Miscellaneous desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 19[edit]

Ancient aqueducts still in use[edit]

The Roman aqueduct in the Rio Seco valley about 2 km north of Almuñécar

Are any ancient aqueducts still in service? Neon Merlin 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. See Almuñécar. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this picture on the right, from the page Almuñécar?78.150.168.81 (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know of any abandoned boarded up mental asylums?[edit]

Just curious.

Lotsofissues 08:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are lots. But it depends on what state you are talking about—California or New York or what? Your best bet is to look for a dedicated site on urban exploring as those people catalog that sort of things pretty in-depth. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a fake university, are we? --Nricardo (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bush's ranch in Texas boarded up?129.112.109.250 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Weird US books [1] discuss places like that, although they never give the exact addresses. Zagalejo^^^ 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum in Weston, WV. No longer boarded up, but looks to fit with what you're looking for. DarkAudit (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "abandoned mental hospital" is fruitful. [2] is pretty fascinating, for example. And you just missed this one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to approach it systematically...

1. Pick a state, any state.

2. Google "state institutions" and the name of the state. Usually you can find lots of resources on this. But they are usually state by state (because that's how these sorts of mental health systems worked.) You can usually figure out which ones have been closed (e.g. not operational).

3. Google the names of the closed institutions. You can then usually find out what happened to them.

Even in a big state with a (historically) big mental health system like California, you're only talking about maybe a dozen possible institutions to check out, maximum. There is a lot of info on closed mental hospitals on the web, in part because people doing geneological research are often interested in that kind of information. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your role model in Australia: Sydney College of the Arts now located in Callan Park Lunatic Asylum for the Mentally and Criminally Insane. Be inspired, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jungle pie[edit]

a south african confectionary, dating from the 60's, does anyone remember them? cosisted of a biscuit centre with layers of "turkish delight" and marshmallow enclosed in chocolate, as i recall, but not entirely sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewaterlad (talk • contribs) 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term produces ZERO google hits (except for an exceptionally terrible band called "Jungle Pie" that seems unrelated). I suspect you've forgotten the correct name for the product. SteveBaker (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're thinking of a moon pie or one of the many varieties of chocolate-coated marshmallow treats? I can't recall anything that contains turkish delight as well as marshmallow and chocolate. (That sounds a somewhat excessive.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to turkish delight, marshmallow and chocolate, the definition of "excessive" seems magically not to apply. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary: excessive: Exceeding the usual bounds of something; extravagant; immoderate. - yep, you have a point there. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

under 18 employment[edit]

why is it so hard to get a job in the U.K when your under 18, seriously this is an extract from an email i got

Hi, in reply to your application unfortunately there are no vacanies at the moment and also we only employ 18+. Feel free to re-apply once your 18

, the U.K says it wants to engage in young people more & get them in work and education i highly doubt that. What can i do to improve my chances? any advice or websites CHEERS

With respect, you may want to reconsider your grammar skills as a starter.--89.168.138.138 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are under 18 then it is likely that the best way to improve your chances is to go to college and study, or to apply for an apprenticeship. http://www.delni.gov.uk/ is the department for employment and learning, they should be able to help. As will things such as your local careers advice bureau, or a site such as http://www.jobcentreonline.com/ . Go into the agencies in your local area, discuss with them what type of work you are looking for, how you wish to develop yourself in the future and they will be able to help point you in the right direction. If it is part-time work you're after then shops and restaurants are you best place to start - look out for signs on the doors/in windows of local stores, as often they don't bother to advertise in the paper for weekend/part-time jobs. Another site to look at could be www.careersserviceni.com . Good luck and ignore the grammar comment - as a proof-reader myself I can confidently state that a good 90% of article/document writers have poor grammar (and mine isn't that great either). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

haha true about the grammar thing, what a cheeky git writing that! Good advice very helpful it's part time im after —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.25.221 (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the reason that companies don't want to employ people below the age of 18 is that there are child labor laws that could somehow restrict the work that such employees could do - or perhaps restrict the hours they could work. In the UK, the "age of majority" is 18 - below that age, you can't enter into a legally binding contract - so your employer would be unable (for example) to require you to sign employment contracts, non-disclosure agreements and so on. There may be all sorts of other laws relating to "children" - perhaps such as not being allowed to sell tobacco, alcohol. etc. Which of those things is specifically the reason in any specific case is hard to say - and probably varies from industry to industry - but lots of laws are applied differently to children. SteveBaker (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over 16s can certainly work ~full time[3], even at licensed premises, though they can't sell alcohol themselves. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - but as your link says: "You'll only be able to work for eight hours every day, or a total of 40 hours over the course of a week. You cannot usually work an overnight shift either, but there are some exceptional circumstances where you can.". That may be a major pain for an employer who needs the flexibility to have employees work overtime or to work late at night. In my last job, we worked 9 hours per day and got every alternate Friday off...so we simply couldn't employ 17 year olds because they can't work 9 hour shifts and they can't work 45 hours on the weeks without a Friday off. Suffice to say that if there is plenty of available labor in the area, then it's simply easier for employers not to have to go to special trouble to treat some employees differently. But the inability of under-18's to sign binding contracts is probably enough to dissuade many of them. SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that employment and benefits for the 16-18's is constructed so to encourage you to stay within secondary/further education, not a bad thing per se, but does not suit everyone, the government is promoting voc skills courses, practical education, linked to employers, get thy self on thine bike and pedal downth to thine joab cinter, gud luk.Perry-mankster (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah jeez, i want a job earn a bit of cash on the side while im at college, but i dropped out first time and i doubt i'll enjoy it again this time. Maybe i should the army :P (it's a job that pays and they dont have issues with recruiting young people!) thanks for the additional help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.47.197 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the furthest back a geneaology is traced on the 'Net and elsewhere?[edit]

When my great-aunt died recently, and we put her and a cousin's dates of death on the family tree copy I have, I was inspired to go digging just a bit deeper, out of curiosity. I have one person I knew came over on Ellis Island, another whom I discovered came over from Switzerland in the mid-19th century to American, and though 150 years was pretty good.

Wrong! A search for fun found a number of trees go back well before the year 1000 A.D.! (Can you tell I'm a biginner at this?) Without joining and being able to search much further, I was just curious if anyone knew of ancestry on some of thse boards that went back to the Roman Empire or further.

I know that some Jewish men have tried to trace theirs to the priestly line of Aaron - but is that really reliable? That would be such an amazing family gree to look at! And, I guess it's just out of a weird curiosity that I'm curious about just what's out there, and what one of those would look like. (I know that family Bibles and such are often used before census and other records are availble, but when there wasn't even a church, it would be hard to use those :-) 209.244.30.221 (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descent from Charlemagne (c. 800) is common (while it sounds prestigious, it is so far back that being his descendant is quite common). Most earlier descents are dubious, such as a descent which connects European royalty to Muhammad (c. 600) - some going back to Adam or Odin! Rmhermen (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on family trees, the largest is that of relations of Confucius. In terms of descent from antiquity - would you believe, Wikipedia has an article on it! As an example, see the conjectural descent of Elizabeth II from the Romans. Warofdreams talk 14:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember, but can't find on google, an attempt to make genealogy society that would be hard to join. So they went with proven descent from a 15th century peasant. However, once a couple of royal bastard children were identified, it too became easy to join. What is necessary is to find a gateway ancestor that links you to a long and well-established line. Rmhermen (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great many genealogies in which individuals trace their ancestry back hundreds of years are the product of fantasy and lax rules for what is proof of a relationship. There were also charlatan professional genealogists who would furnish spurious genealogies for a price. If one can find an ancestor descended from royalty or nobility in developed countries with good written documents, then there is the opportunity to "piggyback" on well documented ancestry. This of course neglects "non-paternity events" in the noble ancestry. That said, I have known careful amateur genealogists who have traced their own non-famous ancestors back to the 1700's with pretty good documentation. Edison (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what country your ancestry comes from, the reliability becomes more and more tenuous the further you go back. Having Irish ancestry myself, and both an unusual and historically important surname, I've managed to create a perfectly reasonable genealogy from Irish historical and apocryphal sources which goes back to Noah, with one unfortunate gap between 1600 and the potato famine :) Having a noble line in your ancestry certainly helps, since that is more likely to have been written up and documented at the time (a case in point - my partner's Norrthumbrian reiver ancestry disappears into the mists during the early 1800s; her tenuous connection to a baronial line is traceable to 1300). FWIW, the British Royal Family's ancestry can be traced back to Cerdic of Wessex (d.534), and apocryphally back to Sceaf. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too long ago I worked out that the Queen is my second cousin's great-grandfather's son-in-law's uncle's relative's (*) father-in-law's great-great-great-great-grandfather's 1st cousin 9 times removed. This doesn't quite make me a member of the Royal Family; but I still expect an invitation to a garden party. I could now extend this back to Roman times if I really wanted, I guess. Maybe on a rainy day. (*) - this link isn't yet proven but seems highly likely. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the original question, in the USA and Canada, it is fairly easy to trace your ancestry back to the time your ancestors arrived on the continent. Birth, death, baptismal and mariage records have been researched extensively and are easily available. Since one of the major waves of immigration to America was between the mid 19th Century and World War I, a lot of searches will lead there, like the one the original questioner undertook. However, in areas such as New England or French Canada, where the immigration waves are older, ancestry can be traced back to the early to mid 17th Century. The problem becomes what about ancestors before the crossing? In many places in Europe, these records are poorly preserved before the 19th century. Events like the two World Wars and various revolutions have taken a toll on archives in various regions; a famous example is Paris, where all records were burned during the 1870 Paris Commune. In some areas of Europe, however records for regular folks extend to the late 16th-early 17th century. Earlier than that, most births, deaths, mariages, etc, were not systematically recorded, and when they were, the records have most often been lost or destroyed.

One exception is records of the nobility. Since it was very important, in order to claim being a nobleman, to be able to demonstrate lineage to a distant ancestor, detailed records were kept and are accessible to this day. These can go back to the late Middle Ages (12th century onward). However, this covers somewhere between 1 and 5 % of the population of the time, and most persons who emigrated to North America were definitely not of aristocratic lineage. Many for-profit companies tend to drum up these ancestries, playing on people's vanity and wish to belong to "an ancient and noble family", but the percentage of most people's ancestors that can be traced this way is minimal. For persons whose ancestry comes from Africa, the problems are similar: very little was written down before European colonization in the late 19th century or later, and while records of princely lines were kept dating back to 300 or 400 years earlier, this was usually done orally by griots. Much of the information has been lost, and records that are still extant only affects a small percentage of the population in any case. --Xuxl (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC article might be of interest... Grutness...wha? 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Vagina Day[edit]

Is National Vagina Day and V-Day same? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is in the first paragraph of the first article you linked to where it refers to "Nation Vagina Day (V-day)". Terms in brackets like that mean an alternate name for the same thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some guys organized a National Penis Day in New Zealand a few years ago (Google it), but it flopped.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there ought to be a hilarious pun here, but I can't think of it!--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with V-J Day... which now sounds like something dirty. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if only there were a national BJ day...Perry-mankster (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, Perry. --LarryMac | Talk 11:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aahh larry, you have made my day, now off to speak to mrs mankster...Perry-mankster (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or V-E day 195.58.125.43 (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if I marry my aunt do I become my own uncle?[edit]

Bradley10 (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you probably wouldn't be allowed to marry your aunt - see for example our articles on Prohibited degree of kinship and Consanguinity. I believe most of the prohibitions on such marriage include both your parents' siblings and their spouses. If you were able to marry, say, the ex-wife of your father's brother, you wouldn't be your own uncle as she would no longer be your aunt once she was no longer married to your father's brother. - Eron^Talk 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he's allowed to marry his own Aunt depends on whether or not incest is a criminal offence wherever he is, as it varies. Illegal legal advice aside, you would of course be your own Uncle Myself if you married your parent's sister. Unfortunately I must stop writing now, it is making me dizzy.78.150.168.81 (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this [4] about the law of incest.78.150.168.81 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of twisted relationships that are legal. Your aunt doesn't cease to be your aunt if (for example) your father's brother dies while he's married to her. Then there is no blood line or legal obstacle to marrying your aunt. But that doesn't make you become your own uncle because after marrying, you are neither a sibling of either of your parents - nor are you married to a sibling of your parent. So you aren't your own uncle. Merely being married to your aunt doesn't make someone your uncle if she's only an aunt by marriage. (She really ought to be your "Aunt-in-law" by analogy to "Mother-in-law").

There have been plenty of cases where guys have married their mother-in-law after their wives died. That would make them their own father-in-law and probably their own son-in-law.

High speed rail[edit]

Is High speed rail (Over 250kmh) ever a possibility in the United Kingdom? I know there have been many proposals but will it ever be a benefit in the long term, considering the costs it would incur? Clover345 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on everything! High-speed rail in the United Kingdom. --Tango (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. That article doesn't answer my question. Can I have a proper answer please. Clover345 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no simple "yes/no" answer, you'll have to actually read up on the subject and find out about the range of opinions. That article has a section on various studies and their outcomes - that's as close to an answer to your question as you're going to get. --Tango (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly possible to have 250 kph trains. Trains run at 300kph between London and the channel tunnel and 200 to 230 kph elsewhere (se image at right) - so it's not much of a stretch that they could push it a little higher and make all of the yellow tracks run at 250kph. What's uniquely difficult in the UK is that the rail network mostly dates back to Victorian times - they were designed for much lower speeds, they have sharp turns and there are many gated road crossings. Worse still, they were used for local traffic as well as long distance so they tend to run right through the middle of densely inhabited areas that grew up around the prosperity brought about by the railways. This makes buying the land needed to straighten the corners out exceedingly difficult and expensive. You can make trains that'll go around those tight turns at higher speeds - but it tends to be rough on the passengers. Hence the need for trains that tilt into the curves...but those are mechanically problematic. SteveBaker (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France and Germany faced similar problems (especially Germany). The solution in those countries was to build new, straighter, dedicated rail lines to carry the high-speed trains. The older lines have largely remained in service for slower, local trains. What would be required in the UK would be money to buy the needed rights of way and then to build the new rail lines. However, unlike France and Germany, the UK is not currently politically inclined toward this scale of public investment. Marco polo (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you see the grief they went through to straighten out the track on that teeny-tiny section of red track that goes from London to the channel tunnel - the court cases, the studies, the counter-studies - compulsory purchase of peoples homes - the devaluation of homes close enough to the tracks to be bothered by the noise and vibration of a hundred tons of train (or whatever it is) hurtling past at 160mph...it was an utter nightmare. The idea that you could do that for all of the yellow track in that image just to get a 250kph train (remember, they already go 230kph) - it's impossible - even with a government that wanted to do it. The population density in the UK is just so much higher than in France and Germany. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't already. Except for "High Speed 1" (the new name for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link) with a 300 km/h (186 mph) limit, the fastest trains in the UK go 125 mph (201 km/h). There were plans some years ago to upgrade some tracks (part of the East Coast Main Line if I recall correctly) for a speed of 225 km/h (140 mph) -- hence the brand name "InterCity 225" for certain trains -- but this was canceled as not being commercially viable.

Anyway, as far as this question applies to future developments, what it's really asking for is political speculation, which is not a Reference Desk subject, right? --Anonymous, 05:37 UTC, August 20/08.

Rhythm[edit]

Can rhythm be taught? --Endless Dan 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly be learned, mostly through practice. Partly it's a mental thing, partly it's a muscle memory thing. --Masamage ♫ 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the saying "You can't teach rhythm" is untrue? A person with two left feet can turn into Fred Astaire with practice? --Endless Dan 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching and learning are different things. There are a lot of things you can learn that you can't teach. Also, mastering a basic sense of rhythm is different from turning into Fred Astaire. That only happened once. --Masamage ♫ 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if you tap your feet and listen to the beat then soon you will find there's a rhythm in your mind ?Gandalf61 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvbiously this is a personal thing, but I am here to tell you that after many years of trying I cannot hold a beat. If somebody counts I can do the dance steps, for example, but I'm helpless on my own.90.9.208.243 (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)AV[reply]

The simple answer is yes, but there's actually a lot that goes into this. There's different skills associated with rhythm and different levels of understanding it. Most people can hear if a song is speeding up or dragging, but how fine tuned is their sense of tempo? Training makes a big difference here. I had a director once who not only taught himself absolute pitch (I can tell you from personal experience that it is possible), but also how to tell what virtually any tempo was without a metronome. I only have a few tempos memorized. Knowing it and reproducing it are two different skills. Beyond that, there's the rhythm. Are you learning it by ear or sight reading it? Those are different skills to learn, and some rhythms are easier to learn than others, both in general and as related to different instruments. All of those things can be learned. That said, sometimes people just don't have a feel for a type of music or rhythm, or any type of music or rhythm. I think that can be learned as well, but the way you learn it is by experiencing it. I listen to a lot of music from various genres associated with African American musical traditions, so I naturally tend to play behind the beat a little bit (but not so much on downbeats and things because if everything's behind it'll drag), so when I was playing lute in an early music ensemble my (very) German professor told me I was dragging because it sounded like it to him (he just didn't get it). Since then I play everything on the numbers in that group and it sounds real buttoned-up (not loose) to me. I think if he tried to play something on an urban record someone would make a comment like you just can't teach rhythm, but like I said, you learn it by experiencing it, so everyone can learn it (some better than others), and it's taught by sharing the experience. -LambaJan (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theater Editor Urgently Needed for Community theatre[edit]

This article is really badly written and uncited. I put in one little fact which I ran across, but I'm not a theater person. I only know enough to know this is an article in drastic need of a rewrite. Is this the place to mention it? Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, we're here to help find the answers to factual questions, much like the reference desk at your library. You wrote on Talk:Community theatre, which was a good choice, and I would also suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. For really high-level questions about Wikipedia, like "Where do I go for help with my problem?", there's Wikipedia:Help desk. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've place a request on the WikiProject Theatre Talk page you suggested. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insects at penthouse level[edit]

For all the times you see open balcony doors in penthouses in movies, I've never seen anyone standing on a balcony swat at a bug. Is there something about the altitude that eliminates bugs at a certain height? 71.127.89.58 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)justcurious[reply]

Yes and no. First, movies are a bad reference point for this sort of question. Now, as to the "no": insects can live at altitudes far greater than that of a skyscraper. That's not an issue. As for the "yes", the tops of skyscrapers may well be lousy environments for insects, so there may just be fewer of them. Consider also that up- and downdrafts in urban environments will also vary the insect distribution. — Lomn 18:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely see people in movies swat a bug period. Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are in a tropical climate. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sorts of things that happen in real life are shown in movies only if they serve to advance the story or make a point about the characters or the setting, or else if they happen accidentally and the director decides to leave them in. There's a scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where a fly crawls into the mouth of one of the bad guys while he's speaking, and he just ignores it (presumably eating it). I don't know, but my guess is that it happened by accident, the actor (Paul Freeman) decided it was "in character" to do what he did, and the director (Steven Spielberg) agreed. --Anonymous, 05:48 UTC, August 20/08.

I've lived as high as the 45th floor of a building, and you can take it from me that there are plenty of insects (and spiders) of various sorts on balconies at that height. (What really startled me, though, was a peregrine falcon that chose to land on the railing of my balcony one day when I was sitting fairly still out there.) The number of barn swallows I see feeding in flight outside my windows these days (35th floor) also shows that there are plenty of insects up here. Deor (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb blonde[edit]

Does anyone know what has happened to the blonde on an old The Newlywed Game show who Didn't know the difference between urban and rural.129.112.109.250 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the world of entertainment for you (to go to[5]). Julia Rossi (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum driving age[edit]

What is the history of the driving age? Why was it first implemented? (I think it's retarded, and want to understand why it was even made.)--71.185.143.90 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what jurisdiction? Algebraist 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA, or wherever it was first implemented, or both.--71.185.143.90 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Driver's_license_in_the_United_States. That article has anything you could possibly want to know.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't have anything related to my questions...--71.185.143.90 (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't want a 5-year-old operating a vehicle, so it becomes a question "How old before someone can be responsible?" and the answer to that question is different from state to state. You pretty much have to deal with it, just like the drinking age and age of majority.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is about the history of the driving age. And I'm 18 by the way.--71.185.143.90 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in some places you can see a 5 year old driving - as long as it is on private property and not on public roads. Also in some cases agricultural equipment being moved between fields doesn't require any license or minimum age. Rmhermen (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I seem to have wandered down a rabbit hole on this one. Very little on the web about the history of automobile licensing in the United States. Perusing the archives of the New York Times (warning: hardcore OR following), it seems like automobile licensing first took off in the busy north east in the very early 20th century. Between 1900 and 1905 or so there are a LOT of articles about automobile licensing—it was a very contentious issue! One article from 1903 characterizes the moment as so:

Never in the history of automobiling has there been such an epidemic of anti-automobile legislation as has been produced this Spring. In almost every State in which the sport is sufficiently popular to attract public attention restrictive legislation has been either passed or is pending. While the automobile clubs have been able to prevent the adoption of some of the almost prohibit measures proposed, they have in no case been able to prevent the passage of a general law, so strenuous has been the demand for the regulation of motor vehicles."

Among the regulations cited in the article are vehicle registration (which seems to be primarily revenue-generating in origin), speed limits (in New Jersey, it was originally 8 mph within cities, 20 mph outside of them), and—you guessed it—driver's licenses.

There was apparently stiff opposition to licensing by these automobile clubs, who argued that if licenses weren't required for other sorts of road traffic (horses, carriages, etc.), why should they be required for automobiles? Nobody says how fast you can ride a horse—why a car? There were apparently many who felt that this was unnecessary encroachment into private space—that the legislature had no right to tell people how they could or could not use their own private vehicles. Some even claimed that it was class legislation—remember that not everybody owned a car back then.

From what I can tell, just briefly skimming the old articles, is that it seems like the impetus to have individual drivers be licensed to drive is so that you can remove said license if they violate certain rules. That is, it was done in order to enforce the idea that the "right to drive" is not a right at all, but a privilege conferred by the state. It's sort of a radical idea if you think about it from the perspective of all of the things that we don't need the state's permission to do, even if the idea of a driver's license seems second nature to most of us now (and seems imminently logical to most).

As a note—New York seems to have required permits to drive in Central Park as early as 1900. It was newsworthy that they even allowed a woman to have one that year! "An automobile is the easiest thing in the world to handle," the lucky woman told the paper, "and I am astonished that women seem so timid. Any girl could operate one as easily as she could drive a pony. You ought to have seen the sensation there was among the coachmen when I first appeared alone in my little knockabout on Fifth Avenue. They all looked at me with astonishment, and some, it seemed to me, with displeasure. ... Of course, I'm very proud to be the first woman to get a permit to ride an automobile in the Park, and I shall available myself of it the first fine morning."

On the age requirement. I found a nice survey of age requirements from 1930—not too different than what we have today, but unsurprisingly states with low population densities had more lax laws than those with high densities. In many of the "big empty states" the age requirement, if there was one, was low and restricted to driving on public roads. Places of high population density (New York, DC, etc.) had systems that look a lot like the present laws (tests, learner's permits, strict enforcement of age limits). But even in 1930, you didn't need any license to drive in eleven states.

But where do the age requirements come from? I confess not to be able to see. They were certainly fairly commonplace in New York by 1920, though in 1925 a committee on the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety got press time for advocating minimum age requirements for general drivers and taxicab drivers. All of the issues on licensing seem to be driven by safety concerns—lots of bandying around of statistics (apparently headlight laws were first floated in the 1920s, drastically reducing nighttime fatalities). New Jersey had an minimum age requirement (16) as early as 1906. It is worth noting that by focusing on the US, I necessarily neglected the possibility (which seems likely) that much automobile legislation was occurring in Europe at the same time, and may have served as a model for the US approach. As early as 1902 Germany had a minimum age requirement (18), for example.

Anyway, I do confess, if you want a pretty entertaining way to spend an hour, looking up old articles on automobiles in the New York Times is a pretty good way to do it! I'm charmed by accounts of the legislative battles, some early criminal problems (there was a wonderful account from 1900 of how a "hilarious young man who had dined not wisely but too well" started up an automobile whiles its owner was somewhere else and let the "infernal machine" run down the street on its own, "and there was much excitement for the population of Washington for some time thereafter", and how unfortunately it was "an unpunishable crime" because there was at that point no law at all against such a thing, because "the framers of the code did not consider the possibility of horseless carriages"), and even the gory accounts of early auto accidents (early automobiles sound like literal time bombs—they could apparently just explode under their own normal operation if something went wrong!). This topic would be an excellent subject for a New Yorker article, I must say, by someone more talented than I... anyway, hope this is entertaining and interesting to those other than myself, though I got enough out of it to be happy! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks a lot, guy!--71.185.143.90 (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke Free or Smokescreen?[edit]

Is the following a scam? It is http://www.freezerosmoke.com They claim that magnets worn on the ears will make "you" quit smoking. 65.173.104.41 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily a scam, but only because they may genuinely believe in the product. For half the price I'll sell you something that works equally as well, I call it placebo. Seriously though, those are ridiculous. -- Mad031683 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very intriguing product. I wasn't able to dismiss their claims as a bunch of bullshit until I read their explanation of "how it works": You will find it very easy to stop smoking because the magnets have already induced the production of endorphins that remove the craving to smoke. Endorphins acts on the opium receptors in the brain, whereas nicotene acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Even if endorphins were released in the brain as a result of the product, there's no way it could affect the craving to smoke tobacco. On top of that, it's very difficult to get your brain to release endorphins (meaning few activities cause the brain to react by releasing endorphins), and some simple magnet on your ear isn't going to do it. This product may still help some people to stop smoking, but it's not because of all the biological crap they say. It's based off of the psychological power of suggestion, and unless you are really convinced the product is helping you quit, it will be usless. Since the OP is already skeptical of the product, I suggest saving your money.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just another purported claim for magnet therapy curing all of life's ills. It is not at all scientific. There are no health benefits distinguishable from placebos. (But hey, let's not knock placebos. I know a guy who swears by his magnets for his carpal tunnel. If he's happy, I don't see this as being particularly harmful. There are worse things to waste money on. Sometimes a little placebo goes a long way! If the idea of a magic bullet actually helps people quit smoking, then that's fine by me. Unfortunately, most people probably will need a bit more than something like this, and to take advantage of a deadly addiction to make a cheap buck is pretty deplorable.) (Note that it's hard for me to tell whether they are claiming its the magnets or the pressure or both that work. Regardless, it's hokum.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few other warning signs:

1. You can try the product "free", but you still have to pay an arm and a leg in "shipping and handling" if you return it. At $6 S&H for a pair of tiny magnets, they're probably making money even if you return them, on the expectation that a fair number of people will not return them for whatever reason. Despite the URL, it's not really "free"—it still costs $7, no matter what, and will cost $40 if you don't remember to return them.

2. $40 for a tiny pair of electroplated magnets is ridiculous. They likely cost only pennies to produce. You are paying for advertising time exclusively. Everything else is pure profit. This is "sucker is born every minute" material.

3. The instructions say it takes a month to really work. But you have to return them within two weeks if you aren't happy. So even in an ideal world where the product worked, you wouldn't actually be able to fully see if they worked or not before having to decide whether or not they worked. Shady...

4. Sadly, about half of the testimonials on the site are from people who claim that they haven't been able to quit yet...

--98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it's a scam. Absolutely, not two ways about it - they don't work, won't work, can't work. The people selling them are either in that group of nasty individuals who will prey on desperate people - or they are people who have gotten stuck in one of those pyramid selling schemes...either way, there are no moral scruples here.

It's been shown in dozens of studies that the human body is hardly affected at all by even the most intense magnetic fields we know how to generate. When you see the spectacularly strong fields used in MRI machines (our article says that a 100 tonne neodymium magnet isn't strong enough!) probably millions of times stronger than these magnets and realise that the MRI machine has been studied intensively to make sure it doesn't affect you in any way whatever - there is zero chance that these little magnets could have a real effect...ZERO. Yes - they might work for a few people by the placebo effect - but that's not going to happen if you are sceptical...which you clearly are or you wouldn't be asking. Save your money. Check out Smoking cessation#Statistics - there is a list of methods that are known to work along with their success rates. Several of those can be used in combination. Notice that magic $40 magnets are nowhere on that list! SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the FCC and/or its equivelents allow that bullshit on TV? Its not just the US. 65.173.104.41 (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is bullshit like "ZeroSmoke" being advertized on TV all over the planet. Agree? Disagree? 65.173.104.41 (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, we have the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 - which prevents many of the worst excesses I see on US television. SteveBaker (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising the use of Wikipedia[edit]

Good Afternoon,

I am writing as an agent of a small Canadian Credit Union. We would like to reference key words searches in our printed and possibly radio advertising in a fashion similar to the following:

"For more information search Wikipedia key words: credit union, cooperative, ..."

Is this allowed by Wikipedia? Do you have any trade mark requirements? Can the puzzle globe logo be used? Do we need to puchase a licensing agreement to use the name and/or logo?

If you need more information about our intentions we will have to arrange it since I have been advised by the site not to leave contact information here.

Thanks,

216.26.206.14 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Hoyt[reply]

NO Adverts allowed here. See what others say first. 65.173.104.41 (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not talking about advertising on Wikipedia; he's talking about directing users from his site to use Wikipedia to get information. To the OP, I'd suggest you contact the Wikimedia Foundation as they are the operators of this site. - Eron^Talk 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not asking about putting advertisements here. Read his question more carefully. He's asking about the use of the Wikipedia name. APL (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have an answer, but these documents may help. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia

APL (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem saying in your ads something like "Search Wikipedia for credit union, cooperative, ..." but I don't understand what good this would do for your business except provide people with basic information about those terms. It doesn't help your business specifically. It's like saying "Google blah blah blah for more information" but all the info is generic. You cannot, however, alter the pages you reference to include any kind of advertisement for your company, not even an external link. As for the Wikipedia logo, you can't use it for commercial purposes as it is under copyright.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I am not a lawyer but) directing people to Wikipedia might constitute fair use of the Wikipedia logo. Algebraist 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... probably not. It'd be a weak claim, anyway. Esp. for commercial purposes. (It's non-transformative, which counts for a lot.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no problem in linking to Wikipedia or referring people to the site.

2. The Wikipedia logo is copyrighted and trademarked. Use of the Wikipedia logo is requires permission from the Wikimedia Foundation. Here is their contact information, but note that "they are not generally available for other uses" except for press or media about Wikipedia. I suggest getting in touch with their press contact people and explaining your situation and seeing what they say. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, the Wikipedial globe is just about the only thing on Wikipedia that you CAN'T copy. But you could consider using Wikipe-tan (our mascot) for the link instead. There is only the usual GFDL restrictions on using that image. SteveBaker (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to be associated with that "Wikipe-tan". Horrible thing. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would exercise caution in publicly associating yourself with specific Wikipedia pages or search terms in a public advertising campaign. Although vandalism is reverted rapidly, there is usually a short period of time when people get served the vandalized pages. If someone has it out for your company, they may put inappropriate/disparaging information on the pages you're sending your customers to. There is a possibility that a customer may come along during the short period of time before it is reverted, tarnishing you by association. Unlike other companies (e.g. the "AOL keyword" and "search Yahoo! for ____" campaigns), Wikipedia will not serve special content or otherwise change it's standard operating procedure specifically so that you can have a company-vetted page appear to special searches. - I will note, however, that as Wikipedia is freely licensed, you should be able to set up your own website containing a copy of the Wikipedia pages of interest, and on that site (but not wikipedia.org) you can exert more stringent editorial control. Have your lawyers look at the "Copyrights" link at the bottom of the page to learn more. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have guessed, no-one here is competent to answer this question. The wikimedia foundation (which owns the trademark and copyright for the logo) can be contacted at Wikimedia Foundation Inc. P.O. Box 78350 San Francisco, CA 94107-8350 USA --Random832 (contribs) 12:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer or anything, but couldn't they just copy relevant articles to their web page, add a notice at the bottom that they were taken from Wikipedia, GFDL-licenced and a link to GFDL, and then update them manually from time to time? Isn't this how this "free" thing is supposed to work anyway? Jørgen (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even need to copy the content. Just direct the reader to a version of the page you've checked. Tell them they are welcome to read the latest version but it may contain vandalism or other problematic edits that have not been removed. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan commercial song[edit]

What's the name of the song in the new Nissan commercial? It's a sort of guitar instrumental with a bass drum backbeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.130.201 (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Entertainment desk[6] where music types hang out? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to have an Apple iPhone handy, you could ask Shazam what the song is. (I'm told similar applcations exist for other platforms, but Shazam running on the iPhone works very well and will impress your friends.)

Atlant (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered on the entertainment desk. -LambaJan (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hearts terminology[edit]

i was playing hearts on yahoo, and a said to me "not bad, 3 passes 3 duks". Whats that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.139.77 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask them? Algebraist 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because the game is over. --Masamage ♫ 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]