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

September 27

Tipping your server (US only)

Along the lines of the tipping question above, I read the Tip (gratuity) article and found it quite interesting. In the article under "Unites States" it mentions that sometimes dissatisfied customers may leave a penny tip. Is this kind of thing common? Also, just say you were cheap - what's to stop you not tipping *at all*? What's the worst that can happen? Can they refuse to serve you next time you come in?? I have some really cheap friends and I can't imagine much would force them to tip! BTW I live in Australia, where tipping in restaurants does happen but nowhere to the extent it occurs in the states. 121.44.156.164 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving a penny as a tip in the United States would be more insulting, in my opinion, than leaving nothing at all. Leaving nothing at all is, already, a pretty strong signal of displeasure. Leaving a penny suggests a kind of extreme condescension in addition to displeasure. There is nothing to stop a person in the United States from leaving no tip. If that person is an obvious foreigner, the waitstaff, while unhappy about the lack of a tip, might recognize that tipping works differently in other countries and might therefore forgive the non-tipper. That said, if the foreign non-tipper ever returned to the premises, they would probably get very slow and unenthusiastic service. However, if a person with an American accent leaves no tip, he or she would be well advised never to return to the premises (or at least not before the waitstaff are likely to have forgotten the non-tip). Leaving no tip, or a penny tip, is a kind of breach of an unwritten contract. If the non-tipper returned and was recognized, he or she might face a hostile attitude, might expect that saliva would be added to his or her food before it was served, and so on. An American would normally leave no tip, or a penny tip, only if he or she was so offended and dissatisfied that he or she never expected to return. A less drastic way of expressing displeasure would be to leave a meager tip: say, a little less than 10% of the pre-tax bill. Marco polo (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If "saliva would be added to … food " let us hope that there would be legal repercussions if that were seen by someone else and reported to appropriate authorities. I don't believe tipping has risen to the level of that which is mandatory but standards of hygiene, not to mention standards of treating others with dignity, are expected to be maintained even if a "tip" is not received. There are two sides to this story. Employees should be paid by their employer. "Tips" may or may not be considered a part of an employee's remuneration depending on a variety of ill-defined factors. The expectation of a "tip" can carry with it its own set of obnoxious attitudes on the part of employees—so I'm not entirely sympathetic with the poor downtrodden worker. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read and heard, the expectation of a tip in places like the US is less to do with obnoxious attitudes on the part of employees but more to do with a strange (at least to those not used to it) system that has developed whereby the employees are underpaid based on the expectation they will be tiped, sometimes even with reductions to the minimum wage. I do agree spitting in someone's food is taking it too far. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The employer is basically passing along the defects in his business model to the employees who in turn pass the "problem" along to the customer. The person in the middle is the employee. It is upon the employee that the burden rests to remedy or at least optimally cope with the situation. The employees are beholden to two human entities. They can quit the job, they can ask for an increase in pay (from their employer)—but I don't think an option is to treat the customer obnoxiously. They would not even be receiving their measly paycheck from their employer if the customer were not patronizing the establishment. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't suggest they should treat the customer obnoxiously (nor did anyone else). But I don't think either of your suggested options are realistic in the US considering the nature of the employer-employee relationship there, the power of each, the labour and unions laws and practices there etc, particularly of the employees we are referring to. More so in the current economy. In other words, while the employee should not treat the customer obnoxiously, it's silly to blame, as you seem to be doing, the employee for the current flawed system in the US or to expect them to be able to change it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't think you advocated that they treat the customer obnoxiously. I was just going on with my thoughts. But in response to your last post—I don't think the economy should be allowed to cause a decay in human relations. I have to say again that it is the employee's responsibility not to get caught in the bind in which passing along strenuous hints to the customer that they must tip sufficiently is a permanent part of their functioning as a working person. I am saying that the employee must accept that it is their employer's ultimate responsibility to pay them adequately—not the customer's. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact it's the customer that is the sole reason the business exists. The customer presumably chose to eat in a restaurant setting because they desired an uplifting experience involving enjoyable foods and the pleasure of having other people prepare and serve the food. I find it to be a clash of aims to on the one hand try to enhance the customer's experience and on the other hand assure oneself of a good tip. If the customer choses to tip at the low end of the expected scale, I think that the employee should just accept that. There is no cause for the employee to provide any negative feedback to the customer. This is because the customer did not set up the business model. The customer merely chose to avail himself of a restaurant setting for a meal. The tipping aspect of restaurant-eating has to be accorded a low priority in such a situation. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what your talking about. No one was encouraging allowing the economy to cause a decay in human relations. Also no one in this particular thread (don't know about below) said that it shouldn't be the employer's responsibility nor that the employee shouldn't blame the employer. My sole point was that it's not the employees fault. And actually I would argue the customer has a lot more power then you seem to give them credit for. What you seem to be missing is that because (as you acknowledged) the customer is the reason for the businesses existance. Therefore it is in the employers interest (in some ways more so then the employee who may be able to look elsewhere for work) to ensure the customer is happy. The customer therefore can refuse to patronise businesses which do not pay their employees a decent wage (instead expecting them to make up for it with tips) and employers will have to change their practices. The customer usually doesn't need to patronise any business unlike the employee who does need to make a living to survive so the option is much more open to them then to the employee. (In reality, attempting to change social customs is not easy.) In other words, it comes back to what I've said all along, your blaming the employee is misplaced. Just to repeat what I said at the beginning, this has nothing to do with whether it is acceptable for the employee to treat the customer poorly since that was never the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, leaving a penny tip makes it obvious that you know a tip was expected, but you think the service is unworthy of a tip, as opposed to you being from a culture that doesn't give tips, or just being cheap. I have done the penny tip thing myself, when the bill was padded with items we didn't order. This particular establishment had done the same thing previously, and I chalked it up to a mistake the first two times. The third time I decided it was either intentional or extreme incompetence, and I used the penny tip to show my displeasure. I also told them I did not plan to return to that restaurant, and never have (if anyone is curious, it was an A&W diner). StuRat (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that restaurants often have a "mandatory gratuity" of 15-20% for large groups, a practice which I despise, as it being mandatory takes away any incentive for the servers to offer good service. StuRat (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just because 1. doing a good job for a large group is a pretty tall order, and 2. large groups are too much work without the guarantee of some kind of reasonable tip (and most of their wages are through tips). But hey — if you don't like it, skip those restaurants. They always make it pretty clear up front what their policies are. I'm not sure it takes away all incentive — large groups often overpay and overtip anyway if they've had a good time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In England you can refuse to pay the service charge, even if it's added automatically to your check, if the service was particularly poor. (Sources:[1][2] and Tip (gratuity)) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Mandatory gratuities" are generally not mandatory - in many cases you can reduce the amount. I recommend you only do so if you issue a complaint to the manager about the service - it would take a horrendously ill-trained manager to insist on the full tip when there had been a complaint about the service! Collect (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

At my job (not restaurant service) I have had people add 50¢ to a payment made by check for a $10.00 bill. Seriously. I'm pretty sure that is more in the realm of cheapness/cluelessness than deliberate insult. I've also had people who seem to think a tip is some sort of down payment on future services, like they can pay less on the actual bill next time because they tipped today. Perhaps I should mention that I deal with a lot of drunks and people with mental and emotional problems at my job. A penny tip, however, could only be taken as an insult. I would also add that back when I was a cook I had numerous discussion with servers about the self fulfilling prophecy they sometimes engage in. They deliberately give bad, or at least lackluster, service to someone they do not expect to get a tip from, thus guaranteeing they won't get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done the 'penny tip' thing before but only once. The service was horrible and the one thing I especially remember about it was the waitress was gone before the glasses stopped sliding across the table. I don't know if this has been pointed out to the non-Americans or not but wait staff is often paid about half what the regular minimum wage is for that area. There are two minimum wages, regular and that for wait staff. Tips are meant to be a way to insure good service because if the wait staff doesn't do well, they don't get tipped well. Dismas|^(talk) 19:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A mandatory tip on groups, especially of businessmen and of teens and drunks is quite reasonable. Such groups demand a lot of work and they prevent the server from attending other paying customers. I served 13 Japanese businessman breakfast, they sat in three booths for half the shift making rude demands and left no tip on a $250 tab. That was half my expected pay for that morning. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, those are two relatively large and heterogeneous groups you just insulted (three, if you count the drunks). Anyway, if you leave no tip, the server might just think you forgot. If you leave 1 cent, it's clear you didn't forget but you are consciously pointing out the awful service. I've never seen this actually done. Some people I know will leave a 15% tip for mediocre service and a 20% tip for good service. Not tipping, as a practice, simply isn't done at the U.S., or is at least so rare that I've never seen it. Anyone who acted like that would be thought of as a big jerk by everyone around him. Foreign travelers should be reminded that they are essentially ambassadors for their country. If three customers are the first Australian people a waitress meets, and they leave a tip of less than 15% (or nothing), she might get the idea that all Australians are jerks, much as a stereotypical Ugly American would leave a bad impression elsewhere. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Insulted? I am sorry, who did I call a name? Actually having been a waitress, I think I have a leg to stand on. The problem with large parties that are not families is that there is often a squabble over who owes what and taxes and tip are mysteriously not taken into people's calculations when they order. As for explaining to foreigners the necessity to tip, your point is that I should have learned enough Japanese to insult my customers before they ordered, assuming they no nothing about customs where they are travelling? Those men didn't speak enough English other than to demand the name of the thing they wanted. Should I have refused to seat them? As for your sensitivity on behalf of Australians who might be viewed as cheap, that's a bizarre way of ignoring the fact that the tip is the server's expected salary. Not a favor or a compliment. Her living wage. Waitrons are typically paid half of minimum wage by the establishment where they work, from which are deducted payroll taxes, etc., in full. A typical weekly paycheck might be $15-30 after taxes. Sorry if you find that insulting. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well that's about the entire point that was gotten across in the book I mentioned below, and that's why I'm not stingy..... She's right though that explaining tipping could and probably would be taken as grave insult by whoever you are explaining it too (actually I can't think of who wouldn't be insulted by that if they didn't ask about tipping custom first). My gf worked as a waitress at Moses Burger in Tel Aviv (damn good eats!) for a while and can pretty much back up this lady's story. Also, I only just noticed your name transliterated into Latin. Apologies I assumed you might be male (my Greek is really rusty... :() Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the same thing can happen when meeting many Parisian French, thus leading to that stereotype of them being highly obnoxious (most people have only met one or have heard things). Just because you have one sit next to you in Cancun and blow smoke near your face is no reason to think they are all bad. I have never heard of this one penny policy btw, but I cannot think it wouldn't be taken as a grave insult (then again if you don't plan on eating there again, there probably won't be any consequences unless they tell other people who work in that industry about you). Indeed, in fact that experience with Japanese customers is a bit odd as hotels, at least, generally love them. Apparently they always leave their rooms as tidy as they were when the occupants arrived. Maybe these businessmen have been Westernised, eh? ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, restau (French slang for a restaurant as I often forget the spelling) gratuity. Well, my family generally follows a 20-25% tip (especially my pops and I) and I generally leave about that or I sometimes leave 50% for a meal less than 15 USD where the servers are nice (gets you a free meal every now and then). I don't think that our tipping behaviour is normal, but around 15-20% is usual. It is almost unimaginable to not tip in a restau, but it does happen. For a good book on the experience of being a server in the US which deals heavily with tipping experiences (this is one third of the book, the other two thirds are working in Wal-Mart *lightning and thunder* and as a maid), please read Nickel and Dimed. You'll never be stingy with tips again, I know I'm not.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mwalcoff up above speaks of foreign travellers being ambassadors for their country, and that some Australians leaving the wrong tip could lead a waitress to think all Australians are jerks. But the frequency of questions here shows that foreigners generally DO care, and find very difficult to get it right. I try when I'm there, but am never certain about what I'm doing. For info of Americans reading this, in Australia, we rarely tip anyone for anything. Nobody is paid a wage based so poor that there has to be an expectation that tips will bring their income up to something on which they can live. It's a different culture. It's what we're used to. If an American thinks I am a jerk if I get it wrong when I really am trying, it's surely the American who is being a jerk. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have a practice of leaving a "gratuity" in a restaurant? Why is the practice not to pay a certain price for a product purchased—in this case a meal in a restaurant? Do we know the origin for this practice? Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are a jerk, HiLo48, I'm saying the waitress will assume you are one for not leaving a tip, because in America, people who don't leave tips are considered jerks. The waitress probably has no idea what the tipping practices are in other countries and, even if she does, probably thinks patrons should do as the Romans do when in Rome. It's not fair that she judges Australians based on a single incident, or even a few incidents, but that's how some people think. Incidentally, I don't think Americans leave "big" tips because the waitstaff are paid less than minimum wage. I think they tip because of social custom and because they think it's the right thing to do. Tipping was standard practice before minimum wage laws. The waitstaff exception was presumably based on the pre-existing tipping practice. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the terms for gratuity in other countries. Pourboire; Trinkgeld. The explanations I have heard is that they were originally payments for your server in a place like a tavern to buy a drink, and the terms in other languages seem to support this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a comment from an Australian: The usual justification for the practice of always tipping waiters something, no matter how poorly they may do their job (mediocre service still gets 10%; abysmal service still gets a penny), is that they're underpaid and hence it's the customer's responsibility to rectify this. Well, hell no! - is my response to that. Why let the employers off the hook? If they can't afford to pay their staff decently, then they should reorganise their staffing so that they can, or they shouldn't be in business at all. If they are just preying on the good nature of the customers in order to get away with underpaying their staff, then they are dishonest operators and shouldn't be in business. If you look around you'll find all manner of other occupations that have a case for claiming to be underpaid, so why isn't the practice of tipping extended to them? I'm not saying one should never tip; if you want to, do so, but do so because you want to recognise exceptional service that is clearly beyond the usual call of duty, not just because it's expected. I get that the penny for poor service is intended to be, and is received as, an insult. But this business of rewarding mediocre service with a tip is just rubbish. It becomes for all intents and purposes a tax, but a tax that never gets into the government's coffers to be used for the good of the whole community. Mandatory gratuities are to be despised, per StuRat, but not just because they take away any incentive for the servers to offer good service. They're also to be despised because "mandatory gratuity" is one of the most ludicrous contradictions in terms imagineable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Mandatory gratuity" is an insult to my Anglican tongue. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anglican? I thought you were Jewish. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You should probably avoid America (and Canada) in your travels, then, Jack. It's all what you're used to, I guess. However, I do want to say that having dealt with shockingly, offensively bad service in parts of Europe (especially former Communist countries), where tipping is miserly, I came to believe that they should declare that as of a given date, customers at European restaurants will start tipping well and waiters and waitresses will start providing good service. Needless to say, my British friends weren't too keen on the idea. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We are ranting here about what are now ingrained cultural differences. I've spent time in Australia and the U.S. and live in Canada, which is similar to the US in tipping habits. Each of us, as a traveller, has an obligation to fit in with the culture as best we can. We are guests in someone else's "household" and, if we really object to the local practices, we should just not return. If, when tipping, you end up paying, in total, more than you think the meal is worth, don't go back to that restaurant. That the "price" of a meal is in three parts (base, tax, tip) in some countries and only one or two in others, and that the third part may be optional, is merely a variation on a theme. Surely any one can look at the menu price, add 15%, and then decide if the meal is worth the investment. (One might be wrong, of course, but that's a judgement call that can't be made until the meal is finished.) However, if a traveller fails in his obligations as a guest, it ill behooves the host to make a fuss or, indeed, make the guest's experience any the less comfortable because of it. While this was a couple of decades ago, I have had tip money handed back to me in both Australia and New Zealand. In each case, I was embarrassed. I am a quick study, though, and then had to re-learn tipping in the big cities of Australia. Bielle (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is bizarre, Jack. This is not about rectifying anything. It is how the system works. The alternative of unincentivized waitpeople on full salary is available-no law limits that option other than the law of supply and demand. Children are brought up by their parents being taught how to act properly at restaurants. You go in knowing that the actress is working as your agent, and that tipping her is expected and proper. It is a direct feedback system, and a pleasure to the customer to overtip for excellent service. Bad waitresses don't last, and not because of bad quarterly managerial performance reviews after they are grieved to the union. Customers will switch restaurants to follow good waitresses, and request to be seated in their section. I have eaten in other countries and found the service about as pleasant as a trip to the post office. You don't hear Americans complaining about the system, or waitresses. For foreigners to complain about tipping is for them to complain that they see the transaction directly rather than having it hidden in higher prices for their meals and wait staff who treat the customer as a burden, not a source of mutual value. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But a big part of the problem is that even when we ask here what we should do (and recent threads show that lots of people do), we get five different answers. Americans seem unable to tell us dumb foreigners what to do with any certainty, even when we mean well. I love visiting America, but I hate the feeling of uncertainty about tipping. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an odd notion that the situation in the US is a result of the law or some exploitation of the waitress. Not at all. Waitresses can easily make $200 a night in moderately good restaurants. This is cash in pocket, no records kept. Restaurants can pay higher than minimum wage to their wait staff. It is simply supply and demand--and there is great competition between the best servers to work the best shifts at the best restaurants. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bolsheviks believed that tipping was a demeaning practice. When Trotsky lived in New York, he refused to tip waiters on the grounds it was beneath their dignity. They weren't too happy about that. By the way, let's clarify what the tipping rules are in America:

• Good service -- 20%
• OK service -- 15%
• Bad service -- 15%, then post an angry one-star review on Google Maps. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Or an angry one-star review on yelp. 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I started the other tipping thread. Anyway, I don't understand what a lot of you are saying. I tip based on the actual service. Nothing spectacular but regular service, I default to 15% for larger amounts, and always leave a whole amount for less expensive meals, rounding up, that is, if a bill is $9 in a diner with taxes, I'll leave $1.50, not $1.35. Better service gets 20%, excellent service gets 25%. Kinda poor service I leave 10%, bad service 5%, really bad service, I always leave nothing and I always tell the person that I am not a stingy tipper and why they are getting $0.00. However, I am also a person who doesn't mind confrontation. But I don't get this attitude of leaving 15% no matter what. Defeats the whole purpose if there is one. I would get rid of tipping entirely, but until they change the laws, it is unfair not to tip when service is okay. The waiter is not a lobbyist, they're a waiter (who gets half of the legally set minimum wage); don't protest the system by punishing them for its insanity.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, there are a number of reasons why Australians view the US behaviour as fundamentally immoral. These relate to the still influential and socially dominant principles lying behind the now defunct "Australian settlement" (as relevant here) of compulsory arbitration, a living wage for all, restricted profits for small capitalists and petits-bourgeois and a willingness to tolerate higher prices for internally produced goods. From this deeply ingrained perspective, the US practice is immoral and inhuman—and I'm not using these in a pejorative sense. To the Australian sensibility derived from the continuing influence of the Australian settlement, US practice breaks Australian moral codes regarding what a wage is, how a wage is paid, and how a price is presented to a consumer. From an Australian perspective, the US practice undermines elements of what constitutes the social human being—Australians view gratuitous or acted service behaviour to be an insult and have a complex culturally structured conception of what is and isn't insulting. Being mildly insulted by someone serving you is acceptable, for example, if it is an expression of their genuine being at work. Moreover, Australian expectations about centralised arbitration and bargaining, which have been especially cemented in the food culture due to the long and tireless work of the now Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union means that while Australians will be outraged at the wage conditions of US waitstaff, they don't see it as their personal responsibility to rectify an individual waitstaff's industrial circumstances. While some Australians are willing to assimilate to foreign cultures, others recognise the difference in culture but are unwilling to assimilate over this issue due to the fundamental and moral nature of the difference in food service in US and Australian capitalisms. The clash of cultures here is very deep, and at this level of depth of cultural dissonance, many people will be unwilling to culturally assimilate even when a guest. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not a perfect system because participation is, in most cases, completely voluntary. On the other hand, when I was a cook I remember seeing servers counting their piles of tips at the end of a busy night and thinking to myself that no matter how hard I worked, how busy we were, I get the same thing every night, while they (usually) get a substantial bump on a such a night. One of them flippantly told me once that we cooks made so much money she didn't think we should care. Once explained what I actually made per hour (this was about 13 years ago, $8.50/hr nearly everything made to order and requiring some skill in presentation as well as cooking, required to come up with three unique specials per shift and two soups each day, do baking for the coffeehouse portion of the establishment, bring stock for about six coolers up from the basement 2-3 times a day, and work in a poorly-ventilated shoebox of a kitchen and we had to clean the place before we could go home, while the average price for a meal $10-$25 per person, the clientele generally did tip well and our quick hands in the kitchen meant they could "turn and burn" a table of four in 30-40 minutes even if they lingered to have coffee afterwards) she understood my point a bit better. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Guys, Wikipedia Reference Desks are no place for clashing over cultural norms. Let's look at this anthropologically. No one's practice is superior to anothers'. We all have our cultural practices for our own reasons. Let's not fight about them. This has the potential to spiral into a big conflagration. Let's not let it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's also important to note the question was 100% answered by the first answerer, Marco Polo. Public awareness (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox has it right, I worked as both a cook and a waitress, but was usually hired as a cook because they were in shorter supply. Until I got a salaried position as the head closing cook with four shifts from 3pm to closing four nights a week at $600 (late 1980's) waiting was always a better proposition. Competition for waiting positions was fierce. How such a system--voluntary on all accounts at that--amounts to exploitation I do not know. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That you don't understand that, and I can never figure out how much I should tip in America, both just highlight the cultural differences. Vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to drag this conversation on forever, but can you try to explain? I mean in Medeis' example we have a system where the customer gets good service, the waitress gets lots of cash and the business owner saves money. Everyone wins. How can this be exploitative? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well all wage labour is exploitative, see Kazza. But Australians feel that this particular mode of payment is more exploitative than hourly wages. Why? Australia's union movement has been solidly opposed to piece work wages, which tip-dependent waitstaff are engaged in. Australians also view the "crap shoot" as being incompatible with the Australian conception of a living wage in capitalism. Australians also view it as a bull pen, the industry arrangement where employers control day labour—bull pens have been consistently opposed by the union movement since before the Dog collar act. As noted above, Australians view the waitstaff-customer relationship as not being one of false courtesy, so they view the requirement to act for pay as disconnected with the actual work. Australian waitstaff also have a guaranteed income well above the minimum wage, and so Australians would view the lack of guarantee as being exploitative. (Australia's current minimum wage is $589.30/wk, whereas a waitstaff without penalties or casual loading, and not having training responsibility, would be at $629.70/wk; this rate variable upwards by enterprise bargaining or above award payments). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is the correlation between gratuities and service that some are assuming. A water/waitress can be cloyingly servile too. A person who is doing their job well shouldn't be doing anything to excess. What is excellent service? I think that a person does a good job as a result of personal motivation. The connection between gratuity and service has been misrepresented in this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I wish we were having a face-to-face conversation because what you're writing reads like a foreign language to me -- "bull pen" (the wikilink goes to the baseball term), "false courtesy," "disconnected with the actual work," "casual loading," etc. I understand what you're saying about Australian labor law but that notwithstanding, I still don't see how someone voluntarily taking a position that requires little education but can bring in oodles of cash can be exploitative, unless it's like exotic dancing or something. I trust your sincerity but perhaps we should continue this conversation on user talk pages, although I'm about to be away from my computer for a couple of days. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

From what people have said, I think it's clear many people from outside the US can understand the concept of tipping for excellent service but find it odd the way tips are expecting regardless of service. The alternative is not for the wait staff to receive less or for the business owner to operate at a lower profit, but for the business to charge more and use that to pay the wait staff more with the customer understanding that they are likely to pay what is in the menu (with an optional tip for excellent service) rather then expecting to pay more then on the menu because they have to tip regardless of service. Or even a system whereby the menu mentions a (truly) compulsory service charge of 15% or whatever (which is either distributed to the wait staff equally or which makes up part of the businesses profit which again is used to pay a decent wage to the wait staff). The complexities of business may mean some loss, but it seems likely the biggest loss will be that it's more difficult to cheat on taxes (whether income tax or sales/GST) which I don't personally have any sympathy for. And it seems to me the only real advantage of the US system is that it makes it easier evade or avoid taxes. (I haven't been to that many countries and don't visit restaurants that much anyway but of the people I've spoken to they haven't described the wait staff in the US as exceptionally better then countries where tipping is not expected all the time.) BTW, I call it an oddity because I'm not say that it's necessarily explotative as oppose to simply odd or strange to those not used to such a system. (It may be tipping is a bit on the low side in places like Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia, but while I can understand a greater usage of tips, the system of always tipping still seems odd. As VW noted below and to some extent BS elsewhere, one problem with the concept of tips is you are sometimes rewarding or penalising the wrong person.) P.S. Hopefully without taking this too OT, the fact that if some of the comments above are accurate, wait staff may end up better off then those cooking to me shows even more how strange the system is, since and hopefully I don't offend anyone by this, the cooking would usually be the higher skill job I would expect a higher renumeration. P.P.S. To some extent this reminds me of the US preference for sales tax not being part of the quoted cost. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this is very difficult to implement in the US because of the wide variance in sales tax, it's just the fact that many seem to prefer to have the tax not part of the quoted price I find odd. Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As an important point about the above : "Mandatory Gratuities" are not legally mandatory. Courts have ruled against them on the grounds that it's a contradiction in terms. (Gratuities are, by definition, non-mandatory.) Here's the best cite I can find quickly [3], but I know I've read others. APL (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And that's where restauranteurs have failed to be clever/evil enough. They should just call it a "service fee on large parties" and not mention or imply that the server gets all of it. (in some cases they actually don't get all of it) People would pay it and tip. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's my 1c worth. What I find bizarre about this debate is that we are talking about waiters being penalized for substandard service, when a lot of the time a substandard meal is nothing to do with the waiters. It's not that hard to be a waiter, all you have to do is take orders and bring stuff to and from someone's table. If I've had a bad experience at a restaurant, it might be the waiter's fault, but it is more likely to be down to other factors – the food took too long to arrive (because it took too long to be prepared), the portions were too small, it didn't taste very nice, the music was too loud, the table was next to the toilet, and so on. How am I to express my displeasure at such an experience, other than by leaving a low tip? The fact that my leaving a low tip impacts directly on the waiter, even though none of it was his fault, proves that the system is fundamentally flawed. --Viennese Waltz 08:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't express displeasure over bad food or atmosphere in the United States by reducing the tip for the server. If the bad food is delivered promptly and with a smile amid booming, horrible music, as a rat scampers across the floor, you either eat a bite to find out that the food is awful or not, then request the check, leave a decent tip, and leave the restaurant, never to return. I think most Americans understand that the standard tip is 15–20% and that you leave that amount regardless of the quality of the food or the venue unless there was something seriously wrong with the service. Marco polo (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody tips me for just showing up and doing my job to a mediocre standard. Why should I be expected to tip my waiter? Astronaut (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If "...most Americans understand that the standard tip is 15–20% and that you leave that amount regardless of the quality of the food or the venue..." then why don't these American establishments build into the prices of the components of a meal as found on a menu a "15–20%" increase in cost to the consumer? The practice of providing a gratuity seems archaic and less than transparent. The practice introduces a fudge factor that compromises the employee's (waiter or waitress) relationship to the restaurant owner. It is clearly simpler and more obvious for the consumer to see the price on the menu and for the waiter/waitress to know what their rate of remuneration is from their employer. This by the way is quite different from haggling. There are only two participants in haggling—the buyer and the seller. Being paid partly in gratuities is far more complicated. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that Bus stop's system would be fairer and more rational, established customs do not exist because they are fair or rational. Tipping is one of many suboptimal customs in the United States. However, every country I've ever visited has suboptimal and irrational customs. When visiting a country, one simply has to accept that country's customs whether one likes them or not. If a person finds a country's customs so reprehensible that he or she cannot accept them, then that person should avoid that country. As for why American establishments don't simply raise prices: 1) Owners like things the way they are. Customers who would not pay a 15-20% price increase will still come in, tip low, and provide the owners with undiminished revenue. Also, tips are a way to discipline waitstaff without requiring managers to do anything. 2) Any establishment that did raise prices would face a loss of business because their stated prices would now be that much higher than competitors'. Low tippers would go to competitors, where they could spend less for a similar experience. Even fair tippers might not realize that the establishment's prices included the tip, since that is not the American custom. Marco polo (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You say "If a person finds a country's customs so reprehensible that he or she cannot accept them, then that person should avoid that country." I do find it part way to reprehensible, but am willing to to try to deal with it in order to enjoy the many delights of the country. (As I said above, vive la difference. That's WHY we travel.) But more than reprehensible, I still find large parts of it incomprehensible. Restaurants are confusing enough, having to decide on the basis of both what's socially compulsory and what is deserved in return for quality of service. But for a tourist there are many other areas. I was part of a party of travellers containing a wheelchair user. We got wonderful service at many airports from people unhelpfully called Agents. Someone later suggested we should have tipped them. True? A package tour from Las Vegas to the Grand Canyon included a mini-bus trip to and from Boulder airport. Several passengers tipped the mini-bus driver, but I didn't see them tip the pilot. Were they right? There are many such non-mainstream examples. There can be no guide book to cover them all, and who's going to look it up every time anyway? I learnt from an Aussie ski-instructor working in the USA that they get tips regularly. Good looking females get a lot more than males. How is that fair? (Ski instructors in Australia NEVER get tips.) So, my question comes back to wanting to get it right, not wanting to offend or financially hurt someone, and having no idea how to achieve this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You achieve it by reading the "tipping" section of your guide book, and by asking others. The same way you learn about any idiosyncratic, but nonetheless important, cultural practice. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the book. It didn't mention the two examples I gave. That's why I mentioned them here. Would you know what to do? I asked others. They were guessing too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing about archaic yet ubiquitous systems of culture is that they can't just be changed by wishing it was so. This is an unregulated cultural practice. In any case, it's not clear that either the consumers, the owners, or the waitstaff would prefer the system you suggest.

One additional wrinkle. I have a friend who, years ago, did a lot of research into the correlation of tipping with race. Unsurprisingly, whites tip Blacks a lot less than they tip whites, on average, and, in fact, Blacks tip Blacks a lot less than they tip whites, as well. This isn't super surprising, given that all of the fudge factors involved — sub/unconscious prejudice usually comes out pretty strongly in small judgment calls. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For me, it's somehow surprising that blacks behave more or less like whites. Why wouldn't they tip blacks fairly?Quest09 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because they've internalized a good deal of implicit white racism and cultural norms (compare, even in this age of a Black President, the number of positive cultural depictions of African Americans one finds to the number of negative ones). See, e.g. the famous Clark doll experiments, among many other possible examples. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, Barrack Obama is mulatto, or mixed race if you prefer a more PC term. Googlemeister (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The PC version is less precise that the term mulatto which actually means white + black. Quest09 (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The PC term is preferred because "mulatto" means "mule", and comparing people to animals is generally insulting; especially among African Americans, where it is very insulting. --Jayron32 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In answer to HiLo48, in addition to hints in travel guides and watching other who go before you, ask yourself whether you could imagine getting the same sort of help for something from a perfect stranger, how much time and effort is put in, and the pleasantness with which the act is done. Consider the person's likely salary. If you offer a tip and it is refused, offer a second time, then pocket the money. Frankly, I find tipping to be a very pleasurable experience. Although it is not tipping per se, I was once waiting for an uptown 6 Train late at night. In the twenty minutes it took for the train to arrive, a guitarist on the platform happened to play three of my favorite songs. Passing to enter the train I dropped a fifty in his case. I can assure you that to this day remembering giving the gratuity I get more pleasure out of the experience than he did. See magnanimity. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, we do have buskers in Australia. Pretty sure there's no minimum wage there at all though. Their ONLY income is what people drop in the guitar case. Not a comparable situation. But back to the topic... You say above "Consider the person's likely salary." I'm a foreigner. I would have no idea in many cases. Do you know how much Australian taxi drivers get paid? How would you find out? HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As a person who has worked several "tip optional" jobs and dealt with a fair number of foreigners I can tell you one simple way: just ask them if they take tips, or if you want to be a bit more subtle, ask how often they get tipped. If they have any sense they won't be offended because they will assume this is a question leading to a tip later on. A lot of jobs that are customarily tipped in the states, such as pizza delivery, are paid at least minimum wage as they are in the "optional" category. In many places taxi drivers are actually not paid an hourly wage, but rather pay out of their earnings for the day for the use of the cab vehicle, either a flat rate or per-mile charge. In either situation a tip is more like a bonus and is likely to make the driver remember you in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding

A related question to the above section (that takes eight presses of the Page Down key): Isn't the “service charge” or “tip” in the price of the item already? Seeing that food is so expensive “nowadays”, it should be. Thanks, 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If a service charge is included in the price of an item that will be stated explicitly on the bill. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 75.6.243.251 (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Coupons?

A few of my friends have been in some quite lengthy discussions over this: If one is using a coupon, say, for a free appetizer (Normally ~10-12 dollars at the places we tend to visit) - when it comes down to the tip, should this 10-12 dollars be included in the tipping percentage? ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:26, 1 Tishrei 5772 / 07:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The coupon simply acts as cash and the tip should be based on the retail priceFroggie34 (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And indeed, the big coupon sites these days, like Groupon, state this very explicitly. The tip is meant to be independent of the coupon price. Any other way just penalizes the wait staff. And if you don't realize how much it penalizes the wait staff, look up the minimum wage for tipping jobs in your state. It is usually much, much, much less than the normal federal or state minimum wage. The minimum wage in Massachusetts, for example (which is fairly progressive as these things go) is $8 an hour. For jobs where you take more than $20 a month in tips — 20 whole dollars... a month! — the minimum wage drops to $2.63 an hour!!! --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that is a stupid loophole designed to externalize the cost of restauranteurs in an abusive manner. I mean, what is the point of calling it a minimum wage if it is not really they legal minimum? Googlemeister (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"... look up the minimum wage for tipping jobs in your state. It is usually much, much, much less than the normal federal or state minimum wage ..." - which perfectly illustrates the point I made up above, namely, that wait staff are systemically grossly underpaid and it has become the customers' responsibility to rectify this. My point was characterised as "bizarre", but it's anything but that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, Americans don't tip because they want to rectify the labor laws. The practice of tipping waitstaff predates the minimum wage. The tipped-employees exception is in effect because it was assumed that the tips would more than make up the difference. The idea is there's no point in mandating that someone get paid $8 an hour if the person is going to make twice that much in tips alone. Why there's a minimum wage at all for tipped employees, I don't know -- $2.63 an hour is not much better than nothing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least with Federal laws, if an employee is not making at least the federal minimum wage from base pay + tips, the employer is required to make up the difference. ref. Thanks all for settling the Great Coupon Debate for me. ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:39, 2 Tishrei 5772 / 05:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that when the minimum wage law was drawn up in Massachusetts, someone piped up and said "but those waiters already get a huge amount from tips" and the minimum wage was thereby reduced for those who receive more than $20 in tips? If so, it seems that by tipping your waiter, you have managed to screwed them out of the legally mandated minimum wage that everyone else can demand. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 28

Unknown 4-Mast Wood Sailing Ship Identification Help Please (photo)

Ship in Philadelphia --is their George Washington Bridge in background. See here: http://itemofinterest.blogspot.com/2011/09/test.html Any ship ID ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramyourspam (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

arr oops. asked by CramYourSpam. thank you, SineBot. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no George Washington Bridge in Philadelphia. Looks like the Benjamin Franklin Bridge to me. Deor (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a schooner, all four masts are rigged fore-and-aft, maybe around 1000 ton. Looks like it is tied to Philadelphia's Municipal Pier #11. Any idea on the date of the photos? Are you sure it is wood and not iron?—eric 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

oops about the bridge. well done user deor. its benjamin franklin bridge. the photos seem to be mid-1920's to mid 1930's. not much later than that i'd guess just from the look of the filmstock. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the USS Robert H. McCurdy. The article says she was towed to Philadelphia in 1919. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WOW. well done. many thanks Cramyourspam (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Saturn V Testing

I'm looking for basically a citation for the following; Lloyd Emerson (Moen) Knain, tested (vibrated specifically) the Saturn V vehicle. He put the vehicle together and the vibrated it for testing, all I am looking for is any information that is cit-able. Thanks. Jlk18000 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What was his last name? Moen or Knain? Why did you write it with a name in parentheses? I found nothing at Google Scholar or Google books linking such a person with the Saturn V, and no scholarly journal articles by him. What is the basis for your belief that such a person was involved in testing the rocket? The closest I could find for any reference at all was a 1935 "Who's who in American Education" which lists JE Knain of North Dakota and Ida Moen of ND, with apparently Lloyd Emerson Knain as their child (it is hard to be sure what the snippet represents, with the omissions): "KNAIN, JE, Supt. of Schls., Milnor. ND; b. Northwood, ND, May 18, 1890; s. Mr. and Mrs. Edward NOK; BA, Univ. of ND, ... O. Ida Moen of Gales- burg, ND, Dec. 31, 1916; c. Ione Marion, Lloyd Emerson: Member; Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Gamma Mu. ...." Failure to find documents does not at all prove that he did not do the testing mentioned. I did find a publication on education, a 1933 Masters thesis by Joseph Edwards Knain of North Dakota, likely Lloyd's father: [4]. Many thousands of unheralded individuals worked for contractors and subcontractors all over the country involved in getting the US to the Moon. Edison (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about not making that more clear, his last name was Knain, and yes this seems to be the issue I am having... is simply put, theres nothing to say that he actually did anything, however I know he did. (I am a Knain myself, and closely related to him with personal writings in our Family Tree book with him stating he worked on that project, as well as many others, with many other family members (including myself) to back this up as personal record, however I, and it seems you as well, cannot find information regarding this. In fact, I'm actually surprised that you found ANYTHING about the Knain surname, seeing as how if their last name is Knain, I personally know them. If theres anything that you think could help find a reference, I have limited, but a size-able portion of information that might be helpful.Jlk18000 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You might check to see where he worked. The more precise the information you start with, the more likely you are to strike gold in archives that are not available online, at the archives of NASA or at their contractors, in local newspaper archives, or in local historical societies. If he said he did that job, he probably did. I would have expected the job of "putting it together" to be assembly at the launch site, but vibration testing would likely have been done on non-launched test samples at a contractor/subcontractor. Look up which contractor produced the Saturn V. The article lists Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas, and IBM as "lead contractors," but NASA politics dictated spreading out the contracting to as many congressional districts as possible. Here is a description of a "Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand" in Huntsville Alabama, which was used for vibration testing of the rocket in 1966 and 1967. Here is more genealogical information on this (your?) family. Edison (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He worked at Boeing, was the Chairman in 1964. The link you gave Is actually mostly my work as it is, also sadly is just a dead-end for any information I'm looking for at the moment... Yes, the "Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand" is exactly what he worked on, the question at hand is finding something that ties him and the tests. I'll dig around online for a little longer, if all else fails its only a 2-3 hour drive to Huntsville, and if they don't have it I don't think anyone will. Jlk18000 (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember a newsreel which might have had this. The rocket assembly was horizontal and some kind of mechanical vibration was used with various sensors and inspections, but that's all I remember. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychology of thieves

I had a valuable bike stolen from me a few weeks ago and I've been bothered by it ever since. I can't really wrap my head around the selfishness of someone who thinks it's ok to cut a lock and ride off with somebody else's bike. I mean, there can't really be any empathy or decency there can there?

So my question is for anyone who's stolen something personal, i.e. not just from a store: what's the deal? How can you rationalize your act? Is the person you're stealing it from just some chump, and to hell with him? What's the deal? Vranak (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once, many years ago, somebody stole one pedal off my bike. May seem trivial, but it makes it quite unrideable. I still can't really wrap my head around that one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose no one here will admit that he has stolen something personal, so no one should feel entitle to answer your question. Anyway, I've met people in exactly the same situation as you. It's incredible how much feelings people can attach to a bike. Maybe, you could explain to us why does it happen. I mean, the attachment, not the stealing. The latter is easier to explain, even if you don't feel like that: I doubt any theft thinks about the harm being done. He will only think about the huge opportunity to steal a valuable bike. 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I won the bike in a hockey pool, and I used it frequently as a basic means of transportation. How could I not be strongly attached to it? It's irreplaceable because its value was so high and I am not willing to spend that amount -- especially knowing there's a shameless thief around. Vranak (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It'll fall somewhere on the scale from sociopathic behaviour through to simply being too stupid to appreciate the harm done to the victim. Being very stupid is a leading criminogenic factor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I've never stollen anything of value from anyone, but I think perspective is the key here. One factor here is desperation. People who have substance addiction often are in desperate need of money for a fix, they wont be thinking much about the consequences for themselves or the victim. Class can also lead to desperation. Many people have little opportunity for social advancement and will never be able to afford a bike like that, based solely on their circumstances, from their perspective you don't deserve the bike anymore than them so why shouldn't they take it from you? Property is theft! and all. From your perspective, you worked hard and made the right decisions to earn the bike. From the thief's perspective you received the bike due to your circumstances and don't really deserve it, you just feel entitled to it. --Daniel 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't afford that bike either though -- I won it as a prize in a Vancouver-area hockey pool with hundreds of entrants through careful consideration and ample thought. It was the year before the subprime market crash so they won't be putting up anymore as prizes. Vranak (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But Vranaka, how can the thief know something like that? Winning a prize is not very common, what he/she may have thought was, more likely, that you are quite rich and could afford it. Unless you think that the thief knows you personally? I am sorry for your loss of property, but you have to understand that other people do not know what you know about your own life. A as said before here, some people are indeed very, very desperate (there have been drug addicts who have killed an old lady to be able steal 50 dollars from their handbag). --Lgriot (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, people who claim that property is theft are rarely from the lower classes. They are much more middle class and stupid (and normally not criminal). I don't believe thieves have any ideology, it's just plain opportunism. Quest09 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but if our positions were reversed (me and the thief) I'd be wracked with guilt and unable to sleep until I got it back to its rightful owner. I can only assume that the perp has severe emotional blockage or a dysfunctional ethical system to not feel similiarly. Vranak (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They certainly have to be somehow different: less empathy at least is a necessary condition. Anyway. Try to think about it in a more positive light: you had the chance of riding it for free for some years. Now it's gone, but you've learned a lesson in impermanence. (Note: report the theft and exact description of the bike to the police and do search regularly for it on sites like ebay, it might appear). Quest09 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the thief actually thought "property is theft," or bought into some kind of anarchist ideology. I was merely using a leftist lens to examine the situation. Feelings of desperations and alienation from other classes are very prevalent in lower classes and some definitely feel that higher classes do not deserve their wealth. Not all people have the same ethical system so the characterization of someone's as dysfunctional isn't always valid. On another note, I once had my bike stollen on my college campus. I found the guy riding it a few days later and chased him down he was likely from a higher social class than me, in this case I guess he was simply thrifty and didn't want to spend money on a bike so he stole mine. Quest's idea to look for it on eBay or craigslist is a good idea. I had another bike stolen from me. I went to replace it by looking for similar bikes on craigslist and found mine for sale. I just arranged a sale and when the guy showed up, I took my bike back. --Daniel 23:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, a wikipedia article on the profile of thieves could be interesting, I'm sure there are studies out there that break down the reasons people steal, and personal traits and upbringings which are linked to thievery. I once hungout with a group of 17year olds and some were thieves, including grand theft auto and house burgalary, many of them did abuse alcohol and various drugs, and many of them knew they had little prospect of a bright future as none of them would be attending university. There definitely is a lack of empathy, but there are other factors too. Some is a group mentality and peer pressure to also become a thief. If you hang out with thieves it makes it seem less worse, like it's normal. And than there are also some thieves who are just strung out crack fiends/base heads whatever you call them, they need money for drugs and that's all that is going through their heads. Public awareness (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a lack of empathy, or the presence of apathy. StuRat (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Was in a rush, fixed now. Public awareness (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, I'd say some portion of them are basically socialists, and feel they are just as entitled to your property as you are. Amazingly, though, this doesn't apply to others stealing from them. They feel that they are poor, so stealing from them is immoral, but not from you (yes, you may be poor, too, but they didn't think so, based on your bike). StuRat (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A somewhat shaky, not to say complete and utter bollocks, understanding of socialism there, Stu. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfectly sense Stu: the whole thing happened in Canada, and they are all socialists over there. That's why there is much less stealing in the US. Quest09 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, please don't troll the thread. Public awareness (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a truly bizarre understanding of the word "Socialist". You probably shouldn't try to get your understanding of political concepts from the right-wing extremists on talk radio. APL (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Most revolutionary thought clearly distinguishes between personal possessions: things in more or less continuous individual use; and the means and tools of production that are property. Private property in the means and tools of production is considered "theft," the dividing line between the petits-bourgeois use of personal possessions to make profit, and the small capitalist making profit off means and tools is of course payment of wage labour to workers. Some past instances of working class responses to personal theft I've observed in the literature include beatings without reaching the point of wounding or maiming. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But thievery is not selfish, Vranak. Far from it. It is an immature and parasitic dependence on others, certainly not a form of self-reliance or a cause of self-respect. Be sure that if caught the thief would lie or make up some embarrassing excuse for his actions. You should be proud that you don't know how to get into the mind of this person. And I'd recommend you also closely examine the motives of some of the rather bizarre rationalizations and guilt trips others have made on this thread--not for your pleasure--but as an example of yet another and even worse sort of immorality to protect yourself from than simple physical theft. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Part of the motivation may be not just the benefit the thief enjoys from selling the stolen goods, but the hurt the victim suffers. A comedian once talked about male rape in prison, and said "It's not just the pleasure he feels; It's the expression on your face!" Edison (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that Edison is an administrator here. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And your point is, μηδείς? Edison is, I think, making a very apposite point. Some people positively enjoy inflicting cruelty on others in one way or another, and a thief (just as a rapist) may derive additional satisfaction, beyond hir acquisition of items of value (or physical pleasure), in the mental (and/or physical) pain caused to hir victims. In the case of rape this is obvious to most people; in the case of theft it may be less obvious, and hence worth pointing out by the analogy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has asked yet what the explanation for not stealing is. We're apparently all in this together and should love our fellow human beings, but for what reason exactly? User:Medeis observes that thieves tend to make up excuses - I heard somebody say "I see that guy at his window every night with his laptop, I'm going to steal it," and on asking him how this was OK he said that the laptop was sure to be insured and the owner was just looking at porn. However, the excuses for not stealing seem to be just as spurious, and typically circular, reducing to "it's bad because it's bad, and you shouldn't do it because you shouldn't, and because people don't and because of empathy and that's why you won't do it and shouldn't". The only time in my life I've heard a coherent explanation, I had to actively pursue the question for an hour with somebody who had ideas about moral philosophy, and even then I still wonder about the explanation and find it tenuous. The question of why we should bother to vote in elections is similar. Society seems to be protected from chaos only by vague goodwill and inexplicitly held moral theories. Also, I too hated it when my bike was nicked.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The best explanation I've heard (apart from "I don't steal because God will send me to Hell for eternal punishment if I do") is the concept of a social contract. I agree that I won't steal from you, and in exchange you agree not to steal from me. It's not that I wouldn't be better off in the short term if I were to steal your fancy bike, it's just that if I do, then there's no reason keeping you from stealing something else I value. That's a bit of a precarious situation, and relies on both of us believing that long-term maintenance of the social order is worth more than short-term selfish gain. This obviously opens itself up to the free rider problem, where someone ("a thief") abrogates their end of the social contract, while you're still fulfilling yours (e.g. they steal your bike, even though you have no intention of stealing their flat screen TV). In those cases society tries to use punishment (fines and jail time and/or threats of eternal damnation) as a deterrent, but that relies on the thief believing that the chance of getting caught and the punishment likely to be received outweigh the chance of getting away with it and the benefit likely to be gained from the theft. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If we consider the problem of not stealing from the standpoint of homo economicus then the cost (time, money, amortisation of anticipated gaol sentence) of stealing needs to be placed against the cost of an equivalent substitutable good. Bicycle theft has been heavily investigated for labour technique in the Netherlands: all bicycle locking systems can be easily defeated, the aim of buying a bicycle locking system is to buy one that makes defeating it not cost effective. (I think this kind of homo economicus view isn't particularly credible, given observed economic returns on bank robbing and drug dealing in the US. Also this only covers professional criminals, not amateurs or hobbyists.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

By far the majority of thieves are in poverty, basically they are life's losers. Very very few actually make decent money or are rich. People like me have no compunction about finding them and sticking them in prison whatever sympathy we might feel for their plight. I am an atheist and don't believe in any of that punishment by God or moral stuff but none of my family way back has gone in for wrongdoing that I know of so there's no earthly reason for me or my children to do so either if we don't want to be life's losers. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to equate morality with God and superstition. This mistake is usually made by the opponents of atheists, and used as ammunition against us atheists. Puzzled though I am by the details, I'm sure morality has a rational basis. Following family tradition, on the other hand, is not very rational. Consistently doing as your ancestors did would mean you had to attend church, and perhaps take up a profession like farrier, fletcher, wainwright or cooper.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What on earth has rational got to do with it? I am here because my parents were here because their parents were here and I wish my descendants to be here as well in the same way that I am here and wouldn't be if my ancestors had not also wished that. It is written in my genes or upbringing or whatever. Rational is how to achieve aims, not how to give aims in the first place. It has struck me that I might be harming my children by not going to church and making out that I believed in all that rubbish but the hypocrisy would just be another form of wrongdoing as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This promises to be a great discussion, but I think I have to respect the "don't start a debate" and "keep your answer within the scope of the question" rules, so I can't continue. Pity.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

September 29

Will a medical office and hospital being build behind my home lower my property value and make it hard to sell?

I live in a small neighborhood that is surrounded by a field. The city would like to rezone the field behind my home for medical offices and a hospital. Will my home value suffer if they build the medical offices and hospital? Will the rezoning make it harder to sell my home? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.133.67 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hire a lawyer or get some legal advice. Talk to your neighbors and contact the zoning board and attend any relevant meetings. You may be entitled to compensation if a change in zoning lowers the value of your property, although it may be a hard and losing cause to fight city hall. See takings clause. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think your property value would suffer. If it was an airport or a factory and you were being rezoned to industrial, than I would be worried. While your property value could go down from noise from sirens, your land value may increase as you become more urban and you may be able to sell your property for business use depending on the rezoning, which may bring more money than selling your home as residential. I too suggest you keep in the know about the building and zoning plans, but the high cost of a lawyer probably isn't worth it unless you own a mansion or you see something seriously wrong. Public awareness (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Obviously the advice of someone whose name is "public awareness" is cheeper than and more relevant than that of a lawyer trained in the relevant laws. Never mind what I said about taking the issue seriously and getting professional advice. Just give up. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My name was given to me by another editor when I finally got an account. [Can you imagine a world without lawyers?] Don't make me lawyer you with WP:COI. :D

You might be able to sell your house to a rich doctor. There's a conflict between negatives (noise, increased traffic, construction work, other development nearby, and a possibility of perceived social undesirables such as drug addicts arriving for treatment) and the positives (improved transport links, increased amenities catering to influx of people, near to major employer). It may be harder to sell in the short term while construction work is going on, but it's hard to know the long-term effect on house value, as this will depend on the existing area and the changes (houses in the middle of nowhere tend to be less expensive than those in built-up areas). You could check nearby property prices: find a similar neighbourhood with a hospital, and compare. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Land value tax

I'm having a bit of a problem understanding a part of land value tax.

"Because the supply of land is inelastic, market land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so LVT cannot be directly passed on to tenants."

Say you are renting space in a building and paying $1000/month. A new LVT tax is introduced charging the building owner and other building owners $XXXX/month. The rent I pay is determined through competition for my demand with other local buildings, so why would my rent not go up? Also how is land inelastic? If the owner of a 10story apartment building saw there was increasing demand he could build, in theory, another 10 stories ontop of his building. Is land slightly elastic, thus the statement at LVT wrong and there is a deadweight loss created. If rent goes up due to the tax there must be a deadweight loss. Please no discussion on whether LVT is good or bad, just on whether the quoted statement is true or not. Thanks, Public awareness (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you build another ten stories on top of a building, you're not increasing the supply of land. Land value tax is typically calculated on the area of land, not on the floor area of the buildings. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Headphone cord curl

My headphones' cord (1⁄16 inch (1.6 mm) wide, wire encased in what seems to be some kind of very flexible plastic or rubber) has a tendency to curl. What can I do to either get rid of the curls or to prevent them from developing? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Untwist the cord. The curl is caused when the cord twists. Dangle the cord free, and watch how it untwists; let it unwind on its own, and throw a few additional "untwists" for good measure, and it should curl less. --Jayron32 04:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on that: In my house, this action is traditionally done by gently lowering the headphones (or the telephone handset, etc) over a railing/down a stairwell, allowing the cord to untwist on its own. Do this a couple of feet at a time until you're holding the plug; when the phones stop spinning, let it rest in that position if you can, otherwise pull it back up and let it lay flat on the floor.

"Works for me..." --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans and Kennewick Man

I just finished reading the article about Kennwick man and I am a bit uncertain about a point in the article. The writer stated, "In a publication about Kennewick Man, anthropologist Glynn Custred of California State University East Bay said "expert on Asian populations" "physical anthropologist" C. Loring Brace of University of Michigan" believed "people related to the Jomon" came before the "modern Indian" and that "two varieties of American Indian" arose from the former being "absorbed" by the latter with the "Plains Indian" resembling the older group.[4]", now, as I understand, the two varieties of Indian came from somewhere other than America. If this is a correct interpretation of reading, then the Indians came from Asia. This logically leads me to conclude that the term "Native American" is a misnomer. There seems, then, that there are no Native Peoples in America but that they all came from somewhere else. If I take a plant and go to Japan and plant my plant, even if it is there for a million years, it would not make it "native" by any stretch of the imagination. It would make it pretty darn old but even so, not a native plant. So, I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.56.242 (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "native" is a relative term. See Indigenous peoples, especially phrases like "...before the arrival and intrusion of a foreign and possibly dominating culture", "...groups that existed in a territory prior to colonization or formation of a nation state", etc. Also see Settlement of the Americas. Pfly (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are no native peoples from anywhere, save Africa. The question then becomes how long does a people have to claim occupation to a land to be Native. There is some question about when the first people crossed the Bering land bridge to be the first pioneer population of Humans in the Americas; and even on how many crossings there were. There are competing theories on how the Americas were settled. One holds that the settling originally happened in a single crossing, and that this first pioneer population represents the sole ancestors of the entire population of the Americas. A second theory holds that there were multiple settlements, and that the people we refer to as "Native Americans" or "First Nations" may have actually been of a later wave of people who displaced the earlier settlers. (i've somewhat oversimplifed the two theories for the sake of keeping this short-and-sweet, but you can read about them at Settlement of the Americas) That's the crux of the dispute over the Kennewick Man. If you ascribe to the "single settlement" theory (called the "short chronology" in the literature), then all human remains are direct ancestors of the current Native American/First Nation peoples, and thus they have cultural rights to those remains. If you ascribe to the "multiple waves" theory (called the "long chronology" in the literature), then Kennewick Man may be sufficiently old as to have predated the arrival of the peoples we now call Native Americans, which would essential mean he doesn't "belong" to them. --Jayron32 05:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There are also theories that humans came to North America from Europe, living at the edge of ice and fishing for sustenance as do Alaskan natives. Edison (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are probably theories that it was settled by space aliens as well; the scientific evidence (as shown by things like mitochondrial DNA studies and archeological finds) tends to support the settlement via the Bering land bridge as the main route. There are various theories of various groups of people who reached the Americas in the years between the initial settlement and the Colonial era, see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, but to my knowledge there is no solid evidence of any pioneer settlement of the Americas via Europe directly. --Jayron32 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfly is correct that Native is a relative term. The claim that humans are native to Africa ignores that primates Euarchontoglires are native to Eurasia. The claim that the Americas may have also been settled in part from Europe is based on mitochondrial evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)), hardly on the same level as spacemen theories, but of course ignorance and scorn together create a powerful explosive, so I won't criticize what Jayron32 has said, lest it come back to bite me. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there you go, that's an excellent reference! Well found. --Jayron32 04:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the Solutrean hypothesis is not well supported even by the genetic data. Rmhermen (talk)

:) --Jayron32 04:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Solutrean hypothesis noted the similarity of the Solutrean arrowheads to those found later in North America. It is inappropriate to ridicule it as being just like saying people came to North America from space ships. Europeans could certainly have migrated to North America when the North Atlantic had ice, but I have never understood how they could have transported flint working techniques over a long span of time while living on the edge of the ice. It is interesting that some scientists classify Kennewick Man as Ainu. That seems more credible than one TV documentary and much discussion in the blogosphere which noted that the skull with muscle and skin added (pic) looked remarkably like Jean-Luc Picard (pic). Edison (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You make some very well-thought-out and important points, Edison! --Jayron32 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed non-free thumbnails. —Akrabbim^talk 18:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Two identical questions about the difference between innovation and creation, which won't necessarily receive identical answers (maybe that was the point)

what is the difference between innovation and creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.5.130 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

what is the difference between innovation and creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj kulkarni (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicely illustrated

. Warofdreams talk 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Innovation says innovation means making a substantial positive change to something. Creation or "to create" typically means to bring something into existence or make something happen[5]. So innovation is improving an existing thing, while creation is making something new. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Adam was the creation, Eve was the innovation. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Beauty

What is beauty? Why is it that computer rendered faces are so much more prettier than real girls? Money is tight (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're not hanging out with the right girls. Since beauty is so subjective, it's hard (dare I say, impossible) for us to tell you why you don't find real girls as pretty as fake ones. Dismas|^(talk) 12:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What is beauty? I don't know, but John Keats had some observations on the issue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Faces with a left-right symmetry are perceived to be more beautiful than asymmetric ones. Most human faces are, to a greater or lesser extent, not completely symmetrical. Computer rendered faces are probably just more symmetrical. 194.176.105.147 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Most people find truly computer generated faces to be quite disturbing. See Uncanny valley. This is different from faces which are modified by "touching up", which generally involves evening skin tone, removing blemishes, and that sort of thing. But a human figure which is created from scratch by computer tends to be off-putting. --Jayron32 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

D: Look at picture 4 on this page, for example. 86.162.71.40 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a Japanese version of a Barbie Doll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are more attractive. They are more mainstream, and therefore, they appeal to more people. However, has some human ever fallen in love for a computer animation? Quest09 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be kind of a high-tech Pygmalion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

S1m0ne (2002) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We have a very good article on physical attractiveness. Looie496 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dismas, maybe I'm not hanging out with the right girls, but it's more likely you're not looking at the right CG animations. Look at [[6]] from 0:32 to 0:43. I finding her unusually attractive. I don't recall seeing any real person this pretty, including the best looking actresses out there (but I have seen prettier CG images, i.e. not animated in a movie). Money is tight (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Beauty must be very much in the eye of the beholder. That CGI person did nothing for me. Pfly (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks fake, of course. Put glasses on her and she would look like a fake Sarah Palin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok look at [[7]]. If you still don't think that's pretty, please give me a pic of what you think is pretty. Money is tight (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. That has more of a painting look than a CGI look. Regardless of the medium, you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman to compare with Ingrid Bergman in her prime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I find her attractive but I wouldn't say unusually so and I definitely don't consider her more attractive then all real people. I do find her more attractive then the one in the wallpaper image who doesn't really do anything for me. Beyond the not 'hanging out with the right girls' thing, it may also be the 'girls' you do hang out with are CG so that's what you're used to and find attractive. Besides that, it's not clear to me if you played the Resident Evil games and watched the movie. If you did, your opinion on the above images beauty may be influenced by any emotional connection you formed with the Claire Redfield's character. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Beauty in general is the result of unity of form. An impala is quite magnificent, but one mangled by a lion is not. Yet its bleached skeleton will be restored to a type of beauty. The same with buildings. A well kept, well designed building is beautiful, while an abandoned burnt out lot with broken windows is ugly. But return after centuries to look at ruins showing a form swept bare of debris and the beauty may be restored. In humans, unity of form is best exemplified by symmetry and signs of sexual health such as full red lips.

Here is a woman who puts Ingrid Bergman to shame.

μηδείς (talk)

Isabella's quite attractive, but I still prefer her mother, Ingrid Bergman. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not possibly argue with you there. Have you seen Cactus Flower (film)? μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, OP, maybe you have a paraphilia for computer generated images. You know, if it exists, there's a paraphilia for it. --Belchman (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the idea mentioned above, that symmetry plays a huge part - when designing a computer model using 3DS Max, for example, many models - especially faces - are designed completely symmetrical. The simple fact is, it takes half the time to do it that way. See this. In reality, when a baby is forming in the womb, gets born, and grows up into an adult, the genes are operating individually to create that person. The operate under the same rules, but with disparate resources, resulting in asymmetrical beings, such as us (and in many cases, mutations and what we call deformities). If the genes all had the exact same resources, and no mutations, we would all look exactly the same, like clones. The human brain looks for symmetry to make sense of the world around it - a simple survival instinct - and symmetry is the most simple, and therefore attractive. Hope this helps. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Diploma

HELLO MY NAME IS CAMILLE HUDSON AND I GRADUATED FROM THERE I DIDN'T MARCH AND WHEN I WENT TO PICK UP MY DIPLOMA OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT I WAS NEVER ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ANYONE SO HOW DO I DO THAT NOW IT HAS BEEN SOME YEARS . THANKS I WILL APPRECIATE A RESPONSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.145.150 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(personal data removed.) This is Wikipedia, an internet encyclopedia, not the office of a high school. You are most likely to have better results contacting the school directly. Rmhermen (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Could I be an awful bore and ask you to turn off your Caps Lock miss? Thanks so much. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do go back to your school or college. You might still be able to pick up your diploma. Good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

eHOW Advice Article, Condo Regulations in New Jersey

The article by Elaine Severs, EHOW Contributor cites The New Jersey Common Interest Real Property Act of 1995 as one regulation regarding condos. I cited this in a conversation with an NJ official that works this arena and he said the cited "Act" is not a New Jersey law or statute. He said it might have been a bill. Could you look into this with the author and have someone call me. If the official is correct, the article should be corrected. HELP!

Jack <removed telf. nr.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.105.208 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to call you: any answers will be here. I think you are talking about an article on eHow: if so, you need to contact them directly: this is Wikipedia, and we have no connection with eHow. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of Greenland Islands

What is the current thinking on whether the Island of Greenland is one island, two, or three? I see our article on Geography of Greenland says that "The ice is so massive that its weight presses the bedrock of Greenland below sea level and is so all-concealing that not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland might actually be three islands." The supporting reference, however, is just a passing mention in a newspaper article. Apparently the three-island theory is based upon findings reported in 1951, for example here, asserting that the icecap conceals two deep sounds running from coast to coast and splitting Greenland into three islands. Is this still considered a viable theory? There are, of course, small islands, such as Uunartoq Qeqertaq, that are concealed by the icecap; this isn't what I'm talking about. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell, but a separate tectonic plate for Greenland has fallen out of favor. Maybe [8] will have some clue. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the Greenland ice sheet has a nice map that suggests that although the central depression is below sea level, that area wouldn't be connected to the sea, so just one island. This older version [9], from the National Geographic in 1981 has the central depression connecting to the sea to the west, but basically still one island. Mikenorton (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Depends on scale. It's complicated. See: How Long Is the Coast of Britain?. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated in the OP, I recognize that there are some very small islands that are separate and am only referred to large-scale separate islands. John M Baker (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Miami News public domain?

Hi, I'm wondering if a 1958 issue of the now-defunct Miami News would be in public domain so that its images could be used here. Here's the article on Google News. Thanks. Delaywaves ^talk 23:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to know the same thing about this 1961 Pittsburgh Press article. Delaywaves ^talk 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Likely not. Both articles indicate that the papers were acquired by other newspapers; that likely includes their intellectual property rights. In any case, it's very, very hard to establish whether something is a legitimate orphaned work — a work whose copyright status has elapsed because technically nobody owns it. Unless one has a very strong reason to believe that is the case, one cannot assume it. It's also not clear if the copyright to those photos was owned by the newspaper, or a wire service. In any case, the photos are not exactly very good quality, so I think the loss is pretty minimal. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 30

wikiHow

Does wikiHow have any policies similiar to the Wikipedia policy of “Not Censored”? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing here to suggest they do. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia's “Assume Good Faith” or “Not A Soapbox (and/or) Means of Promotion”? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many writeups describing its various policies. Does wikiHow not have similar writeups? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't know, that's why I came here to find out... 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This list of wikiHow Objectionable Images seems inconsistent with a "Not Censored" policy. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so I guess I can rule that out. What about the others? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They have a few policies here, but their approach is to establish an intentionally minimal number of policies. John M Baker (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can see what policies they have at the page I originally linked to. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is gold so valuable?

Why has gold always been so highly valued, especially in ancient times (in modern times it at least has some use as a good electrical and thermal conductor)? You can't eat it, it's not hard enough to make weapons to hunt for food or to make tools for other purposes, you can't build a shelter with it, it doesn't float. I don't see how mere rarity without practical value would have been any use to ancient peoples. It may look pretty but you can starve to death or die of exposure looking pretty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callerman (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Gold article has some suggestions about it. It's been valued since before recorded history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1. Your "deficits" of why gold shouldn't be valuable are actually all great reasons it should be a form of currency. Currencies based on food, weapons, and shelter are not really very good currencies — that's just a form of bartering. A neutral currency with a known value (tacked, as the case of gold usually is, to the rate of production) lets you do more complicated transactions than otherwise. (What, you don't want my fish? All I have is fish! What do I do now?)

2. It's not clear that gold was overwhelmingly valued by all people at all times in the same way. The Incas valued it a lot less than the Spanish did, for example, and found the Spanish lust for gold to be laughable. (Everything's fun and games until the smallpox sets in.) Once there is a stabilized market for gold — e.g., people you know will buy it — then it can become more valuable to everybody who has it. Until then, its value will be based on exactly who you are selling it to.

3. You seem to be imagining hunter-gatherer types on the Savannah valuing gold. That's highly unlikely. They wouldn't have had access to much of it, in any case. Mining requires a high degree of organization, and there's only so much gold lying around waiting for you to pick it up without any processing. I suspect that gold was not especially valuable until more organized mining and metalworking was possible. Our gold article indicates that it has been known to be used by the Chalcolithic or copper age, which is pretty dang civilized as far as human development is concerned, even if it looks primitive from a modern standpoint. These aren't people living in bamboo huts and acting out some kind of parody of the "savage" — these are people who live in organized communities with leaders of some sort and make most of their calories based on farming, which allows them to support people who are full-time artisans or blacksmiths or miners and things like that.

4. In the end, things are valuable if people find them valuable. That's tautological, but true. If there's a guy willing to buy something of yours for a good price, you'll probably be willing to sell it to him for that price, even if you think it is worth a lot less. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gold is pretty and resists corruption and causes few allergies, this makes it great for jewellery. Gold is easily worked, making it more desirable to work for decoration than, say, steel. Gold has interesting conductive properties for electricity. Finally gold is a commodity within which all other commodities find their value reflection (see Volume 1 Chapters 1-3 of Das Kapital). This makes gold, like the US dollar, or the Euro, or the Australian Dollar, or negotiable US bonds, or certain shares useable as currency. Unlike other currencies listed, many people (falsely) believe gold to have an "inherent" value as money. But gold as money does have some advantages: it isn't contingent upon the survival of particular states, it is dense and so highly portable, it is easily divided with a chisel making it readily negotiable. Historically some of these reasons were more important than others. "Before recorded history" wealth meant either possessing the military power to directly exploit villages, or possessing masses of slaves—here gold had a decorative purpose based on its lustre. In feudal societies gold was as much decorative as it was financial, it was used to resolve rare high value trades between rulers (such as ransoming a King stupid enough to get caught in battle), but people also valued it for its displays in cloth of gold etc. In contemporary society gold is both a currency (rarely directly traded, usually traded on certificates of ownership that amount to goldsmith's notes), but it is also highly valued for decorative purposes. Silver is more interesting given the vast decorative demand out of India. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's as intrinsically valuable as any fiat currency is (or as much as currencies backed by other precious metals) outside of the small but significant intrinsic uses (gold has some good industrial properties in electronics, etc.). The special place for gold as a precious metal though is interesting. Some have suggested that the difficulty and random nature of gold finds helped maintain some price stability, although I've heard alternative variations of the same thing too. This book: The gold standard in theory and history, Barry J. Eichengreen, Marc Flandreau, has a lot of background on the historic gold standard.

It's also true that gold's emergence as a currency standard is rather recent. Historically it was silver until the 1880s, with Britain being a prime exception. Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also note the historic value of salt in ancient times - it would still be valuable if it were not so common. Collect (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also kind of hard to mint coins from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we only use coins because we use precious metals as money. If we used something else, we would store it in another manner more appropriate to that form, such as bags of salt, or perhaps a salt certificate for larger quantities. StuRat (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think one factor in gold's favor is that it looks different, being yellow. There are more silver-colored or grey metals than you can shake a stick at, bringing down their value. StuRat (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, darn that worthless platinum, rhodium and iridium. Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that silver was, for centuries, used even more frequently as currency than gold (owing to some rather large deposits that were discovered), I think that argument is fairly specious (pun intended). The fact that copper has never been so valuable as gold makes the argument even less likely. People who care about metals can distinguish between the various silver colored metals quite easily, and have been able to do so for a very long time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As already noted, gold is pretty, rare, and easily worked . But the suggestion that it is valuable because it makes a good medium of exchange is bassackward. Its high value (among other characteristics) makes it good a good medium of exchange. Also, note that not everyone has to be crazy about gold for it to function this way. So long as some people value it highly it is valuable to you as long as you can trade it. So the answer is, because a good number of people really like it.μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

MeHag tattoo

A colleague has just come back from a doctor's appointment in Southsea, UK. In the waiting room he sat behind a woman who had 'MeHag' tattooed on the back of her neck. He could come up with no explanation for this, and couldn't pluck up the courage to ask her. He maintains it was certainly MeHag, and there was no possibility of the H being two L's etc. Does anyone have any idea what this could signify? Perhaps it was you? FreeMorpheme (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Were they diagnosed with a disease which causes people to tattoo nonsense on their neck ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of it about. I just wonder if, despite your colleague's certainty, the H is actually an N, and the tattoo is a mangled version of "Megan". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a misspelt Klingon word. Did she have a funny forehead ridge?μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could it be her name, Me.. Hag.. shortened? Unlikely to be able to rule that out. Or the name of a loved one, I suppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could try emailing MeHag@various email providers.com and ask for help.μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally find it difficult to believe that no-one has tried this. It seems like a popular net name. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Titration

why is only 2 or 3 drops of an indicator is add in a simple acid-base titration.</ref></ref></ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.38.2 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Try reading Acid–base titration and maybe pH indicator. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What 19th-century ethnic hat is this?

What kind of hat is this? Better yet name the painting that this chromolithograph is based on. Sorry that the image has been collaged over - at least you can see the hats. I feel like I know but now I can't place it. Thanks in advance. (I asked this on Humanities but haven't gotten the right answer yet. Ruled out so far: an Ochipok; Hennins). Saudade7 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think you'll get better answers for this question at the Humanities desk. --Belchman (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the hat or the original, but the collage is actually from 1942, by Kurt Schwitters, titled Merz 42 (Like an Old Master). See here (volume 83, hover over the image for the artist and title). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You might receive more information from the Sprengel Museum (the pdf-file on this site is a form for inquiries on Schwitters' works). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas yes, I came here after no one at the Humanities desk knew (see original post up there), and I know it is from Schwitters and I am asking for a Schwitters scholar who is trying to identify this picture. I thought I would just start by identifying that hat. It's kind of crazy that this hat is so hard to identify. Maybe there is an international ethnic hat and folk costume museum? Thanks for the suggestions, Saudade7 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason I didn't know you were aware it was by Schwitters is because the file summary of the image offers no indication of the work's title or artist, and states "Pre-1900 image used in pre-1920 collage" when in fact the collage is from 1942 (it is also signed "KS 42").

The only more specific reference I found regarding the original was in Bilderstreit und Büchersturm: medienkritische Überlegungen zu Übermalung und Überschreibung im 20. Jahrhundert (Birgit Mersmann, Königshausen & Neumann, 1999, ISBN 9783826014123). On page 60, she writes: "in Like an Old Master [...] he uses an 18th-century, as yet unidentified genre painting from the Munich School, which, in turn, is an imitation of a Dutch master." (my unauthorized translation). Maybe it has been identified in the past 12 years, and I still think the Sprengel Museum's Schwitter Archives might be your best bet. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Notification

Everytime a friend's birthday comes up, FB notifies me a week ahead via email, and then, on his/her birthday, FB asks me to wish him/her after I log in. Well, I don't want anything similar happening when my birthday comes knocking. I don't want my friends (those who don't already know) to be notified about my birthday. I tried changing my date of birth to a date we've already passed by this year, but FB gave me an automated warning that I can change my date of birth a limited number of times. So, my question is: is it possible to prevent your friends from getting notifications about your birthday without tampering with your D.o.B in your profile? 223.190.208.203 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On your profile page, click Edit Profile. On the first page that comes up, Birthday is the 4th line. Set to "Do not show my birthday in my profile". It might have been quicker to look for this than to ask... --Saalstin (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're concerned by this kind of things happening, your best bet is to avoid Facebook altogether. --Belchman (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did do that. But I'm not sure that even when people are blocked from seeing my d.o.b, they'll be blocked from getting notifications about it. And, boycotting FB is not really an option for me, since it's the most crucial tool for my social networking and helps me keep in touch with whatever is going on in college, and whatnot. But I'd really like it if gazillions on half-known college acquaintances I'm not close to keep pouncing on me and wishing me "happy birthday" just because they'd happened to get the notification that morning. =_=" 223.177.242.93 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So delete your birthday then! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't delete your birthday in FB. They need to know how old you are, and whether you are a minor, so filling in the date of birth is mandatory. 223.181.208.252 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could change the date to February 29 so you'd only be bothered once every four years? Matt Deres (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just done this myself. Next to the date of birth is a symbol. Click that and change the setting to "Only me". That should do it. Another thing to think about - I sometimes get notifications from people who want to add my birthday to My Calendar. Check to see if you've got this app in your Facebook, and delete the app. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What Tammy said. I don't care much about my birthday and often forget my own age. I've had it hidden for a couple years now and have never been wished a happy birthday by anyone who didn't already know (e.g. close family). Dismas|^(talk) 23:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Business ideas

For a book I am working on, anyone want to suggest something that a fifteen year old girl could do to earn a bit of money. It needs to involve something they won at a raffle, though what that is does not matter, so long as it is realistic. I thought something to do with making food or drinks, though I have heard that involves certain regulations and licensing and such like.

148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

She could win a bicycle and do deliveries. Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a sweet sewing machine and she either repairs local's clothing or she makes new odd, yet fashionable, clothing out of people's old clothes and sells them at the local market. Public awareness (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Those suggestions will get her arrested for unlicensed commercial vehicle operation and running a sweatshop in a zoned residential area. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends where you live. There's no requirement for bicycle licencing even for delivery people in NZ. She may need a bicycle helmet though Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this in America? Because God knows the British police can be arseholes at times, but arresting a girl for using a sewing machine with business intent? Really? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The OP is in the UK, the girl would no doubt be a [sole trader], no registration/permits, just go to work. There is nothing like [this] in the UK or Canada. Permits/licensing is only for certain areas, like taxi, electrician, nuclear plant owner, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Public awareness (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A sole trader would be an option, of course. She would only have to do her first year's tax reports after 18+ months of trading (depending on what month she started), and would not have to become VAT registered until she earns £60,000 a year. These little complications (including doing hours of tax reports - tell her to get an accountant) may not be within the scope of the book, though, depending on the time-frame involved. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What's a "sweet" sewing machine, Public awarness? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be a sweet Singer.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps PA is thinking of a sewing machine make out of sugar? Or may be one of these [10] Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted an alliteration I guess, fancy, cool, neeto, groovy, spectacular, hip, fly, pretty, gnarly, awesome, amazing, pimpin', non-dull, just don't flow as nice. Public awareness (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a book called something like "50 Ways to Make Money from Stuff You Have At Home"? She could win that... --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps she could win one of those new fangled personal computers and start selling things on that ebay thingamabob? Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

She could win a RepRap, I can't guarantee she would make money off it though. I presume we're talking short term. You could obviously come up with something like she wins a book on biology which cements an interest in biology leading to her eventually getting her PhD in something in biology and eventually and goes on to form a biotech company becoming the next Bill Gates. I wouldn't say this is completely unrealistic but it would be a 15-20 year concept at a minimum. (You could perhaps change biology to something to do with robots and forget about the PhD.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the items one can make with duct tape.

The daughter of a friend of mine buys fancy colored duct tape at a craft store which she uses to make wallets and other items which she sells at a profit. I can't find any articles here, but suggest you look at this search: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=duct+tape+crafts+for+girls&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to check, in the UK, is there any law that says you can't make and sell food without certain permits and complex higeine checks? 148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Loads, starting with the Food Safety Act 1990. However, since 2006 the laws have been made simpler and less stringent. If, for example, people wish to sell home-made cakes at a village fete, that is now allowed: environmental health officers are encouraged to turn a blind eye to it. However, I'd still be worried about being sued if someone's case of food poisoning turned out to be directly caused by the cake I'd made! This site gives more detail. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a story just about every week in the US of children being forced to shut down their lemonade stands. In fact, it happens so often that if you type "police lem" in google it will suggest you are looking for police lemonade stand. As I said above, have her sell wallets and other knick-knacks made from a case of assorted duct tape rolls she won. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Lough Erin

I have been listening to one of my favourite tunes "Lough Erin Shore" and am now wondering if there is anywhere in Ireland or Northern Ireland a Lough Erin? If not, where could the song title be referring to? Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 23:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You may want to see our article on Lough Erne. This appears to be what the song is referring to. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an article Lough Erin Shore which redirects to Gleanntáin Ghlas' Ghaoth Dobhair. The English lyrics in our article don't mention Lough Erin at all, but refer to the "glens of Ghaoth Dobhair" which means "the aqueous estuary" and is Anglacized to Gweedore in County Donegal. Where Lough Erin comes into it is a mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Our redirect seems to be in error... Lough Erin Shore is quite different. However, here are the same lyrics but with a the title Lough Erne's Shore, so "Lough Erin" is propbly an oft repeated error - KageTora was right. We have a page on Erin but there doesn't seem to be a Lough Erin. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a lake actually called Lough-Erin in the 18th century. Mentioned (and explicitly differentiated from the twin lakes of Lough Erne) in The Antient and Present State of the County of Down (1757) and The universal gazetteer (1795). Assumed from similarity to descriptions (near Annahilt two miles to the northeast, triangular, before the Bow lakes and a certain Lake Henney close to Saintfield, famous for its fish) to the 1960 Official Guide to Hillsborough, to now be the lake known as Ballykeel Lougherne (Google Maps).

But then again, we come across a ballad purportedly based on real circumstances in Northwest Ireland, "The Admired Love-Song of William and Eliza, of Lough-Erin Shore" discussed by Charles Dickens in 1852. The story is about an Irish farmer falling in love with an English lady. They elope to Dublin and then to London (thus leaving Ireland). The lady comforts him with:

For three months in great consolation [says William]

This lady she did me adore,

Saying, my Willy, do not be uneasy

For leaving Lough-Erin shore

The song ends with them getting married and returning to Ireland. In both mentions of 'Lough-Erin Shore', it is clear that it does not refer to a specific lake, but to Ireland itself. I don't speak Irish obviously, but is there a possibility that it may not mean "Lake Erin's shores" but instead "The shores of [the bays of] Ireland"?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 1

Riviera Country Club, Pacific Palisades, CA

The first line of the HISTORY section states: "The club was originally developed by a syndicate in the early 1920's, a principal member of which was Los Angeles oil millionaire Alphonzo Bell, Sr., AFTER WHOM THE CLUB IS NAMED TODAY. How can that be possible, if the name of the club is The Riviera Country Club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsstix (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That erroneous entry was posted last November,[11] by someone who appears confused. The Bel-Air community was named for Bell, not this country club. I undid that entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Interior of the Westgate Bridge

Hi - in news reports on the recent expansion of the Westgate Bridge, I saw that there's a huge workspace beneath the upper deck - can anyone provide an account of what that space is like? With pictures maybe?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can see its box girder construction (the space) here.[12]--Aspro (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Great - thanks, Aspro Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

place name

where is the place in the world were a mosque,a church,a temple a tree with a snake sitting on its branches, a buddha statue and a pyramid is build adjacent to each other.looking forward for your reply.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.47.124 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If we tell you and you win, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Las Vegas. Or possibly some museum. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing a professor properly

A question from the German reference desk: A graduate student has contacted an American professor re job opportunities, using the address "Dear Professor <last name>". The profesor has replied "Dear <first name>". What would be considered the proper way of addressing the professor from there? Greets 85.180.199.217 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to become more formal by using the bland anonymous "Sir". Just continue to use "Dear Professor <last name>." It is far too early to become more familiar.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. So it does vary by nation, I guess. In our schools, using the full name and title is the more formal (stuffy) address. 'Sir' and 'Ma'am' is the acceptable [easier] address once sufficient familiarity has been established. Calling a professor by first name is also never acceptable, except if the professor insists and only if preceded by the title or sir/ma'am. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir is not much used in the States, except by policemen when they're arresting you. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Use "Dear Professor X" until they say, "Please, call me Danny," or whatever it is. If you are still a grad student you are still on the "bottom" in this situation until invited "up". If you are both on more or less the same professional plane I think you are safer in making the jump if they initiate it, but if you're still a student, don't make the jump until invited. Not all professors care that much — but it's the ones that do that are the reason for the custom. (One professor of mine always, ALWAYS, signed her e-mails "Professor Firstname Lastname" which I thought took it a bit far. I'm not talking about her auto signature — that was her normal "sign off," even if you e-mailed with her on a daily basis. Even at elite institutions I have never seen anyone other than her do that, though.) This was my perception, anyway, when I was in grad school. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, my professors are not so dear to me, so I simply open with "Professor,....." I have had professors that like me to call them by his or her first name in person, yet I have always opened my e-mails to them this way. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are an undergraduate, you should never call them by their first name unless they ask you to (which they really ought not to in most situations). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the US really that formal? One of the reasons for choosing the particular college I applied to at Cambridge in 1973 was that when I visited a friend who was an undergraduate there, everybody I met was on first-name terms, whether senior or junior members. (Note to Americans: "senior members" are roughly what you would call professors, though we wouldn't, unless they held chairs). --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the expectation is initial formality. I do not think you should underestimate how brittle the egos of most American academics are. Showing too much familiarity with a professor, uninvited, is seen as sort of low class. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Switch to Dear Dr. ____. It's slightly less formal. 75.71.64.74 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This is acceptable as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It probably changes a fair bit by nation and less so by university & program. I would continue using "Dear Professor <last name>." though I disagree with several others about how you call profs you know well. I, and many of my classmates, naturally called our profs by their first name only, and only use their full name and title on formal reports. Though this is in Canada, and mostly in my smaller classes, 6-20 students. In your case, better to be too formal than to not be formal enough. Public awareness (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

When you know someone well, you can make the judgment call. But a reply to an e-mail should not assume that just because someone signs their first name, or uses your first name, is permission to address them by their first names. Just my experience of it, having been an undergrad, a grad student, and (for awhile) a professor. When I was a grad school, we generally got on first-name basis with our professors pretty quickly. But that's after you're already accepted and have met them a few times and all that. It's not what you did when you were just starting out and just meeting them. As an undergrad I don't think I ever addressed a professor by their first name unless I knew them in some context outside of the classroom (I did student jobs for a few of them, for example). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Times change, apparently :-). Forty years ago, through many years of undergraduate and graduate work, I never EVER called a professor by his/her first name -- even outside the office.

NEVER.

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In grad school the professors always told us to call them by their first names, but I never did, I guess I preferred the formality. But when I defended my thesis, my advisor insisted that I henceforth use his first name, as I was now "part of the club", haha. Usually they prefer to be called "Professor" by undergrads though. This is so deeply instilled in undergrads that those kids often address grad students as "Professor" or "Doctor" too. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that these trends are still the case, at least the universities I was at. In my field, it was not thesis defense that was supposed to be (but rarely was) the "turning point," it was the oral examination (that signaled you were All but dissertation), but same difference. It was always amusing as a grad student when undergrads call you "professor," totally obvious to the specificity of the term. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Note also, that the gender of the professor has not been stipulated here. If you wish to go with a shorter salutation, then 'Dear sir' or 'Dear madam' are both perfectly acceptable. Of course, 'Dear Professor [surname]' would be the best way to continue, in my opinion. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Who are these people?

I happened to come by this web page: [13]

Who are the two people on the first image? I can identify the people on the three others:

• A Crusader knight and a Ku-Klux-Klan member
• Jesus and a Spanish Inquisitor
• An ogre and another ogre

But who are the first two? JIP | Talk 21:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sagan and Bill Maher. (And the last two are trolls, not ogres.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You might, given the robes, expect the Spanish Inquisition, but it's actually Michael Palin. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to say it. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you just did say it.μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The knight is dressed roughly in the style of the Knights Templar, if that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

mystery item of german WW2 uniform

Hi, I was watching The Battle of the Bulge this afternoon and noticed one of the German motorcycle riders had something hanging round his neck which I couldn't identify.

It wasn't the gas mask cylinder - it looked more like a large, almost crescent-shaped piece of lead. (But it probably wasn't actually that).

I found a photo showing what I'm trying to identify although I have no idea how to embed it within this question.

so here's the URL: http://www.motorleathers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/german-style-dot-helmet-1.jpg

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.213.78 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a Gorget I believe--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is the fold face mask portion of a gas mask. The cord running from the object over the soldier's shoulder has the distinctive pattern of a German gas mask hose. The cylinders aren't visible as they probably are on the soldier's back. --Daniel 22:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind Jac is right, it is a gorget. Take a look at the pictures on Feldgendarmerie. They are wearing the same item and is clearly visible. The gorget is held in place by a chain that has a similar pattern to a gas mask hose in fuzzy image. --Daniel 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WOW, thanks guys. It seems my original guess wasn't a zillion miles out. That word is now going to sit in the part of my brain which fails to recall the name for the dot above the letter i and other seldom-used things. (Now, how do I mark this as 'solved'?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.213.78 (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Like this?

Resolved

Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2

Carmen on ice - Katarina Witt

Does anyone know where I can buy this DVD in the UK please?--85.211.142.22 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon stock it. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon.co.uk only seem to be selling a used VHS tape of the version starring Witt. I suggest you buy this and copy it to DVD.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's ordered, many thanks for the advices.--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Plural of advice is still advice. Vranak (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now it's already advice³. --Nepenthes (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Amazon stocks it. Unless he's talking about jungle women, in which case it would be Amazons stock it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wingdings

Typing anything in Wingdings makes it look like gibberish,so why would anyone want to use that font? Why does it exist?? 117.97.193.2 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wingdings are dingbats. They enable people to use non-standard symbols or figures in text (usually for ornamental purposes), like this ☺. They're not meant to represent sounds, obviously. Though you can use it that way if you wish. See Wingdings for what it actually looks like. It probably looks like gibberish in your computer, because you do not have the font installed. In which case, see Help:Special characters. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Food coloring

What's the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies? The containers are opaque and most consumers are never going to look at it. It seems totally unnecessary. Please don't respond with "market research shows consumers prefer their drinks purple and their yogurt red". Like I said, most people are never going to look at these two things, they are just going to drink and eat them. Why is there food coloring in such items? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of us civilised people still like their drink in a glass, so the colour does matter!--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to also add, "don't respond with 'some people pour canned energy drinks in a glass'", but I thought that nobody would actually respond with such a comment, but here it is. Listen, nobody pours an energy drink into a glass unless they are in a bar, and it is usually dark in a nightclub. So, I'm not buying it. If you're in a dark nightclub, you're not going to see the color of your energy drink, which is already mixed as it is, so that answer doesn't hold water. Take for example Rockstar Zero Carb.[14] People do not buy that to pour it in a glass. It just doesn't happen. They drink it out of a can and that's that. However, it is colored like a "wild berry". Why?? And nobody is going to pour a drinkable yogurt smoothie out of its plastic container into a glass, because it would take way too long. Ever try to pour yogurt? So your answer isn't satisfactory. Don't get me wrong. I'm very familiar with the stock answers of "market research shows consumers want their drinks colored" and "it's because people pour it into a glass", but I'm not buying it. It's just not true, and I don't believe it. The fact of the matter is, consumers favor products without food coloring, which is why you see more and more products labeled with "no artificial colors". So why is food coloring still added to products, especially to products that are unlikely to be seen by the consumer outside of their original containers, such as energy drinks and drinkable yogurts? Mr. Green (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some consumers may care about artificial colouring but realisticly most people who drink energy drinks aren't going to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that answer, but notice I did not offer these reasons alone or in isolation. There is simply no single good reason why these drinks are artificially colored. And, I can prove it. The target market for energy drinks, for example, are young males who are active with sports, video games, or studying.[15] Do you think these men are going to get out their dainty little glass and pour this can into it with their little pinky finger raised? I think not. They are going to rip open the can, drink it, and get back to their game. The manufacturers also sell a great deal of these drinks to convenience stores attached to gas stations because they know their target market drinks it "on the go". In other words, there is good data showing that this particular kind of drink is consumed straight out of the can, an opaque can that cannot reveal the color. And yet, it is colored like its flavor, a purplish "wild berry" color. Why? There is not a single good reason. We know, looking at the distribution network for this drink and the target demographic, that the vast majority of consumers who buy it never look at the color. Therefore, it makes no sense to add an artificial color to this drink, combined with the fact that many consumers avoid food coloring in the first place. So then, why is it added? Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that most consumers are usually going to consume the product without looking at the colour, but, at some stage, either when they first try it, or when they accidentally spill some, most people will notice the colour. The manufacturers presumably believe that a "healthy" colour makes people think that their product is a "healthy" drink. Dbfirs 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor? Find me a single, reliable energy drink review that talks about the importance of the color, or even mentions it. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that "nobody pours an energy drink into a glass" is incorrect. My mother always pours drinks into a glass since she considers drinking out of the canister 'uncouth' and not something you do in polite society. I'm sure there are many others out there with similar opinions. Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion a bit more carefully. Energy drinks aren't marketed to mothers who take them home and pour them in a glass. They are sold to young males "on the go" and on the move, people who are involved in an activity. And when they are poured, they are used in dark nightclubs as an ingredient in a bomb shot. Sadly, your mother is not the target demographic for energy drinks. More to the point, the energy drink company in question has, within the last six months, begun targeting women with a new drink in their product line, which is dyed pink. And, guess what? It comes with a straw affixed to the can,[16] indicating that they intend the female user to drink it out of the can, not pour it into a glass. To quote the review: "Juice boxes, milkshakes, and fruity cocktails, all awesome, all drunk with straws. Rockstar should just include straws with all their products." Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the colours are there because the market research indicated that the product would sell better with them than without them. As to why this would be, there are probably as many reasons as there are people! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes—ye olde market research myth. I've heard that line for decades and I have yet to see any evidence it is true. I presume it is printed in textbooks and published in PR trade magazines, yet has anyone ever looked into it? I'll bet you anything it comes from a study dated from around 1955, around the time that physicians smoked and were paid to sell cigarettes in advertisements. Which means that kind of market research is probably just as bogus as medical doctors preaching the safety of tobacco and encouraging people to smoke for their "health". Let's be realistic. Is there anyone who wakes up and says, "I hope my food has the most fabulous artificial colors in it today"? No, there isn't. And, why are these colors in foods that nobody will ever look at or even care to look at? Energy drinks aren't bought for their color, and yogurt smoothies are almost impossible to pour into a glass. No matter how you look at it, there's no reasonable explanation for why these artificial colors are added. And just to prove that this whole notion of artificial colors as an appealing aspect of food is malarcky, try this as an experiment: cook two servings of macaroni and cheese, one from fresh pasta and melted cheese of your choice, and another from the packaged mix variety known for its fluorescent artificial cheese color. Now choose which is more appetizing. There goes the myth. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I didn't read all of your second comment, but with all due respect, you never mentioned a particular brand in your original question. You also mentioned 'drinkable yogurt smoothies', a product I can imagine my mother trying to pour into a glass or dessert bowl. The reason food colouring is added to anything is because customers have certain expectations of the product's appearence should they happen to see it in good light. If you found out your energy drink or drinkable yoghurt had the colour of, say, day-glo snot you might well make comments about how unappealing it looked to anybody prepared to listen. Such bad publicity is simply not worth the risk for the sake of adding a more appealing colour. Astronaut (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The energy drink is actually clear to light yellow without coloring and the yogurt is white without color. Neither products are intended to be poured into a glass. Further, there is no evidence that consumers of energy drinks care about the color, and yogurt is, for all intents and purposes, usually served white, so adding color to it doesn't change its presentation any more than it appears normally. So, in both instances, there continues to be a lack of any reasonable explanation for why the manufacturer needed to add food coloring. The yogurt smoothies in question are actually too small for the consumer to even try to pour it into a glass or bowl, and it would be inefficient to do so, as the container is too small to allow for the transport of most of the food and the opening too narrow to allow one to scoop it out easily. Both products are normally served without any added color (regular diet Rockstar in the white bottle and white yogurt smoothie) so your argument that it would be unappealing without the color is not true. The two products I mention contain color for no reason at all, and do not appear more appealing with the added color. The argument for adding food coloring in these two instances remains without merit, and I suggest that this reflects on the larger argument for food coloring, which is actually unappealing when compared with uncolored food, contrary to your claim. Please try my macaroni and cheese experiment to experience this for yourself. Food coloring is not appealing, no matter how many times we are told that it is. Viriditas (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A question with such gross logical fallacies can not be answered. It forms a kind of circular reasoning were one of the assumptions explicitly refutes the true answer and tries to justify this with false conclusions.--Aspro (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide me with the name, date, and publication of any market research indicating that consumers prefer artificial colors in their food. Or any published material for that matter. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Our food coloring article gives some explanation (particularly: "...make color addition commercially advantageous to maintain the color expected or preferred by the consumer.") But if you are not satisfied, why don't you ask the manufacturers. Their contact details are here. Astronaut (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, energy drinks aren't known or chosen for their color, and yogurt is normally white, so there is no advantage in the two examples I gave you. Further, I provided a third example, using macaroni and cheese, showing that the perceived advantage was actually a disadvantage when compared with a similar but uncolored analogue. We're dealing with a myth here, that has no substantial evidence supporting it. The consumer expects and prefers food that tastes and looks good, there is no question about that. But I have yet to see a single documented instance of food coloring contributing to this experience. We're told that we have to have it, and that we must have it, but in every case that I can see, we don't need it, and more importantly, the consumer doesn't want it. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well to be blunt, you're not looking hard enough. Margarine discusses the history of legislation surrounding what colouring usage, either no colouring or odd colouring (bright yellow or orange or pink) both of which put the consumer off the product. It even discusses how bootlegged butter coloured magarine existed and some people would add their own colouring. Or try asking a kid about what colour sweets they like or do a test with uncoloured sweets (which in many cases will be something fairly light) and see whether colour really doesn't make a difference. (Speaking of kids, I suspect you'd find some do prefer the cheap & nasty macaroni & cheese you mentioned.) I think you also don't appreciate what a lot of products would look like without colouring (including substances primarily added for colour but which may serve other minor purposes). And really if you're going to talk like colouring doesn't make a difference you should always exclude the use of any bleaching agents on your food products which is usually also significantly to do with colour. Don't say this doesn't relate to the energy drink or yoghurt example because you're missing the point, you keep insisting there's no evidence colouring makes a difference but that doesn't really bear scrunity. (I would agree some companies are a little to free with their colouring and end up producing stuff that looks unnecessarily artificial although in some cases I may not be the right market anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Colour is colour, artificial or other wise. It is the visual presentation that matters, not origin. So it would unlikly be a subject for consumer testing surveys. You might as well ask for surveys to discover if people want peppermint creams to taste of peppermint- much of which today is artificial too. Same calorific food value as unflavoured mints -so from that point of view, unnecessary as well. --Aspro (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You say that it is the visual presentation that matters. However, I've just given two examples up above—an energy drink and a packaged yogurt smoothie—that when consumed in their expected and appropriate way, do not present themselves in a visual manner. So, if the visual presentation matters, but the consumer does not experience the food visually because of the packaging, then why is food coloring added? We're back to my original question. Viriditas (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The original question is built on confirmation bias. It may sound logical and 'reason-able' to you but it isn't. --Aspro (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have made up your mind that you're not going accept certain explanations. If you're after the truth, keep an open mind. The reason that food manufacturers add artificial coloring to their products is that they, for whatever reason, think that it helps them sell their products. There might have been privately commissioned studies, or it could be just a belief not backed up by anything—I don't know. Speaking as a consumer, I don't find the practice hard to understand at all. Way back when I was a kid, our teacher showed us an educational program about the production of ice pops. Towards the end, the host asked his tour guide why they added artificial coloring to the ice pops. The tour guide passed him an ice pop with artificial orange flavoring but no color, and asked, rhetorically, "Would you believe this is an 'orange' ice pop?" I think he made his point quite effectively. Even if the product containers are opaque, consumers may still see the product while consuming it, so presentation still matters. To me, if all flavors of a product have the same color, the lack of color difference would serve as a powerful reminder that whatever flavor the product has actually comes from artificial flavoring. --72.94.148.76 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one still confused by this hypothetical 'yoghurt smoothie'? I at first thought the OP was referring to a yoghurt drink, but the OP then said it was impossible to pour one. So I take it isn't drunken. Is it just some sort of fancy name for yoghurt intended to be eaten? But any yoghurt intended to be eaten is usually seen in the container once you open it and on the spoon. Not that I ever have problems pouring normal yogurt myself (sometimes with a spoon to help), well not counting it all coming out in one go so I end up with too much. So how the heck do you consume this yoghurt smoothie if you don't eat it or drink it? Do you snort it? P.S. I didn't mention earlier but although I don't live in the US, energy drinks are fairly popular here in NZ. They're generally yellow in colour (I think mostly from the Riboflavin). You know how I know that? Because I've drunken them including in glasses before and also split some drops sometimes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Coloring may be added to mask the natural color of the product. Without coloring some products might appear mostly clear or white, but with a slightly off tint. Food coloring is incredibly cheap relative to the other processes in food manufacturer so it doesn't take much to get someone to add dye to a product. In any case manufacturers of these products do it because they think it will help them sell more. That is the only reason they do anything. --Daniel 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nil, see the article on Go-Gurt. --72.94.148.76 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Presuming the OP is referring to something like that, I'm even more mystified. A product for children and they ask why it's coloured? Seriously? BTW if the OP is referring to some sort of yoghurt drink well I have no idea what sort of drinks you get there in the US but in Malaysia there are yoghurt drinks and they were often coloured but pouring them was very easy since they were drinks so not that viscous. And I did that all the time because the bottles I got were often ~450-500 ml ones which was more then I usually drunk in one go. If they are single serve, pouring them in to a cup may be less common but I still don't get what sort of product there is you can easily drink but not easily pour. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My theories: either it's because the drink is also sold in clear bottles, so they just make the mixture and pore the same mixtureinto both the opaque cans and the clear bottles. Or it's because the natural colour is actually disgusting, like a brown. Cliko (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

At my local watering hole, it's very common for younger chaps and lasses to order these drinks during the day in bright conditions and they are served in a glass, often with ice and perhaps an addition of good old russian vodka. Your initial assertion is based on a false premise old boy - and another good reason for the drinks being the colour(s) they are is quite simple - to differentiate them from other drinks. If you order a coca-cola based drink, a lemonade based drink and a energy drink based drink they will all look different making it easier to hand them round to your drinking partners. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember Crystal Pepsi? No? It's because it didn't take off. People have expectations that sodas and the like have ridiculous colors. The connection between appearance and perceived flavor has been demonstrated a million times over by tests. (Heck, you can do it yourself with Froot Loops, which, if you don't know any better, seem to have different flavors based on their coloration, but if you try them with your eyes closed, you quickly discover they all have the exact same vaguely fruity taste. It is a common science fair experiment.) The idea that they never see the colors is absurd. I know what color half of those drinks have; I can't be unusual. People drink them in a lot of different contexts. Food coloring is absurdly cheap. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

2010 DST iPhone Bug in the EU and Economic Costs?

In 2010 there was a bug in the Apple iPhone that caused the alarms to go off an hour later than they should have after the change of the clocks due to daylight saving time. Is there any estimate to the amount of productivity lost to the economy because of that? --CGPGrey (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr Michael BAden

I am doing a science paper and I can't find several answers that i need.I am in the 6th grade. 1. Michael Baden's childhood education.(I have his college education)

2. Who mentored him or encouraged him to follow his profession.

3. His mother/father & siblings.( I have his wife & children)

4. Has he had discoveries that actually led to organizations that still continue to work. Like a specific contribution to science.( Ialready have "Assasination Records Review Board)

5. I want to use his JFK and OJ simpson cases that he worked on. But as I read them, I can't tell how his testimony & discoveries set an example for others to come that would be so different than others.

I know these are tough questions, but if anyone could help with pointing me in the right direction for these answers, I would be very thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.86.213 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you have already looked at the Michael Baden article. Did you follow up any of the references used by that article? This Google search shows lots of hits, though I'm unsure how useful they may be - the couple I looked at were not much use for your questions. It is possible that such information is not readily available in published reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is some coverage of your question #2 in his book, Unnatural Death, and it may help with some of your other questions too. John M Baker (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Requests for financial help

I was intrigued by this help desk query and the similar requests for financial help that I have noticed recently here on Wikipedia. While John of Reading's response was appropriate and correct, I wonder why Danny (the OP in this case) ever imagined his request might be successful. I just can't help thinking these requests are all scams. Are these requests ever genuine and are there really people out there with $100,000 to spare that they would donate based on this type of request? Astronaut (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Crowdfunding (e.g. Kickstarter) will be useful here. 69.171.160.9 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Wachovia Bank-slave dealing?

Recently I heard that Wachovia Bank , in it's early years actually dealt in the slave trade making millions of dollars. Is this accurate? Or is my source mistaken? Can the history of Wachovia be traced as far back as pre civil war?173.79.212.93 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Wachovia says that Wachovia qua Wachovia didn't start up until 1879, so that's too late for the Civil War. However it has merged with a huge number of banks over the years, some of which are quite old. So any connections it has with slavery are because they've been merging with banks that have themselves been merged with other banks. Indeed, this apology by Wachovia seems to tell more or less that story (albeit with different institutions than the ones: it acquired two companies which had ties to the slave trade (no surprise, that, given how old they were and how large the slave trade was) over a century ago. Seems kind of a non-issue to me, to be frank, unless one is afraid of acknowledging the U.S.'s history of slavery. It doesn't not appear that Wachovia has ever made any direct profit from slavery. For centuries, Blacks were considered a form of property. That banks thus used them as collateral and ended up owning them is not surprising. Whatever shame there is in that is hardly limited to the banks. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For more information, see Jewphone and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshal Tolbukhin boulevard, Sofia

I'm looking for a street in Sofia that used to be called Marshal Tolbukhin in the 1970s. I can't find it on any modern maps so I wonder whether it has had its name changed following the end of Soviet influence. Ericoides (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

October 3

myth creatures

is there any creatures from urban legend or myth, like bigfoot, chupa cabra, that was proven to exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not yeti, maybe later. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The giant squid comes to mind. The cameleopard, once associated with other supposed chimeras (mythical beasts that are amalgamations of two or more actual animals), might be said to be another example. John M Baker (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See shetani and the many Zanzibaris who have been sodomised by Popo Bawa. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)