Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 November 28

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

November 28

Time of Use Power Meters

Time-of-use meters supplied by Energy Australia charge for power at 3 different rates: Peak,Off Peak and Shoulder. Which is all very well until you come to Daylight Saving when we all have our clocks and lives adjusted to one hour later. THE METERS STILL READ STANDARD TIME INSTEAD OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME. If I turn my dishwasher on at 10pm when Off Peak is supposed to start why does'nt the meter think it is 9pm and charge me Shoulder rate?Milwhee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

The same with my electricity meter in the UK. At a guess, could it be because of the costs involved in sending someone round to your house twice a year to change the time on the meter, and doing that at exactly the correct switchover time? Astronaut (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Radio teleswitch article my help. --Aspro (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

unknown building in Thailand

In Thailand near Krabi I saw a nice great building. I'm interested in what this is for a building. Can somebody talk me more about? Can I find photos of this at web? You find this building at 8,025 N 98,768 E.--79.210.217.19 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Could it be this building, the nearest photo I found in Google Maps. Astronaut (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Job benefits

What jobs are there that offer full housing, clothing, and food or at least a subset of these? I'm thinking about whether it's the employer or the employee that has to worry about these things, not whether or not the cost is technically deduced from the paycheck. --85.76.87.120 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know where you are but in the UK managing a pub meets these criteria: also maybe running a children's or old people's home. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Many posts in the Armed Forces / military will come with accommodation, food and clothing - well, i'm not sure about 'slacks' but certainly the clothing required for your job. ny156uk (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As well as the chance of travel to far flung and 'interesting' locations, and a good chance to meet the locals. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Or working in some of the travel industry - e.g. on a Cruise ship or as a Holiday rep. ny156uk (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do people working in cruise ships normally work all year round? If not, if they really want to are they able to stay on the cruise ship or other accomodation provided by their employer when off duty for longer stretches? Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Typically not, however sailors from some countries (the Phillipines and China come to mind) do tend to have long contracts. Also, while cruise ship operators may provide some work-related clothing, i.e. uniforms for officers, whites for kitchen staff, it certainly wouldn't qualify as a general-purpose wardrobe. Cheers. Haus^Talk 18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You could become a monk. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Or a Priest, probably most religious orders provide the basics, though the pay is likely to be pretty poor! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Or a convicted criminal (at least in the United States). The basics might not be that appealing, but being in prison does meet the criteria stated. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., farmers — especially those who run small, independent operations — often hire farmhands and pay them with room and board. It's hard work, very labor-intensive and usually requires being available seven days a week, often 12 hours or more a day. (But you can be certain the farmer will be working even more than that!) — Michael J 00:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Being a member of a commune. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia censorship

To whom it may concern: I'm inquiring about the censorship policies of Wikipedia? While recently doing a project on Nazis and the Occult, I ran into some roadblocks in my research, as you have no pages focusing on the actual "The Vril Society", "Maria Orsic", or the other members who disappeared in 1945. I read somewhere that there had once been a page dedicated to "Maria Orsic", but was taken down.This raised questions to me about the censorship policies of Wikipedia. I am aware that Wikipedia is a privately-owned corporation and is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, but it is also an encyclopedia website and therefore should not be censored at all. I'm concerned about biases within the larger facet of the website and would like to know your stance on censoring content that may be controversial, but does not conflict with your "copyright, etc." policies?

Thank you, A. Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.96.79 (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To answer your specific situation, we do have some substantial coverage of the Vril Society at Vril, specifically Vril#Vril_society. I can't find any sign that we've ever had a page on Maria Orsic - this would appear to be as there's been no particular coverage of her outside the context of the Vril Society.

Wikipedia's lack of article coverage of this seems to me to be far more related to the fact that these topics have gained very little mainstream or scientific coverage in reliable sources, and hence a general-interest encyclopedia struggles to produce verifiable, neutral articles on them. You may be interested in reading Wikipedia's "not censored" policy - simply being controversial is no impediment to an article (see, for example, Depictions of Muhammad)). But certain controversies that are more akin to bizarre conspiracy theories are often simply too disregarded by mainstream media to produce a reasonably sourced article in an encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^talk 13:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

From some searching, the OP must be referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Orsitsch which was deleted due to the lack of evidence the person even existed along with a lack of any notability of the legend? that they did. You can see it here [1] and it's clear to me from that deletion was justified. To emphasise Mazca's point, we have plenty of article on bizarre conspiracy theories or controversies considered nonsense by the vast majority of mainstream sources provided that there is sufficient coverage in these sources, e.g. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, Climate change denial, vaccine controversy, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Paul is dead and we even have a List of conspiracy theories. Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cross posting. This has already been answered at the help desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dutch Tulip Island

According to this article the Dutch planned to build an island in the shape of a tulip. However, I can't find any information about this project since 2007. Can anyone else? --188.220.46.47 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My reading of that article and similar articles of the time is somewhat different from yours, it sounded a highly speculative idea (I don't think it could even be called a proposal). That was also in 2007 before the world economic meltdown really started to be noticed. In any case this ref from mid 2008 [2] suggests something similar to mine, the idea was more of one to get exposure and people talking then a serious proposal although there are (or rather were at the time) some more serious proposals being considered along with ongoing projects, just not in the shape of tulips. It also includes some names which may help in searching for more info on them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mosaic Law + Christians

What's the term used to refer to Mosaic law and its antiquated, non-binding nature for Christians? There's a Wikipedia article on it, but I can't remember the word and it doesn't show up in google searches. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm way outside my area of competence here, but are you thinking of New Covenant Theology? --Antiquary (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Biblical law in Christianity is the article you're thinking of? Deor (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah -- it was a word that is used to mean "the no-longer-bindingness of the Mosaic Law." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a complicated question. I am not sure there is an exact term for it, but the relationship between Christians and laws listed in the Old Testament is complex. On the one hand, Jesus states

“ 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." ”

in Matthew 5:17 (NIV). This makes it clear that Jesus expects his followers to obey the laws that came before him. However, later in Matthew:

“ 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” ”

in Matthew 22-34-40. Many Christians look at these two passages, and consider that Jesus is holding Christians to a higher standard that the Old Testament. That is, rather than looking to the Old Testament for a complete list of all possible laws one might break, which is impossible since the Old Testament does not contain an example of every situation a person might find himself, instead Christians should hold himself to the standard of a) Loving God and b) loving others; and should act in accordance with that love. If one acts in that manner, one will already obey the Mosaic law, but will also act in a manner which is pleasing to God in situations not covered in Mosaic Law. --Jayron32 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I've seen the article on it, but I can't remember what the word was and I can't seem to find it through google. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I've done a bit of googling on this and I must say, if there is a word for this, nobody seems too keen on mentioning it :). I'm sure you've run into the same thing, but my Google searches bring up several very well-structured web pages about the concept that cite various authorities, discuss historical aspects, and yet never provide a specific term for it. Sorry! Do you recall if the article you read was here on WP or was it somewhere else on the internet - or in a magazine? Matt Deres (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Antinomianism? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a winner -- thanks, WikiDao! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, antinomianism is ordinarily leveled as a criticism, whereas the view that the Jewish Law per se (or at least the "ritual" portions of it) do not apply to Christians is pretty much part of the Christian mainstream. Are you sure you're not looking for dispensationalism? --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Supersessionism? 66.30.118.93 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Eating a hamburger

I have, for quite some time now, followed two different styles of eating a hamburger.

• If it's served in a fast food restaurant, like McDonald's or Hesburger, I wrap the hamburger in a thin layer of paper, grasp it with my hands, and eat it directly with my mouth.
• If it's served in a more "classy" restaurant - basically any restaurant that is more "classic" than a fast food restaurant - I eat it like it was a steak, i.e. cut slices of it with a knife, skewer them with a fork, and eat them from that.

Is this how it's supposed to be done? Are there any established guidelines about this? Are there any differences in regards of nationality or type of cuisine? JIP | Talk 21:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Manners says that when food is made to be eaten by hand, it is not rude to eat it with your hands (she adds that it is rude to put your guests in the dilemma by serving, for example, fried chicken at a dinner party). At a somewhat more 'classy' restaurant, I've seen at least once etiquette teacher say that you should first cut the burger in half, then lift one half with your hand to eat it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that, even in the classiest restaurants, a hamburger is still considered a sandwich, and is thus intended to be eaten like one, that is with the hands, sans utensils. Of course, you are free to eat it any way that makes you comfortable. The hamburger sandwich is of course a sandwich version of the hamburger steak, which was originally eaten with a fork and knife. But its OK to eat sandwiches like sandwiches, even in really nice restaurants. --Jayron32 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All this sounds very American, like in an old Pizza Hut advert over here "They're eating the pizza slices with their hands, well, they're Americans". Even in England, classy = knife and fork, while in France, well they do dunk their breakfast bread and butter in their coffee, but only at home. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true - although to an extent I also find that getting a hamburger in a "classy" restaurant is actually fairly unlikely in England. In my personal experience, most any restaurant that serves you a hamburger formatted in such a way that you can eat it with your hands with dignity probably won't mind you doing so. ~ mazca ^talk 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've eaten hamburgers at non-fast food joints (at classy restaurants, not diners), and I along with other customers eat with our hands. No weird looks are exchanged, just as long as you're not sloppy and you don't get food all over yourself. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mazca. In England, if a hamburger is on the menu, the restaurant isn't classy. (Unless it's the Fat Duck and the hamburger is made out of irradiated clover or some such.) Having said that, there are some places that serve overpriced hamburgers. Only been in such places once or twice, the buns were so full of assorted stuff (chorizo, aubergine fritters...), that you would not have been able to eat them with your hands, and indeed people were tucking in with knife, fork and undue reverence. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I've been to very nice restaurants that serve hamburgers, one even went so far as to explain which steak the meat was minced from, and ask how I would like cooked - my first rare burger. Having said that, the vast majority of classy restaurants don't serve burgers, or if they do, they serve it as an "open burger" or "deconstructed burgers", which you can eat with a knife and fork as there is no possibly way to balance it all without looking uncouth.--Worm 11:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sit-down restaurants in the US will often bring a burger with the top bun set to the side, which suggests the choice of either eating it by hand or cutting it like a normal steak. Some of those buns-and-meats are rather larger than your typical McDonalds fare, and eating it by hand can be a tad awkward. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've always assumed that the top-bun-next-to-burger arrangement was provided so that one could easily add condiments without needing to disassemble the burger on arrival. (Though it certainly does make the deconstructed burger option easier as well.) It also has the added effect of making the portion appear larger – which may or may not be desirable – by covering a larger area of the plate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC w/TOAT) YMMV, of course, but I don't that's any indication of how it might be eaten, it's just a way of keeping the tomatoes and lettuce, etc. from getting wilted on the hot burger. At least if they're doing it correctly. Matt Deres (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed that hamburger intended for knife and fork was steak tartar. Aaronite (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, because steak tartare [sic] is uncooked. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Steak haché. Steak haché. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One wonders if one is supposed to eat a $175 hamburger with a knife and fork. Gold knife and fork, perhaps? Corvus cornix_talk 19:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As an American, I declare myself an expert on the subject matter and decree:

1. A hamburger should never be eaten with silverware, even at the fanciest restaurant. Exceptions are made for quasi-hamburger creations with so much stuff in them that eating with hands is impractical.
2. A hamburger is by no means exclusively low cuisine just because bastardized versions of the food are served at fast-food places. Any restaurant may serve a hamburger without reducing its level of class, and indeed, every steakhouse should have a hamburger on the menu. (It's quite common in North America to see upscale restaurants serving hamburgers for $15 or more, some of them going over the top with stuff like wagyu beef.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a $50 burger in Vegas once. Still with the hands, mind you. And not very good, either. Aaronite (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Come visit me sometime, and I'll take you to a place where you can order a very good $9 hot dog. In general, their generous relish toppings make a fork necessary. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

More on gourmet hamburgers: [3]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Mwalcoff: I'm intrigued by your comment "every steakhouse". Are steak houses generally regarded as fancy restaurants in the US? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some but not all steakhouses are fancy. Steak and Shake is decidedly unfancy. Googlemeister (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'd call Steak and Shake a steakhouse- they sell burgers, but not steaks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)