Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 May 4

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous desk
< May 3 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 5 >
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.


May 4

edit

Question on date

edit

It is not May 4 yet .

184.163.238.18 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is in Wikipedia time. Wikipedia, being a worldwide website, uses Coordinated Universal Time, (or UTC), which is an agreed upon standard for this express purpose. As of about 50 minutes ago, it is May 4th in UTC. --Jayron32 00:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary on this item is too good to just sit there in the history:
"May the 4th be with you."
Very inspired! :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, I prefer a fifth. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the Fourth, you have a fifth, and then turn to the Sith?—msh210℠ 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, Coordinated Universal Time is Greenwich Mean Time for most practical purposes, since God is clearly an Englishman ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If God were not Englsih, why did He write the King James Bible? Collect (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
King James was a Scot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All your date are belong to us. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is of course a reference to Star Wars Day. Buddy431 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a question? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question was implied. "Question on date - [why does it say May 4th just there when] it is not May 4th yet". I believe this was understood by a number of editors and a satisfactory answer was supplied and also expanded upon. Why do you ask? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us cannot, do not or will not see what others see. Whichever one of those applies to Cuddlyable, he failed to see a question, and now, having asked about the existence of the question, he gets another question for his troubles. I've been told people shouldn't answer questions with other questions. Is this a good thing?  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't one answer a question with another question? ...and who is this numberless male called Cuddlyable? ...and does Doc ever answer BB? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why not? And does Doc ever answer? All the time. Sure, as you did, just above. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not a question need a question mark, even in Australia¿ Of course, of course he does BB. All the nice Docs in their clean white coats (video) just want to take care of you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome video. From the episode, "Dr. Who Meets Napoleon XIV". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't taken me away yet, ha-ha, ho-ho, he-he, ha-ha. So who forgot a question mark? Not I, said the rabbit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

president stumping

edit

When a sitting U.S. president goes on a trip whose primary purpose is to stump for one or more candidates in upcoming elections, who pays for the trip (expense of flying, extra security for the trip, somewhere to stay, etc., etc.)?—msh210℠ 05:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe tax-payer dollars do cover that. It might be nice if they could pay for it on their own, but, if you need to fly on Air Force One and have a team of Secret Service agents protecting you at all times, it's difficult to pay for all that out of pocket. And, of course, the President is always "on duty" in that he's available as emergencies come up, even if campaigning at the time. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "it's difficult" is not much of an argument (after all, they can find other supporters). But thanks for the info. Any source, by any chance?—msh210℠ 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the sitting President were to make a trip solely to attend a fundraiser or other private party event, technically he (well, the party) would be on the hook for his own travel and accommodation costs. In practice, the President will always schedule an additional public appearance of some sort on the trip, so that it is part of his nominal official duties and therefore on the public tab. (This has always been the case, and the party not in power has always complained about it.)
Security costs are always borne by the the public, as the Secret Service is always responsible for the security of the President whether he's "on-duty" or not. (The Secret Service continues to provide security for former Presidents even after they leave office.) It would not be unreasonable to argue that whether or not the sitting President wanted to bring along Air Force One or other infrastructure, he would be required to do so; his job obliges him to be rapidly and readily available 24/7 for a variety of reasons.
For partisan political events, the party is generally responsible for the travel and accommodation costs of their campaign workers, who do the scouting of the location, the rental of the venue, and any advance setup: [1]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—msh210℠ 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - most viewed one-day article

edit

Did Osama bin Laden set the one-day record (4.8M) for most article views (excluding pages like the Main Page), or is there an article with more views in a day? To my knowledge, the prior record was Sarah Palin with 2.5M. Ral315 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a while before anything surpasses Sarah Palin. When John McCain announced her as his choice, millions of voices cried out as one, "Who the heck is Sarah Palin?!", and turned to Wikipedia for an answer. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of like the average reaction when Scott Pelley was announced as Katie Couric's replacement on the CBS evening news. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that, all too well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough I noticed Sarah Palin as a possible VP before she was selected and I'm not even an American. Nil Einne (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that kept you away, just in case, right? My favorite Palin moment came when she was in western Pennsylvania, talking up the Phillies for winning the World Series. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jackson's death hit 5.9M views in one day which I believe is still the record. Dragons flight (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relative cost of sex in different places?

edit

Not a joke question. I'm wondering if buying sex, for guys who are into that, would be a regular thing or an occasional luxury for someone on normal wages. Is it something an ordinary man could do every night in many countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.83.224 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Australia is either legal or decriminalised (I don't know all states). This website suggests that the minimum rate in Brisbane, QLD is $220/h in brothels (a fairly standard indicator of mid skill level employment in the industry). Fairwork.gov.au indicates the minimum weekly adult wage is $569.90 per week. However—employment is "hard" to get in Australia, many people are short-houred. Additionally many workers are employed on Award, above Award or Enterprise Bargaining Agreement rates vastly in excess of this. And, of course, brothel sex work is a mid tier method. Many sex workers work on the street, or by private advertisement. There are also specialist jobs that charge much more. If this is affordable (or desirable) for individual Australians is a matter of choice and economic compulsion. You may like to read Rae Frances' work on the history of prostitution in Australia. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once had a conversation about this, related to prostitution in Asia. The well-research (he said) answer was that a good rule of thumb was the cost of a taxi ride from the airport to whereever the most 5-star hotels might be found. Sorry, but I cannot confirm the information. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two farmers of limited education were bemoaning the lack of affordable sexual services. "Brothels are only for the rich, not people like us." "But I know of a brothel where they give sex for free and pay your bus fare home!" "Nah, that's unbelievable." "But I know it's true because the wife goes every evening." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of thumb is that a professional escort costs about the same per hour as a lawyer in the same locale. Exxolon (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you get screwed by both coincidentally. Googlemeister (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
They exchange services pro bono. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The old joke about the difference between soliciting a prostitute and prostituting a solicitor: There's no difference. They're both cunts for hire.  :( -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Man in Ancient Rome

edit

If a modern technically educated man, or woman, found themselves sent back in time to, say, ancient Rome without any resources except their own body and their memory, i.e. they cannot take back any books, tools or other artefacts, what technological advances could they reasonably hope to teach the ancient Romans?

Obviously modern devices such as television, mobile phones, etc., are quite out of the question, and it is probable that they could not even begin to explain these at a conceptual level. Examples I can think of are books and printing, explosives and (unfortunately) weapons such as guns based on explosives.

It would be interesting to know what others think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callerman (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the greatest contribution to the health and wellbeing of the human race was the provision of clean water (that is, the separation of fresh water from sewerage, by the organised provision of the latter), in combination with the germ theory of disease; the Romans had the germ (sic) of the idea (cf sanitation in ancient Rome) but don't seem to have been as strict about it as they could have, and to have greatly underestimated the risks to public health from uncollected rubbish and the vermin it attracts. Add to that Arabic numerals and the double-entry bookkeeping system. They're all really easy ideas for anyone to remember, teach, and demonstrate the utility of. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing that the Romans didn't have which would have jumped their civilisation forwards 1000 years is the numeral zero. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially the premise of L. Sprague de Camp's novel, Lest Darkness Fall. Our article describes some of the innovations introduced by the protagonist. The book is an excellent read, too. John M Baker (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few useful inventions you could have would be the wheelbarrow, the hourglass, maybe the bicycle (though without rubber for wheels, it would be a bumpy ride), and you could try and get the Romans to quit poisining themselves with lead. I might be able to fashion a primitive electrial generator if you could get some magnets, though that might be tricky. I could give them gunpowder (though I am not sure I would want to). Chances are though, you would get sick and die of some disease since you are not adapted to the microbes of that time and they had lovely plauges which you would be suceptible to. One good point is that there is no syphalis or HIV... Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion on ancient wheelbarrows here Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the pintle-and-gudgeon rudder, or the stirrup. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew how to make a glider, that should be something they could understand, as it's kind of like a horizontal sail; and it could change the course of history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you couldn't do it yourself, I'm sure that a Roman craftsman could produce optical lenses (spectacles, telescopes, microscopes) - see Roman glass. You could also recommend commercial development of the Aeolipile, although it's not the most efficient means of using steam power. Tevildo (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. The Romans already had spectacles. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Modern technical education is not strong on Vulgar Latin so our hero/heroine will arrive naked in the Forum and unable to explain to the locals. That's not an auspicious start but if by luck the time is morning on 15 March 44 BC, you might get some mileage out of chanting Sum Oracle - Cæsar - Ista quidem vis est!. with appropriate theatrics. In any case it would be wise to prepare by committing the List of Roman Emperors to memory before setting out. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is, of course, a valid point - turn up naked at your local market place and say "Er... me is of... err... twice a thousand years... er... by the tomorrow?" and you'll get locked up, rather than the opportunity to make money from technolgical advancement. See John Titor. Tevildo (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't take back books or tools, can you at least take this handy t-shirt? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. And since they won't know English, they'll think it's some kind of holy language that could become the basis of a new religion. Either that, or they'll "Julius Caesar" you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could follow the lead of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, and arrange to arrive when there's a solar eclipse about to happen, and pretend that it's you that's making it happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans (and Greeks and Babylonians etc) already knew how to predict eclipses. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about organising a sailing expedition across the Atlantic? HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about a world-changing event! Just be sure to pad the voyage-time estimates sufficiently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I mentioned the pintle-and-gudgeon rudder. It's no coincidence that Europeans started sailing around the world soon after that was invented. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A fancy hi-tech rudder is unnecessary on a Roman-era Galley that can be steered by whipping the starboard(port) slaves harder than the port(starboard) slaves. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The object is to cross the ocean before your food and fresh water runs out. While they certainly didn't care about the galley slave's lives, if they all died mid-voyage from thirst and starvation due to burning calories with hard work and getting no supplies, then the ship would stop and everyone else would die, too. They needed a more efficient sailing vessel to make the trip, rather than the ships they had, which were only suitable for short trips. They would also need to know how to navigate better, if they expected to find their way back home. Speaking of which, just drawing some world maps would be enormously helpful. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That and I suspect the design of Roman galleys was not one that could have handled mid-Atlantic waves (which can easily get 30+ feet tall).
This question (or variants) gets asked semi-regularly here, so you could get more suggestions by digging in the archives. To be honest, I think you'd have a really hard time getting the Romans to change in just about anything (even assuming you could communicate and not get killed off by some plague); the considered themselves above the need for such stuff. If I found myself in such a time, I'd probably try talking to the so-called barbarians to the north or to the Carthaginians or maybe the various groups in northern Turkey; as outsiders they might be more open to the advantages you could bring. What could Hannibal or Mithridates do with even crude cannons? But the concepts I'd try to pass on would include crop rotation (to increase food production), sanitation standards (especially during childbirth and for drinking water) to reduce mortality, and fostering ease of communication and education (to increase technical development). None of that requires really advanced stuff to get the ball rolling and within a few generations (at most) Rome wouldn't be an issue for you. Matt Deres (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you arrive before August, 79 AD, you could teach the Romans that, when a volcano overlooking your town starts to smoke and sputter, accompanied by earthquakes, you might want to take a quick vacation. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to tradition (possibly erroneous), no one knew Vesuvius was a volcano, and even more remarkable there was no word in Latin for "volcano" before the eruption occurred. So I'd imagine it would be rather hard to get them to understand the concept. (Though convincing people that the angry mountain god is going to kill them might also work.) Dragons flight (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They knew it was a volcano, it just wasn't very active at the time, and looked like a peaceful forest-covered mountain. But so what if they knew? People still live there now, and they certainly know it's a volcano. People live near volcanos and in earthquake zones and anywhere else they could be easily killed by nature, it doesn't matter. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoes create lots of lovely rich soil. Great places for farmers. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the rich, dark soil the charred remains of the previous farmers ? :-) StuRat (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
The Stromboli volcano off the coast of Sicily has erupted continuously for thousands of years and each year the Romans celebrated Vulcanalia when bonfires were created in honour of Vulcan the god of volcanoes. Live fish or small animals were thrown into the bonfire as a sacrifice, to be consumed in the place of humans. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could also tell them that lead is poisonous. Lead was used in drinking water pipes and to line cups. I think it was also added to wine. It shortened their lives by decades, and must have reduced their IQs also (maybe the removal of lead from petrol/gasoline is partly responsible for the rise in average IQs in recent years). Because lead contamination was universal they did not relise it was harmful. 92.28.243.102 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could tell them, but they wouldn't have much reason to believe you, and demonstrating lead toxicity in a way they understand would be very hard. Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, they would be brain damaged, so might not understand. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans were well aware that lead was toxic, at least by Augustus' time - see Vitruvius, De Architectura VIII.6.10-11.
One possible answer is that the same thing would happen as in Asimov's short story “The Red Queen's Race”. And that might be optimistic: it's more likely that this person would die before he or she could accomplish anything. – b_jonas 17:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Royal succession

edit

Can you please settle an argument?!

If Prince Charles dies while HM Queen ElizabethII is still on the throne, who is the heir. Most say Prince William, but some think Prince Andrew. Many thanks.88.109.23.173 (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's William. See Succession to the British throne and Line of succession to the British throne. If Charles and all his descendants die, then Andrew (fourth in line) becomes the first in line. However, once Will and Kate have their first child, that child moves to third in line, and Harry and Andrew and everyone else moves down a notch. And as Will and Kate have more kids, and eventually Harry and whoever have kids, everyone else gets bumped further down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind that the Queen has no say in the succession. The succession to the throne of the Commonwealth realms is determined by the Parliaments of these realms. She can't even abdicate without their joint agreement. The only way an heir can remove himself is to join the Roman Catholic Church, although I can see that going to court in Canada, where there is no established church.
In fact, if William and Kate's first child is a girl I would expect someone to take the Statute of Westminster to court, as the succession as is egregiously contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. --NellieBly (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would just hasten the inevitable. Alansplodge (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were talking about that at one point during the telecast last Friday. Princess Anne is at the bottom of the heap even though she's not the youngest sibling. However, the chances of her becoming queen would have been pretty remote either way. But if Will and Kate's firstborn is female, that might spur some action. Which raises another question: Is there a timing issue with changing that law? Would they have to do it before the next heir is born? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but I'm not sure. The other acts of parliament regulating this sort of thing were not so timed. On the talk of "hastening", it will be sixty years before William's child inherits, but certainly if their first child's a girl then the problem won't away (excepting a disaster of some sort). I imagine it might wait until William is king, i.e. "safely" king, considering we stands at the moment far more popular than Charles, and of course navigating constitutional reform through the 11(?) parliaments required would pave the way for the abolition, as it would show it is possible to get them all to agree. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything to stop them changing the laws on succession in a way that would change the current direct line of succession. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That would be best, but parliaments can change laws any way they see fit, which could include retrospectively applying any change in the law to the birth of their first child. If the first child is a girl, she'd be the heiress anyway, but maybe only temporarily, pending the birth of a brother. But if the law was later changed and retrospectively applied, it would mean she gets to remain heiress. If a brother was born in the meantime, he'd have bumped his sister off her perch, only to find himself bumped off and her bumped back on. And this time she'd be not just heiress presumptive, but heiress apparent. If the first-born is a boy, the change in the law would have no effect until at least the birth of Will and Kate's first granddaughter, and maybe not even then if she wasn't the first-born child. It could conceivably take hundreds of years before the first born child in direct line of succession is a girl. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical matter, once the next heir is born, they quickly beginning "grooming" him/her to be the next king/queen, right? So it would be good to have the issue settled before a child is born. As you say, it won't matter anyway if it's a son. But if it's a daughter, I would think Parliament would need to act quickly and not wait decades. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky, though. It's not just one parliament making one decision, it's 16 sovereign parliaments needing to unanimously make the same decision, to take effect from the same time. One realm disagrees, and it's no go for any of them. Otherwise the Statute of Westminster is breached. The general mood of the times is to no longer enshrine outmoded and sexist discrimination, so this change has a much better chance of succeeding now than it would have had even 40 years ago. But that doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they mentioned on the TV coverage that all 16 Commonwealth nations would have to agree on it. It's kind of like if the U.S. Congress had 16 houses instead of just 2. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively, yes. (Just don't confuse Commonwealth nations, of which there are 53-odd, with Commonwealth realms, of which there are only 16.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, someone already tried that. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that there is no fundamental human right to become monarch of the United Kingdom. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a Camcorder Manual

edit

I recently obtained a Panasonic AG-460 Camcorder. It is an old Camcorder and it didn't come with a Manual. I tried looking online but I couldn't find one. Anyone know where I can find a cheap or free manual for the Camera. 152.27.56.62 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your camera?. I found the manual for AG-456UP free on line, which is for a similar model. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks152.27.56.62 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011_May_4&oldid=1138630974"