession is shifting from slightly conservative to slightly liberal, mainly because the gender gap is disappearing (older doctors in the USA tend to be men; not so with younger doctors).  --M @ r ē ino 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the scrap and parts value of a house?
If you sold everything in a house for reuse (i.e. sink) or raw materials (melted down/crushed and added to concrete/as firewood/to some guy who'll remove the rotten dark shell of the wood and build with what remains), whichever way is worth most. Not including land value. I wonder why people don't do this to the $1,000 or free houses in Detroit. Maybe you'd make sub-day laborer $/hr even if you did all work yourself? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, that depends on the contents of the house. I assume houses sold for prices like that contain very little of value. In general, if something is profitable and realistic there is probably someone somewhere doing it (for example, stealing copper). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ya, this is Detroit so the copper and easier to remove things like bathroom fixtures have already been stolen.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Try it... but remember to read the small print first that says you not only have to bring it up to standard (i.e. livable) but have to live in it too. If you demolish such a building, how can you live in it? It would amount to  breach of contract. Mind you...  at the same time, that breach may open up an opportunity to reside in  a nice warm comfortable cell with three meals daily - all provided for free.--Aspro (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure no one will likely complain if you remove smaller things from one of the essentially free abandoned houses in an abandoned neighborhood. But that would be highly unethical and burglary.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you demolish the building you'll still own the land, on which you have to pay property tax. No one wants to buy the land, which is why we're talking about this in the first place, so you'll be stuck with it. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, what's any percent of land that no one wants to buy? But I'm sure they'll figure out a way to not charge you zero anyway.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * “Winning bidders won’t just hand over a check and walk away; the city requires new owners to sign contracts agreeing to bring properties up to code and occupy them within six months of purchase or risk forfeiting the property.” Re: Detroit Is Auctioning Off Incredible Old Homes For $1,000, and Google is your Friend--Aspro (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If only all those City Management Group, Inc listings are the city auctions then this (for example) seems like a bona fide $1,000 do what you want with it. If the property tax would be anything much (US governments can have some really "creative" ideas of how much your real estate is worth as you likely know) then I can see why people don't do this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Next to nothing if (1) it has asbestos or (2) had a meth lab in it. But found one source on wholesale cost of building a house:
 * "Summary: How much does it cost to build a house? Professional builders know the current cost to build a new home is $81 to $143 per sq ft, or more, depending on the home’s size, design, quality, and location. These costs per square foot do not include the cost of land, financing costs, builder's overhead and general expenses, marketing costs, sales commission, or profit. The cost of land or building site varies tremendously depending mainly on location. source" Those numbers are about 1/2 materials and 1/2 labor. So $40.50 to $71.50 in materials. Scrapping would get you maybe 1/10 of that?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In many cases you get nothing for scrapping. That is, the small price you get for the scraps is less than the cost of removing and transporting it.  And the cost of demolishing the home is likely to be far more than the $1000.  Remember, it's not just knocking the house down, but you still need to haul all the scraps you can't sell away, pay for their disposal, fill in the hole, and push some dirt over.  This all requires heavy equipment rental and workmen. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh right, I forgot about gasoline costs (to transport the tons of wood). So maybe there is no price at which this starts happening, no matter how low. Interesting. Will they really enforce if you leave the hole? They can't afford 911 and streetlights for crissakes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you live in Michigan what happens is the costs of a proper cleanup are added to your property tax, and if you don't pay that I believe it goes to your state income tax, and if you don't pay that they would put a lien against your assets. If you live outside Michigan, then you might get away with it, not sure what the enforcement mechanism is there. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above linked article says

"Building Detroit is restricted to Michigan residents, companies and organizations who have not already lost a property due to back taxes in Wayne County in the last three years. These requirements seem aimed at eliminating out-of-state speculators who scoop up houses and then don’t take care of them, a problem that sometimes occurs with properties in the county’s annual tax auction. It also might dissuade less serious buyers — some have purchased homes in the tax auction, only to abandon them once they see the high costs for renovation or steep property tax bills.

“We are not looking for speculators,” Detroit Land Bank Chair Erica Ward Gerson said in a statement. “If you’re not going to act diligently to fix up the house, you’ll lose the house and your money.”

Realty listing site Zillow shows most homes for sale in East English Village have prices ranging from $15,000 to over $100,000.

Winning bidders won’t just hand over a check and walk away; the city requires new owners to sign contracts agreeing to bring properties up to code and occupy them within six months of purchase or risk forfeiting the property. The Land Bank may extend the six-month deadline on a case-by-case basis for owners who have made significant progress on renovations."


 * So you can't not live in Detroit at least when making the purchase. If you leave later, they can probably pursue you for costs particularly since you signed a contract, and don't be surprised if they somehow find a way to pursue you despite their financial problems when they expect to make more money from you then will cost to pursue you. More to the point, I wouldn't be surprised if even with the mess you left, you've actually still saved them costs by doing part of the demolition work. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * When you have stripped the house you aren't finished. Remember that finding a buyer for what is essentially trash can be very difficult and time consuming. Time is money. Most landfills contain free construction materials, a friend of mine built a tiny house for a couple hundred dollar, mostly from wood he took from a local garbage dump. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Cut that sucker into firewood with a chainsaw! Work from top to bottom and center to edge to avoid it collapsing on you! Who needs a buyer? Learn where all the hidden metal might be (nail etc.) so the chain doesn't break and cut you! No, I am not really going to do that, I was mostly wondering why Detroit still has abandoned houses and also wondering what the price would've had to have been for the free market to solve the housing glut problem by the nuclear option (gasp – fewer houses!). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * His local landfill has an almost infinite supply of (fire)wood and other burnable items. Demolishing houses is quite expensive (compared to a 1000 dollar house). If you google "cost of demolishing a house" or "cost of demolishing a building" you'll find loads of info.


 * The average cost of demolition, including asbestos abatement, for 6,152 Detroit houses torn down under Hardest Hit funding between March 18, 2014 and Oct. 5, 2015 was $13,870, according to a list of contracts provided by the Detroit Land Bank.


 * The average was lower in the first phase of funding, in which the $50 million was spent from March 2014 to January 2015. It was $12,670. The costs have grown in the second phase, averaging $15,915 in another $36 million of spending. Those numbers go up when factoring in additional costs like soil testing, property surveying, asbestos assessments, utility disconnections, administration and five years of lot maintenance. The land bank provided those extra numbers, although the total is expected to grow. Including those extra figures, the overall average was $15,977 -- $14,827 in the first phase and $17,936 in the second.


 * The city has primarily cited higher asbestos abatement and soil trucking costs for the rise in spending. In the past, the city relied on tearing down houses under emergency demolition status, which allows for bypassing certain abatement standards.
 * But the state has tightened restrictions on what constitutes an emergency demolition. And with the city demolishing in large numbers with the federal funding, the cost of finding and trucking clean fill-dirt into the city has risen, land bank officials said. Some homes have cost more than $21,000 to demolish. Others have been torn down for less than $7,500. Fahle said the range is attributable to different circumstances at each home, particularly varying levels of asbestos risk. Detroit last month was approved for another $21 million in Hardest Hit funds for demolition. source. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, such a large fraction of the cost to build it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * People don't do this because they know these homes are now worthless – not an asset but liability, all due to Government’s blind faith  that Detroit made the best'ed automobiles in the whole wide world and those johnny-come-lately's   from Japan and Europe  didn’t stand a chance. After all, Detroit's automobile's CEO's  knew that that they where producing the cars that all  US  citizens in their right minds would want – but when the people voted with their feet,  the Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds. Privatize the profits – but socialize the losses (i.e., make  YOU - the tax payer pay).  Hypocrisy! The only good thing about living in Detroit  it is very close to Canada. Just pop across the river for cheaper pharmaceuticals and so on. --Aspro (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that $1000 is just the opening bid, I'd expect the price to go higher, unless the house is a mess.  Also, another gotcha is that you will then have to pay Detroit income tax, while you live there. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * these homes are priced at worthless because they are worthless....you couldn't pay people to take on unlivable homes in dangerous neighborhoods and have to pay RIDICULOUSLY HIGH PROPERTY TAXES TO BOOT!!!!68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Property tax rates may be high, but actual property tax amounts are low, since assessed values are so low. StuRat (talk)


 * property taxes on a house you buy for 500 bucks in Detroit are going to be at least a couple thousand dollars a year (probably more), I assure you....68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)