Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 17

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.

October 17

i want to know some info. about Britanniya industry, taratola,kolkata

information about Britanniya industry, taratola, kolkata,

about their.
  1. general information.
  2. environment.
  3. product and progress.
  4. marketing.
  5. finance.
  6. human resorce.Prasenjitghosh (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look at their official website.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Argument of silence (conspiracy theories)

Can anyone direct me to an article (or article section) that describes the "argument of silence" in relation to conspiracy theories... i.e. the claim that the lack of information on a subject is evidence in itself that the information sought after has been covered up?

Its likely described under a different name. The similar Argument from silence doesn't appear to be what I'm looking for (the silence in that scenario seems to be interpreted as an indication that the silent party does not have the information they previously claimed to have, not the silent party denying they have the information in the first place), and it doesn't look like there is anything in conspiracy theory or cover-up (or if there is, I missed it).

Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 09:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you looked at Conspiracy_theory#Study of conspiratism that gives some useful links in the section "Psychological origins". The article UFO conspiracy theory describes the classic case of alleged suppression of information. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't what you asked for, but I think the "argument of silence" is a case of affirming the consequent, if that helps. (If there is a cover-up, there will be no information: there is no information, therefore there is a cover-up.) 213.122.50.254 (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Argument from ignorance and Evidence of absence are what you're looking for. It comes up a lot in Religious arguments against Evolution, as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been, incidentally, times when this has been true. Georgii Flerov used the fact that no American scientists were publishing on nuclear fission in 1942 to deduce that the US had indeed started a nuclear weapons program. The Manhattan Project did enforce rigorous scientific and press censorship as a means of keeping their work secret. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the silence of the Kennedys helped to unwittingly fuel the conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 15:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, right, perception of silence can fuel conspiracy theories; what I'm offering up here is an instance in which that was actually correct (that is, the "conspiracy theory" was valid, and the silence was evidence of it). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No question. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A paranoid person perceives themself as central figure in events which have no reference to them in reality as directed at or about them, though the evidence to support that perception is only silence. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You've hit upon the attraction of conspiracy theories - the idea that there is "secret information" that only certain ones are "in on", thus lending artificial importance to their drab, wretched lives. (Borrowing a Tom Lehrer quote.) The Moon hoax fairy tale is one of those. So is "Area 51", the "top-secret" government testing location that everyone knows about. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, except scarequote Area 51 scarequote is a top-secret government testing location that everyone knows about. FiggyBee (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the tests is secret. The location is not. And the absence of information about the specific tests, leads to speculation about UFO's and other such nonsense. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on the Flerov example, the reason why the Soviet government didn't label Flerov a looney is because 1. he was actually an expert in the field he was talking about, and 2. there was good reason to suspect that the publications would be there if people were working on it openly (there were hundreds of publications relating to fission just before WWII... and then suddenly, almost nothing). These are, of course, rather specific conditions—ones that most conspiracy theories don't meet. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can say the silence was any sort of evidence of the existence of the nuclear weapons program. It may have been evidence of the scientist's and the government's wish to keep it secret, but in order to link those two things, you first have to know not only that there's something they're keeping a secret about, but also specifically what that secret is. In other words, you have to be an "insider". Otherwise, we could leap to all sorts of weird conclusions, such as "The government has never made any statements about a race of purple aliens living in the deep forests of Paraguay, so that proves there is a a race of purple aliens living in the deep forests of Paraguay". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you're ignoring the history involved and I'm not sure why. It wasn't the absence of articles, it was the sharp reduction in articles that provided the evidence. That was suspicious. Matt Deres (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a risk in trying to interpret silence. In the case of The Bomb, someone guessed right. But think of something mundane, such as a police investigation. Sometimes silence means they are closing in on a suspect and don't want to give away the game; other times it means they haven't a clue, and they've turned their attention to other cases. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's true that one can guess wrong historically as well. The President of the University of California knew that the physicists were working on a secret project, but didn't know what. He guessed it was a death ray. That was incorrect (but close enough to rankle Manhattan Project security when he made it public). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for some enlightening reading. -- saberwyn 10:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase I am familiar with is conspiracy of silence - try searching for that. 78.151.108.233 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Social Security in the Untied States, and different costs of living

If I'm reading right, Social Security payments in the U.S. are the same from state to state; at least, from what I've read, it doesn't sound like an averge. Why is this, considering that the cost of living in, say, New York City is so much different than the cost of living in rural Iowa, for instance? I understand that it would be hard to recalculate every time a person moved, and really would have been before computers, so it makes sense that it didn't factor in every locality in the U.S. at first. Still, the checks have to go somewhere, at least into a bank account? With computers now, wouldn't it be pretty easy to at least calculate every year?

Or, am I misunderstanding, and there really are differences between localities? I saw nothing in the Social Security debate (all about privization versus not, and other issues), or in our articles as I skimmed, t least.4.68.248.130 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is the same everywhere or not, but if it is the reason could be one of fairness. While wages (and therefore tax payments) are higher in places with a higher cost of living, there is nothing stopping someone working all their life in a low wage area and then moving to a high state pension area and getting more that the share they paid for (or vice versa). --Tango (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good piont, I hadn't thought of that.4.68.248.130 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Though... one could also move into a place where money went further and get the same benefit, theoretically. You could imagine a rather fair system—e.g., something like the per diem system, where different cities have different costs of living associated with them, and your social security rates would be some percentage of a maximum rate for that given area. But that would be complicated. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Then there are the people who aren't even living in the US and are collecting SS checks. I worked with a retired guy here in China that was getting ~$500 a month in SS. $500 a month in rural China is a king's ransom. It covered all his (quite comfortable) living expenses and what he made teaching English was all just play money. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign taxi drivers in the US

How do foreigners become a taxi driver in the US? I suppose they don't get a green card as highly skilled workers, do they?--Quest09 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a green card to work. If search and read Permanent residence (United States) you'll find that is says right in the beginning that while the application is pending aliens can receive a work card, namely the Employment Authorization Document. There are also other visas (such as for students) that allow aliens to work. Also, just because someone looks different and has different customs than you doesn't make them foreign. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Foreigners" in the sense of "foreign born", i.e. "immigrants", although you can't always judge that, either. To work legally you need to be here legally, of course. And we get lots of legal immigrants every year. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 02:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Working in the USA

Inspired by the question above, I'm curious about this too. I'm what Quest09 might call a "highly skilled worker", yet most/all employers who I consider applying for a job with, have a note that applicants must be eligible to work in the USA. I understand that to mean a non-resident foreigner such as myself, would already need to have a H-1B visa to even be considered for employment. And yet that visa must be applied for by the employer some months in advance and a substantial fee paid (again by the employer).

It seems to me that I need to already have a H-1B visa to be considered for employment, yet the visa application cannot be made without having a job to go in the first place. How does a foreigner get a job in the USA (whether a taxi driver or something else)? Astronaut (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Some employers will only consider persons who are already eligible to work in the United States: citizens and resident foreigners with visas permitting work other than the H-1B. The most common such visa is the IR type. Other employers are willing to sponsor a foreigner for an H-1B visa, but these are typically employers who are unable to find qualified applicants who are already eligible to work in the United Statesfor unfilled positions . In this economy, there are fewer such positions available than in the past. It is not enough to be highly skilled. One must have a skill that employers cannot find in adequate supply among existing US residents. Marco polo (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparantly you can work or settle in the USA without any restrictions if you have a master's degree. 78.151.108.233 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. I think you are talking about an EB2 visa - that's for "Professionals holding advanced degrees (Ph.D., master's degree, or at least 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience) or persons of exceptional ability in sciences, arts, or business" - but there is a quota of 40,000 of those per year - they aren't granted automatically - and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get one. However, that's not a permanent status - it takes many years and many lawyers to turn that into a green card. SteveBaker (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't their restrictions on criminal records (particularly offences committed in the USA)? --Tango (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in gaining US citizenship or becoming a permanent resident and I'm not closely related to a US citizen, but nor am I a criminal. Unfortunately, with my skill-set, around half the world's temporary contract positions are based in the USA, yet it seems impossible to apply for them unless I am already permitted to work in the USA. Unsurprisingly, most potential employers are unwilling to jump through the USCIS's hoops, pay the fee and wait some time, just to hire someone on a 6 or 12 months contract.

All of which brings us to the taxi drivers mentioned by Quest09 in the question above. If it is made so difficult for me to secure temporary work in the USA, how is it apparently so easy for a foreigner to get a visa and work as a taxi driver? - of course, I'm assuming there is some truth in the TV/movie stereotype of the foreigner arriving in New York City and immediately getting work as a taxi driver. Astronaut (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

With cab drivers, the immigrants often arrive in North America with very different skills, but end up working as cab drivers because it's one of the few jobs available. Why ? because the pay is poor and the level of skills required quite low, which means turnout is high and there are always openings for those willing to work the night hours of a car owned by another driver. As a result, immigrants who have made it to North America, either with a degree that that does not translate into employment here, or without a degree through the Green Card lottery, refugee resettlement, or other non-skill based immigration programs, end up working in the sector in large numbers.

It happens in all sorts of other low-paying, low-skill areas of the economy - cleaning staff, slaughterhouse workers, restaurant employees - but cab drivers tend to have more direct dealings with the public than other such jobs, so they get noticed more. In Canada, it is a cliché that an immigrant with an engineering degree from the developing world will end up driving a taxicab. Also, one should not compare cab drivers in North America, which is a low-skilled profession, with those in London or other European cities in which obtaining a license requires passing a demanding exam. --Xuxl (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed: "The knowledge" (as the London 'black cab' Taxi-driver exam is called) is a gruelling test. You literally have to memorize the entire map of London - including one-way systems, speed limits, where the traffic snarls are - and to be able to describe the most efficient route from any street to any other completely from memory. Most applicants take close to three years(!) to learn what they need. The average person takes 12 attempts to get through the exam! That's tougher than most college degrees. One presumes that on arrival in the US, there are few jobs one can just walk into. Even if you have good qualifications, it can take months to find a job. What do you do in the meantime? Drive a cab. I suspect that for a lot of these people, this is a second job - one they can do for a few hours in the evenings after their day-job. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Engineering degrees? Here in New Zealand it's nuclear scientists [1] [2]. Actually when I think about it, it's a rather silly cliche. While we do have a Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences New Zealand isn't exactly a great place for nuclear scientists, we don't even have an operational research reactor [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Alot of skilled people work in the US on other visa types, for example J-1 visas. These are significantly cheaper and easier to get than H1Bs. With regards to taxi drivers, in addition to Steve's suggestion many of these may have legal status via the diversity lottery, family members of other legal immigrants or perhaps even illegal immigrants.Rockpocket 05:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Who came up with 4 rings when you call someone to be acceptable

Why is it 4 rings on a phone before you disconnect? why not 3 or 5? Who came up with this number that everyone seems to follow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivtv (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In what circumstances is this a "rule"? I often call and will wait for a dozen rings or more before deciding that the person I'm calling is not there. Astronaut (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. If you follow it, don't - rings are meaningless. The rings you hear in no way correspond to the rings the person on the other end hears. If it takes a long time to connect, you can easily hear five or six rings before the target phone rings once. And that's not to mention the fact that ringtones usually play once - does that count as one ring? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I never hang up after as few as 4 rings (unless I suddenly change my mind about wanting to talk to that person at all). I give them a minimum of 10, usually more like 20. It's incredibly irritating when you're away from the phone when it rings, and you rush to answer it, only for them to have just hung up. So I don't do that to my phonointerlocutors. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I get very annoyed with anyone hanging up after fewer than seven or eight rings - there are circumstances in which it's simply not possible to get to a phone in that time (mobiles included). I find only four rings an astonishingly small number to use as a "rule". FWIW, I usually wait 50 seconds (17 rings - a ring lasts one second and gaps between rings are two seconds*) before hanging up. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC) (* yes, I was bored one day and timed it.)

Besed on at least canada it is 4 rings and the way the phone system works is when I hear a ring its silent on their end. On my silence it rings on their end. After 4 rings and a silence we hang up. Thought it was a world thing haha. if someone called my land line and let it ring 10-20 times i would answer and lose my mind for being rude. Ivtv (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Typically it's four rings before the answering machine kicks in. It's always been that way as far as I know. ('Always' being a relative term, as answering machines started to become widely popular sometime in the 1970s or so.) You can set it to fewer rings, typically. It's probably that someone estimated the average amount of time it would take the average person to get up and walk across the room. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 02:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And if no answering machine kicks in, normally you would stick around for awhile, minimum 8 rings, perhaps. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 02:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, about answering machines' four rings standard: Answering machine designers likely had to choose a number of rings high enough to let the receiving party answer the phone if they're home, but also low enough to prevent callers from hanging up before leaving a message. (If no one left a message, an answering machine wouldn't be useful.) Four rings was likely the compromise that's become standard. --Bavi H (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ivtv: The practice of hanging up if there's no answer after four rings was likely originally related to avoiding answering machines. Perhaps this behavior might just be a learned habit by newer generations of phone users in your area. Or maybe the people in your area are less patient to wait for an answer.

Here's the only situation in which I would hang up in such a short time. In the US, pay phones refund your money if there's no answer. If I was stranded and needed a ride, but only had enough change to make one pay-phone call, I would hang up before the end of the fourth ring to avoid getting an answering machine. I could then call someone else for help, or try calling the same number again to see if a person answered. --Bavi H (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it should be noted that the speed of ringing varies from one country to another. In the US and Canada it's one ring every 6 seconds. Ann Landers used to say in her column that 10 rings was appropriate, giving the person one minute get to the phone. I still go by that (and my home phone goes to voicemail on the 8th ring), but some people today seem to think that it's much too long. They probably assume everyone either has a cellphone or a phone in every room of their house. But that's not actually true, and besides, the person might need at least a few seconds to finish their Reference Desk reply before picking up the phone. --Anonymous, 07:11 UTC, October 18, 2009.

I've never heard of a "rule" existing and I always go by a mutu (a Finnish expression meaning "what I feel like") basis. I typically hang up after a few rings, or just after the answering machine kicks in, if I'm phoning a relative or friend I know who I can phone again. If it's an important business call I leave a message. JIP | Talk 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a cultural variable, and also differs according to the time between rings, evidently twice as long in North America. In the UK, I usually count 17 rings (50 secs) about 8 rings in USA? exactly like Grutness (above), except for people who always leave an answer phone connected, then I give six rings, wait ten seconds, then ring again if I really need a discussion rather than just leaving a message. I find it really annoying when people are too impatient to wait a reasonable time for me to answer. We don't all sit by the phone just waiting for it to ring. When I can afford it (and when technology catches up), I want a phone connected to a computer that will tell me who is ringing, and respond to a voice command to switch on the speakerphone. This has been possible for about twenty-five years, but I've never seen it marketed, so I'll just have to write a program myself. Dbfirs 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When I call someone (in the UK), I will usually leave it about a dozen rings, or longer if I particularly need to get in touch with them. That seems to be about how long it takes the voicemail to kick in on mobiles too. On our home BT phone, the answering machine picks up after 6 rings, or after 2 if there are already messages on the machine so that you don't have to wait yonks if you're dialling in to get your messages. (The latter I find exceptionally annoying) An Internet search suggests that between anywhere between 2 and 9 rings is a common interval before an answering machine picks up with the preset usually 4 or 6. --Kateshortforbob _talk 20:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(Click) You know who is not you know where so you know what to do when you hear the you know what. PEEP. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll join with others above in saying that the "four rings" rule has to do with answering machines. My own machine has an optional setting, answer after two rings if I have messages, four if I don't. This saves me a long-distance charge if I'm checking for messages from far away. (Note Kateshort, I can configure that, so maybe you can quell your own annoying feature)

I also think that short waiting times for phones to be answered are a product of our times. In many cases, my call really isn't so important that it needs to be answered at once, so I'd rather avoid the answering machine, which most people have nowadays in some form. And many phones nowadays have caller-ID and call-history, so my hanging up after four rings is a form of courtesy, "I'd like to talk to you but not if you're eating lunch". In the old days it was far different of course, people ran from wherever they were to answer the phone and the courteous thing was to give them enough time to finish their bath and put a robe on - but that was when phone calls were unique and important. Nowadays I don't ever answer my home phone, it's far too likely to be someone offering to clean my carpets or tell me how I've won a "free" trip to Florida. Franamax (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely an answering machine setting. I had to reset it yesterday because my power went out. I recall setting rings before pickup to 4. It told me that "it was the default setting, and would be chosen if no number was pressed."  Buffered Input Output 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When I ring someone I know to work in a cubicle or other shared office space, I hang up after three rings. If there's no answer, either he/she is away from their desk or is too busy to answer the phone. No need to annoy the cubicle-mates with interminable ringing. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)