Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miscellaneous desk
< February 19 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 21 >
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.


February 20

[edit]

Personally Built Robot

[edit]

Does anyone know of any company or site that will build a robot (like one on robot wars) or remote controlled toy to your specific liking or ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.226.236 (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google search on "prototyping", you can find companies that will help you come up with a robot, remote controlled toy, or other machine that you've thought up. But it's not likely to be cheap. MrRedact (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist newspaper

[edit]

What is the best online newspaper for a socialist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-mail (optional): Allows (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on google showed this website http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml--Dlo2012 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Socialist Worker. A Google search for "online socialist newspaper" turns up a bunch more. I'll leave it to you to decide which one is the "best." MrRedact (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News. Nothing will make you feel more consistently angry with "the man" than the spoon fed news of "the man" himself. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. CNN and the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS are socialist and Far left loons. 65.173.105.203 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way, they're not socialist in the slightest. Maybe they are liberal, but if you don't know the difference between liberal and socialist, then you're a bit behind on your governmental systems. Liberals don't want radical change, they want moderate change without upsetting much of the existing order; socialists want to re-built the state and man. But in any case, it's hard to argue that Fox News is anything less than a puff-piece for the far right; they've never, so far as I can tell, ever really pretended to be otherwise. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what you consider to be a socialist you could try the Toronto Globe and Mail or The Guardian. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see The Morning Star Willy turner (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elections(politics)

[edit]

In the US, when electing people to congress, each person is elected individually. Are there any countries where people in the equivalent of congress are elected all at once--what I mean is that citizens would vote for a party and then whatever percent of the vote a party gets determines how many representatives they get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-mail (optional): Allows (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be Proportional Representation--ChesterMarcol (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


websites

[edit]

How exactly do websites make money? I know that wikipedia uses donations, and some other websites use ads, but how do other websites make money? Does it depend on the number of visits per day?--Dlo2012 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking from experience, as I own two tiny e-commerce web sites. The huge way that web sites make money that you didn't list is to directly sell goods and services, as with, for example, amazon.com or netflix. How much money a web site makes only indirectly depends on the number of visits per day. You can create a web site that attracts a huge number of visitors, but if nobody buys goods and services on the web site, nobody clicks on the advertisements, and nobody makes contributions, the web site is going to lose money. It costs money for all that bandwidth needed to send web content to all those visitors. MrRedact (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are also websites that describe services, as does one of my sites. Revenue from these services may then be used to pay for server space, bandwidth, etc. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many web sites don't. Many are just maintained as a hobby. There are a vast number of potential answers to this question. Do you have an example of the sort of site you're interested in? APL (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's still true, but for most of the life of the web the #1 way to make money was to sell digital images of naked ladies. --Sean 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And naked men, as it turns out. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Page might tell you that's not true any more. (Google makes its money by advertising) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Psh, Mr. Page's endeavors only exist as a means to expedite the location of aforementioned images. Poechalkdust (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internationa Business & Trade

[edit]

key reasons for importing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.52.45 (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get stuff that you cant find in your country or is cheaper when bought from another country. Cryo921 (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same as key reasons for buying anything: unless the thing you want is your own specialty, it's usually more efficient to buy it than to make it yourself. —Tamfang (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is called comparative advantage, fyi. - Carbon [Nyan?] 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a song

[edit]

In the second episode of "Stewie Griffan: the Untold Story" there is a short song played just after stewie steals the winabego. I caught maybe 85% of the lyrics of the song, and was hoping maybe someone could ID it for me. The lyrics (to the best of my ability) are as follows: "He’s bound up, Loaded up and trucking; Were going to do what they say can’t be done." Any help would be apreciated. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"East Bound and Down", made popular in part by the Smokey and the Bandit movies, by Jerry Reed. Dismas|(talk) 09:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the subtitles will sometimes tell you the title and artist of incidental music. I keep mine switched on most of the time, precisely to catch this sort of thing.--Shantavira|feed me 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW part two... If you're trying to find the name of a song, Google can be a big help. Just type in lyrics segment of lyrics If you get them slightly wrong, Google is usually pretty good about making suggestions to help your search like spelling corrections. Normally the artist and song title is in one of the first five results, if not the first ten. For your song, I knew of the song but not the exact title, so I searched for lyrics gonna do what they say can't be done. Dismas|(talk) 09:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising on cars

[edit]

It seems to be hard to avoid advertisements these days - they're plastered pretty much everywhere you look. But it occurred to me today that one place you never see them is on cars. You get them on taxis, and obviously traders and companies have their logos on the sides of their vans, but never on private cars. Now, if I owned a car, and some company (especially a cool one like Apple) offered me money to carry their logo on the side of it, I might say yes. Is this just something that has never occurred to marketing departments? Or is there some other reason why it doesn't happen? --Richardrj talk email 09:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it happens. Like you, I'm not sure why it doesn't happen more often but I have seen news articles about companies who ask private citizens to plaster ads on their autos. I think I've also seen people auction off the ad space on their autos on eBay as well. Original research... I think it probably has something to do with companies not wanting the drivers to cut someone off in traffic or whatever and have it reflect poorly on the company. Dismas|(talk) 09:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They would also need some kind of guarantee that the car would be in public view a significant proportion of the time, which is difficult to check on. I would guess that most folk are too proud of their cars, and too fussy about which products they would want to be associated with. But it would certainly reduce the likelihood of car theft.--Shantavira|feed me 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for advertising space private cars yields numerous results. The first of which being a message board thread about the topic. One of the posters mentions several businesses that do this such as www.autowrapped.com Dismas|(talk) 09:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising is everywhere in Chicagoland. That includes many private cars - which are almost always PT Cruisers, Beetles, and Minis. I also often see billboard trucks, full bus advertisements (even the windows are vinyled!), flying banners, ads painted on the sides of buildings, people with signs on the side of the street, spotlights, etc. I've even seen a one time city-wide SMS advertising campaign. Quite frankly I am sick of it. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over here (Gdańsk, Poland for those who might not know me all too well) advertisements can also be seen practically everyfuckingwhere. Buses (yes, even the windows are covered with colourful but see-through film), trams, our equivalent of the light rail, billboards, everything. Private cars - no, rarely. Daily we receive colourful folders from your local Temple of Mammon, be it Tesco or Media Markt. One particularly annoying thing is people calling on the phone to advertise services or goods. Blah. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, no place is safe. Soon they will scope out deserted islands and cover them in billboards, and eventually they will have giant billboards in space or even etch a logo onto the moon itself. I am also reminded of Minority Report, where they get custom-tailored ads pestering them as they walk down the street. There is no end to this madness. Today companies pay people to have their website printed on their back in ink, or even tattooed or shaved into their head. Hell, they advertise things on food itself now! Imagine your potato chips telling you to try another flavor of potato chips, or your steak advertising the restaurant's dessert options. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potato chip bags (certain potato chip bags) already have 'have you already tried out other flavours?' area. Have seen it years ago. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean on the chip itself. They already have trivia printed on Pringles, the moment those came out I knew they will eventually use the technology for advertising. Also, I am 206 up there, I don't sign in most of the day because...well, I'm somewhere I don't trust during the day. Chris16447 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) As a student in France in the early 80s, I didn't have a car. Those students who did, however, were offered the chance to earn some money by having a large (maybe 2ft/60cm square) bright yellow sticker on each side of their vehicle. I *think* it was advertising an offer related to train travel, but that has faded rather. The year was 1983, I think, maybe May or June, and the place was Compiègne in the Oise. SaundersW (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the late 70s when I was a student at the University of Liverpool, students with cars were paid to have their cars advertise KP Nuts. It's a long time ago, but as I remember the deal was that the car would be re-sprayed in the KP Nuts colours (blue and yellow) and decals added. After a fixed length of time (6 months?) KP would remove the advertising and re-spray the car again. Presumably there were clauses about not running people over when advertising. The student got a few quid (I can't remember how much) out of it and a new paint job on their car. I didn't have a car (and spent far too much time in the Phil to be trustworthy to drive one!) Tonywalton Talk 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was running people over forbidden? If TV would have arrived, it would have gotten them a lot of airtime :) --Ouro (blah blah) 19:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Jobs, In the US

[edit]

I want to explain to a teenager that if they use marijuana and get caught, then they will, because of the arrest, automatically have lost a "____"% of jobs.

For example: I want to tell them that they lost about 80% of the jobs that they would have been eligiable for, had they not been arrested for a drug related crime. (They lost the opprotunity for Military/Government jobs, hospital jobs, mechanic jobs with an automaker, etc.) I'm looking for the PRECENTAGE of jobs and I cannot find anything close. Maybe you could just tell me what %you think they will have lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which country? It's possible that the US is more precious about this sort of thing than, say, the UK? Are you assuming a court conviction for smoking dope, or merely a police caution? I'm not sure there's an easy answer. You can probably scare said teenager with tales of 40% loss - no government funded opportunities (military, civil service, teacher). Or 60% by adding no professional job - lawyer, health worker. Good luck. --
The example I want to give them is for a minor conviction,(Possession of drug paraphenlia, for example) similar to a traffic ticket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When U.S. Presidents like Clinton and candidates like Obamaand Supreme Court Justices admit having smoked marijuana, why would it limit the job aspirations of others, unless they are habitual drugged out slackers who don't get out of bed in the morning? Does the person have a history of accomplishments like getting admitted to a good university and graduating with honors? Or at least getting good grades in high school, holding a job while in high school, and having a good recommendation from the employer? I can't see the meaningfulness of claiming "87% of jobs will be closed to you forever" but you can still be a Senator or the President or a Supreme Court Justice. Just call it "youthful indiscretions" and get on with life. Edison (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who have at some time smoked marijuana experience no real consequence as a result. As Edison notes, prominent people have admitted to trying marijuana. Therefore, your teenager, if he or she is reasonably well informed, is unlikely to believe that any percentage you cite is relevant. Certainly, you want to warn him or her that this action is illegal and that there could be very unpleasant consequences if they are caught. However, I don't think that even a youthful arrest for drug use is likely to have much impact on job prospects several years down the road. The more serious danger is that your teenager could fall into habitual use of marijuana, which can really sap motivation and ruin lives and careers. Do you or your teenager know anyone who is a habitual user? You might point to that person as a kind of countermodel. If the teenager must try the drug as an experiment, help him or her to see that marijuana is dangerous if used more often than very occasionally. Marco polo (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would work to try to scare your teenager by claiming that 40%, 60%, or 80% of jobs will become unavailable to them in the future if they get arrested for marijuana use. I think most teenagers are smart enough to recognize B.S. from a parent or other adult when they hear it.
In reality, I think very few jobs in the future would become completely unavailable to your teenager due to one arrest for possession of a small amount of marijuana as a teenager. For one thing, how would a future employer even know? Ask your lawyer about this for verification, but it's my understanding that juvenile court records are sealed, such that the arrest wouldn't show up at all in a job background check as an adult. There are a few jobs, such as an FBI agent, for which the applicant needs to take a lie detector test as part of getting a security clearance, but that's certainly not the case with most jobs. For another thing, it's been my experience that employers are much more concerned about possible current drug use than they are with drug use years earlier as a teenager. It's not too uncommon for employers nowadays to do pre-employment or random drug testing, but that only detects marijuana use within at most a couple months, not marijuana use from years earlier. MrRedact (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Unfrotunately, you are mistaken in your basic premise (unstated) that getting caught with marijuana will be bad for their future. It's just not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.134 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACT score

[edit]

i got a 24, is that good? Some people say it is but im not sure.the juggreserection IstKrieg! 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>:If you scored 24 playing for ACT, not only is it good, but you're notable. If by any chance you're not a rugby player, which ACT did you mean? It's quite a popular acronym. --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good but not great. See the distribtion graph at ACT (examination)#Score percentiles. You're in about the fourth decile from the top. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i was refering to the high school test. not rugby.the juggreserection IstKrieg! 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means that they beat enough useless information into you. All they do is teach you what is on the test, not anything you need for the real world. High school is a complete farce. However, you will now be moving on to college, and some real education - I think you will enjoy it. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that education really starts when you leave the comforting nest of college and get out on the street to actually earn a living. Education then continues every moment of every day.--212.139.105.47 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's good, it's good, especially if it's an improvement on stuff you've done, or on par with it. IMO the stuff you learn is brain training for learning stuff you really like later, and it doesn't weigh much. Congrats anyway, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two scores you can get on a college test: good enough to get into the school you want, and not good enough. So, it depends on the school you want. Also be aware that, if your test is good enough, and the rest of your application isn't so impressive, you're still doomed -- I got shot down for a grad school I really wanted a few years ago with a great score on the GRE (which is sort of like the ACT for the next level) because some of the competition had better full packages, although they only scraped by on the test. Be well-rounded. Good luck, Deltopia (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that for graduate school it becomes much more particular to the program and the discipline. I had horrible GRE math scores, even within my own discipline (that is, not even comparing them with more quantitative disciplines), but it didn't matter a whole lot because you don't really need to use math at all in what I do, and I was very strong in other categories (moderate verbal, perfect logical reasoning; but also very strong things outside of the test scores altogether, like grades, strong letters of recc', extensive research experience, etc.). With undergraduate education, which is generally generalist, I think they often have a lot less leeway for variation when it comes to "minimum test scores" and the like. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements with self-comparisons

[edit]

There's a series of TV ads here for AAMI (Australian Associated Motor Insurers Limited); they do home and contents as well. Currently, they're saying something to the effect of "If you buy this AAMI product, you'll save xxx per cent". That gets the listener's attention. It's only when one asks "compared to what?" does the problem appear. The ad makes it clear (albeit in fine print that's visible for only 2-3 seconds) that the comparison is not between the product on offer and another company's product, but between the AAMI product on offer and another AAMI product. There's no information on how much the price compares with any other company's products. I'll state for the record that I consider the "you'll save xxx %" message misleading, but I don't want to get into a debate about it because that's a legal minefield and we don't do that here. I'm just making that point because, if I consider it misleading, surely others do too, and surely it's come to the notice of regulators. What I want to know is whether this marketing "trick" is widespread elsewhere, and what the attitude of government regulators to it is. If their attitude is negative, what sorts of actions have they taken? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Advertising Standards Bureau of Australia administers complaints made under the Australian Association of National Advertisers Advertiser Code of Ethics, point 1.2 of which states "Advertisements shall not be misleading or deceptive or be likely to mislead or deceive". Advertising monitoring is complaints driven. Visit the online complaint form and take your concern further by making the case that the AAMI advert is, or is likely to, mislead. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tagishsimon. I did investigate that route, and they referred me to the ACCC. I await their response with interest. However, I'm still interested in knowing what the general attitude of other governments to this practice is, if anyone knows. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008_February_20&oldid=1138626202"