Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 May 27

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

May 27

Résumé question

Years ago, I authored an op-ed for a software development magazine. Since then, the publication has changed its name. Is it acceptable to use the new name of the magazine on your résumé? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not indicate both names? Just say "Authored op-ed piece for Awesome Magazine (known since 2002 as Coolness Journal)" or something like that. No need to be obfuscatory... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I'd rather use the new name of the publication as this is the current name and the name that most people would be familiar with. Anyway, here's some background information. I have a list of publications on my resume. The name of each publication is in bold-face and in a slightly larger font. An explanatory description is provided underneath with a regular font and without bold-faceing. Somewhat attempting to follow your advice, here's how my résumé currently looks:

MAGAZINE'S NEW NAME
I authored an op-ed on TOPIC A for MAGAZINE'S NEW NAME then known (formally known as MAGAZINE'S OLD NAME).  My two main areas of focus were on the importance of SUB-TOPIC-1 and SUB-TOPIC-2."

Is this acceptable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Look, no one is going to bust you on having this one entry formatted right. The purpose of a resume is not to check you adherance to some "resume format" and you get docked "points" if you don't do it exactly right. The purpose of a resume is to get you an interview. That's it. If the information sets you apart enough to get someone to notice you enough to call you in for an interview, then it has served its purpose 100%. It doesn't matter a whole lot whether you list the old name first or the new name first. Whatever makes you more comfortable, and whatever you think does the best job of getting someone to put you in the "interview this guy" pile rather than the "recycle bin". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A word to the wise: make sure you use the right word. In the example you give, the word is "formerly". "Formally" implies it has a formal name. For example, my nickname is TammyMoet, but I am formally known as Mrs Pampling. I was formerly known by my maiden name of Barratt. --88.108.222.231 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about just "formally MAGAZINE'S OLD NAME"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should use formally at all. If you used formally it would mean that the magazine has two current names, one formal and one informal (for example the US is formally known as the United States of America). What you mean is that the magazine changed its name, so it was formerly know by another name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiad77 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Formally" is not the right word at all. You're looking for "Formerly". Two Rs. One L. APL (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say "New Name (then Old Name)". "Formerly" doesn't tell you if the name change was before or after you wrote for it. --Tango (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Tango. I'm trying to avoid any appearance of impropriety. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "Oldtitle (now Newtitle)", emphasizing the title under which the piece actually appeared and may more readily be found (at least in some libraries). If you once worked for a small company that was later merged into a big company (whose name "most people would be familiar with"), your CV wouldn't list it as "Bigco (formerly Smallco)". (I admit that the parallel is inexact.) — Meanwhile I'm wondering how many hiring managers, on recipienting such a résumé, are more favorably impressed by authored than by wrote. —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Stopping the Car

So I did my road test the other day and my instructor told me that when approaching a stop sign or a red light, say I'm on 4th gear, I need to downshift gear-by-gear until I reach 1st gear before coming to a complete stop. Seriously? Does anybody actually do this? What I did was what she called "coasting", where I hit the brake and once my engine begins to lug, I pop it into neutral. Jamesino (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just put the foot down on both pedals until reaching a complete stop. I generally will shift down into the appropriate gear based on my speed, without engaging it, so I coast with the car completely disengaged via the clutch pedal, but I keep the gearshift lever in the appropriate gear, should I have to suddenly engage. I generally don't like using the transmission to slow down the car instead of the brakes, which is what you seem to be implying is being recommended here. Why? Worn out brake pads: $50.00 plus 1 hour labor. Worn out transmission: $1000.00 plus 4 hours labor. You do the math. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I undertook driving lessons in the UK recently and this was actively discouraged both by my instructor and later by the examiner when I took the test. The reasons they gave me were

1. By moving from the current gear down to 1st; I would be keeping the car straight or moving between lanes with the one hand whilst braking with one foot and depressing the clutch with the other, using the gear stick to select each gear and also looking ahead for hazards and slowing traffic. That's a bit much for anyone to do in the 1-200 yards approach to a junction or roundabout with the car's centre of gravity moving forward evermore as the vehicle decelerates. It's even worse if there is an unexpected hazard or if the road is slippery. I was taught to approach the junction in whatever gear is safe at that time, usually downshifting to 2nd (as you may only have to slow down momentarily before pulling away again) if there is time and selecting 1st when stopped if necessary.
2. Disc brakes work a lot better than the old drum brakes, are more reliable and are very effective at stopping a car. Some road authorities used to recommend engine braking to offset the 'sponginess' of drums back in the day, it's just not necessary now.

As to coasting, I got a big black mark for that as it's not the done thing to be moving without being in gear. I experienced an acceleration in some cases when moving in neutral (especially downhill) and was thus deemed to not be in full control of the vehicle.

Of course this is mostly "somebody told me.." info and from a different country but still... Nanonic (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)`

Oh and by 'approach in whatever gear is safe at that time' I do mean if you're in 4th, stop in 4th - the thing that matters is that you pull away in the correct gear. Nanonic (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't slow down in a high gear with your foot off of the clutch until the engine revs are so low that you have to put your foot on the clutch. As the engine RPM drops, below about 2000 rpm - you are "lugging" - which is damaging the engine...very bad indeed...don't ever do that!

On the other hand, if you stay in a high gear and put your foot on the clutch while the revs are still reasonably high to prevent the RPM's from dropping then you are indeed coasting - and that's also bad because you have no control over the car's engine - in the event of some kind of problem, you can't easily drop into the right gear to accellerate away because you'll have no clear idea of the right gear for the current RPM's. Coasting is dangerous...so that's out too.

Hence, downshifting is DEFINITELY needed - it's safer and it prolongs the life of your engine. There should be no debate about this - and your driving tester was 100% correct in complaining about your failure to do that.

However, when I slow down, I don't go through every gear - and I never wind up in 1st gear. The reason for not winding up in first is somewhat quirky. It's because I drive a lot of old British cars (from the 1960's) and they don't have synchromesh on 1st gear. If you try to downshift a classic Mini or MG into 1st while it's still in motion, you'll wreck the gearbox! But on modern cars, this isn't a problem. So unless you plan on getting hooked on small British cars from the 50's and 60's - don't worry about it! But shifting down from (say) 6th through 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and into 1st in a 6-speed transmission is a lot of work - and it's distracting at a time when your attention is needed - and it takes your hand off of the steering wheel more than is necessary at a time when you might well have to manouver suddenly. So I tend to use alternate gears when downshifting. 6th/4th/2nd/neutral. But even that is somewhat misleading. On a fast road, in 6th gear - I'll downshift into 5th or 4th as I pull off onto the slip-road. So long before I have to stop - I'm probably already in 4th. So in truth, I stay in gear - let the RPM drop off - and when they get close to 2000 RPM - I drop into 2nd gear - and stay there until the revs are again - close to 2000 - then (if I've gotten it right) - I can apply brake and clutch for the last 10 to 15 feet up to the line. Doing it smoothely is a matter of planning...after a while it becomes instinctive - but sadly, you have to take your test before you've gotten that off pat.

HOWEVER - how you drive on your test is how you have to drive to pass it. A good driving instructor will tell you that you need to do such-and-such in order to pass the test - but in normal driving, you'd do some other thing. A great example is the three point turn and the reversing around a corner thing - those are about convincing the tester that you have control of the car - it has nothing to do with manouvers you commonly have to do in daily driving. It sounds like this is another example of that. SteveBaker (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you drive small british cars, so I understand that you'd rarely need to do a three point turn. I learned to drive in Toyota Landcruiser Troop Carrier 4WD. Vehicles like can't often do a U-turn. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Even in a 'standard' length of car, you can usually turn around in a road that's too narrow to U-turn by first reversing then driving forwards and away...a '2-point turn'. But the UK drivers test specifically requires that you start the manouver by going forwards - and that ends up forcing you to do a 3-point turn. Lots of people never learn to do a 2-point turn and continue to do it the inefficient way. But the test isn't making sure you know how to turn the car around in the road - it's making sure you have the skills to keep control of the car and not hit the curb as you move back and forth across the cambered road. SteveBaker (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course the first point is free as you're generally traveling forward anyway. --203.22.236.14 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's been renamed to a "turn in the road" rather than 3 point (since you can do more than 3 points to your turn). I do find it an odd-one. In my 8 years driving I don't think i've ever done a 3-point turn. I virtually always just drive to the next road and make a turn at the next junction (reverse round a corner I think they call it on the test). Anyhoo like SteveBaker says, it's all about what the examiner wants you to do to show you can control the car and are a safe road user. Once you have your test you can't just ignore the rules, but some things (e.g. parralel parking) people will never want to do again after they get a license. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I think it was formally called that since the beginning - but 'three point turn' was always the colloquial name for it. SteveBaker (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It probably depends where you live (size of roads and whether they have good places to turn around) and the type of car. I've done a million of them. Ditto parallel paring — if you live in high-density, very urban areas you have to know how to do that without even thinking about it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't normally do parallel parking? Really? Good luck driving in KL or Auckland them... I also believe you'd general fail if you need to do more then 3 points for your turn here in NZ. They may give you an exception with a very large car and narrow road but I wouldn't count on it (more likely they'd choose a road when they feel you should be able to manage it). I don't drive much but I can see the need for a 3 point turn in some NZ roads particularly with larger cars. (Well obviously no one cares if it takes more then 3 points when your actually driving.) Driving to the end to find a place to turn, on a quiet road, particularly if you do it every day seems a fairly pointless waste of time to me. In reply to the question, I was thought to downshift and so you end up in 2nd gear when stopping, not first. Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You were probably taught to drive in an era before synchomesh-on-1st-gear was commonplace too. It really is necessary to be utterly stationary before shifting into 1st with such older cars - I do hope the driving testers and instructors know to teach that if people are still taking their tests in beat-up old 1970's or older Mini's because it makes a god-awful grinding noise if you do try to downshift into 1st while moving. When I got my 1963 Mini - the very first time my wife drove it she did that very thing before even getting out of our driveway! She's never driven it since (her choice - not mine). Some people can use the double-declutch trick to get the car into 1st while moving - but I don't like to risk my poor babies' 46 year old gearbox by practicing it! 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe in the UK driving test a "turn in the road" is allowed to take as many points as is necessary for the width of the road and the length of the car. I can't see an examiner asking you to do one somewhere that wasn't wide enough to do it in 3 points, though (unless, for some reason, you decided to do your test in a stretch limo, which you are probably allowed to do). --Tango (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember hearing (terrible start to a ref desk answer, I apologise!) that the official guidance in the UK has recently (last 10 years) changed and you are no longer expected to work your way down through all the gears, but were before. I think you are now taught to change straight down into second (which, to be honest, in most cases would only involve skipping 3rd, as Steve says above) as you approach the junction, then put the clutch down as you stop (if you need to stop - you stay in 2nd if you don't) and immeadiately (before stopping) change into first (so you are ready to pull away again straight away). I haven't actually gotten around to learning to drive yet, though - I got half way there last year and then stopped for exams and didn't take it up again. I intend to do so this summer, so remind me and I will let you know the official advice! --Tango (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

architect and anthropologist

hi, i want to be an architect and i am from india. so please could anyone tell me whether i should pursue studying science or humanities??

my friend here wants to be an anthropologist. so it would be nice of you tell him what he should pursue.

thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.250.135 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Both require a bit of both. To ask such a question probably implies that you should not already have made up your minds on your eventual careers. That is my short answer.Julzes (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with Julzes. Since I have a degree in anthropology, I'll try to handle that part. The answer really depends on two things - the kind of anthropology you want to do and how your potential university(ies) consider it. Most anthropology is geared heavily toward the humanities, but there are sub-disciplines that are much more science oriented (archaeology, physical anthropology, palaeo-anthropology). In very generic terms, the question you need to ask yourself is whether you want to study people physically (which requires more science) or whether you're more interesting in understanding what people do (which requires a background in humanities). Matt Deres (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there not courses for both subjects in India? Very few undergraduate teaching departments for archeology or anthropology would be so specialised as to prevent postponing a decision about which sub-area to specialise in. eg. Any general anthropology degree should qualify you for further study in the areas you find more interesting. If you want to know about what to study in school, university departments usually specify which subjects they prefer, but this is not especially stringent - few courses mandate more than 2 subjects, and are always flexible. eg. A physics degree may demand school-level physics and maths, but the 3rd and 4th subjects are then not important (although grades still count!)

A quick search find for example in UK, this anthropology course, which is very science orientated, but doesn't care whether you have chemistry or biology, as long as you have one. And this, which does not specify any subject, but prefers a "mix of arts and sciences". From those i checked, biology is the most asked for school subject, followed by chemistry - but this may only reflect the lack of good sociology/anthopology education at UK schools ("core" subjects are generally more common and better regarded there.YobMod 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• To the original poster: Can you specify what grade of schooling, and state you are currently in ? Do you have any specific architecture institutes or programs in mind ?
• To others: India (generally) follows a 10+2+3 plan for most fields of study (10+2+5 for B.Arch, although there are post-graduate alternatives too) and students usually have to decide the "stream of study" they wish to choose at both the +2 (i.e., equivalent to Junior year in highschool in US) and the +3 (i.e., entry into undergraduate degree programs) level. At either stages one cannot (again generally) choose from an a la carte menu, but needs to decide on a stream of study (eg, science, commerce arts etc), and the choice one makes at each of these stages limits the courses of study one can undertake later. The system is much less flexible that the US/European model, and therefore one does need to plan on a course of education well in advance - especially if one desires admission in one of the premier institutions, which have strict eligibility requirements and (often) competitive entrance exams. The specifics vary from state-to-state and some premier institutions set their own admission policy. That is the reason it is important to know what level of schooling the OP is at and what (state/national) institutes they are considering, in order to provide a specific answer to the question. Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! So school students choosing a scientific stream would not be able to study languages or music? I can think of a lot of university programs that require a mixture (eg. studying the Physics of musical instruments). The 2 asked for above fit into this area - both science knowledge and language skills would be very useful. But more specialisation also has advantages (I far prefer the UK model than countries that would have required i continue to study some arts through my whole education (the US?)).YobMod 13:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

UK Driving License

Is it legal for someone to drive solo on private land in the UK without a license? I hear about this all the time in news from the US, about kids as young as 7 driving cars on their parents' ranch and so on. What is the situation in the UK? Specifically, what about factory workers in car factories driving cars off the trim line and into the depot? I'm asking this because that was part of my father's job and he has never had a driver's license. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is legal and our article says "As a licence is required to drive on a public road, any person may drive on private land with the consent of the landowner, but it is illegal - regardless of any licence - to drive on any common public land, such as moorland." This is especially useful for farmers who have many people using their machinery etc and as you suggest - car factory workers. Most car parks are also owned privately by companies or stores and deemed to not be "public roadways" as well as any road not maintained by the Highways Agency or local authorities. Nanonic (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a further exception for farmers, I think - an agricultural vehicle being driven a short way along a road to get from one field to another (I'm not sure of the exact limitations) doesn't fall under the usual rules. They don't have to pay fuel duty, they don't need MOTs, etc. and, I think, they don't need a drivers license (although I wouldn't swear by that one). --Tango (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean I can give my niece some driving experience before she has even applied for a licence, by letting her drive my car round a supermarket carpark (long after the store has closed, on Sunday evenings for example)? Astronaut (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It said "with the consent of the landowner". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to check the terms of your insurance policy. It probably covers you for teaching another person to drive - but probably not if they don't have a provisional license. Either way...CHECK IT CAREFULLY! SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you need insurance to drive on private land? If so does that render illegal all those 10 year olds being given a 1 minute drive on the front driveway? Prokhorovka (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You only need insurance if they crash your car (at which point you, of course, claim you were driving and the insurance company is none the wiser The Wikipedia reference desk does not condone insurance fraud.). --Tango (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No way that you can let her drive round a Tesco car park. CottonGrass (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tango should note that a woman in Scotland was recently fined for doing just that, a short drive on public roads, from a field to another, without a licence.--81.170.40.155 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that Scottish law is different from English and Welsh law in that respect. Do you have the details (or a link to the story)? What vehicle was she driving? --Tango (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, certain privately owned car-parks maintained for the use of the public are considered to be public roads -- eg shopping centre, sporting field or college visitors' car-parks. A staff-only park at a business is regarded as private. There are numerous cases of people being booked for driving without seat-belts, or using a mobile phone while driving, in supermarket car-parks. The tractors which trawl the car-parks and nearby streets to pick up abandoned shopping trolleys have restricted registrations (allowing them to operate only within 500 metres of the car-park). They may be driven by 16-year-olds, a year too young for a driver's licence, but just old enough to operate dangerous machinery under labour laws. KoolerStill (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was true in the UK too - a law student told me. A supermarket's carpark is "semi-public", and if it has standard road markings, they have to be obeyed. So speeding is still illegal on carparks, and a liscence and insurance is still needed, etc. Anyone know for sure? Is it just lack of landowner consent, or are there agreements between local councils and carparks?YobMod 13:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Heck, where I live, you can't drive a car until you are 16, but you are allowed to operate a 5 ton tractor at 12, without a license. You can also be booked for DUI while sitting in your car in your driveway with the keys in it (but the engine off). 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In the UK it is illegal to drive without a licence on public land, I don't know the court case but it has been ruled that 'anywhere the public has access to' falls within the definition of an RTA situation (where the Road Traffic Act applies). What actually is a public place, or a place the public has access to is quite vague and illdefined & largely depends on case law. It has given insurance companies a bit of problems so you could ring up your insurer & ask them but I know a public car park is considered as falling within the RTA & therefore illegal to drive without a licence in. AllanHainey (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The stories about kids driving on their parents' ranches falls under agriculture. I could drive our combine and the supply truck on the field long before I was permitted to drive a car on a public road. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wartime crossdressers

What is a catchy title I can call my English essay about women who pretended to be men to join the army?? I know I'm supposed to think of it myself but I decided "Dude Looks Like A Lady" was in bad taste... --124.254.77.148 (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Real Life Mulans"? (As in the basic story that the film is based on is a girl pretending to be a boy to join the army). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Dressed to Kill"? Maybe list of wartime crossdressers can be of assistance. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sluzzelin's first answer is the best title by far - use that. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Love it, thank you! :) --124.254.77.148 (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Which war? Don't forget about Joan of Arc. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

One that's been done is Monstrous Regiment. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Polly Oliver is a handy example, but Sluzzelin's is probably the best ;) 80.41.18.94 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since women wanting to be soldiers in long bygone wars had to conceal their boobs by wrapping something tight around them, how about "Bound for Glory?" Edison (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, on the same theme, 'Berlin Or Bust'? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Free as in FREE ringtones

If you Google "free ringtones" you get lots of sites, but as far as I can tell, they're all bait and switch, or they want your email and other personal info so they can sell you to mailing lists and so on. Does anyone have any links for actually free ringtones in the true sense of the word? —173.68.38.218 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Depending on your phone model and carrier, you should be able to email mp3s to your phone. If you don't know your phone's email address, you can send an email from your phone to your personal email account. (my phones email is: mynumber@mms.att.net) Send an email to your phone with the mp3 as an attachment, save the contents to wherever ringtones are stored, and voila. This also works for pictures (phone wallpapers) and video. Again, this will depend on your phone and carrier, but everyone I've used over the past 10 years or so has had this option. 96.227.82.128 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Although you appear to live in the US so this may be fine for you, this may not be possible in quite a number of places (it also requires your phone supports MMS obviously). Here in NZ, with Vodafone you can send MMS to email addresses, but you can't send mail in the reverse (well you may be able to subscribe to an MMS gateway). I believe this is quite common in a lot of the world, since you do not pay to receive MMS (or similar things) it makes sense that they will not want to allow you to email your phone so easily. You can of course use an email client or webbrowser but that would likely include data charges, and so it may simply be more effective/easier to download the file from somewhere with your phone. Depending on how you carrier charges for casual data, it may be a better idea to just stick with a midi presuming you don't mind how it sounds, which will be a lot smaller. Presuming your phone does not have a lot of memory, this will save space too. Alternatively a data cable may be more effective. (This may also be the only way if your phone is an older one without MP3, MMS or WAP.) Many phones support them although perhaps only in Windows, perhaps even only Windows XP x86-32 and 2k depending on the age of the phone. I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but you may find it cheaper to buy one from eBay (generic obviously) whether from the US or from HK. I'm presuming of course your phone doesn't have infrared or bluetooth support nor a removable memory card. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found links (though I don't have them handy) for tutorials on creating one's own ringtone. Generally, it's a pretty simple matter to sample a song and adjust the bitrate down to whatever the phone requires (free software such as Audacity can do this). A valid file can then be transferred to the phone in various ways -- USB, memory card, MMS message, etc. It's worth noting that I am completely unaware of the legal ramifications of this -- I'd like to imagine that it's fair use (at least for songs for which I've paid), but I don't really know. — Lomn 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Most modern phones (say, less than 3 years old) come with the ability to play MP3s, bluetooth and a data cable. Use the data cable or bluetooth (if your PC can use bluetooth) to get your chosen MP3 onto your phone. As far as I can tell, all those Ringtone sites (whether free or not) are a complete rip-off. If anything there is free, it is most likely poor quality and requires you to give your phone number or email address, or tie you in to some expensive subscription based service you don't want. Avoid at all costs is my best advice. Astronaut (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Some new phones allow you to make a voice recording to use as a ringtone. You could have a caller's own voice set to be the ringtone for their calls. What's to stop you recording a snippet of (your or their) favourite music? KoolerStill (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Public debt and deficit across all levels: US vs. Canada

How do Canada and the US compare in terms of public debt and deficit relative to GDP, if states, provinces, territories and municipalities are included? NeonMerlin 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Most US States are not permitted to run a deficit for the fiscal year. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone keep track of these numbers? In the U.S., the federal government typically runs a deficit. State governments, as noted, generally cannot run a deficit, so they typically contribute a surplus (since some states are positive and almost none are negative). Municipalities can and do run large deficits, financed by municipal bonds. In economic terms, it's the sum of all these that matters, but we almost never hear anything about that number. John M Baker (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most state governments can and do run deficits. "At least 46 states have looked ahead and anticipate deficits for fiscal year 2010 and beyond."[1] —D. Monack ^talk 03:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they are anticipating a deficit, which means they need to find a way to increase revenues or decrease spending by then. Ask California how that works. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

California does it with debt.[2] How did they accumulate over $60 billion of debt without ever running a budget deficit? —D. Monack ^talk 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found the numbers for all levels of government, but Canadian federal debt is about C$458.7 billion and US federal debt about US$11.3 trillion, given as 36.8% of GDP in 2007. So it really depends on the exchange rate, if you use today's exchange rate of 1US:1.11Cad and the GDP of Canada you get a Canadian percentage of 32%, somewhat lower. Of course since the end of last year both countries look set to balloon their federal debts, the US perhaps more so. TastyCakes (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's probably worth noting that Canada has had federal surpluses (ie is paying down its debt) every year since the 1997. I don't know the exact numbers, but this is not the case for the US federal government. TastyCakes (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are comparing them as percentages of GDP then exchange rates should cancel out. Each country will have both its debt and its GDP denominated in local currency. --Tango (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to use exchange rate because I had the debt in Canadian dollars and the Canadian economy in US dollars. TastyCakes (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You would be better off finding a source for the GDP in the original domestic currency (I'm sure there is an official Canadian governments statistics website somewhere), which is how it would have been measured. You have no idea what exchange rate was used to convert it to USD. --Tango (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You may find the information at List of countries by public debt useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)