Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 April 2

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.

April 2

Guanabenz

Are there any studies on useing Guanabenz in horses ? I would like to know what the life of the drug is and can you give a second dose if the drug wears off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussycutter (talk • contribs) 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This might be helpful:

"Guanabenz was administered at 0.2 and 0.04 mg/kg by rapid IV injection to two horses. Initial concentrations of parent guanabenz were approximately 120 ng/ml for the high dose and 50 ng/ml for the low dose. Serum concentrations of guanabenz dropped rapidly, with an extremely rapid distribution half-life (approximately 2.5 minutes), followed by a much slower elimination half-life...Consistent with these interpretations, the apparent Vd_ss was 5.72 L/kg after administration at 0.04 mg/kg and 3.76 L/kg after 0.2 mg/kg. The relatively low serum concentrations of guanabenz found 1 hour after administration are representative of the difficulties racing chemists have in detecting guanabenz in postrace blood or serum samples after its administration at clinically effective doses."

Whether this drug is safe or efficacious in horses, in a first or subsequent dose, is a question that should be addressed to a vet. Rockpocket 17:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rigid sleep cycle

Every weekday I get up at a set time. I usually wake up 1 to 2 minutes before my alarm, which shows that I have a very accurate internal clock. On the weekends I want to sleep in; I want to get more sleep than I do on weekdays. But I'd even settle for the same amount of sleep. Inevitably, I get less. I stay up late on the weekends and I'm not willing to change that. The problem is that I wake up at exactly the same time as I do on weekdays. Well, if I stay up very late, I might wake up a half hour to 45 minutes later than usual but that's about the limit, no matter what time I get to bed. To give you an example, If I go to bed at 3:30 a.m. on a Saturday, I wake up at 7:30 a.m. because I normally wake up on weekdays at 7:00 a.m. That 4 hours of sleep hurts. My clock is so rigid. Anyone have any suggestions? 70.19.64.161 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me that you want to disrupt your internal clock - perhaps you could do this by either varying the times you go to bed and set your alarm during the week, or by getting some thick curtains for the weekend, in case the light level is a factor in the time you wake. Alternatively, you could live with the shorter nighttime sleep at the weekends and take a siesta. Warofdreams talk 12:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A very appropriate name for a person commenting on this question. Unfortunately I do not nap. I just lie there awake, so siestas are out. I have a nice dark bedroom so nothing to change on that score. As for varying my weekday wakeup times, you think setting my alarm for 6:30 some days, 7:00 on others and 7:15 on others in a random pattern would make my overarching internal clock become less rigid, such that it would allow me to sleep later on the weekends? I am really loath the set my alarm earlier. I set it as late as I can to make it to work on time. I would be willing to do it if I had some evidence (a link to a study or article or example) which showed that this is effective. Thanks for the reply. 70.19.64.161 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a very similar sleep cycle to you, and sadly, all I can do is live with it. I haven't found an answer that works. I can either have a regular sleep cycle with the disadvantages you describe, or completely irregular sleep and exhaustion while waking. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's any consolation to you, studies have shown that changing wake-up times between work days and week-ends is a leading cause of insomnia and other sleep problems. The fact that you automatically wake up at the same time on week-ends even if you don't need to is a sign of health, not of disfunction. Continually adjusting sleep patterns is what tends to create serious problems. Now, I am not a doctor, this is not medical advice, etc. --Xuxl (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above, from personal experience. An aim is to try to sleep the same hours every night. Many factors override that aim, but it is a worthwhile goal, to try to always return to. It can probably be adjusted over the long term, but it is probably not a good thing when it varies a lot over the short term. Again -- just my personal thoughts on the matter. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a baby. This simple piece of advice will make you crave every last second of available sleep time, while interrupting your rigid clock nice and randomly.

Oh, And they're cute. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They are also expensive, and there is something like a 9 month waiting list. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you can get them at a discount at Costco, and the waiting list is negotiable, but I do take your point. --Dweller (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But placing your order is more fun than you might expect! SteveBaker (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When I was in my teens and twenties, and even into my early thirties, I had a similarly rigid wake-up time. It didn't matter how late I went to bed, although, like you, I might wake up 30 minutes later if I had a very late night. There was nothing I could do about it. My solution was to accept it and to give up on staying up late, because, for me, it was more important to be rested and able to enjoy the entire weekend than to stay up late one night and then suffer the rest of the weekend (and/or Monday). Ironically, now that I am somewhat older and not much interested in nightlife, I have gained the ability to sleep later. Marco polo (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the replies from everyone. Despite that no solution was offered, I knew there might not be one. The fact that a bunch of smart people couldn't offer a solution is an answer all on its own. 70.19.64.161 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, go back to sleep on the weekend and enjoy the sleeping in. If you need to sleep more and you lie in bed with your eyes closed in a dark, quiet room, and you can rid your mind of worry over the fact that you are awake and not asleep, you are likely to nod off eventually. "I just lie there awake" is sometimes followed by "and then when the alarm went off I woke up feeling exhausted." One may have periods of sleep without being aware of them. Edison (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Serial Killers

Presently, what is the percentage of the human population are serial killers? What percentage are caught/exposed? What percentage are still out there, undiscovered? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, we can't know how many people are 'undiscovered' examples of anything, because they're undiscovered. The short answer is that virtually no-one is a serial killer; in any random population sample, it's overwhelmingly likely that 0% will be serial killers. If any significant proportion of the population were serial killers, the murder rate would be much higher than it is, with more killings attributable to this cause. As it is, most murder victims are the victims of one-off attacks by people close to them. The signficance of the serial killer phenomenon is greatly exaggerated in the media, and has gradually been becoming so since the time of the Jack the Ripper killings. Modern detective drama, both in print and on the screen, strongly reinforce this perceptual bias. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• We could guestimate the amount of undiscovered serial killers, since although they are undiscovered, their victims are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you had some compelling reason for attributing a set of murders to a single perpetrator, I'm not sure how you could use the murder rate to estimate the number of undiscovered serial killers. Bear in mind that even apparently reliable evidence of connection between crimes can be spurious. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's impossible to guestimate the number of serial killers based solely on the number of unsolved murders on the books, since not every unsolved murder is a serial killing. But the "active serial killer" estimates floating around the internet do seem to be based in more serious research. Trends tend to emerge when there's a serial killer at work; consistency in method of killing, choice of victims, disposal of bodies, etc. all raise some red flags for law enforcement, although it may take a while for the flags to go up if the killer moves around a lot. Sure, there's speculation involved, but my guess is that it's a lot easier to accurately attribute a murder to a serial killer than it is to then accurately profile that killer, hence the tendency of serial killers to remain at large long enough to, well, earn their "serial." There's also a tendency to downplay all but the most major serial killing investigations, since they tend to freak people out and make the police look bad if they go on unsolved. So we, the public, only really hear about the front-page arrests and the Phantom of Heilbronn-style muck-ups. There are plenty of ongoing investigations of serial killers who are "known" to law enforcement, but not to the rest of us. Some of them are, doubtless, false alarms, but some of them, doubtless, are not. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would guess about 1 in every 3 million people in the world population is a serial killer, given it's very rare nature and how many killings we can ascribe to them. 173.52.36.16 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On Killing has some statistics in it about how many people are estimated to be "natural born killers"—not the same thing as a serial killer, but someone who lacks certain apparently normal reactions to killing other people. (I don't have it on hand, otherwise I'd look them up myself) It's not a very big percentage. Take some small percentage of that who are actually serial killers. --140.247.248.90 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to the know odds of me knowing/meeting someone that was a serial killer but didn't know it. --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Very, very slim. The odds would be greater if you're exceptionally gregarious, sell weapons for a living, or are Ann Rule. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I found an estimate. According to this link, which cites an FBI study but doesn't link to it, there are 20 to 50 serial killers active at any given time (presumably in the United States). The population of the US is 306 million, so that's around 1 in 8,750,000, or .000011% of the population. In other words, if you introduced yourself to every single person in the state of New Jersey, odds would be good that you would meet one serial killer. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In New Jersey, I would expect you would meet more than one! Rmhermen (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds similar to the number of anvils and pianos killing people by falling on their heads, or even the number of Killer Robots From Outer Space currently active. Yet on U.S tv and in novels, people are constantly being slain by serial killers. Edison (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the majority or homicide victims are killed by their friends, family, and loved ones, but that's rather depressing to think about. Serial killers spice things up a bit, and allow people to use fun words like "evil" instead of just meditating bleakly on human nature. Some more statistics: only 16% of American serial killers since 1800 have been female, so yours odds of meeting one are better if you mostly fraternize with men. White men would be your best bet, especially in the 25-34 age range. And serial killings are much more common in industrialized nations and are becoming more so, so if you're worried about this, now might be the time to make that move to Madagascar. Note that deaths by anvil and piano may be higher in developing nations. --Fullobeans (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are seeking to meet a serial killer, Madagascar would seem to be one place to go. Sadly, the 2009 Malagasy political crisis has so far led to over 130 deaths. In one incident alone:

In the latest clashes heavily armed security forces opened fire on anti-government demonstrators marching on the presidential palace on Saturday 7 February. "Around 50 people were killed and around 1,000 have been wounded," Claude Rakotondranja, National President of the Malagasy Red Cross, told IRIN. -- UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

It seems reasonable to believe that some (many?) of those thousand subsequently died, and that some (few?) of the soldiers doing the shooting killed more than one each. However, we do not normally consider such troops (or, indeed, executioners) to be serial killers, because they are not normally legally culpable of homicide. They did it because they were paid to, because society finds it necessary for someone to perform those functions. Nonetheless, those people go to sleep each night knowing that they have been the proximate cause of another person's death. If you really want to meet some serial killers, shake the hand of the politicians who order troops to fire indiscriminately into crowds of demonstrators. Take Islam Karimov, president of Uzbekistan, and his role in the Andijan massacre five years ago. Or those who ordered the post-election massacre in 2001 in Zanzibar (see the Human Rights Watch report). And then, not politicians but leaders: e.g. the "donkeys leading lions" of World War I -- commanding officers who endlessly ordered men to go "over the top" and walk into German machine gun fire. Finally -- although I understand face-to-face interviews are tricky to arrange -- have a chat with Osama bin Ladin. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you certain about the white part? While it wouldn't surprise me if it were true, the fact that there are more white serial killers in the US doesn't mean that you're more likely to meet a serial killer by fraternising with white people since it depends on their relative percentage Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the page cited doesn't say a disproportionate majority, merely "a majority"; it's insignificant that a majority of group W belongs to the majority ethnic group. —Tamfang (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The page cited doesn't say "friends, family, and loved ones"; it says "members of the same family ... friends, neighbors, and acquaintances" (my emphasis) versus "strangers". Members of rival gangs, for example, are likely to know each other by name. —Tamfang (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dual licensing of GFDL and CC-BY-NC-ND?

Currently we are facing a dispute of copyright licensing of a very popular Chinese website Baidu Baike(owned by Search Engine Baidu, and it's more or less similar to Wikipedia). It claims to release content under "GFDL and CC-BY-NC-ND 2.5". Obviously these two licensing systems are not compatible with each other. Furthermore, any edit made to existing article is a copyvio against No derivatives. Should Wikipedia accept content from Baidu Baike, take it as that all the content is released under the GFDL? --Ben.MQ (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be at the helpdesk, but yes. For dual licencing, policy is we only require one licence to be free, or it certainly is on commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Gambling Winnings taxable in the UK

I live in the UK (London, to be precise). Say I took my life savings, put them on Red on Roulette and won. Assuming my life savings are above the income tax threshold of about 5K do I have to pay tax on the winnings, or are they mine to keep as I haven't got them through 'work'. I know gifts are taxable to stop blatent tax dodges, but how about gambling?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.155.146 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice, which this is arguably a request for. However, I believe that winnings are taxable, but I'm not sure if income tax is the right tax. You might consider asking HM Revenue and Customs. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In the US you have to pay a tax on gambling winnings. If it is over a certain amount, they get you the forms right there in the casino. Otherwise you have to declare it on your end of year tax documents. I suspect something similar would apply in the UK. Governments hate to miss out on an opportunity for a tax.65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

London isn't all that precise. ;) —Tamfang (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If it helps I can state for the record I have no intention of acting out the scenario I describe above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.155.146 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, you would only have to pay tax on any interest accrued from your winnings. Since the tax was removed from horse racing, there are no taxes that I am aware of on gambling in the UK - only licensee's are taxed (currently at 15%). All gambling, betting and lotteries are VAT exempt too. Nanonic (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, gambling winnings are generally not taxable[1] (unlike in the USA[2]). I can't find a specific statement on the HMRC website except that premium bond winnings are not taxable[3]. The general principle in the UK is that even professional gambling winnings aren't taxable, but running a gambling business (e.g. a bookmaker) is[4]. Allowing gambling winnings to be taxable in the USA means that gambling losses are tax deductable[5]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(after EC)Not all jurisdictions tax gambling and lottery winnings - for example, they are tax-free in Canada. I've dug around on the HM Revenue and Customs web site and I can't find a definitive statement that gambling winnings are free from all forms of tax, although this document notes they are exempt from capital gains:

"Winnings from betting (including pool betting or lotteries or games with prizes) are not chargeable gains, and rights to winnings obtained by participating in any pool betting or lottery or game with prizes are not chargeable assets. For example, a gain or loss realised on the purchase of a share in the winnings of a ticket which has drawn a horse in a sweepstake is outside the scope of the tax."

This page lists forms of taxable and non-taxable income in the UK. Gambling and lottery winnings are not listed; it suggests contacting your local tax office if you have income that isn't listed and want to know how to declare it.

As to governments missing an opportunity to tax, they do tax those who operate lotteries, casinos, and other forms of betting. So while they may not tax the money people win at gambling, they certainly tax the money people lose - which is a much greater amount! - Eron^Talk 16:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that when gambling in the UK (at least on things like horse-racing) you could choose to pay tax on your stake - and have tax-free winnings or pay no tax on the stake and pay the tax on all of the winnings - if you win. That may be horribly out of date though. SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the old way SteveBaker, but yeah that did previously exist. The history of gambling in the Uk is quite interesting. I watched a tv show some time ago on BBC Four (great channel) and they were discussing old rules about betting-shops. They weren't allowed to make them places to 'be' so they were banned from having padded-chairs, or from providing refreshments/toilets for customers things like that - basically the idea was that they could exist ut that people shouldn't be enticed to spend their afternoons in them. These days the rules have relaxed a lot - as any visit to BetFred would attest (my local city centre one has arm chairs, countless tvs, food and drinks (though not alcohol I don't believe). ny156uk (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I recall those old-style betting shops. Very spartan indeed. It's a shame about the choice on how to pay tax on horseracing - it was kinda like the government was taking the bet with you! SteveBaker (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, gambling winnings are not taxable as income because a gambling win is a windfall gain - it is not income that can be tied back to some activity undertaken to produce income - i.e. it's a fruit without a tree.

Gambling winnings are taxable only when there's a special tax on them --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I fairly often win in poker tournaments at my local casino, and despite the winnings being fairly decent in size, I have never been taxed on them... Certainly the lottery doesn't get taxed as I know a friend of a friend who won a 7 figure sum... So it's unlikely that these two individual companies (camelot and my local casino) have some abilty to pay out cash without paying tax, so I would imagine it's the same for all gambling... Gazhiley (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not very convincing, it's entirely possible for the government to expect you to keep track of your winnings yourself, and pay taxes on them annually. (Note: I have no idea at all how the UK does things, only that Gazhiley's apparent line of logic would probably get him into trouble if he lived in USA.) APL (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers everyone, lots of good stuff here. It would appear they are not (now all I need to do is become a poker great, and the world will be my tax-free oyster!) but I'm tempted to contact my tax office to check anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.155.146 (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't become a poker great in my neck of the woods as I'm trying to do that! Mind you, feel free while you are "learning to play" to play at my locals as I like newbies - always a good source of income! hehe Gazhiley (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I have now contact HMRC and they have confirmed gambling winnings aren't taxable in the UK, so gamble away everyone! 217.206.155.146 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Photographing without a lens

It should be theoretically entirely possible to take a picture with a DSLR without a lens in place. But what will the picture look like? From my intuition, I think it will be kind-of a realistic photograph, but so hopelessly out of focus and unsharp it will be difficult to recognise anything in it. Is this assumption correct? JIP | Talk 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - every pixel in the image would be the average of the colors of all of the objects in front of the camera - so your picture would be all one exact same color. But that's with an "infinite" aperture. If there is even a reasonably large hole in front of the image plane - then some kind of focussing can happen. In the limit, a pinhole camera can theoretically produce infinitely sharp images without a lens. SteveBaker (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Having tried this with my camera (hoping it might help me identify where the 'muck' was on my lens) I can confirm that my photo just came out pure grey - though if i pointed it at a light it was lighter (amazingly enough) - no focus, no shading - it is kinda how I imagine being very blind is. ny156uk (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a 35mm rectangle of blank paper and hold it up—what you see on the paper will be roughly what the picture would look like. In other words, usually a featureless white rectangle. But if a shadow falls across part of the paper, for example, the same shadow would show up in the picture taken by the DSLR, and if you held the paper/camera in the beam of a slide projector then you would get some approximation to the image on the slide. -- BenRG (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

LaGuardia Airport

I'm going on vacation to New York City, and a friend told me that the best view I'll get of the city might be on the plane coming in. We're landing at LaGuardia, and the wind is supposed to be from the east. We'll be coming in from the north, north-west direction. I would like to know which side of the plane I should sit on to get the view. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends whether you want to view the terrain to the west-southwest (WSW) of LaGuardia Airport or the terrain to the east-northeast (ENE) of LaGuardia airport. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how the plane flies over Manhattan, which is most likely the view you want to see. If you arrive at night, it'll look pretty no matter which side you're on. ~EdGl ★ 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see Manhattan, which is west-southwest, I believe. So with the wind from the east, would that be on the left or right? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What does the wind have to do with anything? How does wind direction figure into the equation? Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way the wind is blowing will probably determine which runway they'll use, and in which direction. Pilots seem to prefer to land into the wind. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, OK. I don't know about that. Bus stop (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Beats me, but if you should miss it, you can also get nice views from a lot of spots in Brooklyn and New Jersey. The best thing to do would be to befriend people who live in tall buildings with roof access, but if that's too much effort, you could just walk across some bridges, wander around Hoboken, or take a Circle Line cruise (never been, but people seem to like them). On a clear day, the view from the Whitestone Bridge or Triborough Bridge can be stunning. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When I fly into LaGuardia from Chicago, the usual flight path is eastward to the southern tip of Manhattan, then northeastward up the East River to the Westchester County area, then a U-turn to cross Long Island Sound and land from the northeast. (So sitting on the left side of the plane provides the good views of Manhattan.) I don't know what the flight path from the northwest is, but if you just barrel in across Westchester and the Sound, the right side of the plane should give you the better view. Deor (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The flight path that Deor describes would be consistent with a wind out of the west or southwest. It is not surprising that this is his/her usual flight path, since the prevailing wind in New York is from the west or southwest. However, if you are flying tomorrow, there is a good chance that the wind will be out of the east or southeast. In this case, the best seat to see Manhattan will be on the right side of the plane. As you fly east-southeast toward Runway 13, it's obvious (if you look at a map) that Manhattan will be to your right. Your most likely approach will be southward over the Hudson River to the Bronx, at which point your plane will bank to the left, offering your right-window seat a view of Midtown Manhattan from the north. As you descend over Harlem and then over the East River, you will have a view of Midtown Manhattan from the Northeast in the last minute or two before you land. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a little more research on this, and it seems as though the most likely approach to LGA with an easterly wind would actually be that you would fly over Westchester County and across the Bronx and the East River. If you are flying tomorrow, the clouds will probably be low, and you probably won't be able to see anything yet, but if you are below the clouds, you will see the skyline of Manhattan in the distance to your right. You will then fly across Queens toward JFK Airport at an altitude of maybe 4000 feet. At that point, you will bank to the right and fly toward New York Harbor, gradually descending to around 2000 feet. Over the harbor, from which you should have a stunning view of Lower Manhattan if the ceiling is above 2,000 feet, you will bank to the right again and fly up the Hudson the entire length of Manhattan, which will be to the right of the plane. Again, you have to hope that the ceiling is above 2,000 feet in order to see anything. Finally, once you reach the George Washington Bridge, you would bank to the right again and descend rapidly toward the LGA runway, with the view of Manhattan from the north that I've described above, again from the right side of the plane. If the cloud ceiling is low, it is only during that final ascent that you will have any view. The weather forecast for tomorrow suggests a low ceiling. Marco polo (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry - the view that you'll get going into Manhattan from the upper level of the Quensboro Bridge (100 years old 2 days ago) will do quite nicely. B00P (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This might be a common enough question that the airline could just tell you outright. --Sean 13:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich

In the BBC link here [6] about Rod Blagojevich and his corruption charges, it states that "Illinois senators voted 59-0 to remove him from power in January." I know for a fact that Illinois only has two senators, as that is all each state has. Where did all the other 57 votes come from? Thanks, The Reader who Writes (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(2 ecs)I haven't read the story, or heard of it, but it might refer to Illinois' state senate. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's talking about the state senate. The US government does not have the power to impeach anyone in state government. 49 out of 50 US states have a bicameral legislature like the Congress, with a House and a Senate. --Anonymous, 00:12 UTC, April 3, 2009.

For the curious, Nebraska is the exception with a unicameral legislature; see Nebraska Legislature. – 74  02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that little kernel of knowledge. StuRat (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In many states, the lower house is called the Assembly rather than the House of Representatives. --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying, in parts of the U.S., some assembly is required? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And in all fifty States (I think), including Nebraska, one of the houses has members called Senators. —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)