Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 18

Defining Continental Asia

The Continental Europe article says that this term is usually defined as excluding the islands of Iceland and the British Isles. This makes clear sense because these are islands not connected to the mainland. However, it is sometimes defined as excluding the Scandinavian peninsula.

But, how about in defining Continental Asia?? This term doesn't have a special Wikipedia article; it just re-directs to Asia. Thus, Wikipedia says nothing about what this term excludes. It's clear that it excludes the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, and Sri Lanka, as well as European Turkey. But is there anything else the term is sometimes defined as excluding for reasons paralleling Scandinavia not being considered part of continental Europe?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reason the term is used at all? The full list of Asian island nations includes Maldives, Cyprus, Singapore, East Timor, Brunei, and possibly Bahrain, although that is joined to the mainland by an artificial causeway, as well as those you list. Rojomoke (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

On the Bahrain thing: If they built a bridge connecting Tasmania to mainland Australia, or Sri Lanka to India, would that mean that Tassy and SL are no longer islands? I very much doubt it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say Rojomoke is right. While continental Asia is a concept which I guess could exist, it doesn't seem particularly common. And the somewhat funny thing about this in reference to what Jack said is a search finds mosts references to continental Asia seem to be to Pulau Palawan and the somewhat weird claim to be the southernmost point of continental Asia despite being on an island off another island.

It's perhaps worth considering why the concept of continental Europe is so common, it's surely at least partly because we're speaking English and the inventors of that language came from an island which isn't part of continental Europe. So continental Europe referred to those other guys. While there are some fairly universal differences between continental Europe and the British Isles as mentioned in our article (most only about 1 century old), some of the distinctions/asumptions made of what things are like in the continental Europe are I would suggest not as clearcut as continental Europe may imply since even ignoring Scandinavia. Continental Europe is a big area, much more than France and Germany. The Scandinavia issue likewise seems to be at least partly due to historical local separation.

For Asia, I don't think you have anything that similar, there's far less of a view of the rest of Asia as "one place". Afterall Asia itself as a concept originated probably mostly because of the European view of it as "that other place". And even in modern times, although there's some degree of a shared Asian identity e.g. with things like the Asian Games and other such groupings (often sporting ones) or stuff like Asian values, there's still much less of a continent wide view. (Consider also the related question of who's "Asian" which as hopefully people know can vary quite a bit from country to country. Notable even in a place like Singapore or Malaysia where the definition would often include those from SEA, East Asia and South Asia, the definition still may not always include those from West Asia or Central Asia.)

On the flip side, Maritime Southeast Asia and Mainland Southeast Asia is a thing. And you also have stuff like mainland China.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The thing that's important to note is these are really political definitions. There's no universal agreement on what falls under "Continental Asia" and the like because these definitions aren't based on objective facts that anyone can examine for themselves. They're based on squishy human ideas. So one person can think Country X belongs to Continental Asia, another can not, and neither can really be said to be wrong. Here's a video discussing this. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@JackofOz:, see Rama's Bridge. I read a while back it is or was still passable on occasion, depending on the currents and tides. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. A fascinating article. I had heard that there was a land bridge there in historical times, but didn't know what it was called. --- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Profound question

Is the university basically one big calculator. So say for instance, an apple drops off a tree. What happens to the apple is governed by maths, speed it falls, density as are the effects of gravity on it. Essentially number crunching is going on here but obviously on a fu**ing MASSIVE scale (look at the whole universe) surely something *or some one* god you may say has created a massive calculator, that's created us. Just like I struggle with the concept of infiniy I struggle to imagine all this stuff is hapening on the fly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.233.213.17 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

(I take it you mean the universe, not the university, although a big calculator may help you out there, too.) You might be interested in the watchmaker analogy view of God. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP is clearly overwhelmed. He should consult his local Lost and Profound. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think he is properly whelmed. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The universe is governed by the laws of physics, and math is used to describe those laws (or what we know of them). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Physics describes the known universe, it does not govern it; and as new discoveries are made, physics needs to play catch-up. If a group of scientists observed some event that was unexplainable by the laws of physics, they would need to rethink those laws and come up with an explanation. (Or put it down to some sort of collective hallucination, on the basis that "such a phenomenon does not exist; physics tells us so", but that would be somewhat unwise imo.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The universe obeys the laws of physics. That doesn't mean we know what all those laws are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the physics practised by Earthlings will ever explain how either (a) the universe has always been there, or (b) it was created out of nothing, by definition by a force that was separate from the universe. There will always be things that can never be within the reach of rational science. The spiritual dimension, for example. Some scientists may deny there is any such thing. That just shows how little they know, and how arrogant they can be in their know-all self-importance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP asks us to consider the universe as a deterministic system which is a philosophical position, see the article Determinism. The view is tenable in Classical physics if one sets no limit on complex details, it is fundamental to computer science, it dismisses the notion of Free will by asserting Behaviorism, but it meets objections in Quantum physics that holds that fine-grain events such as Radioactive decay and movement of particles have randomness that cannot be predicted. AllBestFaith (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

We may not be able to predict radioactive decay, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a deterministic formula thatcan predict (define) that decay. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

On the macroscopic scale, but not the micro, where the universe does not act like any calculator I know of. That really freaked Einstein out. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that the universe can do computations on a scale much larger than the computers that we've built so far. It's not clear what that means, if anything. It's probably a cognitive error to think that the large amount of computation demands an explanation. Competition for limited resources is an important driver of biological evolution, so it may be that human-level intelligence can only arise in limited-resource environments. It doesn't follow that resource limits are a property of Existence Itself, or, if there are limits, that they'd be small enough to be comprehensible to humans. -- BenRG (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The original poster seems to be asking about the mathematical universe hypothesis. This is an idea that has been seriously propounded, though there's hardly universal acceptance of it. Philosophy of mathematics might also be of interest. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The answer, unamnbiguously is yes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The meeces rule, OK?--178.103.190.96 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What? No link to Simulation hypothesis? Seems like that's the closest thing to what our OP is imagining. SteveBaker (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

UK motorway slip road: solid white line across road?

What does this mean eg [1]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.200.104 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the obvious reference would be the Road Markings section of the UK's Highway Code. But the only solid white lines across the road it shows are the one at a stop sign, and one at "signals or police control"; and there don't seem to be any signals or police in the picture. I post this negative answer only to save others from doing it. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

(edcon)It is, by its nature (solid, across carriageway), a stop line. Ive never seen one in that position though. Maybe you stop here if you cant safely merge into the mway traffic? --178.103.190.96 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

See Ramp meter, although the OP's photograph doesn't have any traffic signals. One explanation is that this site is intended for ramp metering and the line has been put on the slip road before the signals have been installed. However, it looks very much like a piece of tape across the road, rather than being painted - it's possible that it may have been the site of temporary signals for road works, or, indeed, that it's just a piece of tape that's fallen off a lorry and ended up in a distracting position. Tevildo (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There is something similar across the northbound slip road on the M6 at junction 2, but in that instance there are part-time traffic lights, and when they show red you are expected to stop and wait at that line. I'm wondering if there will be signals installed at this point in the near future. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Could it be one of those thingies that counts cars? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Are card games ever fake? (geographically)

Is North ever at a lower latitude than one of the other 3 players? In Manhattan you'd probably face the wall (30° clockwise, no problem). But do they ever not give a fuck and have South face Queens or something? What happens if the walls are 45° off and even the streets say Northeast, Southeast, Northwest or Southwest not N, S, E or W? (Like central Atlanta) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we get a little context for what this question is about for those of us playing at home? Dismas|^(talk) 22:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate contract bridge is often played in a hall which is not N/S aligned. And even when it is, the players called "North" are often not geographically "North". -- SGBailey (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"And even when it is, the players called "North" are often not geographically "North"." Why not? That is so wrong. If your corners are right angles and not 45° off you should have no excuse. Is East at least to your right when you enter when it's geographically S/W/N? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You know fine well that NESW in bridge is a local convention with no requirement for alignment to any wider geographic coordinate system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In every game I have ever played of any card game with four players, the player is South, and the rest are where you'd expect, to their right, left, and opposite. Is this a joke? μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If there are 4 players, which one is the "player"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I can only think Medeis must mean Declarer, but that really applies only to bridge, not any four-hand game. It's traditional, in newspaper bridge columns, to pretend that Declarer is always South, but in an actual tournament, the NESW positions are known before the hand, and any player might declare. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I am just thinking that S is at the bottom of most maps I read, as well as advice books. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese maps have South at the top of the map. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Law 3 states:

Four players play at each table, and tables are numbered in a sequence established by the Director. He designates one direction as North; other compass directions assume the normal relationship to North.

So North is whichever way the director (referee) says it is. In my experience as a duplicate bridge player, directors typically make North the direction toward the wall where their own station is (typically with the supplies, scoring computer, etc.)—I've seen it stated that this is normal practice, but I can't remember where, to provide a citation. This may vary in large tournaments where there are multiple directors in the same room. I'm sure any other games where compass directions are used would follow similar practice. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bridge columns of newspapers provide a diagram of the hands - North is at the top, East on her left, South opposite and West on her right. So it's orientated the same way as a map. But of course, you can hold a map (or a newspaper come to that) any way you want. 109.146.238.101 (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

June 19

The dustbin inside the ladie's restroom...

• Is there a possibility to open the disposable sanitary dustbin near the bowl I'm talking about the garbage cans with removal fuse made of ABC plastic (which is indestructible!), if your mobile phone has fallen inside this dustbin? the cover with the removal lock is not removable all the garbage can is made from one piece. (it seems so to me).
• Why is it made of ABC plastic if the dustbin is only one-way and when it is full, the owner of the toilets have to buy a new one? (cost eerie) --Einwegmuelltonne (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

ABS plastic, incidentally. If it is one solid piece (and many such receptacles are), it'll have to be cut open - you'll need to contact the owner of the facilities to arrange this if you have dropped your phone in it. Tevildo (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To give a likely answer to the second question (based on my experience in Facilities Management work) . . . Typically, such receptacles are serviced by a sanitation company (who will likely empty other waste receptacles and replenish any automatic air fresheners) with whom the proprietors have a contract. Often the full bin will be replaced by an empty one, and the full one taken back to the depot where it will be emptied and cleaned for re-use. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The ones we have at work appear sealed but are opened with a plastic key by the lady or man who comes around every so often to change the polythene liner inside. It is possible to extract items through the lid with a lot of perseverance, rather like getting coins out of a piggy bank, except that you need disposable gloves and a strong-ish stomach. Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just be careful. Sometimes people use those for sharps disposal as well. Dealing with a needle stick will suck a lot. Just talk to the facilities people or find a janitor. I doubt you're the first person to drop a phone in there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding a quote

Who said the famous quote- Nothing is impossible, the word itself says i'm possible ? This is not a homework question so someone please answer my question.sahil shrestha 15:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahil shrestha (talk • contribs)

I have heard this is from napoleon--Einwegmuelltonne (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be surprising as the pun only really works in English (though Napoléon apparently did start learning English in exile, see napoleon.org, so I guess nothing's impossible). Most quote books and self-help books ascribe it to Audrey Hepburn, but Wikiquote, for example, has moved it from her entry for the lack of a reliable, precise and verifiable source, see the corresponding talk page at Wikiquote. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Teleport your body 60 miles using only the power of your mind. Prove that something is impossible. Learn Portuguese in a brain dead coma. Run so fast that no one can see you. Make a rock so big you can't lift it and then lift it. Read a library in one second. Prove that 90% of all Nigerian prince offers are real. Make Microsoft have never existed and then make it exist just for the heck of it. Knock out the strongest gorilla with bare hands (with one slap). Win every Mega Millions lottery of the 21st century while being born in 2016. Sleep with Cleopatra. Release a kraken. Transmute gold (alchemy only, no particle accelerators). Prove the maximum number of angels that can fit on a pin then turn yourself into angels to demonstrate. Build the first steam engine. Beat Julius Caesar in a gladiator match. All challenges have the plain meaning of the English language of right now. In the event of ambiguity the meaning in the American dialect controls. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

An early version of this appears in Lifetime Speaker's Encyclopedia, by Jacob Braude (1962): "Impossible! Accept that, and you will never attempt to win through. Spell the word "I'm possible," and you will find that what others thought impossible is only more difficult." This is from the brief excerpt available in Google Books, so I can't tell if it is original with Mr. Braude. John M Baker (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that many aphorisms like this, as well as other forms of "folk wisdom" don't necessarily have traceable origins to a specific author; at best we can find the earliest recorded use of the phrase, it doesn't mean that the phrase was created by that person. --Jayron32 02:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

June 20

How to demand STD testing

How do you ask your partner to get tested for STDs? I mean, how do you bring that up in a non-awkward way? And if they do agree to get tested, do you ask for the result sheet or do you just take their word for it that they're "clean"? Should you also agree to get tested even though you know it's straight up impossible for you to be infected with any diseases ^{due to lack of experience}? 67.68.191.83 (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the correct location to get advice of any sort. You should ask someone else. We can only provide references to reliable sources or to Wikipedia articles here. Immediately below this post, someone will ignore the rules of this desk and post some random, unreferenced, unwise advise. Don't listen to them. Run far away from this place and seek advice from somewhere else. --Jayron32 02:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec)I have simply always gone with my partners of both sexes (I'm bi) whenever any such mutual issue might be relevant, and the doctors are very accommodating, especially in Quebec. The doctor will almost always want both partners to have relevant tests. E.g., if she's preggers, they'll wanna know if you have Zika, etc. I think we can tell you both to seek medical advice, but as for relationship advice, "trust me", we can't help you there. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I am asking theoretically, not as a way of eliciting relationship advice from you guys. I am not even in a relationship at the moment. ^{Besides, I've seen relationship advice being dispensed plenty on this board, so why the sudden aversion to offering it in this case?}67.68.191.83 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why assume that there are no references to reliable sources? Here's one that took me almost a whole minute to find: [2]. Sjö (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sjö, you've got a very poor understanding of American politics, the nature of politically funded advocacy websites, and what a reliable source is if you think a website is a reliable source if it has an address ending in .gov. I suggest you consider such things as the perennially discredited food pyramids, the "just say no" campaign, the anti-AIDS abstinence campaign,, US government campaigns against eggs, and for high-carbohydrate diets. The site you have linked to is basically the current administration's advice column. I have, per our guidelines, suggested the OP seek medical advice from a licensed physician. You've randomly googled something and offered it on your expertise as a wikipedia editor. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a rule of thumb, if one is in a relationship and doesn't feel comfortable talking about the issue of STDs, then perhaps one should also reconsider whether it is appropriate to be sexually active in that relationship. Sure, such conversations can be somewhat awkward, but a strong relationship won't be harmed by a little bit of awkwardness. Sexual activity can have a lot of consequences, especially for people who rush into without thinking about the consequences and without taking appropriate precautions. So talk about these things, and make sure both of you are comfortable with the answers. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. As awkward as it may be to ask now, it'd be a thousand times more awkward to explain having any incurable STI to future perspective partners. A little awkwardness now saves a lot later. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can "demand" that anyone do anything, unless you have a court order or something. But if someone's unwilling to take such a test and prove the results, run away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Cause of Traffic Accidents

I have to prepare a 5 page report on it , please give ideas.--Aryan ( है?) 06:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a useful site, and here is another one. I hope they help. I suspect the frequency of any particular cause is likely to vary in any particular country. Richard Avery (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And not only by country but by area within that country. I wouldn't expect many accidents due to ice on the road in Texas but it happens quite a bit in Vermont. So, relating that to what Aryan is asking, you might want to look at the area that you're thinking of and look at things that way. Dismas|^(talk) 12:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Beware of studies done by those with agendas. For example, "alcohol involved accidents" is a term often used, but doesn't mean that alcohol was a cause of the accident. For example, if somebody who had been drinking was stopped at an intersection when rammed by another car (with a sober driver), then that's still listed as "alcohol involved". (I have no doubt that alcohol is a major risk but that doesn't mean we should exaggerate the risk.) Also, studies done by government bodies may underestimate dangers they are responsible for, like poorly designed roads and construction zones, lack of guard rails, incorrect road markings, or police cars sticking out into the street when they pull people over. Poorly placed road signs can also pose a hazard, and speed bumps with no warning could cause accidents more than prevent them.

One surprising cause of accidents, and increase in fatalities, is trees close to the road. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Like suicidal trees jumping in front of cars?--TMCk (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, in addition to driving into a tree, a tree can fall onto a car or into the roadway, and can block the view of oncoming traffic or pedestrians. So, they must be plotting against us. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no surprise in that and where do you get an increase of fatalities due to trees from?--TMCk (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hitting a substantial tree is like hitting a brick wall, so where running off the road would have just resulted in getting stuck in a ditch, if there's a big tree there, instead, it can prove fatal to the car occupants. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The major cause of auto accidents is the auto hitting something or something hitting the auto. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Any source for that bold claim? :)) --TMCk (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

By definition. The other case would be if the driver crashes the car on purpose. Then it's not an accident. By definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I was of course joking but here are statistics of "Collisions with fixed objects and animals" over the years confirming "this trend".--TMCk (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I recently did a lot of research on the amount of accidents between cars making left turns at intersections (USA of course) and didn't find any statistics, my interest had to do with red-light cameras and how many citations were for left turners. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For years, my father used to make a left hand turn on red at a rural intersection in the Jersey Pine Barrens. Evidently he'd never noticed the old stop sign had been superceded. One day returning from the shore house by that route, an out-of state guest remarked, "So they allow left turns on red in NJ?" There was shock, then laughter, then it became a running joke. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, it's spelled superseded. Probably just a typo in your case, but a lot of people honestly think it's spelled with a c. I used to, until some years ago, when I had it pointed out to me. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:supercede, which helpfully explains something about the etymology. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I kept thinking the spellchecker was broken, and I actually know enough Latin I should have figured it out, but I just gave up and hit enter. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a very good report on pedestrians killed by cars in the USA [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Another source: TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS 2005. Got that one from the Epidemiology of motor vehicle collisions article.--TMCk ([User talk:TracyMcClark|talk]]) 17:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @TracyMcClark, SemanticMantis, Medeis, and Trovatore: and other --Aryan ( है?) 04:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, है?, my answer was basically a funny irrelevance. But I did have a friend who died driving home on the White Horse Pike when she hit a tree in Hammonton, New Jersey where two others had also died. They finally cut down the tree. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do Americans call traffic lights "traffic signals" or "stoplights"? (South Africans call them "robots"). There was a film about a man who was prosecuted after he killed someone driving through an intersection. The man protested his innocence and asked a teenage passenger to give his story. During the course of his narrative the boy said "He drove through the stoplight". The man replied "Why are you saying that? You know it's not true." The boy repeated "He drove through the stoplight". An argument then ensued. Someone else then asked the boy "What colour was the light?" and he replied "Green". 86.168.123.89 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The formal and precise term would be "traffic signal", or "traffic light". The term "stop light" is often used informally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The French, rather lyrically, call it a "signal fire" (feu de signalisation). Alansplodge (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of interesting discussion, but a long way from the basics. There are really three causes of road accidents: driver error, mechanical fault, and external intervention. Driver error is a significant factor in the vast majority of them (about 90% - http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/12/human-error-cause-vehicle-crashes). That may be down to alcohol, excess speed, or poor driving skills. If a car hits a tree, that is driver error (unless the brakes failed - though it can be argued that even mechanical failure is usually the fault of the driving not doing the maintenance properly). True external causes are limited - and animal running into the road, a tree falling, a landslide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymspen (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Driver error" is actually a subset of "human error". That includes such things as pedestrians crossing the road without looking, cyclists turning right without signalling and approaching drivers falling asleep at the wheel. 80.44.160.251 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Does watch refer to a pocket watch here?

The following is taken from Aldo Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac" published in 1949: "I seat myself on a beach, facing the white wake of the morning star. I set the pot beside me. I extract a cup from my shirt front, hoping none will notice its informal mode of transport. I get out my watch, pour coffee, and lay notebook on knee." I think "watch" here should be a pocket watch rather than a wrist watch. Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.173.24 (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably - but there is nothing to stop someone keeping their wristwatch in their pocket. There is nothing in the text to help identify exactly what type of watch is meant - though it must be a timepiece of some sort. Wymspen (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For all we know, it could be an ankle watch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Or even a stopwatch. Akld guy (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

According to Watch#Wristwatch they gained respectability as a man's accessory in Britain after WWI. Leopold was already in his 30's by that war's end, it's likely, given the context, he already had a pocket watch, and given the wording, there's no reason to doubt it. Both of my grandfathers, born at the turn of the century, carried pocket-watches, and my grandmothers' wrist watches were fashion accessories, not normally worn unless they were going out on the town. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, see Great War trench watches.

Photos of Leopold usually show him wearing casual or country clothing. Pocket watches tend to go with jackets and/or waistcoats (which I think may be called vests in the US). I would expect someone dressed like that to have a wristwatch rather than a pocket watch. Wymspen (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And I believe a vest is called an "undershirt" in the U S. 80.44.160.251 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

June 21

a tenure for a county clerk

Would you tell me how long a tenure for a county clerk in the US usually lasts? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.179.56 (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

America has 50 states, and 3,144 counties or their equivalents. County (United States). What you mean by "county clerk" is unclear. It may be an elected or bureaucratic position of many types. The term has no universal meaning. For example, in some states judges (not that they are specifically clerks) are elected for varying terms, some are appointed for set or life terms. Even bureaucratic clerks can be replaced, depending on state patronage laws. The question needs to be far more specific, and the fact that states rule their own affairs except for very limited matters be taken into account. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

County clerk has a pretty standard meaning in US local politics. It's distinguished from clerks of court, and clerical staff in government offices. Many states provide a fairly strict definition of the office of county clerk in their constitutions, along with term lengths, which vary quite a bit. In Illinois it's 4 years, in Virginia it's 8 years. Alaska doesn't have counties. The California constitution doesn't say much of anything about county clerks. New York allows 3 or 4 year terms by constitution, leaving it up to the legislature to decide by statute (except for counties that are part of NYC, where they're appointed by the state appellate courts). There's obviously a bunch of others though. The short answer is you ought to start with the state constitution of the state you're curious about. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Job profile of BDO in Jharkhand orHaryana

Can someone please tell me the salary, educational and age requirement, promotion citerea, work and other things about BDO in Jharkhand orHaryana?--Aryan ( है?) 04:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean a Block Development Officer? Rojomoke (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Online discussion forum for people interested in fitness/exercise

Hi. I'm looking for a good online discussion forum for people interested in fitness/exercise, where there's a decent amount of helpful interaction from people who know what they're talking about. Suggestions welcomed. Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with internet groups, is that everyone is an expert, just like everyone is an expert in the gym. I personally read (and sometimes post) on this group http://theofficebodybuildingworkout28918.yuku.com/forums/1#.V2kP4FE3dwY It's probably not really what you're looking for, but I've picked up some good tips from it. --TrogWoolley (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Organs

I would like to ask a question about electronic organs. I am quite a music buff, so musical instruments such as these interest me. What I would like to know is, why do they cost so much? I'm talking about companies such as Lowrey and Wersi, whose top level organs are priced at around thirty thousand pounds. Given that one of these instruments can't have much more power than my five hundred pound laptop pic, how can those high prices be justified? I can buy decent keyboards from Nord and Casio and even Yamaha for the likes of two thousand pounds or considerably less. Those instruments are just as good. I could probably make my own synthesiser with two hundred pounds worth of parts and then some. Are Wersi and Lowrey mental? It seems to me they are. As a music buff, I should have the right to a rational explanation for these issues.

Here is a link to the Wersi Louvre. What kind of fool would buy that organ for that price, when it is probably worse than one of Casio's top things. Just because it is full size, rather than he "table top" keyboards I'm used to doesn't mean that Wersi get to rip me off! Sure it comes with a seat, but that seat probably cost Wersi pennies.

This is a Nord keyboard for the price of one thousand, two hundred and twenty-nine pounds only. The second links shows a keyboard which is far more powerful than Wersi Louvr scam. I do not trust these fools. I do not pay thirty grand for something which worth less than one percent of that.

Thank you Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ps, If I put a price on the Wersi Louvre, it would go a for a "bargain" three thousand pounds, and Lowrey organs would be changed from ten grand to just one grand.

Are you seriously asking this? And are you really asking if those companies are mental? I can't imagine how anybody could not see the gigantic differences between those organs. Seriously. Anybody?--TMCk (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Zzzzz. To the extent you have asked a question ('how can those high prices be justified?'), the answer is supply and demand: there's a market which supports an organ of that spec at that price. That's all the justification needed. As to why it might cost £30k rather than £1k ... three keyboards versus one. 61 & 76 keys versus 49. Pedals versus none. Sound reproduction system versus none. Large robust structure versus little plastic box. Build quality. Transport costs. Distribution of fixed costs over a smaller denominator of sales. All cogent reasons, even before we get on to Veblen goods. Me: I'd prefer a Hammond with a Leslie cab, but there you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I still feel that the price is too high, though, As, I said, the cabinetry is probably surprisingly cheap, and I could probably buy three keyboards, an amp some speakers and a pedalboard fr less than five thousand pounds. I can even use a few hundred pounds of wood to build some cabinetry for the whole setup. Still much less. Computationally, the internal circuitry does not justify the cost and Wersi are rather misinformed. Pablothepenguin (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant tangent on electric cars, point proven wrong Pablothepenguin (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Electric cars appear to cost north of a hundred thousand pounds new and suffer a massive depreciation as soon as they leave the showroom. They appear to be much simpler to build than their diesel/petrol equivalents, so why the huge price differential? 86.168.123.89 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC) They might appear to cost that much to you, but they don't. £20-£30k is much more likely for the Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe or BMW i3 for example. Part of that cost for some of those cars is the battery pack, which some commentators have estimated as costing around £10k.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) Not so fast, hombre. This pricing appears to relate to electric SUVs. How does this compare with conventional SUVs? Tesla Model S appears to be a similarly priced normal car. 86.168.123.89 (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is an eBay listing for only four grand. You can see the difference that eBay makes. I told you I was right. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "stunning condition" in that ebay ad rather suggests that it is not a new machine. Wymspen (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said it was. Pablothepenguin (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Nord's still digital too. If you want something that your laptop can't do, and you aren't willing to consider the value of physical keys and knobs, then consider looking at actual analog synthesizers or tone wheel organs. Those can get pretty pricey too. To reiterate on the supply an demand, *all* musical instruments seem a bit overpriced to an outsider, right? These organs are often rather low production runs, selling primarily to professionals and institutions, not really "normal" individuals. Re: the car comparison, remember, "If you can afford a truck, you can afford a Synthesizer". SemanticMantis (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead of this silly discussion -- the obvious answer is "the Wersi instrument is priced as it is because the people buying it find it worth that price" -- someone might instead edit Wersi so that it doesn't read like an advertisement. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What Organ Is Right For Me?

I am interested in teaching myself how to play the organ. What would be an ideal starter organ for less than five grand? Pablothepenguin (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above conversation I would suggest you leave the organ aside and get a cheap electronic keyboard like a synthesizer.--TMCk (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but "cheap" is relative, and there's some terminology issues. Does OP really want an "organ" per se, and what does that mean to them? Is a digital organ an organ? Is a synthesizer an organ? The new Minimoog reissue costs $3.5k. Which, granted, is a lot less than $30k, but not really a casual purchase for most of us, and it's not really an organ, as it only plays one note at a time. OP is not going to get a tonewheel organ for $5k. He can get a very nice digital simulacra of a tonewheel from Nord [4]. for $3.7k. There are also entry-level digital pianos for around $1k, many of which can make decent organ sounds. Still another option is to buy high-quality software like this [5] and get a nice midi controller to play on.

But this is quickly getting outside our purview.

I'd direct OP to the weekly "what should I buy?" thread at /r/synthesizers. If you give them a rough budget and feature request and describe what is most important to you (e.g. ease of play, faithful sonic recreation, foot pedals, portability?) you might get some good recommendations. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of an organ, that is to say an instrument with two or more keyboards. This is because I want to teach myself how to play multiple keyboards at once. So, no synthesisers or digital pianos, please. Also I ment five thousand pounds, not dollars. Please bear these things in mind. Any other suggestions? Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want an organ with lots of features and of high quality I would recommend something like that here.--TMCk (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You should make up your mind about what it is that you actually want if you expect a more serious answer.--TMCk (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What I would like is an instrument with Church organ, Hammond organ, Theatre Organ and orchestral sounds and two or more keyboards for less than five thousand pounds. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, ok, that's a very strange definition of an organ, but if you want two keyboards, that's fine. Did you see the Nord I linked? It has two keyboards. Here's a new Hammond with one keyboard [6]. Lots of key players just mount different keyboards above/below each other using stands. Anyway, I take back what I said before - you should be able to get a used tonewheel organ for 5,000 pounds, just look at your local ebay/craigslist/pawn shop/classified ads. I just saw a real tonewheel Hammond A-100 from the 1950s going for $1500 in my area. (And please don't collapse/hat a comment just because you don't like it. Many of us would consider that rude. For a "music buff" you're not really explaining yourself very clearly. For example tone wheel organs and digital pianos and digital organs are all commonly classified as synthesizers. Just because an old Hammond isn't using the same technology a new Korg is doesn't make the Hammond anything other than an electro-mechanical synthesizer. And again, this isn't even what the reference desks are for, I'm just trying to help you a little because I find this stuff personally interesting and it's not explicitly disallowed for me to help you shop ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, (or actually I do) but a starter organ can be bought for 300 quid... If you are willing to spend ₤5000,- you can get some pretty top-notch instruments! If you're willing to check the second-hand market you'll see that your options are numerous. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 19:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC) WERSI is most definitely a very good choice, HAMMOND still makes some pretty amazing organs as well, CLAVIA not shure if analogue or digital, Diplom Ingenieur Heinz Ahlborn produces organs in a more retro style if that is what you prefer. The best thing to do is to go to your local musical instruments-store and get some face-to-face advice from an expert. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 19:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer an organ with proper wooden cabinetry, and also my instrument would need a pedalboard as well. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

WERSI I'd say, big name, high quality. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 19:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I am struggling to find Lowrey or Wersi pre owned organs in Scotland, where I'm from. Please help. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wersi pre-owned.--TMCk (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There are church organs and church organs. I told my mother I wanted a harmonium and she bought me one in an auction for about two pounds. It was later sold in another auction for a fiver. My local library has a piano which you can book for a session. If you're wondering how a library can provide this service you wear headphones same as when you're using the computers. My local community centre has a piano in the foyer, and if the times are inconvenient there are two pianos on the concourse at St Pancras Station which appears to be open 24/7 (although neighbouring Kings Cross closes after the last train). 80.44.160.251 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

June 22

Concentrating mind on study

What may be the list of tips for best concentration on study? (Tips for higher secondary students ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.255.74 (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Study skills which may have some ideas, and if you follow references from that article, it may lead you to better places. --Jayron32 06:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you ask about concentration, see also Attentional control and Mindfulness.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Attentional shift & ADHD might also be articles of interest. --107.15.152.93 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

England National football (soccer) team questions

First, England invests enormous amounts of money in football, as far as I know more then Germany or Italy. However, England are demonstrably not that good. Why not?

Second, whilst England are not that good, they are demonstrably not that bad. Yet from what I have seen England are technically weaker than many demonstrably worse teams, like Slovakia and Russia. What are England doing well?--Leon (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, why do Scotland never seem to qualify? Shouldn't they be much better with the second oldest league system in the whole world? Pablothepenguin (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The explanation which is often given is that because English football is so rich, the top teams prefer to employ international superstars, which means that there are far fewer English players reaching the top ranks than used to be the case. I am not an expert, so can't say if that is the main or only reason. Wymspen (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Any word on why Scotland is so bad at qualifying for football tournaments? Pablothepenguin (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Small population?--Leon (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Haggis, bagpipes, whisky, caber tossing? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Scottish football is shite"... they say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I presume you're aware that the vast majority of money invested in football in England comes from Sky and sponsors, and goes to Premier League teams who comprise dozens of different nationalities? In qualifying for Euro 2016, they were the only team to win all qualifying matches. They are notoriously weak in tournaments. I don't think there's any real answer to why that happens... The same logic is true in Scotland to an extent, many mainland Europeans play up there, and as the population is so much smaller, their starting point is substantially weaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Typically, the explanation given for England's poor performances is that for all the money available, they do not play a very tactically advanced game and are therefore fairly easy for a top team to contain. This is said to be a result of favoring players who have a lot of grit and resolve, but who are not necessarily very gifted technically. Their best performance in a World Cup since winning in 1966 came in 1990, when they actually had such a technical player, Paul Gascoigne, as their offensive leader. Now, Scotland has not always been bad at qualifying for major tournaments: they had quite a good run of qualifying for the World Cup from the 1970s to the 1990s, being successful in 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990 and 1998. They didn't do anything once they got to the tournament, but that's a very nice record of qualifying for a small country. They haven't been much good since, but a lot of countries go through similar phases when they are very god for a coupe of decades, then fade away. For example, Hungary was one of the powerhouses of Europe from the 1930s to the mid-1980s, and then disappeared off the football map until qualifying for this year's European championships. These things are cyclical, that's all. --Xuxl (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that Scotland has a relatively low population, but why are New Zealand better at rugby then when they have an even lower population? I don't get it! Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason for that is that rugby has always been New Zealand's national game and New Zealanders are extremely passionate about it. Akld guy (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But passion is not enough. We Scots are very passionate about football, but that doesn't help. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

We're into POV here, but when this question is raised, it often moves on to consider how many different sports England perceives itself as (or thinks it ought to be) a powerhouse in. A quick resume would include football, cricket, two codes of rugby, snooker, darts, athletics, swimming, cycling, various equestrian activities, golf, Formula One, boxing and more. For most of my life there's been much teeth gnashing about how we ought to be at the top table in tennis, too, somewhat relieved by Andy Murray winning some major titles and then the Davis Cup win.

An insight into this can be gained by looking at this chart of which sports were represented by the winners of the (misleadingly titled) BBC Sports Personality of the Year since its inception in 1954.

Your analogy with NZ is interesting. I'm not sure a New Zealander would agree, but the perception here is that NZ has an overwhelming love of rugby union and flirts a little with cricket. It's a stereotype and therefore probably badly flawed, but I think there's some truth in it, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why New Zealand are better than Scotland at rugby, when Scotland has a larger population. Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Could be because New Zealand's national anthem is a prayer, whereas Scotland's is, well, non-existent. ;) Akld guy (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

List of exercise movements sought (with or without mechanisms)

Tutorial or step by step guide sought, with images of:

1. Basic
2. Intermediate
3. Advance
4. Mastery level

Apostle (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hair fall issue

Reason(s), condition(s), list of mitigation steps and so on, sought. -- Apostle (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hair falls for the same reason as everything else, gravity. If you're asking about hair loss, then I suggest you click on that link and come back here with more specific questions. Dismas|^(talk) 13:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lmao. Thanks. -- Apostle (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Last week you were trying to get rid of your hair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Q is: when are we going to be rid of our hare?--178.103.190.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently little pressure to get rid of hares. Their gestation period is extremely short (~30 days), their young are very precocial and none of their species are currently listed on any endangered lists. We do have a section of Hair you can read if you are asking when humans may no longer have any hair or when body hair will be significantly more sparse. uhhlive (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Chart sought

A chart sought where it displays all sorts of holidays, memorial days and so on, e.g., Fathers Day… -- Apostle (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Every country has its own list - which one do you want? Wymspen (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Go to any stationary store and ask them for a calendar. Dismas|^(talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Even the mobile stores have them.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This site [7] has a chart of international holidays. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I desire something like this view, with all the holidays existing in this world... -- Apostle (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's something I realized around 3rd grade: If every independent country has as many major holidays as America (New Years, MLK, Presidents, Valentine's, St. Patrick's, Good Friday, Easter, Memorial, Independence, Labor, Columbus, Halloween, Election, Veterans, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas, New Years Eve, maybe Fathers Day and Mothers Day) a worldwide 12 page calender would be crowded like shit (paraphrase on the last phrase). And just the most important National Days alone (like Independence) would be once per 2 days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to see what goes on day-to-day in this boring world, you know... -- Apostle (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your first port of call (timeanddate.com tells me that tomorrow is the worldwide Day of the Seafarer): List of holidays by country. 80.44.160.251 (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

How did you find what you stated i.e. Seafarer? I found this but it starts from "Friday Jun 24 Midsummer Day Andorra"... Am I in the right page? -- Apostle (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

wagon tracks

Could you introduce to me something more about wagon tracks in the Middle West of America that pioneers left? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.215.130 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about "Midwest", but some of the wagon train ruts from out west still exist. Oregon Trail Ruts (Guernsey, Wyoming) for example. You could probably use Google to find a lot of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hull's Trace North Huron River Corduroy Segment is the remains of an early military road in Michigan. Rmhermen (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of shareholder resistance to Google's continued standoff with Chinese government

The search ad market in China is worth about 20 billion dollars these days. If Google were to get half of that market share it would add 10 billion dollars in revenue to its 75 billion dollars in annual revenue. Presumably if Google were to cave in on censorship demands of the Chinese government it would be back in China (as Google did by launching a version of Youtube this year in Pakistan that was more sensitive to government take down demands on grounds of blasphemy, allowing a ban on Youtube to be lifted there). Anyways this is not a soapbox statement, I want to know why, given shareholders really like their dividends and since Google is missing out on billions of dollars in profits annually from China, isn't there any shareholder activism urging Google to cave in and return to China? I mean it seems like there isn't a peep of protest from Google search results for this subject. Even assuming a lot of investors care about taking an ethical stand against Internet censorship, a lot of really money hungry tycoon and hedge funds don't and own a lot of Google and have the capability and self interest to organize shareholder activism. Any explanations for the total lack of such activity? Muzzleflash (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note this item at the top of the page "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." As there will be no one definitive answer this is one of those questions. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

In principle we could give references to other sources that discuss this issue. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a request for debate (not arguing about merits of positions), predictions (not asking will Google cave in?), or opinion (just want to know about the thinking process of shareholders). Muzzleflash (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you expect us to provide references to the "thinking processes" of each of several hundred private individuals most of whom have never commented on such matters?--Jayron32 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I did reference tycoons and hedge funds which because of their sophistication and a lot of skin in the game tend to weigh this kind of question with organized thinking. In any case I hope you guys can refrain from talking about rules when there's no clear violation. It takes away from the discussion. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you've provided no references. You've asked a question that we cannot provide you references to. The purpose of the desk is to provide references, that is further reading, about a subject. There is no Wikipedia article, nor is there a reliable source outside of Wikipedia which explains the "thinking process" of each of several hundred private individuals. --Jayron32 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did reference tycoon and hedge funds. Look at the text of the original question. They might be private individuals or small groups of professional investment managers but again given their sophistication and huge investments, their thinking process tends not to be random and follows principles that are understood by other professionals. Muzzleflash (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources did you cite? You keep asserting things that we can all see you aren't doing. And what reliable sources do you expect us to find you? --Jayron32 20:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. What do you mean by citing reliable sources? Muzzleflash (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There are several possible explanations, but one of them is that shareholders think that the Google brand is worth more when people associate a principled stand against censorship with it. Alternatively, Google might think that its a slippery slope, and if it gives in to demands by one government, it will be subject to more pressure from other governments, eventually resulting in fewer business opportunities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And when a company is as large as Google, they need to be keenly aware of public perceptions, as those might have quite an impact on the bottom line, say when Google attempts a major merger in the future. If they are seen as respectable, the merger may be approved, while if they act like they will do whatever it takes to make a quick buck, the merger may be rejected. StuRat (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• WP:OR, but I don't think it's just censorship that's keeping Google out of China. There's a couple of Chinese cell phone manufacturers (Xiaomi and Oppo Electronics that I know of from experience) that use open source code released by Google but regularly ignore the GPL that requires them to release their modifications to said code. Those two manufacturers in particular have gone so far as to completely lock the bootloaders on newer phones (in ways that people outside the company can't unlock), and Oppo has even removed recovery mode (I know this from experience -- my last paycheck was totally blown just scrambling to get an Android phone I could install an English OS on). Those companies like to present an original image despite piggybacking off of foreign design and most large companies here have ties with the government (at least heavy backing from them if nothing else). Also, making that code public would also make it easier to close backdoors and security loopholes on phones. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Completely locking the bootloaders isn't unique to Chinese companies, actually non Chinese players significant in the Android world have been doing it before many in the Western world had even heard of Xiaomi or Oppo. And AFAIK the practice isn't forbidden by any of the open source licences (none of the code is licenced under GPLv3 or any other licence with an anti-tivoisation clause) nor Google Mobile Services's licence. However the problem of companies not complying with copyleft licences does seem to more common with Chinese manufacturers. Of course these 2 factors combined does mean third party ROM support for these phones can be limited. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian mind control device

What is the blue and black device that Gary Johnson is wearing around his collar in the lede photo of this WSJ article? When I first saw him wearing it in the video of his and William Weld's talk with the editors of the NYT, I assumed it was a wireless microphone pickup to improve the audio quality of the primary subject of the recording, and that Gov. Weld didn't get one because he came in late, but now I figure that it must belong to Gov. Johnson himself, but I can figure out if it is a pair of sunglasses turned around, a personal music player, a telephone Bluetooth headset, or what. If he's wearing it during tonight's CNN Libertarian Town Hall Meeting, I'd like to be able to explain to friends what it is. -- ToE 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a Bluetooth headset. As for why he'd wear it up there to give a talk, I don't know. Dismas|^(talk) 18:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec - too slow) A headset I guess?--TMCk (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't view the video. I'm just going from the picture but it looks like this. Dismas|^(talk) 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That put me on the right track. It appears to be the LG TONE Active™ Premium Wireless Stereo Headset HBS-850 Blue. As for why, well he is a both eccentric and physically active, so it isn't out of character for him to be wearing a product "specially designed to accompany you on your longest training runs and your most punishing sets". Thanks all! -- ToE 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is it mainly the UK that leads the rejection front against inviting Turkey to join the EU?

HOTmag (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Scotland does not reject Turkey, by the way. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The UK government has previously expressed itself as being in favour of Turkish membership - the current publicity about this is entirely down to the referendum campaigning, and is an attempt to scare people. Even Boris Johnson has previously expressed his support (he does, after all, have a Turkish great-grandfather) In the long run, if the Turkish application progresses, it is going to be far more difficult to get approval from Cyprus and Greece because of the continuing division of Cyprus. Wymspen (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Partly Islamaphobia. Partly the general anti-immigrant mood stirred up by UKIP and others, which applies to all countries, regardless of religion. The idea of a country with a massive population that is mostly poorer than the UK's joining the EU makes some people think that huge chunks of Turkey's population will want to move to the UK, with the UK having no power to turn them away, as EU citizens. That some people overlay this with the bonkers perception that vast numbers of Turks must be Islamic extremists doesn't help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

But this may apply to any country in the EU, not only to the UK. HOTmag (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This article (admittedly from 2013) blames Germany. Greece is none too keen either. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Puke yellow?

Is there a name for the greenish-yellow color commonly seen on safety vests, etc.? The article has a link to Chartreuse (color), but I suspect there is an "official" name for the color (cf: safety orange, international orange) --107.15.152.93 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's an analogous official name. There is an official ANSI spec for high-visibility garments though, see e.g. here [8] for a summary. This is also discussed a bit at our article on high-visibility clothing, and note that many/most ANSI-conforming products are not just colored but also reflective, often using 3M Scotchlite [9]. Many places simply call it "high-visibilty yellow" [10], though "lime" seems to be used other places. I can't find easily find the exact text of the ANSI spec. Our article says the garment must be "conspicuously colored." SemanticMantis (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when Chelsea FC released a football shirt of a very similar colour, they called it "electric yellow". AJCham 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

English zoologist Edward Bagnall Poulton coined the term Aposematism from the Greek ἀπό apo away, ση̑μα sēma sign for the evolution of warning colors in nature. AllBestFaith (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Shades of yellow says "Safety yellow is... defined by ANSI standard Z535." OR: In the commercial automotive industry, safety yellow is a commonly used term. ZMBrak (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll use "safety yellow" in formal communications. --OP:107.15.152.93 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

June 23

chickweed

I have a problem with chickweed taking over my lawn and would like to eradicate it without killing the grass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.52.24 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Selective herbicides control specific weed species, while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed. BTW you can eat chickweed (Stellaria media). AllBestFaith (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And if you don't know what herbicides to use, well, this is why landscapers exist. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks pullable. Probably one of those ones where you've got to get a root bulb. Try to grab hold of the whole thing and rock it out of the ground so as much of the root system as you can. Or use a screwdriver to loosen it up and pull. Put pulled weeds in a bag to properly wither before disposing of them. You probably shouldn't use them as mulch or compost. Be careful about herbicides. We got a guy from one of those lawn services a couple years back whose fertilizer/herbicide cocktail contained crabgrass control... which killed all the crabgrass, and then left bald spots that we couldn't fill with seed. Turns out one the main ways they inhibit crabgrass is by inhibiting germination of the seed... so then weeds that weren't inhibited spread into the bald spots. That said, lawn looked great that year outside of those problem areas. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Chickweed is about as "pullable" as freckles. Go to the local gardening store and ask for something that kills dicots, but not monocots. Given Mendaliv has no BA in plant ecology, or even HS experience in biochemistry, ignore all she says. Pulling don't work. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Any annual lawn weed is controllable by pulling. The difficulty in doing so is related to the size of the infestation and time available. I cleared my lawn from eyebright but it has taken 3 growing seasons and I am retired (and a bit sad). I assume by chickweed you are referring to stellaria media or something similar, that is an annual. The major work needs to be carried out in spring and early when the plants are actively growing and before they set seed but vigilance is required throughout much of the year to prevent seeding. Another possibility might be to buy or borrow some chickens, for the short term, to help you. This plant is enjoyed by chickens and their vigilance is san pareil. I think any system that avoids slathering your garden (and our earth) with potentially toxic chemicals is preferable. I do not possess a degree in plant ecology but I have some experience in the task and an average amount of common sense. Persistance pays - Good luck. Richard Avery (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's both rude and unnecessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to ~85% of medeis' recent comments, see also e.g. this helpful gem [11]. Oh well. I'd mention to OP that chickweed, in addition to being edible, is a good dry season ground cover. I don't know where OP is but my back yard (in TX) is ~95% cool season grass until May, and now it's ~95% chickweed, that takes over once the grass has died back. That doesn't really gel with how the plant is described in our page on Stellaria media. Depending on local conditions, OP may find that removing chickweed just results in bare spots. Frequent, low mowing with plenty of water tends to favor grass, that might also help, again depending on environment and location. Finally, chickweed is an annual, and does not have a large ability to resprout when pulled. It is also a highly prolific seeder though, so targeted mechanical control is not usually ideal. Here [12] is some information on chickweed control from PSU extension service. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@ 222.153.52.24. Is this on well drained chalky (alkaline) soil?--Aspro (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

British and EU democracy

I'm not British but have some questions about British vs. EU democracy (in the light of the Brexit campaign).

a) I understand that roughly speaking, in the UK the democratically elected House of Commons proposes and shapes new laws. These then pass through the appointed and not democratically elected House of Lords, that can change or reject, and there is also the possible veto at the end by the Queen that (almost) never happens. Is that right more or less?

b) So: does the democratically elected European Parliament function in the same way as the House of Commons, with the role of EU MEPs corresponding to British MPs?

c) Why do British people say the EU is run by bureaucrats or technocrats? - do the EU bureaucrats just have the same power and status as high-standing (and not elected) civil servants in the UK, or is it very different?

d) So is it possible or not to say that ultimately the UK parliament is more democratically run, according to people's voting patterns, than the EU parliament, or vice versa?

Please explain, thank you. ZygonLieutenant (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

According to our House of Lords article: "While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions." So, they can't normally reject bills passed by the House of Commons. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Your understanding is basically correct. Both parliaments operate largely the same. The 'less democratic' argument is a lie espoused by Bexiters, largely when they don't want to say the real reason they're voting out (they're racist). Fgf10 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In the EU laws require the approval of both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The parliament is democratically elected. The council consists of the representatives of the governments of the 28 member states - and the rules require a qualified majority (which is more than 50%, and is tied both to the number of countries but also to their relative populations - so the bigger countries cannot be outvoted by the smaller ones). The Commission, which everyone complains about, is the civil service - they draft the legislation (usually at the request of the council of ministers), then oversee its application. Wymspen (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The European Parliament is able to force the British Parliament to pass legislation, so for many British people, the idea of the Mother of Parliaments being told what to do by a lot of foreigners is beyond the pale (sadly, a majority of MEPs are just not British). However, I think the main target of British angst is the European Commission, which can use existing legislation to enforce (some would say arbitrary) regulations on Member States. A regularly cited example is Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94 which says that bananas cannot be sold in the EU if they have "abnormal curvature". Of course, Wikipedia also has an article saying that this is a Euromyth, so who knows. How do I change my ballot card from this morning?  :-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a reference - EU Regulations: "Dictatorship of the Bureaucrats"?. Alansplodge (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well the wikipedia article you linked to also implies it's a Euromyth since the shape ones only apply to high class bananas. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that one significant difference between the UK parliament (or actually many) and the European Parliament is the later lacks legislative initiative. While most bills in the UK parliament have bureaucrat involvement nominally there's nothing stopping the British parliament from making bills completely on their own AFAIK which can't happen with the European Parliament. That said, as our article explains, the idea that most European laws are something the bureaucrats of the European Commission came up with by themselves is a myth. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is an op-ed by suspense novelist Frederick Forsyth that argues for Brexit on the basis that the EU is anti-democratic. It comes across as conspiracy-tinged to me but I'm not well-informed on the issue. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Rule, Britannia!

When Britain has voted for the Brexit, what wikimedia files, such as a wordless Rule, Britannia, or My Country, T'is of Thee will be available to add to my user page? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

off topic accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Waive Britannia, Britannia waives the rules... Akld guy (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC) When. Richard Avery (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC) See Category:Poor Law in Britain and Ireland. Also Wishful thinking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC) A) What does have to do with the refdesk, b) the vote will most likely be remain, so not 'when', and c) why do you care in the first place? Fgf10 (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Thus spake the nanny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC) The answer to the question is, exactly the same as now. If the poster was trying to get a political argument going, the answer is to close this discussion as irrelevant to the purpose of this desk - we are not a chatroom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC) My country, t'is of thee? Isn't that an American patriotic song? Wymspen (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC) That's 'tis, with the apostrophe standing for the missing first I of "it is". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC) The bookmakers are predicting a win for Remain. While I've no idea if they're right or not, I have, as the saying goes, never met a poor bookmaker. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC) This is the wisdom of crowds. The odds simply represent the individual views of a large cross - section of people. 80.44.160.251 (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC) A referendum is also by definition the wisdom of the crowd. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I won't enter the purple box, as I don't think this was a genuine question (and medeis, it's a turn-off to see you, who seems to enjoy policing the desks, posting a loaded question on a topic that is particularly sensitive to a lot of readers today), nevertheless: The skeleton question hasn't been answered, so: File:Rule, Britannia.ogg and File:My Country 'Tis Of Thee.ogg are instrumental versions of the tunes you asked for. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Say what you will about medies, but I'm fairly sure nobody has ever accused her of consistency. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC) We can at least set an example by spelling Medeis's name correctly in its English transliteration. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Small correction: File:Rule, Britannia.ogg is not an instrumental version - it has the lyrics of the first verse sung at the end. Of course it's still suitable for expressing patriotic British feelings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your thoroughness, Stephan! (I clicked too soon). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Thanks, Sluzzelin, I simply have never added a sound file, and don't know how to look them up. I have added other files for other events. It's really not relevant what my POV is, but asking what files are available is not trolling or in need of policing. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • These Ogg Oggilby things don't work very well on my PC. I wonder what Wikipedia has against MP3 or WAV format? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WAV is bulky, and MP3 is or perhaps used to be? I don't remember when it was set to expire patent-encumbered. I seriously doubt your hardware has any problem with Ogg Vorbis. Just find a good player. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So Oggilby is free. That explains it. Free, and worth the price. No big deal. I can just find a given song on youtube and then use my youtube-to-mp3 converter and get a usable file. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"Free as in speech, not free as in beer." Well, actually, also free as in beer, but that's not the differentiator here (MP3 is usually free as in beer too). --Trovatore (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Ogg Vorbis is technically superior to most other major codecs. It's not particularly hard to find software to replay it on any current OS. And while conversion from one lossy format to another has certain disadvantages, it is possible with free software. Ripping YouTube is unlikely to produce better quality, and in many cases will actually be illegal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just download VLC. Boom, now you can play anything. clpo13_(talk) 23:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless I am misunderstanding the article, Firefox, Chrome and Opera all can play Ogg without downloading any extra programs. Rmhermen (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the help. I used to use Safari to edit, which didn't ogg. See my current talk page for the results. I also went with the US Marine Band version of God Save the Queen, as it seemed of the best quality. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like your initial predication was correct. Not just "wishful thinking". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Just because you're paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Relative attractiveness of various professions

I recently found myself listening to the song 1985, covered by Bowling for Soup, in which it is mentioned that the protagonist's husband is a Certified Public Accountant, and this is one of many aspects of her life which are portrayed as unsatisfactory. Exploring this topic further, it has occurred to me that, although I have seen many articles ranking various careers based on criteria such as earning potential and job security (this one, from the Wall Street Journal, for instance), I have never seen any ranking of jobs based on their attractiveness to potential romantic partners. Do there exist any studies which provide such rankings? In particular, I would be interested in seeing a study which rates the comparative attractiveness of accountants, actuaries, and mathematicians - and if such detailed data is available, whether there is any statistically significant difference in this regard between members of the Society of Actuaries and the Casualty Actuarial Society, between pure and applied mathematicians, and between professors of mathematics and mathematicians employed outside of academia. Ideally I would prefer to see an academic study which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but an article in a reputable newspaper or news magazine would also be of interest. In keeping with the reference desk guidelines, note that I am specifically asking for references to published studies, and not for the opinions of individual reference desk editors or bloggers. --47.55.246.41 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to in a specific country? Because I'm fairly sure even the relative attractiveness of a CPA to a romantic partner in a country like the US is going to be different from how it would be in Bangladesh. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring primarily to the United States and Canada. --131.202.126.31 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's one viewpoint:[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Academic studies of occupational Prestige themselves seem to go through cyclical prestige... I see many from the 1960s, some from 2010, some large blank periods. Anyway, here's a few scholarly refs on occupational prestige [14] [15] [16]. You can search for more on google scholar using phrases like /social prestige math/ or whatever, and you can ask at WP:REX if you can't otherwise get access to a paper. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)