Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 14

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.

July 14

Hawaii state routes - Why are the numbers so big?

I was just in Hawaii and I noticed that some of the state routes have numbers over 7000. It seems impossible that Hawaii maintains that many state roads. Four digit numbers are a lot harder to remember than two or three digit numbers, so why does Hawaii use such large state route numbers? 71.227.1.59 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You may find the answer in the lead of List of Hawaii state highways which also notes that locals don't generally refer to them by number anyway. Nanonic (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A more complete explanation is at the website hawaiihighways.com. — Michael J 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

78 rpm records

what year were the last commercial 78rpm records made?. Is there a a last particular song? does anyone make gramophone needles that do not have to be changed every song? how long do they last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I know they were made as recently as the 1950s. There used to be harder needles that were multiple-play. The old one-use needles were relatively soft and would conform to the grooves of the particular record. In fact, they supposedly could be used more than once if you were playing the same record over again a couple of times, but it wasn't recommended to push them very far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This article - Gramophone record - says that there were 78's issued as late as the 1970s, for some children's records, but does not specify titles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The one-play needles were for players that used acoustic reproduction. They became obsolete when electronic pickups appeared, by the 30s. By the 50s there were long-lived sapphire and diamond styli. The pickup would have a stylus for 78s on one side and a stylus for 33/45 on the other, and would be flopped as needed. PhGustaf (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention that point. The replaceable needles were used with Victrolas and Grafonolas and the like. Meanwhile, here's an interesting little writeup. It's possible that the last major-label issue of a 78 was a Chuck Berry release in 1960. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Grafonolas didn't last long. The oats and raisins made a real mess of the records. PhGustaf (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I crunched right into that one. Victrola was invented by Victor to play their records. The Grafonola was invented by Columbia to play their records. Of course, they were interchangeable - they could play each others' records. Anyway, Victor became part of RCA which formed NBC radio and later NBC-TV. Columbia became CBS radio and later CBS-TV. Edison Records, despite a promising start, did not go the distance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's another article that talks about other 78's, not mentioning the Chuck Berry one, but notice that it's also 1960.[2] That sounds like a good bet for when 78 ceased to be considered commercially viable, although it seems that 78's were produced to some extent well beyond 1960. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For a given company, it would be possible to determine the last 78 titles they carried in their catalog. In the 1950's recordings were released on both 78 and 33 or 45. In the late 1950's record stores stopped ordering 78's since their customers preferred the newer formats. Whole stocks of new 78's were sold out at five cents per record. at some stores. The later 78's were likely to be on vinyl and of pretty low surface noise and pretty high fidelity compared to 78 records of earlier decades. I recall reading about a rock group, probably in the 1970's who had a record released on 78 as a bonus to go with an LP album. The ols master cutting and pressing equipkent was still setting around unused in a corner of a factory. In India, the Beatles were released on 78 rpm in 1965, and new 78 records were released through 1974 [3]. Edison (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the site Bugs cited,[4], a Moby Grape LP in 1968 included a song recorded at 78 on the otherwise 33 LP 78. I still believe there was a LP release accompanied by a 78 record probably a few years after that. Fonotone, a small but respected label, issued 78s in the US through 1969. [5] See Joe Bussard about the owner of Fonotone. [6] says that R. Crumb (of underground comic fame) issued a 78 called "Wiscinsin Wiggle " circa 1975. [7] says it was recorded in 1972, but not when it was released. Edison (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I used to own a 78 single of Downtown by Petula Clark. Since that song was first released in 1964, 78's were certainly still being produced in the UK at least as late as 1964. My first (portable) record player was bought new in about 1972, and featured the dual flip-over 33 and 78 styli mentioned above. 87.194.161.147 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of folks still had 78s even though they weren't really being made anymore, and many phonographs had the two-sided stylus you're talking about. One problem with 45s, being acetate, is that they scratched easily. 78s were probably superior technology - but bulky to carry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As a collector of 78s I can offer up some belated advice. If you have an old victrola player from ca. 1900 to 1930 you should change your needles very often. These players have heavy tonearms that use steel (or sometimes bamboo or cactus) needles. These needles should ideally be changed after every record side. In reality this depends on the quality of your needles and records. I wouldn't play a rare or valuable 78 with a used needle, but you could get away with playing a used needle on a common record for one or two more plays if you don't care about its value and don't plan on playing it dozens of times. Hold a used needle up to the light and spin it in your fingers: the more the light flickers off the tip, the more worn-out the needle is. These needles are very cheap, you can buy them from ebay for around 5 dollars per 100. Victor also produced what they called a "Tungs-tone" needle which lasted around 50 plays, but good luck finding those today. If you are using a modern turntable you should use a modern stylus that is adapted for 78rpm recordings. The grooves of 78s are shaped differently than 33s and using the wrong stylus will ruin your records. These styli should last a long time just as styli do for 33 RPM records.

As Edison remarked above, the 78 RPM format was popular well into the 50s and dwindled into obscurity during the 60s. The turnover happened at different times in different countries, with India and Argentina being some of the later to change. I think it'll be impossible to determine the very last song/record released in this format, as you have to weigh different songs on different labels being put out in different countries, of which the last markets were poor, unindustrialised societies (many communities in India used hand cranked players long after they went out of fashion in the West because they didn't take electricity). ThemFromSpace 07:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lodgers in Britain

I remember reading in several novels about a group of retired people( who have no relatives),of which one or two of them are ex-servicemen, lodging together in some place like Blackpool( sea resort), the lodge is generally run by a widow/spinster. All of them stay, probably till they die, by paying their way out of pension.It is not exactly a old age home too. My question is do such establishements still exist in England today?Or did it go out of fashion since the 40's a& 50's? sumal (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are talking about bedsits. They certainly still exist, although my anecdotal evidence would suggest it is usually young people living in them rather than pensioners these days. --Tango (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

With the widowed landlady, it sounds more like a boarding house. Kind of like a small cheap hotel where the rules and behaviour are arranged more for the owner's convenience than the residents'. These both offered short-term accommodation for holiday visitors, and sometimes also had permanent residents as you describe.

I doubt there are many or any traditional boarding houses around any more. That is, the building and the business may still be running, but not like a 1950s boarding house. They will have turned into a small hotel or guesthouse, much nicer to stay at and less likely to have permanent residents, basically because standards of service and facilities have improved since then and nobody would want to stay in an old-fashioned boarding house. The beginning of Bill Bryson's "Notes from a Small Island" covers this quite well, describing his initial stay in the early 70s in a guesthouse verging on boarding house, followed by his return in the late 90s to find the area full of pleasant little hotels with the old-style ferocious landladies nowhere to be seen. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In Australia there are still many of these left. They are called "boarding houses" although sometimes they are named "xyz Lodge". Often they are buildings not suitable for conversion to boutique hotels...too small and too old, often larger suburban family houses with more rooms obtained by subdividing the living room and enclosing verandahs etc.

Younger people (unemployed etc) often live in these, in "flatettes", which is a room with a cooking corner, shared bathrooms and "self-contained" (ie they are responsible for the cleaning). They may be around $120 a week, about half the unemployment benefit. Pensioners are more likely to be in simple rooms, with meals, basic cleaning, linen and laundry services provided.

They are NOT the "genteel poverty" type of places featured in UK books and movies...they are generally desperate poverty places, de facto nursing homes, taking all but $20 or $30 of the weekly pension for their "services", which are usually more neglect than service. There appears to be no regulation of this "industry" but every now and then a small scandal erupts over one. They survive because of a lack of hostel style State-provided accommodation for older people who are not sick enough to be in nursing homes, but not well enough to live totally independently.- KoolerStill (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd perspective in a photo

Front of building

Back of building

Looking back at some pictures I took and uploaded, I'm curious how I got the results pictured to the right. Both photos are of the same rectangular building, taken from two different angles: if the box below represents the building, the pictures are taken where the X's are marked.

  ____ X (back)
 |    |
 |    |
 |    |
 |____|
       X (front)

How is it that the building looks rather flat in the front picture but normal in the back? I've tried to remember how I took this picture, but I can't quite imagine how I did it, and although I photograph lots of buildings, I've never taken another picture like it of any building. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a photography expert, but it looks to me like you were either using a different lens or that you were using the same lens (something with just a slight fisheye effect, as cameras often have) and that you might have been standing closer to the building on one side than on the other, tilting the camera upward to catch the roof, and thus "stretching" it more on that side. Both photos are "stretched", just the one side more than the other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the relative sizes of the windows tells me that you were definitely closer to the subject on the one, hence the stretching is more exaggerated. And now this is coming back to me. 50 MM focal length gives a "natural" perspective. That's what a typical single-lens-reflex camera will have. A typical aim-and-shoot will have a "wide angle" lens, such as 35 MM focal length, which allows more stuff in the picture but also causes the "stretching", which is why you can't take several pictures from such a camera and create a fake panorama. If you have a 50 MM lens, you can. I think that's what's going on in these photos - a wide angle lens from two different distances. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the building is rectangular? Assuming the description of the photos are correct, the building is trapezium shaped (see Google Maps). And according to the EXIF data they're taken at the same focal length, ruling out any perspective change. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, since it's in North America, it's trapezoid-shaped. --Anonymous, 08:01 UTC, July 16, 2009.

I can't do Google maps on my antique PC, but I would point out that the second photo appears to be taken from significantly closer to the building. So if the camera is using a standard, somewhat wide-angle lens, then it would be more distorted when you're closer to it. In the first photo, he was able to get the building within a landscape framing. In the second one, being closer, he had to turn the camera sideways in a portrait framing (note the pixel counts are flipped from the first picture) to get the entire building in the shot. That exaggerated the stretching effect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I can do Google maps on work PC, which I just did, and you're right, the building is more like this (as best I can do using this method) although I would say my general explanation still applies:

  ____ X (back)
 |    |
 |    |
 |    |
 |    |
 |    |
 |   /
 |  /      X (front)
 | / 
 |/

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. The "stretching" you referred to is actually called foreshortening. With ideal lenses perspective has nothing to do with focal length; fisheye lenses are anything but common; creation of panorama does not depend on the lens focal length; and lastly there is nothing peculiar about the perspective in the second photo, it's the first photo with the building looking far flatter than possible if it were rectangular that is strange. That effect is the opposite of fisheye, and there aren't anything other than digital manipulation that I can think of, that would creat that kind of distortion. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, I can take a series of photos with a 50 MM and splice them together and make a decent fake panoramic. That won't work with an aim-and-shoot, due to the stretching that I referred to. It would be really nice if the original poster would get back here and comment some more, unless he's just pulling our lariat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. You know, if I'd looked at the building in Google Maps first, I wouldn't have brought this up: it's so much simpler when I see that it's not rectangular! Sorry for not returning sooner; I've been taking and uploading pictures today, since the weather was great for photography. I can confirm that I took the pictures at the same settings with the same camera, etc.; other than the angle, the only difference between the photos was about one minute in time that it took me to go from one angle to the other. As well, my only image editing software is Windows Paint, and I'm not skilled enough to do anything significant with that :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the physical distance from the building? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're still in the vicinity of that building, it would be interesting to take some photos from the exact distance away, on each side of the building, and do it in both portrait and landscape, and see the effects. Now that you're aware of what can happen, you could take several photos, each angle up a little more. If you feel like experimenting. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NO. See this, he's using a fish eye (probably 8mm or something) on a APS-C sensor DSLR, far wider than any 35mm lens. If by "stretching" you really mean distortion then I shall inform you that unless it's a really crappy camera (you can probably do panos even with a Holga) there will not be anywhere near that much distortion to change the way the photo looks. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that the typical wider-angle aim-and-shoot camera distorts the image, or "stretches" it as I call it, such that if you take several individual shots and try to construct a panorama from them, it won't work - the edges won't match up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of trying to get pictures from the same distance. However, I haven't a clue when (or if) I'll ever be back to the site; if I ever return, it will be months or years from now. As for the distance: I believe that they were taken from a similar distance, judging by the size of the windows. My goal was simply to get as much of the building as possible in each picture, so I basically aimed the camera at the building and walked backwards until I could get most or all of it in one shot. My camera is a Canon Powershot A540, quite similar to this one. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

An aim-and-shoot, with a wide-angle lens. I think that explains it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain what? There's nothing to be explained here, the camera captured exactly how it is in real life, that the building is not rectangular, it's just the OP/photographer remembered it wrong. And you do not create panoramas by stitching up photos by the edges, modern panorama making software are far more sophisticated than that. It's a limit of projecting a sphere (the scene) onto a plane (the sensor/panorama), which breaks down at around 150 degrees with the rectilinear projection, requiring the use of more exotic ones like cylindrical projection, equirectangular projection and the "little planet" sterographic projection. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I used Google SketchUp's "Match Photo" feature to import the two photos and trace a rough 3D layout of the building and the camera positions. From that layout, I made the following calculations.

The photos seem to be taken with the same zoom or lens.

• The first photo is 56 degrees wide by 44 degrees tall.
• The second photo is 42 degrees wide by 54 degrees tall.

The distances from the camera to the building in each photo are similar.

• The first photo is at a distance 1.15 times the width of the building*.
• The second photo is at a distance 1.05 times the width of the building*.

(*the width of the wall that is visible in both photos)

--Bavi H (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty cool, never knew SketchUp can do that. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had no idea about it either, until I happened to see this page of video tutorials. The last two videos show how to use the Match Photo feature. Note that Match Photo helped to create the building, but I had to use the Ruby console to help draw lines from the camera points. But once you have the lines you want, you can right click on any line to get an info window with its distance. Also once you've matched the photo, you can click on the Zoom tool and read the vertical field of view from the status bar, but you'll have to use trigonometry to calculate the horizontal field of view. --Bavi H (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you look carefully at the original photo, you can actually tell that the building is not rectangular. Up near the roofline there is a cornice with a row bracket-shaped things either holding it up or serving as decorations along the bottom of it. The upper rim of each bracket forms a rectangular shape, which is not distorted by anything except normal perspective. Now look at the place where the two walls meet. --Anonymous, 08:06 UTC, July 16, 2009.

Here's another way: The air-conditioner units in the windows are rectangular boxes but look different than the corner of the building. --Bavi H (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's simply no way that there's such a bad distortion to render a rectangular building looking like that on a consumer camera. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Boycott

The Gap Inc. employee handbook[8] (page 8) states that:

"By law, Gap Inc. employees and agents may not support or cooperate with an unsanctioned boycott of another country that is "friendly" to the United States. The Company must report to the U.S. government any information or any request to support a boycott. . . If you learn of a boycott of another country that is "friendly" to the United States, call our Legal department."

However our boycott article says:

"In the United States, the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons", defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates. The antiboycott provisions are intended to prevent United States citizens and companies being used as instrumentalities of a foreign government's foreign policy. The EAR forbids participation in or material support of boycotts initiated by foreign governments, for example, the Arab League boycott of Israel. . . However, the EAR only applies to foreign government initiated boycotts: a domestic boycott campaign arising within the United States that happens to also have the same object as the foreign-government-initiated boycott is completely lawful, assuming that it is an independent effort not connected with the foreign government's boycott. . . Inducing government action through lies or fraud, attempting to suppress free speech through intimidation, or falsely claiming that a domestic boycott campaign is foreign governmental in origin may, in fact, constitute conspiracy against civil rights, a Federal felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment."

Is there any justification for the Gap Inc. policy? Has there been any controversy or lawsuits about this? Note that this is a request for information, not for legal advise. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like Gap might be a little overzealous in its approach. But why would you assume the wikipedia article has the facts right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Because in the U.S. free speech is considered an inalienable right. Thus limiting the ability for an individual to campaign for a boycott would be a HUGE deal. I think I would have heard about it. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech has to do with protesting against the government. It does not extend to undermining a company you work for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case the issue isn't directly attacking the company you work for, but rather supporting a political position which may or may not harm Gap. I'm very confidant that that is protected by free speech laws. Do you have sources that would suggest otherwise? --S.dedalus (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the distinction your making. If all the initial facts you stated are true, it could in fact be what I would call a "legalistic bluff", to put it politely. But it could also be an attempt by Gap to show loyalty to America and its allies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're way off on this free speech thing. It's got nothing to do with that. As Baseball says, first amendment issues only apply to the government. The use of the "friendly" language highly suggests this is an issue of some treaty or other labor law with some esoteric background. The first amendment's a huge red herring here. There are some laws, particularly state laws, that will protect workplace political speech, but this is not a constitutional issue, but rather one passed by the state legislature. In fact, freedom of association under the first amendment will give some organizations the ability to exclude members that do not agree with their social positions, political or otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but the words "By law" suggests that it is a First Amendment issue, and the word "support" can be understood as meaning only verbal support. Unless the company means that "the law allows us to control what you say and do".Sjö (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the question correctly, let's say a private Muslim organization in the U.S. wants to boycott sales of jeans to Israel. Some employees of Gap decided to support that boycott. In effect, then, you have employees of Gap supporting a move that would hurt sales of their own company. No company is going to stand for that kind of activity, nor should they. There is no constitutional right to employment in a particular job. If you're working for a company and at the same time working against that company, you're gone. End of story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, firing someone based on their political views is employment discrimination, and thus illegal in the US. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You do not have the right to earn income from a company while at the same time engaging in behavior that undermines that company's ability to earn income. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not on company time to be sure, but on you're own time I'm pretty sure the company has no right to interfere with your freedom of speech. I would be very interested in sources which refer to this though. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So would I. Merely supporting a political party on your own time, for example, should be out of reach of a company's tentacles. But directly engaging in activity that undermines your company would have to be a no-no, I would think. As a simple example, imagine a PETA supporter working for McDonald's part of the time and then in off-hours participating in a march outside a McDonald's with the intent to intimidate potential customers. No company would, or should, have to stand for that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, what's the source for that Gap policy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A booklet called Welcome to Gap Inc. page 8. It's the official reference book for store policy used by Gap employees. I don't believe a copy exists online, but I could be wrong. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you know!! It DOES exist online: [9] page 8 --S.dedalus (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like a standard code of conduct, kind of similar to my own company's. Codes of conduct can be summarized fairly simply: Don't engage in any activity that could harm the company in some way. This means things that are illegal or unethical. Making honest but bad business decisions are outside the scope of such documents, as that's a whole different story. :) But you left out some key parts of it which I'm emphasizing, along with emphasizing a keyword that your original quote included. That changes the flavor of it, and seems to have to do with on the job activities. It has to do with another company saying, to an individual within the Gap company, such as a salesman, "If you'll support this boycott, we'll buy your product." That would be clearly unethical behavior. I also noticed it's dated 2005, but I can see why they would say this:

"By law, Gap Inc. employees and agents may not support or cooperate with an unsanctioned boycott of another country that is "friendly" to the United States. The Company must report to the U.S. government any information (about which it has knowledge) or any request to support a boycott. A company could make such a request in a bid invitation, purchase contract, letter of credit, or verbally. If you learn of a boycott of another country that is "friendly" to the United States, call our the Legal department."

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call, and my bad. I didn't see any particular significance in those "legal definition" words, but now that you point them out, I see your point. Clearly what you describe would be unethical. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that sometimes the wording on these codes of conduct are kind of obscure, like they're trying to say something but trying not to quite say it the way you and I would say it. The hypothetical they're describing strikes me as the flip side of a salesman being approached by someone who is not "friendly" to the U.S. Let's say Iran. That's a safe bet right now. If someone from Iran approached a Gap salesman and said, "We'll buy your product if you'll do such-and-such or NOT do such-and-such", that would also be serious trouble brewing - depending on current laws regarding trade with Iran. Cuba comes to mind also. Those kinds of cases are obviously a little more clear-cut, but I think they're all part of the same ethical/legal topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a variant of this Gap language in the employee handbook of at least one company I have worked at which was not in textiles nor retail sales. As mentioned above, this exists specifically because of the Arab League boycott of Israel; at one time a lot of faxes were circulating trying to prod random US companies into joining the boycott. Tempshill (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That explains why they included it, and also why they worded it vaguely, so as not to target any one group and thus risk complaints of anti-Arab bias. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

MBA college

Is EIILM kolkata cumpus under University Grants Commission (UGC)?Supriyochowdhury (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominal Diameter of a pipe

The structural steel pipes are designated by nominal diameter. But the dimensions neither internal diameter nor the external diameter match with the nominal diameter. What is meant by the term NB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasantachdash (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Nominal" means in name only, and is merely a convenient label. As you have observed, true values are not the same as the nominal value. As for your second question, NB can mean several things. See NB.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the list it is likely OP was asking about "nominal bore". 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Nominal Pipe Size that should answer your questions including NB. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick to get bored and tired/frustrated

Read some articles on the internet that an average worker works productively for a total of about 4 hours on 8 hours work day. Some in slashdot claim that their productive work amounts to 6 hours per day. I do not work for anybody, I am preparing a comprehensive manuscript for my own use. People always do more when they do something for themselves. Based on that assumption, my productive hours should be about 6 hours per day. However It is not even 3 hours in my case when I sit for about 10 hours in front of the computer. I get burned out too easily and boredom sets in too easily. I can concentrate on a task continously for about 20 minutes. All of the figures gets a lot worse if I were to do something for others. It gets even more terrible with the increasing complexity or difficulty of the task. No big problems with intelligence as I have consistantly scored above average in IQ tests. Generally speaking - patience , motivation, mental energy, interest,involvement = too low and boredom potential, frustration trigger= too high. Please say how it could be fixed? 131.220.46.26 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)frustrated

Seems to me that you are doing the wrong things. Motivation comes either from an intense personal interest, or from some external force. i.e. Recruits conscripted into an army are <motivated> (OK that's the wrong term but it suffices here) by the fear of what will happen if they do not follow orders. Similarly people in enmployment are motivated at least in part by the need for the salary. You obviously do not need more money, so your work must be boring to you. Change your work!86.209.28.63 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)DT

As someone who spends a lot of time working on writing himself, I will note that I can't do more than 3-4 hours of writing per day. I can do a lot more of other kinds of work, but writing is for me especially mentally taxing, and after 3-4 hours of it I'm basically unable to work very effectively at it. I don't think this is unusual (I know many others who do similar types of work and have similar tolerances). It is obvious that certain types of work are more taxing than others. This happens even if you love the work.

My recommendation would be to try some different work habits. Try working in a different location. Try taking a break and exercising half-way through the day. If you have a flexible schedule, you should be able to try a lot of different things. Trying going for a swim mid-way in the day. Try not drinking as much coffee, or drinking more of it. I hang around a lot of people who spend a lot of their time doing self-motivated writing, and everyone has a different strategy for keeping on task and not getting burnt out. There's no easy answer to it, but you should feel empowered to mix up your schedule a bit. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) If you're not doing the wrong things you may be doing them for the wrong reasons. Some people get a kick out of solving differential equations while others enjoy sorting a stamp collection that would "bore the socks off" people who don't. Just because someone says you're "supposed to" like doing something doesn't make it right for you. Maybe the rewards you are getting are too far removed from your activities? In that case, splitting things up into smaller units and working on several different tasks in rotation may work for you. Some people are even most productive when their minds can entirely detach itself from any outside or self-imposed reward scenario. Since you seem to be working from home you have already found out that a standard office/employment set up doesn't work for you. Vice versa working at a home office doesn't work for everyone either. Some people need to step away from their home setting and its distraction. Some need deadlines and supervisors who monitor their productivity. There is no mold for people. Find out what works for you and forget what you think is supposed to work. If the end result is positive, no one cares whether you achieved it in one 10 hr. stretch or several 20 min. intervals. If you really find your situation untenable there are workarounds you can train for that are designed for AD (no HD) sufferers that might work for you. There are training centers in major cities. Ask s.o. from a health profession to direct you towards a reputable one. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have considered you may have one variety of ADHD, you may wish to consult a doctor. Tempshill (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to direct me to ADHD. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_attention-deficit_disorder, I have symptoms of both ADHD-I (Procrastination, Avoiding tasks or jobs that require sustained attention, etc) and ONLY 2 of ADHD-H symptoms ( Impatient,Intolerant to frustration). It is probable that I have ADHD or AD or some other psychological disorder. Because, I get bored quickly / loose attention / become frustrated very easily in all but simplest of tasks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.25 (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And at this point we have to point out that the Refdesk isn't allowed to attempt to diagnose medical problems or offer medical advice, so we have to ask that you see a doctor. Tempshill (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bored and frustrated? Why not check the Reference Desk and answer some old questions? Juliankaufman (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the Big Deal with Sexual Intercourse?

What has elevated the act of sexual intercourse in our society to such a big ordeal as to warrant us in placing laws on age of consent and such? What is different between sex and other physical actions such as a handshake? Why does one not need to be 16, 18 or 19 years of age to shake hands? Acceptable (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The typical handshake is not an invasive procedure. Although, given the spread of germs like the swine flu through manual contact, adopting the Asian practice of bowing instead of handshaking might be a good thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And vaguely related, there's the social cost - unwanted pregnancies, the spread of venereal diseases, etc. - and specifically regarding the age of consent, to protect the young from predators. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Orgasm, and sexual arousal are the big thing. It involves a psychological state that people find, understandably, potentially subversive. I think this is the first and foremost reason for society's brakes placed upon sex acts. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Adults can do whatever they want. Children have to be protected from predators. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You may well ask what the point is of having laws in the first place. Truth is, if you ignore laws and nobody locks you away, you haven't really done anything wrong. Vranak (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The line had to be drawn somewhere. There can be disagreements as to where the line were drawn. The law may be defining children, or it may be defining sex. But the differentiation between sexual union and grasping another person's hand for a bit of shaking is the state of mind involved. I don't mean to be pedantic, but I'm just answering the question asked, in the most direct way possible. If the questioner meant something other than the issue I'm addressing, then let the questioner clarify the question. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no line. A law is a reservation: we authorities reserve the right to prosecute anyone caught doing these things. But if in their infinite wisdom there is no harm being done, then they will of course not prosecute. A law is a weapon that may or may not be employed. There is no 'line'. Vranak (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is the questioner is asking. But the law can't say "case by case basis", even if that would be logical. To give a mundane comparison, consider the legal mininum age to drive a car. There might well be 12 year olds who would do a better job of driving than the average 16 year old. But the law has to be consistent in order to prevent endless court cases over the same question: "My kid's old enough to... [whatever]". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The only really regulating laws on sex in most Western societies these days are in fact only the age of consent (and is no other "and such" except in societies that outlaw adultery, premarital sex, and homosexuality, all of which are fairly commonly outlawed in non-Western parts of the world). Age of consent is simply because it is recognized that adults will prey on youths who are sexually inexperienced and do things to them that the youths in question (much less their parents, etc.) later recognize as being abusive and undesired. The specifics of what age to put it at is a social norm. If you do not see the difference between shaking hands and having sex... I suggest that maybe you're not old enough to have sex yet. ;-) They're not the same sort of thing, at all, which one can rather easily see if one contemplates all the people you'd be happy to shake hands with but not have sex with. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Baseball Bugs' repeated reference to "predator" is that helpful. Many merchants, especially those targeting children, are predatory, but most of the time we don't lock them up for it.

The main justification for age of consent laws is, as 98. pointed out, that (1) the young are judged to be unable to make a fully informed decision about such issues. This is important because (2) the psychological, social and physical consequences of their (uninformed) decisions can be profound.

On point 1: of course, some individuals are more mature than others, and some people may experience no negative effects from sexual activities at a young age; nevertheless, the law seeks to protect the generality.

On point 2: that is the difference between sexual activities and, say, a handshake. Whereas a handshake is unlikely to have severe negative consequences (with potential exceptions, as pointed out above), sexual activity may. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "predator" has a very specific meaning in this context, i.e. paedophile. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that some places do have different ages for various things, e.g. closeness of age, person in position of trust or authority. And there are of course many other age restrictive laws e.g. for forming contracts, getting tattoos, piercings, smoking, drinking, drugs, pornography Nil Einne (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between sex and a handshake? Well, say you're blindfolded. You can shake hands with anyone, and it doesn't make a difference who does it -- you'll feel the same. But let's say someone -- pardon me for assuming you're a heterosexual man here -- performs oral sex on you. If sex were like a handshake, oral sex would feel the same no matter who's doing it. But what if you take off your blindfold and find that the person performing a sex act on you is your mother! Or a guy! You would be horrified. That's because sex is only pleasurable when it is based on mutual attraction and consent. Otherwise, it is violation. Even if it doesn't feel like violation at the time, you might see it that way later. That's why there are laws against sexual contact in situations where one party's ability to grant meaningful consent is questionable, such as between children and adults or between jail guards and inmates. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Or how bout this? A stranger walks up to you, grabs your hand and shakes it. This may strike you as odd but you probably wouldn't be particularly upset. Now, replace handshake with sex and adjust your feelings accordingly. That's the difference. 164.156.231.55 (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Police receive complaints about lewd activities at the local lover's lane and send a cop to investigate. He spots a car parked in the lane, in the car are a young man and a girl. The girl is knitting and the man is reading a comic book. Suspiciously the cop demands "What are you doing here"? The boy answers "In half an hour she'll be 18". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientology told me who I am

I am not my past, my failures or anything similar. Isn't that incredibly nice? Where did they get this definition about me?--Quest09 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We have lots and lots of articles on scientology, including Oxford Capacity Analysis. Friday (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Though one can argue quite forcibly that you are, in fact, made up of your past experiences. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't change your path, but to pretend the past experiences are negligible is decidedly silly. Ditto failures. Beware people or groups who only tell you things you'd like to hear. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Telling you what you want to hear... those kind of people are called salesmen. Fittingly, someone was asking about how to become a salesman. The secret is to (1) be willing to lie; and (2) be willing to believe the lie yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might be comforting - but it's awfully trite...and WRONG. Of course you are your past...your intellect is the sum of what you have learned...what you have been. Everything you own comes from your past. Another well worn phrase says that we learn by our failures. If that's true (and it's certainly true in part) - then we are (in part) the sum of our earlier failures. SteveBaker (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The notion that "you are not your past" could be a shorthand way of saying that you don't have to be a "prisoner" to your past. Like the old saying, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." Whatever you've done before, each day is a new opportunity to do better. Wow, I'm starting to sound like that salesman. I leave you with these words: "Good, better, best / Never let it rest / Till the good is better / And the better is best." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Negative theology describes God in terms of what (S)He is not. L. Ron Hubbard founder of Scientology turned this around to define the spirit of an individual in negative terms. Scientologists get their ideas from Ron's books. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So that's their excuse. Well, I wonder what would have happened if Hubbard and Norman Vincent Peale ever met. Would they explode, like matter and anti-matter? Or would they have merged into a super-evangelist? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was 50 Cent who said (and I may be paraphrasing) "Where you're at is more important than where you're coming from - but if you don't know where you're coming from, how are you ever gonna know where you're going?". I agree with the sentiment. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't let it be an anchor that keeps you from where you want to go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated: people

Could certain kinds of people become deprecated in the same sense that some old technology is deprecated? I mean, currently if you only have some basic instruction, you can still find some kind of work, in a farm cleaning or such simple things. However, if a robot, that is cheaper and good enough, could cope with such tasks, many people would logically become deprecated.--Quest09 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your use of the word "deprecated". Dictionary.com gives: dep⋅re⋅cate

   /ˈdɛprɪˌkeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dep-ri-keyt] Show IPA Use deprecated in a Sentence –verb (used with object), -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing. 1. to express earnest disapproval of. 2. to urge reasons against; protest against (a scheme, purpose, etc.). 3. to depreciate; belittle. 4. Archaic. to pray for deliverance from.

--TammyMoet (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to do an office job in the days before computers became commonplace. Most of what I did could have been more easily and cheaply done by a computer. It was incredibly boring, so I resigned and did something else (doing a degree). My skills at that time were 'depreciated' - perhaps you mean redundant - but I wasnt. 92.27.146.141 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're looking for occupations that are now obsolete? Sure, there's lots of them. All sorts of craftsmen existed to skillfully craft things that now are either no longer needed, or are simply mass-produced by "unskilled" labor. "Parchment Maker" used to be a job, so did "Arrow Maker". The former is no longer in demand, the later is no longer a craft.

Or are you asking if "people" as a whole might be made obsolete? That's not really possible to answer. Someday, perhaps. APL (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An arrow maker is a fletcher, and it is still a craft, although not much in demand - see this search for handmade arrows. Warofdreams talk 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher! I knew there was a word for that. It could be argued that the occupation is still obsolete even if there exists a specialty market. (You can still buy brand new sliderules!) APL (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not looking for obsolete occupations, since I know that there are lots of them. I used deprecated in the sense of deprecation, something that is a bad choice, even if it could work. I really mean that people with only basic skills could get obsolete very soon. That means that not even poor farmers would want them, since robots could be cheaper and better than them. --Quest09 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) I think this is the use given in Wiktionary, #3: "...considered obsolete but still available for use...". A beter term would be that the person (or, more usually, their skills) had become obsolescent. Under capitalism, this would lead to unemployment, and if there was no suitable alternative work in the economy, the answer would probably be retraining. If that is not available, or not possible, then the person would be in the same situation as someone who is currently unemployable (for example, because of health problems or addictions). Either social welfare can support the person (possibly with a requirement that they undertake specific tasks), or they can be left to survive, or not, on charity. Some theories of unemployment note that, in the absence of minimum wage and trade unions, markets will tend towards full employment - for example, this theoretical person could find work if they were cheaper than the robot - but that's little comfort if the amount you will receive is less than enough to survive on. Warofdreams talk 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In the computer science usage, the people who can say that a feature is deprecated are the people who have authority over that feature, and a plan for the future. For example, a standardization committee can say that a library function is deprecated, because they expect to drop it from the next version of the standard. Or Microsoft can say that an API function is deprecated, because it has some problem and they plan to drop it from a future version of Windows. In a market economy, there is nobody who can say with authority that certain people or occupations will be "dropped" in the future. Instead, the individual market actors either do, or do not, hire such people. If there is not enough demand for a certain occupation, it may die out, but that lacks the deliberate planning that "deprecation" implies. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

By the year 2050 our W2 tax statements will come with a warning that human labor has been declared deprecated by the robot council. APL (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean an occupation that has become less valued right? Hand weaver?83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hand weaving is a specialty product and can fetch premium prices. It is not as common as it once was in developed countries but there is still some demand. And to the OP, while many robots paint, assemble and weld and computer "expert systems" have replaced other industry jobs, farming has been almost untouched by robots so far. Mechanization has reduced the number of farm laborers needed in developed societies but we don't have robots picking ripe fruit and avoiding rotten ones yet. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Like this? - True story! SteveBaker (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tender

Hello, Please could some one help me, I have the opertunity to gain a large contract with the UK government or my local council, all I need to do is submit a tender, stating how much I will charge to do the work, (construction mostly, painting platering ect)However I need to have this tender in a specific format. Where could I find a template for this? I have tried google but most of the sites want to charge you to do this for you. I have read our article called tendering but this was of little help. All I need is a template, or instructions on how it should be set out. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.147.65 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest if you don't have the requisite experience/knowledge in tendering for a contract then you're probably not going to get anywhere without professional help. However you could look at [10] or [11] for a start. Exxolon (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also have a look at the website of the council/government branch you'd like to submit your tender to. Most have rules posted. Here's an example I googled for Brighton [12]. Check the required qualifications carefully especially on insurance and only submit a tender if you can meet all of them. (OR I second Exxolon's opinion that you may need help. If you think the paperwork is daunting now, it usually gets worse during the contract phase. Budget including lawyer fees.) -- 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, just as a purely FYI kind of thing: no matter what the manner of work involved, knowledgeable people will not think highly of someone who makes spelling and grammatical errors or leaves in typos, etc. Here, you're just posting on a board to ask your question (you don't need to break out your dictionary to post!), but if this is the kind of spelling and sentence structure you use all the time, you may also want to ask (or employ) someone to copyedit your proposal before submitting it. It may seem like a stupid thing to worry about, but sloppiness is sloppiness, and it would be a shame to lose a valuable "opportunity" to something so trivial to fix. Matt Deres (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Know your competition. You may be up against bidders who deliver their tender in a smart binder with glossy pictures of previous work and impressive references. Further to Matt Deres'As good advice, as a minimum get your tender smartly laid out using a word processor. Put it in a plastic wallet and post it in a full size envelope - no folding. There are plenty of secretarial services that can do all this for you, and their advice is worth gold. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

CEO what??

What does a CEO of a company do????while we slog our A**** out.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued to know what A**** is - are you slogging your asses out? How is that even possible? Anyway, we have an article on Chief Executive Officer, but that (perhaps tellingly) barely covers what a CEO does. There's an attempt at a definition in the corporate title article: "The CEO of a corporation is the highest ranking management officer of a corporation and has final decisions over human, financial, environmental, technical operations of the corporation. The CEO is also a visionary, often leaving day-to-day operations to the President, COO or division heads. Other corporate officers such as the COO, CFO, CIO, and division heads report to the CEO. The CEO is also often the Chairman of the Board, especially in closely held corporations and also often in public corporations." It might be better to say that these are things which a CEO may typically do, but it's not uncommon for senior managers to have considerable say over the actual tasks they undertake personally, and delegate some roles. Warofdreams talk 18:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This website http://managementhelp.org/chf_exec/chf_exec.htm and links therein may be of help. They do a huge amount of things. What they do will probably differ enormously from 'those who slog their A**** out' but that doesn't make it any less hard work. Effective delegation of work is surprisingly difficult, and I can say that from my experience mental-tiredness is every bit as bad as physical-tiredness (that is my statement to those who think that only manual labour is 'real' work and anything else is just pen-pushing). ny156uk (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what CEO's do, but I used to wonder what general managers did, unit the day a manager gave me some paper of old accounts, managerial stuff etc to shred - there was literally tons of the stuff - it was a small company and I didn't see anyone else making it - so perhaps they "work like dogs" too. Deep down we all hope so : )

83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out - that one does not always have to work hard in order to make a massive contribution to the company. Many years ago - when we were using BIG expensive computers to make flight simulators and I was just a junior engineer, I found a sneaky way of using one $70,000 graphics card instead of three. We sold a hundred of those machines - so in about one day's work, I saved the company $14,000,000. Back then that would have paid my salary for perhaps 280 years! The point is that it's perfectly possible that a particular CEO or other "overpaid executive" might spend 90% of his/her days at the golf course - but if just once every few years (s)he saves the company a few millions of dollars - or brings in millions of dollars of new business - then (s)he may well be vastly more valuable than the 'mere mortals' working their asses off doing the grunt work. The disparity of pay and privilages may well seem unfair - but business is about practical economics - not some ideal of fairness. One has to be pragmatic. SteveBaker (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The CEO is responsible for everything the company does — the creation of every widget, the thinking up of every idea, and the pouring of every cup of coffee. It's impossible for 1 person to invent all the widgets, manufacture them, pack them up, market them, sell them, and collect the money; so the CEO hires underlings — often a President and some Vice Presidents — and divides up all the company's duties between them, so they each are responsible for some part of what the company does. So, now there's a Vice President of Manufacturing who is responsible for creating every widget. Impossible, again, so that Vice President hires some underlings and divides up their duties; and so on; until the company is fully staffed, and the CEO is in fact able to do everything that the company is supposed to be doing, through all these underlings. Without knowing where you work and what you do, it's impossible to tell whether the CEO job is harder than your job as you slog your A**** out. (One correction to the first sentence in my reply here: The CEO is responsible for everything at the company, except that the board of directors, which is supposed to represent the interests of the shareholders (the owners of the company), is responsible for hiring and firing the CEO, and is also supposed to be responsible for decisions on which the CEO has a conflict of interest, like setting the CEO's pay, and overseeing an annual audit.) Tempshill (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So the Sword of Damocles applies to these guys?--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It often does. If a company's performance fails to live up to expectations, the board may can the CEO and leave most of the staff intact. CEO is a high-risk, high-gain/loss position. As well it should be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's less risky if your contract provides for a Golden parachute though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that a high percentage of CEOs last less then 18 months at their job. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The modern CEO will always have an exit strategy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Injuries compensation in the USA

I hope this question doesn't cause any offence to any US readers who may know the background to it - that is not my intention, and I apologise in advance. I live in Scotland (part of the United Kingdom) and was today walking in the Highlands with my wife and dog when we met some really charming visitors from California. We got chatting and in doing so, a middle 30s looking guy told me how his wife had been murdered in a multiple shooting and suicide event in a Post Office in Santa Barbara a couple of years ago. He and his son were visiting friends in Scotland and I was so sorry for him and expressed my horror at his awful experience. He was so sad at losing his wife but at the same time, he was so grateful that he still had their son with whom he had a very strong and mutually supportive relationship after their terrible loss. I wished I could have been more understanding and supportive but as strangers walking in opposite directions, that simply wasn't possible. But we did part as friends and I wished him every good wish imagineable for the future. But afterwards, I got to wondering what practical, financially compensatory, and counselling support he and his son might have had from the State of California in particular, and the United States of America in general. Clearly, as a widower the devastating effects on his home and professional life and the increased responsibility for caring for and raising his son would be dramatic to say the least. Is there anything in the USA akin to the British Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which makes awards to the victims, and families of victims of crime, in varying amounts and circumstances? I certainly hope so. Just concerned and curious. Thanks. 92.20.21.228 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are various victim compensation schemes. As an example see California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. A US American ref desker will be able to give you more information.

PS: I have unindented your question to keep with the format of the ref desk. I hope you don´t object.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

_{removed repeat of question below}86.4.186.150 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Blood in mouths/throats due to injury

In a number of movies I have seen (mostly war movies, Jaws, etc), when someone has an injury to their torso, being anywhere from a shark bite, to a gunshot wound, their mouths fill with blood, and it seems to be filling their throat/lungs. Does this really happen when someone has an injury of this nature? If so, why? Is there a reason for this to happen? What causes the upward movement of blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.15.164 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. What you're seeing in movies is the actor expelling the contents of a blood pill or similar special effect that he's secreted in his mouth prior to shooting. That's what makes it look like a big mouthful of blood. What actually happens is a great deal messier/grosser. Blood should not be sitting within the G.I. tract or within the lungs, so the body will naturally try to get rid of it through coughing (if in the lungs, airway) or through vomiting (if enough gets into the stomach, esophagus). It tends to come up with all the usual bile, chyme, etc. that you associate with expelling stuff non-voluntarily from the mouth. Someone expelling blood in that kind of manner is someone who needs medical attention ASAP. Matt Deres (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

we have an article about coughing out blood, not much but it says that extensive injury might cause you cough/vomit blood. That blunt trauma to the chest can also cause you to cough blood out.[13]--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's the one about vomiting blood.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A chest wound could cause injury such as a rib puncturing a lung, or a penetrating chest wound, resulting in frothy blood expelled through the nose and mouth. Either superficial or serious injuries to the head or throat could also result in coughing up blood or blood from the nose. If you merely bit your cheek you might spit out blood. Edison (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Reference Desk does not provide medical advice, please consult a medical practitioner, especially if you have been bitten by a shark and are bleeding profusely from the mouth. (sorry...couldn't resist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.14.130.136 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(Added in archive)

When this thread was current on the Reference Desk, I remembered seeing the following item on Roger Ebert's web site, but not well enough to cite it. It's on there today again (as one of the little "movie glossary" items that change every so often), so I'm taking the opportunity to copy it.

Dead for Sure, No Doubt About It

In a movie, the absolute proof of the death of a character is when blood drips slowly from the corner of the mouth. This is in too many movies to document. An interesting variation was the dripping of liquid metal from the evil mutant's mouth in "X-Men 2." As a physician, I can tell you that blood coming from the mouth after a fight is either, 1) a sign of a communication of the esophagus with a major blood vessel, which would be fatal, or 2) a cut in the mouth, which would not be.

(signed) KEN ROSENZWEIG, ENGLEWOOD, N.J.

--Anonymous, 07:17 UTC, August 21, 2009.