Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 3

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.

January 3

Why aren't bones metal if calcium?

Stupid question, if bones are mainly composed of calcium, a metal, why aren't the bones metallic or display metallic properties? Calcium is a very reactive metal, why aren't the bones reactive? Hustle (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's already reacted, by the time it gets to your bones :-). --Trovatore (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bones are not made of metallic calcium. They are mostly made of Calcium Phosphate - a salt with very different properties to the metal on which it is based. Astronaut (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the unfortunate bits of chemical nomenclature is that, while a nonmetal and its ion take different names (c.f. bromine/bromide or oxygen/oxide) a metal and its ion generally take the same name. Thus, metallic calcium and the Ca⁺² ion have the same name, even though chemically, they are very different things. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that similarly Sodium chloride is very different from Sodium. Edison (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Metallic elemental calcium also reacts rather vigorously with water - it would not be a good thing to have in our (wet) bodies! SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many meltal salts in our body that we need in small amounts. For example iron oxide in our blood makes it red the same reason why rust is red. Also even our bones are 25% water so an even better reason not to have highly-reactive metals! ~AH1^(TCU) 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bodyguard allow to carry guns?

Are personal bodyguards (excluding government organizations such as the Secret Service) allowed to carry firearms whilst protecting their client in the United States? For example, is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's bodyguard allowed to carry a firearm? Acceptable (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the answer is 'yes' for Brangelina[1] and for others[2]. Why would you think not? It's America. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It likely varies from state-to-state based on concealed-carry laws, but certainly the same laws that apply to the average private citizen also apply to bodyguards, so yes. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that professional body-guards are required to be licensed. I'm sure that arrangements for arms, rest breaks, etc. are taken care of then. Phil_burnstein (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If they have a concealed-carry license (which is quite easy to get in the majority of states, see this), they can definitely carry the gun. However, open carry laws vary much more, so you might want to check [3]. As Phil said, a licensed bodyguard may sometimes have an easier time with the law. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we detect if there are light years sized monsters controlling our minds?

Supposedly our thoughts can control things on a quantum level. We are much bigger than anything on quantum level. Unimaginably bigger. Are we being controlled by a "universe" (or so we think) so big, that it's controlling us? The residents & physical makeup of His quantum level? It seems logically sound. We're certainly not the biggest thing in this universe. Is there a mathematically formulamatic way to prove my logical conclusion? --Dr. Carefree (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "control things on a quantum level." 41.244.157.53 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, what do you mean by "logical"? Isn't this like saying that because we have cars that are larger than we are and their emissions cause environmental problems, these hypothetical universe-sized creatures must also own vehicles that are even larger than the creatures, and their emissions must also be harmful? It's not a logical conclusion, you're just making it up. (But to pretend to answer the question: things may get weird when we go small enough, but that's not a question of relative size. There's no reason to assume that the same thing happens at all ranges of scale.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that our minds control things at the quantum level. This idea is a last-ditch effort on behalf of people who are uncomfortable at the idea that our minds are just mechanistic things - but there is absolutely zero evidence. Since your primary premise is now in tatters - we may safely ignore any problems it throws up. Asking whether larger 'things' are 'controlling' us depends on what you mean by 'things' and 'controlling'. If you mean 'intelligent beings' - then there is no evidence whatever for the existance of such things (and the failure of SETI to discover anything is making that look less and less likely). If you mean 'things' in general - then sure. The Planet Earth is a 'thing' that's larger than us - and it's gravity is very much in control (if that's what you mean by 'control')...ditto the sun, the moon (think 'tides'), etc. If you are thinking of some godlike being - then the standard scientific response applies: "Gods are by definition an unfalsifiable hypothesis - and Occam's razor tells us that they are not worth thinking about." SteveBaker (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the original question is non-sensical (is that a word?). However, what is the smallest thing our minds can control? Our muscles? As I sit here in my chair, I'm trying to examine everything that I can do...typing on this keyboard, moving a leg, blinking my eyes, etc - they all seem to involve our minds sending instructions to our muscles. Can the mind control anything else besides our muscles? I guess the mind can control itself to a degree. I can intentionally decide to think about Carrot Top if I wanted to. What can the mind control? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Indirectly you can control individual photons (given a really sparse source of photons and a mirror!) - but directly...hmmm...focussing the lenses in our eyes...modulating our vocal chords - those are amazingly subtle movements. But I can't really think of anything we directly and consciously control other than muscles and the brain itself so I guess we're down to "What is the smallest muscle that's under conscious control?"...and that's where I get to eye focussing and vocal chord adjustment. SteveBaker (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean something on a multi-dimensional level controlling us involving the fourth dimension and branes that we cannot perceive? Kind of like Planiverse? ~AH1^(TCU) 15:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Steve Baker's response- I don't necessarily mean a religious god. I just mean a creature that's "god-like". But so big that he's unaware of the impact he's having from his scale. Sort of like how we know something is down there almost unmathematically small. I'm talking so small that not even an electron microscope can bring it into focus. And since we cant see what's going on down there, we can't see the full impact we're having (or probably could even guess). On his scale, our quantum scale couldn't possibly register. Then think about the control on the quantum level he's residing on. From the perspective of his lightyears sized creatures!

Large mass pulls on smaller mass i.e. your Earth example.

I find scale oddly profound.--Dr. Carefree (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been a number of fantasy sci-fi stories like that. You might like Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker. Such an intelligence could not control us as its thoughts would be too slow considering the speed of light. It is fantasy. Dmcq (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's a "religious" "god" or not - the argument is exactly the same. Consider Russell's teapot (RefDesk waits while you read the article) - why would you believe in your 'huge-creature-that-controls-us-but-isn't-really-a-god' any more than that there is a teapot in orbit around Mars...or that a grand piano at this very moment being played by seven pink aardvarks in orange space suits on the far side of the moon? There are an infinite number of things we could choose to believe in - but without evidence (and you have none) - why pick this particular thing over the aardvarks? I've actually seen an aardvark, a grand piano and a space-suit and I've touched a piece of the moon - so I'm WAY ahead of you on evidence! Occam's razor says that if there is no evidence, we should choose to believe in the smallest number of the most probable things. We obviously can't say that your giant flying spaghetti monsters definitely don't exist - but right now - with the evidence we have - they are at least as improbable as my pink aardvarks - and I'm pretty sure you'd be happy to agree that the aardvarks "definitely" don't exist...at least definitely enough that you don't have to come to the Ref Desk and ask whether they do. There are quite simply too many things that just maybe at a gazillion to one chance might exist for us to rationally choose to believe in any one specific one of them. This is why religion is bullshit (except of course for the IPU mhhbb) - and also your giant controlling beings, but that's not because your beings are in any way religious - it's because there is no evidence for them. Without evidence - you're better off believing in the aardvarks. SteveBaker (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - "giant flying spaghetti monster" is probably a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster Exxolon (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the idea that "our thoughts can control things on a quantum level" a very minority view in science of conciousness circles ? I think its main proponent is Roger Penrose in his books The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops. Having re-read the relevant sections of Shadows of the Mind, I find I had misremembered Penrose's thesis. He specifically does not posit the existence of a non-material "mind" that controls quantum wave functions; instead, he proposes that quantum events introduce a significant but non-computable random element into the functioning of the brain. As SteveBaker says, this seems to be an attempt to reconcile materialism with the belief that there is something "more" to conciousness than a very large number of neurons and a lot of complex biochemistry. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, since perception only exists within the mind, if something is controlling our minds, (no matter what size It is) It determines if it is perceivable. I still have two questions: Why do most people assume that It is a He, and why do people believe that Occam's razor is a Truth. Occam's razor is not a fact, it is an unproveable assumption easily disproved by the diverse nature of reality. See Hickam's dictum for one example. Phil_burnstein (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Occam's razor is indeed only a guideline - but it's a very strong one that you ignore only at your own peril. It is the most logical thing in a sea of illogical propositions. It works in these kinds of cases for the extremely solid reason that there are an infinite number of things one could potentially believe in without there being any evidence either for or against. The vast majority of those things (Pink Aardvarks playing piano on the far side of the moon for example) are likely to be untrue. Since only a small number of things that a vivid imagination could come up with (and for which there is no evidence) are true and an infinite number are untrue - the probability of any specific fact-without-evidence being true is essentially zero. So what rational reason could there be to believe in ANY proposition for which there is no evidence? Why pick this particular thing to believe in rather than the infinite number of other things?

Hickam's dictum isn't really a contradiction IN THIS CASE because for Hickam to apply there has to be evidence. SteveBaker (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Lincoln

I have recently purchased a 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car. I have the original owners manual only. It refers to Ford Motor Company of Canada, LTD. Mail replies in the manual go to Mississauga, Ontario, Etc.

One would think that the car was surely manufactured in Detroit.

My question is does anyone know about the emision control systems and such? For Canada, I mean.

And, if the car, has been transported to the U.S. what are the smog requirments here.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.198.113 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In most states, a car over 25 years old is considered an 'antique' and is exempt from emissions control laws. The laws vary from state to state - and I only know about Texas - but I imagine things are not all that different elsewhere. When I take my '63 Mini or my '71 VW bug to a Texas state vehicle inspection place they check that the headlamps work - that the brakes work and that the gas cap fits tightly - and that's all! Headlamp beam alignment is also checked in cars that originally had beam alignment - but my Mini doesn't - so that's not tested. Here in Texas, my car doesn't need seatbelts (because it didn't have them when it was built) - and wouldn't need windshield wipers if they were not fitted at the factory (which they were). I vaguely recall that in California, 25 year old (and older) cars have to meet the emissions standards that were in force when the car was manufactured...but I'm not 100% sure about that. At any rate - I recommend a trip to your local state inspection garage, they'll be able to tell you precisely what they'll test on a car of that age. If you don't intend to drive the car very much - you might want to consider getting it insured with a specialist antique car insurer - I pay just $65 for insurance on my Mini, but it's only covered for driving to and from car shows, club meetings and for 'test driving' after the car has been worked on. The important thing about antique car insurance is that in the event of it getting wrecked they'll pay out for repairs and NOT claim that it has to be scrapped because it's worth too little. When you apply for the insurance, you tell them how much the car is worth and they set your rates accordingly. They don't use the depreciated 'blue book' value (which will be approximately $0 for a 30 year old car!). SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of car manufacturing plants in southern Ontario. There is a giant Ford plant in Oakville, which is beside Mississauga. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I have looked, I see that the Oakville Assembly made Crown Victorias during that period, and the Continentals were made in Michigan. But still, if it was sold in Canada, Ford Canada's headquarters are in Oakville, but maybe they were in Mississauga at the time.

Car maker

I saw a car recently, and the logo/emblem thing was 3 or 4 shields in a diagonal line. What car maker is this? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Google image search can be your friend! Buick has three shields in a diagonal row. (See image here) SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was already typing all the car companies I could think of into Google Image Search, didn't think of Buick. 67.169.118.40 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an art to searching. I typed in "car company logo" and clicked 'Next' until I saw one that worked - it was about four pages in IIRC. SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Um...isn't that picture fair use? So isn't it illegal to post it on Wikipedia namespace? ~AH1^(TCU) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "illegal", it's just against Wikipedia's internal recommendations on how to use "fair use" images. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! Crazy huh? Wait til Buick find out!!91.111.84.244 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Had to remove the image - fair use doesn't apply here. Exxolon (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Websites to determine auto fix reasonableness

I was wondering if there are any targeted free websites anyone knows of that can help you with figuring out whether you're being gouged or not by mechanics. Anyone who has ever owned a car and knows fuck all about engines, also knows that you're basically at the complete mercy of mechanics. I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode where they discussed this, something like: "your johnson rod is out of snyc with the timing fulcrum package" "oh, my johnson rod, well you better fix that." I think it would be too much to go into detail abut exactly what they are doing to my car for a hell of a lot of greenbacks. I just wondered if anyone knew of any forums or websites where those who had a clue helped those of us who don't. And yes, I searched Google first and nada.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A web site will be of limited use because you won't have all the info they need to diagnose the problem. Only a mechanic (or a "car guy") can get that info by pulling apart the car components which are causing the problem and inspecting them. I do have several suggestions, though:

1) Get free estimates from several mechanics (verify that it's free FIRST). If most say it's the same thing, go with the lowest price to fix that thing. If everyone says it's something different, that's your indication that they don't have a clue and will bleed you dry without fixing it. Obviously this option only works if the car is drivable, although, for major repairs like replacing the engine or transmission, it might even be worth towing it from one repair shop to another to get a better price. Make sure you get a written estimate before any work is started, which clearly lists exactly what they will do and what they will charge. If they won't give you this, go elsewhere. An oral estimate is useless. You can also bargain over the price estimate. Ask if they can use rebuilt parts instead of new. If you only need the car for a short period, ask about short term fixes rather than full repairs. For example, getting 4 new tires could cost you over $1000 or under $100, depending on if you want new, top of the line tires, or used tires that still have a bit of tread left on them.

I don't recommend buying partially worn tyres or remoulds - you have no way of knowing the provenance of them and a failure can be catastrophic - just buy the cheapest new steel radials if you're on a budget. Same applies to 2nd hand safety critical parts (brakes, suspension etc) - but it is totally valid for things like panels, trim and non-critical components. Exxolon (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If the choice comes down to keeping tires which have no tread left or replacing them with used tires which still have a good tread, and you have no money for anything more, such a replacement will definitely improve the safety of the vehicle. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone seriously can't afford the $70-$160 for a pair of standard tyres then they probably can't afford to own a car at all. Remoulds and part-worns are DANGEROUS - remember your tyres are in many ways the most critical component - they are the thing that adheres your car to the road. Exxolon (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2) When you do deal with mechanics, make them think you're one of them. Learn some basic terms about the item they are working on. Wear dirty old clothes with grease stains on them. Don't shave for a couple days before you go in. Make sure you have dirt under your fingernails. Swear like a sailor. I've assumed you're male here. If not, you will almost certainly be ripped off unless you can get a man who looks like that to take the car in for you.

3) Get car repair insurance. That makes them responsible for keeping the costs low, not you. However, at times they can keep the cost too low, such that the parts and work are sub-par.

4) Avoid car dealerships. One look at the absurd sticker prices on cars will let you know they are out to rip you off. Of course, for dealer only items, you have no choice.

5) Insist, in advance, that they return all parts they replace. Make sure you have plastic bags lining the trunk so those filthy parts don't ruin the carpet. Even if you know nothing about the parts they return, it will make them think twice about replacing a perfectly good part, as you will then have proof that the old one was good (unless they happen to have a bad one from another car they can give you).

6) Inspect any new parts. Do they look new ? If not, they probably charged you for something they didn't do.

7) After the repairs, check the car out immediately, with the mechanic present, to verify if the problem is solved or not.

8) Always keep a spare set of keys in case you decide to "liberate" the car from their lot. This won't get you out of any legal liability, and they may try to steal your car back if they can find it, so I'd only do this as a last resort. If you go in for a brake job, then they say they had to replace the engine and you owe them $2000, that's when I'd use this option.

9) If the car is old, you might consider replacing it, as maintenance costs can make the old car actually cost more. Leases are a good way to be rid of the car before if falls apart. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying to find an "owner's club" for whatever kind of car you have (there seem to be owners clubs for just about every car imaginable these days) - generally you'll be able to find someone who lives in the same city as you who'll be able to recommend a mechanic who'se familiar with your car. You may also get a diagnosis from a description of your symptoms - and there is a good chance someone will know roughly what it should cost to fix. SteveBaker (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion is to call in to the radio show Car Talk, where they specialize in diagnosing problems, for free, for non-experts. Of course, their advice may be "take you car down to the nearest junkyard and leave it there". StuRat (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SteveBaker with the car club idea. Many of them have web sites and a message board or forum that you can join and ask questions. I have a couple Jeeps and am a member of a couple Jeep forums. The advice is good and recommendations for brands of parts are good too. The local site I'm a member of has a few guys who have their own shops and can do the work. They generally have better rates than other shops. I have never heard of "repair insurance" and I don't know your chances of getting on Car Talk. Dismas|^(talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the odds of getting on Car Talk are slim at best. One resource they do provide in their web site is their "mechanics file" which lets you search reviews of mechanics that were created by their fans by region and car type. It should at least help you find a mechanic who is at least reasonably trustworthy. Check it out here. SteveBaker (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some really good suggestion here. I really like the ones about asking for them to return all the parts to you so you can see what they did (and that they did anything at all [though this wouldn't work if it's the engine!]). Makes a hell of a lot of sense. The car club idea is really intriguing. I'll definitely look into that. Anyway, just to tell you, they want $3,600 to do a complete "timing belt package" tune up, oil lube filter, replace a few lights and replace a (the?) cam (whatever that means). The real problem is one of timing. A lot of your early suggestions sound great on paper, but how can I find the time to take the car to various places and get various estimates when I work full time. It may sound like I'm being lazy, but it's really beyond difficult to take so much time. I can't believe you actually suggested calling Click and Clack. Come on, Get that tongue out-a your cheek.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds ludicrously high. For comparison the cost of replacing the timing belt (cam belt) on my car was around £250 (Vauxhall Vectra) - what are you driving? Exxolon (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What he (she?) drives is a good question. On some vehicles, changing a timing belt or chain can be quite a lengthy process. Dismas|^(talk) 10:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also - if the timing belt is getting towards the end of it's life - it's VITALLY important you change it. Quite a few types of engine will literally destroy themselves if the timing belt breaks. When the garage quotes you a bunch of 'tune-up' stuff along with the job you actually want done - ask them for a breakdown of costs so that you can pick and choose which you want them to do. For example, it might make a lot of sense to have something like a timing belt replaced by the dealership - but it makes ZERO sense to have them do the oil filter change for you. In most cars, replacing lights is something you can do yourself in 10 minutes with no tool more complicated than a screwdriver. If you think you don't have the time to do these things then you need to consider you priorities. If you earn (let's say) $20 an hour - then taking a day of unpaid vacation to get all of this done is well-worth it if you can cut $200 off your car repair bill. If you earn $50 an hour - then maybe it's not worth it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur - I've seen it happen - the engine literally tore itself to pieces and the car was a write off. Exxolon (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the ease of changing lights on cars. I have no problem changing light bulbs at home, but in cars it's quite another matter. First, you may need to avoid touching the bulb, as the oils from your hand may shorten it's life. Next, you may need to slide your hand and the bulb your not touching through an obstacle course of sharp metal objects. Finally, you need to be able to remove and replace clips that hold the bulb in place. These clips require maybe a hundred pounds of force to remove, but only have a surface area of maybe 1/10th of a square inch, requiring maybe 1000 psi to be exerted on them. Also note that the access hole is only big enough for an oriental child's hand. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A cam shaft is part of the engine, but not normally one that needs replacing, unless the car is very old or has been abused (or the cam shaft was defective initially). What do they claim is wrong with it ? StuRat (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are other cam's in most engines - our OP may not mean the cam-shaft. Although a camshaft replacement is a major deal - and $3600 would be a reasonable estimate. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In rural areas the quotes to get "large" jobs done on cars are much cheaper, and my friends and I get much more honesty too. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Colours of products

Does anyone know why products for oily hair or skin tend to be coloured green? In the UK it seems that way, anyway! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.59.196 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that way on google. Looking at Green and those ghits, it seems linked into a brand, eco-friendly messages (Green party, is it "green"?), astringent properties by association with lemons and limes, cleanness, freshness, and new growth. All designed to have you subliminally reaching for their products. Do they work? is another question. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable suggestions, but my impression is that it precedes the eco-consciousness and even the lemon-and-lime. "Vosene" is a dark green shampoo that's been around for decades and the connotation seems to be "medicinal". Also I wonder whether pine-freshness has anything to do with it? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It could even go back to "eat your greens" implying good health outcomes. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why dont they place state birds on plumbing equipment?

Why don't they print pictures of state birds on pipe fittings, faucets, u shaped drain pipes, and other sink and toilet related fixtures? If you purchased a drainpipe and it started leaking only a week after you bought it (like what happened to me), it could be easily traced back to the state it was manufactured.

If you've ever had to go thru 6mos.+ of bureaucratic hell to get a $40 part replaced, you would understand why I made such a think outside the box suggestion.--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely the name of the manufacturing company would be much more useful? It would make it easier to go and kick butt. Astronaut (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Far more effective, maybe a serial number as well. If for some reason the state is relevant (I don't know a lot about American plumbing bureaucracy), then a two- or three-letter abbreviation would be cheaper, easier to identify, and less ambiguous; don't forget that some birds are shared by several states, such as the Western Meadowlark (6 states), the Mockingbird (5), the American Robin (3) ... ---Sluzzelin talk 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You spent 6 months trying to get a $40 part replaced? I suggest you look at the concept of diminishing returns - that is not an efficient use of your time. For instance I had a car written off by an uninsured driver. I looked at the value of the car and estimated how much time, money and effort it would cost me to pursue him through the courts for the value of the car and quickly worked out it was not worth the trouble. Exxolon (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention he had a leaking sink for six months! APL (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is any government involvement needed for your home plumbing? I just snaked out my kitchen sink drain yesterday and I didn't need to tell anyone. Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed he spent the time trying to figure out who he needed to sue to get his $40 part replaced or refunded. But now I notice his question doesn't mention home plumbing. Perhaps he replaced the pipe in some government facility that won't allow him to simply buy a replacement for a defective part because of some ridiculous cost-saving measures. APL (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at some UPVC plumbing parts I bought here in Texas - the name of the company is pretty clearly embossed on the elbow joints and such - and I was able to find their web site in about 30 seconds flat. I don't see the problem here. Certainly using the state bird would be the most bizarre solution I could imagine? Is that a European Swallow or an African one? Also, it assumes that plumbing parts are actually made in the US - which is decreasingly likely. Generally, if the part is within warranty (do these things even HAVE a warranty?) - you should go back to the store your bought it from or the plumber who installed it for recompense. It's then up to them to go to the manufacturer - or to suck it up and accept the cost themselves. But it seems to me that a $40 part is not just a simple plumbing part. $40 for a drainpipe?!? I can't think of any single part that costs that much...maybe a fancy Moen faucet or something. $40 could perhaps have included installation - in which case the plumber who installed it would be your first port of call. SteveBaker (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't priced faucets lately, have you Steve? The cheapest Moen (using your example) faucet, according to Home Depot's web site, is $50. And they only have the one model at that price. Even smaller company brands usually start out at least in the $20s. And installation? You must do all your own work. Not a bad thing at all but having a relative who is a plumber, I can tell you that they aren't cheap. $40 might get him to your door. I still don't see what the state of manufacture has to do with anything though. If the origin of the part is needed for some sort of paperwork in a government facility, then it seems that the issue isn't with the parts maker but with the government red tape. It's not the manufacturers fault if someone else is asking the questions. Dismas|^(talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why use state birds only ? Why not state fish ? If looking into a toilet bowl from Louisiana, wouldn't it be appropriate to see a crappie in there ? StuRat (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If your defective fixture had a picture of a Northern Cardinal, how helpful would that be? -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)