Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 May 25

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 25

Counseling

I just found out that counseling is very interesting and I'm beginning to consider taking it for a Master's degree. However, I'm not sure yet since my training is focused on the academe and research. Are there any activities that could simulate activities that I would expect in practicing counseling?--121.54.2.188 (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of charities that offer counselling services. You could volunteer for one of them. See Samaritans (charity), for example. --Tango (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that a decent degree in a subject like counselling would include a practical component. It might include sitting in on sessions with an experienced counsellor (with the agreement of the clients), and/or taking simple cases yourself with a mentor on standby. In terms of simulation, the simplest form is role-playing situations that you might expect with other students. You pick a situation (perhaps at random) and role-play a client in a counselling session. I have heard of this happening with drama students playing the role of clients in mutually beneficial simulation (you get practice with counselling, the drama student can practise difficult roles). If you do not have access to other people, it can be theoretically done by listing different situations that you might come across, and outlining the approach you would take, with reference to appropriate theories and practices from your course. Your undergraduate teachers would probably be able to suggest the situations you should know. Steewi (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is possible, you could approach a working counsellor and ask to sit in on some sessions and discuss them afterwards. Steewi (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll try the counsellor route since I know some of them. Perhaps I could do sit ins on his sessions as well.--121.54.2.188 (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I studied counselling as part of my first degree. However, this did not include practical work, merely theories of counselling and their uses. I had the opportunity to train as a bereavement counsellor shortly afterwards, which I took, but only practised for a short while. I do find, however, that my work as a holistic therapist gives me opportunity to put much of what I learned into practice. Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Elevation Stats for Bad Schandau Germany...

The elevation stat for Bad Schandau is incorrect. The websote starts 146m however Decin Czech is upstream and is 135m. Dresden Below at 113m. I could not find a portal other than this one to inform you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.192.54 (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For your future information - questions like this are usually best raised first at the Discussion page (or "talk page") of the article in question, in that case here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that the town covers an area and not a single point, it is likely that the 146m number refers to, perhaps, the highest point or maybe the average elevation for the whole municipality. Its a bit unclear, but it is entirely possible for the river to be at a considerably lower elevation than either the average elevation or the highest elevation for the town. While it is unclear where the number in the article came from, you'd need some sort of reliable source with a different number to change it. --Jayron32 06:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the homepage of Bad Schandau and states that the elevation is approximately 120m. Seems likely, as the town / village is a linear settlement along one side of the river Elbe. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The relevant template is Template:Infobox_settlement. Unfortunately exactly what "elevation" should be referred to is not stated. How would you define "average" elevation anyway?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In the US, the "elevation" of a town is usually that of the weather station; if the town doesn't have one, it's usually the elevation of the town hall or the post office. I suspect other countries have similar conventions. --Carnildo (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing perspectives on holiday

Hello

My english teacher has set a speech for me on the topic of Changing Perspectives while Travelling. I've completed it but I mainly talk about how my perspective of London was changed before and after I visited, describing the catalysts and information that made my viewpoint change. Right now I think it's probably a bit shallow and lacking in analysis of the actual topic Changing Perspectives because it feels like a recount to me. What other points can I talk about to make it better, or what details can I add? I've done essays on Change in films/books, but they included techniques, etc.

Thanks in advance, 110.174.151.109 (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What came to my mind, when I read your section heading, were more general changes in one's view of the world, of people, of one's self, experienced while traveling, not just changing perspectives of the place one visited. Culture shock or intercultural competence don't quite fit the topic, but they are related, and the articles and references might give you some more ideas. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am English and once lived in London many many years ago, returning only last year to see my daughter graduate from Uni. My perspective from years ago (about 40)was challenged dramatically by how many more ethnic groups there were and how many other languages were in daily use, to the extent that in some areas, English was a minority language. I did some research after my return home to Scotland and was astounded at the fact there are reputedly some 170 languages in daily use in London today. Amazing, and what a shock to my 40 year old perspective of London. 92.30.6.221 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC).

I once traveled with a group of Swedish teenagers to Poland, where they met Polish peers, attended classes, and visited their homes. For many of them this was the first time they realized how priviliged their situation was compared to many other teens in the world. So the visit changed their perspectives on their own lives.

While traveling, you'll find yourself in new situations, some of them very challenging, and observing your own reactions and behavior in these situations can also change your perspective on yourself. Lova Falk talk 09:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You might take the opportunity for a general discussion of cultural stereotypes, and how they develop and are sustained. Your speech could clarify whether your experience changed, eliminated or even reinforced any stereotypical ideas you personally had about the place you visited. Karenjc 10:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing you might consider is the protrayal in popular media versus the experience of actually visiting. For example, news coverage of a foreign city often portrays it in a bad light, emphasising crime, poverty, pollution - things that rarely trouble the holidaymaker. Or how about the American who was surprised to hear that fog was a relatively rare thing in London. They had the impression (presumably from watching old Sherlock Holmes movies) that the London pea-souper was still a reality. It can also work the other way - my impression of Rome from movies and documentaries is tainted by the 6 days of cold and rain I suffered on a week long stay. Astronaut (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The OP's IP locates at Sydney, Australia. If the OP is Australian they may have noticed how Australians are received in London, and they might speculate on what changed impression of Australian turists they left behind. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Stopoff en route from Austria to Italy

I will be driving from Vienna, Austria to Desenzano del Garda, Italy. It's a distance of 460 miles and I don't fancy doing it all in one day. Can anyone recommend an interesting town or village, roughly halfway along the route, at which to stop for the night? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It would help to know which roads you plan to take. Along the northern route, perhaps Salzburg or Innsbruck might be interesting. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only looking at the route which my mapping website of choice recommends as the fastest. That seems to go along the E66, E55 and E70, which I don't think is the northern route. As I say, I'm looking for a stopover roughly 50% along the way, and not too far off the autoroute. Thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I highly recommend Villach, beautiful and quiet small town, surrounded by mountains. Try to get a place to sleep near the city centre and maybe you'll have time to take a stroll. It seems to be at roughly half the distance between Vienna and Desenzano (at least according to the map provided by viamichelin). I don't know what the policy on advertisements here specifies, but I know of a cheap and cozy Gasthaus where you can also eat well (unless you wanna get a kebab in the Altstadt), and where you also have a Hofer nearby :P Rimush (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

BP oil spill and the law

British Petroleum has stated that they will cover the costs of the oil spill cleanup "even if it exceeds their legal liability limit". My question, what is that limit and what law(s) set the limit ? StuRat (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "liability" makes me suspect that they are, in fact, referring to their insurance excess, though I'm in no way sure. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

CBS say that the limit is $75m, though they don't make clear exactly what the limit is as a concept! ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 14:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dallas News says that the "liability cap" exists "under pollution act rules" – ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, found it: it's the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [1] – ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, basically oil companies and the federal government made a deal where in the event of a spill, oil companies would be responsible for the costs of the immediate cleanup but had only limited liability ($75 million) when it came to paying for economic disruptions, like fishing, to the area. I believe the deal was made because the unbounded financial risk associated with the potential to disrupt other industries for long periods of times made it difficult for companies to operate or get insured. It appears to be a bit of a moot point now since BP has basically said it's not looking at the $75 million limit at all, suggesting that they will pay far more than this. How it all plays out remains to be seen... TastyCakes (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do huge companies like BP have insurance? I was told by a BP employee many years ago that they didn't bother because they have enough money to cover any liability themselves? Frumpo (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

the deal was made because the unbounded financial risk associated with the potential to disrupt other industries for long periods of times made it difficult for companies to operate or get insured - of course, that is a hidden subsidy for fossil fuels. A similar subsidy exists for nuclear power plants, btw. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And terrorism insurance, which as I understand it was provided by the US government after September 11th, although the article doesn't mention that. I'm sorry, I don't know the ins and outs of the major oil companies' insurance practices. I would assume they have some insurance on some things, but if they had it for this spill I'm sure it would be in the news already. I think it should also be kept in mind that the $75 million limit wasn't just put there for the BPs of the world: there are many much smaller companies operating wells in the Gulf that would have had much less money to throw at such a spill. TastyCakes (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here is an article on this. Swiss Re estimated $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion in claims two weeks ago, and it's only gotten worse since then. That includes claims for the rig itself ($560 million) and all sorts of other things, like hotels or fishing companies along the coast. Oh, and lots and lots of lawsuits. TastyCakes (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I heard on NPR the other day that the $75 million liability cap was contestable in cases of some level of negligence, but I'm having trouble finding a reference. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only legal source is the Act I linked to above, which doesn't appear to say anything of the sort... ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it — your link led me to trouble to read the full text. Section 2704(a) names the $75 million + cleanup costs limit; but section (c) lists exceptions that make section (a) not apply: If it was caused by the responsible party's (or their agent's or contractor's or employee's) "gross negligence or willful misconduct", or if there was a "violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction, or operating regulation". Also if they don't report the incident, cooperate or reasonably assist, or comply with certain orders. The NPR thing I heard was presumably somebody alleging that BP or its contractor was grossly negligent, meaning no liability limit. To jump to a conclusion, BP's apparent announcement that it would not "hide behind" the liability cap may have been motivated by an internal conclusion that when this were to go to trial, it was likely that any jury would find them grossly negligent, meaning their liability is unlimited anyway and their best option was to look like the good guys by accepting financial responsibility publicly and "voluntarily". Of course, I am not a lawyer, and don't know how difficult it would be for the state's attorneys of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas to prove "gross negligence" to a jury. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank for all the info. Now, under capitalist theory, isn't it true that if the risks of a venture outweigh the benefits, then that venture should be avoided ? It seems to me that radically reducing the risk exposure to the companies only encourages them to do things which are unwise. Is there some variant on capitalist philosophy which states that protecting companies from the results of poor decisions helps them to make better decisions ? If not, I just don't understand the justification for such a law. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

cAPS LOCK

hELP i HAVE TURNED CAPS LOCK ON AND i CANNOT TURN IT OFF i HAVE TRIED PRESING THE cAPS lOCK KEY AND NOTHING!! WHAT SHOULD i DO?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HAPPYMARLIN (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reboot the computer. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Or sellotape the 'shift' key down... ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps pry out the caps lock key, and clean off the marmalade or underlying crumbs which are preventing it from functioning. 213.122.2.195 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

On Windows systems there are two Caps lock key configurations. One has caps lock toggling the caps lock state. The other has caps lock setting caps lock and shift clearing it. I think the selection is in the accessibility options somewhere. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, because in the four edits that the OP made in the five minutes after this question was posted (see OP's contribs), there seemed to be no problems with the CAPS key at all, and so the problem must be sorted. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I only count two. Deleted? Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems so, and one of the remaining ones is an edit which was subsequently reverted by the page's 'owner'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarah,_Duchess_of_York still being a Duchess

Why is Sarah Ferguson still a Duchess? Shouldn't she have lost the title after her divorce from the Duke of York? Mr.K. (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

See Courtesy title#Divorced wives. According to that, it's just convention, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Letters patent about it at some point. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Immediately after her divorce she retained the style Her Royal Highness; however on 21 August 1996 letters patent were issued which removed the style from divorced ex-wives of princes, paving the way for her to retain "Duchess of York”. A week later, on 28 August 1996, Princess Diana suffered the same fate, going from Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales to mere Diana, Princess of Wales. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No plagiarising Wikipedia in your ref desk answers! You copied that first sentence word for word from Sarah,_Duchess_of_York#Titles_and_styles! --Tango (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This thread isn't an article, and the rule of not using Wikipedia as a source for answers doesn't apply here. Was I supposed to have acknowledged my source? Or is that article not what you'd consider a reliable source? (Jack=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote marks would have been the best solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Where did these "rules" come from, where are they laid down, how long have they been in place, and why wasn't I informed? (Jack=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

They aren't "rules", just common practice (and not just on the ref desk). If you are quoting somebody else's work, you should say so. It both gives credit where credit is due and allows the reader to see the quote in context if they want to. --Tango (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, what Jack wrote was 100% clear, 100% correct and 100% fine. Don't fusspot about nothing. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree quoting or otherwise making it clear the answer was copied is good practice and common courtesy. I don't think Tango intended to make a big fuss about this, it was a fair comment and may have been more of a joke then anything anyway however Jack asked so Tango correctly replied/explained. Then of course you replied so... Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continues here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would she still retain that title if Andrew were to marry again? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she can. She would be referred to as "Sarah, Duchess of York", but not called "Her/Your Grace", or "Royal Highness". Andrew's new wife would be simply "Duchess of York", or more formally, "Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of York" - or "Her Grace, the Duchess of Place" if not royal (ie. not need personal name to disambiguate). Gwinva (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What if she does something really bad, like kill someone? Can her title be revoked like a KBE? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a courtesy title, ie. it's allowed through convention. Since she has no legal right to it, there can't be any legal stripping. But in such a scenario, people might choose not to use it, and official references to her might well drop the courtesy; if she continued to use it herself, the Palace could take her aside and gently suggest it was no longer appropriate. Gwinva (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what if he decides to marry someone else named Sarah? (I think he should do it, just for the laughs.) TresÁrboles (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If payday falls on a weekend

I pay my employees on the 15th and 30th by cheque with no holdback. What happens if payday falls on a sat. or sun. when I'm closed. Does the employee get pad early or on the Monday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.236.203 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's up to you. Employment contracts are usually written so that it is clear what happens in those situations (eg. they might say pay is received on the first business day on or after the 15th of each month). If you don't have contracts that make it clear, you need to come up with a solution. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I usually received the check by the official payday. If the 15th was on Sunday or a holiday, I got the check early (on the 13th) rather than on Monday the 16th, or Tuesday the 17th if Monday the 16th was a holiday. Edison (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I get paid on the 28th (next Friday, yay!); when it falls on a Saturday or Sunday I get paid the previous Friday, except in December when I get paid a week early so I can actually do something with the money before the country closes down for the Christmas-New Year holiday. When does the OP pay his employees in February when there's no 30th? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't pay them at all -- sort of like having your birthday on Feb 29th and being much younger than all of your peers. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

When you pay your employees is up to you. That said, I haven't encountered, or heard of, a single employer in the US who doesn't pay their employees the Friday before a payday that falls on a weekend or holiday. Dismas|^(talk) 01:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most employers (in the UK also) pay early rather than late, to avoid creating a cash-flow problem for their employees. This can, however, create a similar problem for the employer. Dbfirs 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The National Health Service in the UK pays its employees on the Friday if the pay day falls at the weekend. My local trust publishes in April the pay dates for the whole year, so no-one can be in any doubt. 86.4.186.107 (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)