Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 13

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

July 13

The difficult one...

I was just reading the difficult one question above, and a thought struck me, and I want to know if it's right. First let us assume that there exists a most difficult question. Let us call it X. Now, this by definition would be the hardest to answer. But consider the question X U Y where Y is any other question, say what is 1 + 1 ?. Now, this question is even harder to answer than X, because it requires that we must know the answer to X and something else, in this case, 1 + 1. But X is the hardest question to answer. Which means we have arrived at a contradiction, proving our assumption to be false. There cannot exist a question which can be called the most toughest question. Or, the sequence of tough questions diverges without a limit. Which means that the answer to OP's question is : There is no answer. It is like asking "what is the biggest number ?". Am I making sense ? Rkr1991 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how you are constructing that union. Let's say question A is "solve 1+1" and question B is "solve 2+3" What is A U B? If A U B is simply "1+1 = ? 2+3 = ?" Suppose A and B are independent; is your argument that P (A U B) = P(A) + P(B), which, assuming A is non-trivial, is >= P(B)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The question X U Y might not be any more difficult to answer correctly than just the question X, if answering X already involves answering Y. For example, X could be the question “What are all the questions which have a correct answer, and what is the correct answer for each of those questions?” That question is unacceptably sloppy, in that it’s left undefined as to what it means to answer a question correctly. But for any definition of answering a question correctly, under pretty much any reasonable definition of how “difficult” it is to answer a question, there wouldn’t be any question more difficult to answer correctly than X. I think that X might be a correct answer to the original question of what the most difficult question to answer is. Red Act (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK forget about the union bit, just consider the new question as two questions asked as one question. The second question can be anything at all in the universe. So even if I find one question that is not included in X itself, then I can prove that X cannot exist. So from what Red Act says, we have indeed found X. X should be such that it incorporates all the questions that can be asked, otherwise X does not exist. So X is "Answer all the questions that can be asked." This has to be the most difficult question. Now are we home ? Rkr1991 (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a paradox. Logically, P(A U B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A ∩ B).But, even though it's possible to frame a question that will correspond to A U B, how is it possible to frame one corresponding to A ∩ B?? Supposing A is question that goes like: "What is the most difficult question to answer" while B is a question that goes like: "What is 1+1?" so logically, A U B will be a question like:"What is the most difficult question and what is 1+1?" But is it in any way possible to frame A ∩ B here? Any ideas? Anyone? 117.194.229.163 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like it would be possible to define the problem of “the most difficult question” in a way that it actually does have a provable answer. A first stab at such a framework might be something along the lines of:

Axiom 1: There exists a set of “answerable questions” such that each element of the set can be represented by a countable string of Unicode characters.

Axiom 2: For every answerable question, there exists a set of “correct answers” to the answerable question, such that each correct answer can be represented by a countable string of Unicode characters.

Definition: For each answerable question, the “difficulty” of answering the question is the sum of Unicode characters in the smallest string that represents the question, plus the sum of Unicode characters in the smallest string that represents a correct answer to the question.

Axiom 3: The “difficulty” of answering a question that asks for the answers to multiple subquestions is greater than the sum of the difficulty of answering each of the subquestions.

Theorem: Let X be the question which has all answerable questions as subquestions. Let Y be any other answerable question. Then the difficulty of X is greater than the difficulty of Y.

The difficulty of X is basically $\aleph _{0}$. Red Act (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh jeez - please - that's pseudo-mathematical bullshit. You're trying to formalize something that's not defined rigorously enough to be formalizable.

• You say: "the “difficulty” of answering the question is the sum of Unicode characters in the smallest string that represents the question, plus the sum of Unicode characters in the smallest string that represents a correct answer to the question" -- So something like "Are there three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than two." (Fermat's last theorem)...to which the answer turns out to be "No" - is somehow an easier question than "What is the square root of 12341203948712039487123098273502394875203497582304958723045987230458723045987234058723450198723412341230941827340193874 to an precision of 0.00000000000000000001 ?" (for which the answer is "111090971499541939540617341950772052720229439882381084301517.26741388709120337521")? The former question occupied the best minds in mathematics for 350 years - where the latter was answered by me alone in about 20 seconds. There is clearly ZERO correlation between the size of the questions and/or answers and the "difficulty" of arriving at the answer.
• Axiom 3 is also bogus. Very often the stepwise approach of asking several sub-questions makes answering the final part easier - not harder.

Which makes your conclusion as bullshittish as it sounds. The concept of 'difficulty' is in the eye of the beholder. My question about the square root of 12341203948712039487123098273502394875203497582304958723045987230458723045987234058723450198723412341230941827340193874 is difficult for you - because you have only calculators of limited precision. I have the Linux 'bc' arbitary precision math package - and for me it's as easy as 2+2. Furthermore - I find computer programming questions easy - because I'm a computer programmer. Questions about the biochemistry of lipids are quite beyond my ability. Difficulty is also a function of the way you think...if I ask you to tell me the sum of the numbers 1 through 100 and you don't know the trick - it'll take you quite a while to add up all of those numbers. If you happen to "spot" the trick of adding the biggest number to the smallest and the next biggest to the next smallest - you get the answer in about 10 seconds. Sometimes it's just random whether a question is difficult or easy. Some questions (like "Is Fermat's last theorem true?") used to be insanely difficult...but now that the proof has been found, it's easy! Even my square root question was pretty tough - right up to the point when someone wrote an arbitary precision math package for the PDP-11 back in the 1970's. The difficulty of questions changes over time and with available knowledge and technology.

So please - don't pretend you can find the answer to a silly question like this with this kind of approach. The answer was given more than adequately to the original questioner last week. We can easily come up with infinitely difficult questions - so the answer to "what is the most difficult question" is clearly any one that has infinite difficulty. And that's all we can say on the matter.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, the theorem could be made more general by replacing the definition of the “difficulty” of a question so that it is merely assumed as an axiom that there exists a function called the “difficulty” of a question, whose domain is the set of answerable questions, and whose range is the set of integers (or maybe reals?). Red Act (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Great - but now you've presumed the existance of a function that answers the OP's question...that doesn't get you any closer to understanding how that function works - so this is just so much irrelevent hand-waving. SteveBaker (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's break this new question down a little:

• First let us assume that there exists a most difficult question. Let us call it X. - Fine - but recognise that since there are questions that are either (a) impossible to answer or (b) would take infinite time to answer - we must say that X is infinitely difficult to answer.
• But consider the question X U Y where Y is any other question, say what is 1 + 1 ?. Now, this question is even harder to answer than X, - No, it's not because infinity+1 equals infinity. Both questions are infinitely hard.
• Which means we have arrived at a contradiction, - not at all.
• There cannot exist a question which can be called the most toughest question. - Yes, there can - providing that it's infinitely tough. We already came up with infinitely difficult questions in answer to the previous OP...so this is solved.
• Which means that the answer to OP's question is : There is no answer. It is like asking "what is the biggest number ?" - yes, it is indeed exactly like asking that - and the answer in both cases revolves around the concept of "infinity"...and for exactly the same reason. The argument that there can be no biggest number because whatever you pick as the biggest can always have one added to it to make it bigger also neglects the fact that infinity+1=infinity.

Infinite answers are not always comfortable ones - but they are very often the truth. There exist some number of infinitely difficult questions - those are the most difficult...and that's all you need to know.

The only tricky part of this is defining "difficulty" - but it seems clear that either a question that cannot possibly be answered (eg "is this theorem true or it false?" for some theorem caught in the Godel Theorem trap - which is fundamentally unanswerable) - or one that takes an infinite amount of time (eg "what is the sum of all of the decimal digits of pi") ought to count as "infinitely difficult".

SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions of the form "is this unprovable irrefutable sentence true or false?" are not inherently unanswerable, as I pointed out above (well, not for all philosophies of mathematics, anyway). Algebraist 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The proof the OP seems to be getting at is the following, which can be drawn from an analogy on the longest sentence or biggest number:

1. Assume there is a most longest sentence, or biggest number. Call this number or sentence N. 2. In the case of a number, add one to the number, symbolized by X. In the case of a sentence, add an additional word; in this case, "It is a fact" symbolized by X. 3. The new longest sentence is now N + X, and the largest number is N + X. 4. N + X is greater then N. 5. Through an indirect proof, we can see that there is no largest number or longest sentence.

I believe the OP is attempting to correlate most difficult problem with largest number or longest sentence. In the case of a longest sentence, it may not be meaningful, just as the most difficult problem may not be meaningful.

I believe that the argument is on the right track, though seemingly a little off kilter.

74.79.219.157 (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Douglas R Jordan

Habits

Why are good habits difficult to adopt as compared to bad ones? sumal (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad ones are generally easier to do and more fun. PhGustaf (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple case of Observer bias: Because all of the good habits that are easy to adopt have almost certainly already been adopted. The remaining good habits that you have not yet adopted - but feel that you should - are therefore the hard ones that remain at the end. On the other hand, bad habits that are hard to adopt simply don't come into your sphere of consideration (why would you even consider starting a bad habit if it was difficult to start?!?) - while bad habits that are easy to adopt are the ones you tend to pick up. Hence you only notice the difficult good habits and the easy bad ones. SteveBaker (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also see Deferred gratification.71.236.26.74 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"When faced with two evils, I take the one I haven't tried yet." -- Mae West

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between USC(United States Code) and CFR(Code of Federal Regulation)

My job kinda related with some of American laws, when i was going over some materials, this question just came up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astljames (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

United States Code is laws passed by congress. But congress doesn't want to get bogged down with tiny administrative details, so many laws it passes enable the executive (most often executive agencies) to make regulations - these are the Code of Federal Regulations. The relevant USCode defines the scope and powers of the executive's ability to make such regulations. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To give a little more details; congress may pass a law which says "Coal-burning power plants must reduce their emissions to 20% of 2009 levels by 2020" or something like that. Then, the Environmental Protection Agency will develop a regulation designed to meet that goal, such as "Coal-burning power plants must install <XXX type of filter> whenever the plant is renovated" or "New plants must encorporate <XXX technology> to combat polution" or something like that. Congress passes laws, but the executive branch passes regulations which are designed to put those laws into action. The difference between a "law" and a "regulation" isn't really substantive; it's merely where it comes from. Congress could pass laws which contained the same sort of language that a regulation does. In the example above, Congress could pass laws mandating the use of certain technologies. Insofar as they didn't, the executive department "makes up the gap" between the text of a law and additional clarifications which are necessary to put the law into practive. The difference between the two is that regulations are constrained by the laws that authorize them; in almost exactly the same way that the laws Congress passes are constrained by the U.S. Constitution. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And slightly more technical — Congress doesn't simply state a goal and expect the Executive Branch to make it happen. Congress says, "The Secretary of Jellybeans shall promulgate regulations" to put the legislation into effect. —Tamfang (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, you may find the article Nondelegation doctrine interesting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brownie problem

I made some brownies yesterday from a premixed dry ingredients package that was over a year old. I did not have any eggs so I substituted a tablespoon of oil for each egg recommended. Despite baking at standard brownie temperature, the brownies never really solidified, even after baking long enough that the edges were starting to become burnt. Was this because there is something in eggs that makes them set while baking, or could the age of the dry ingredients have caused the problem?

PS there were no herbal additives in the brownies. Googlemeister (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... let's see if I can remember enough Good Eats to answer this one. It's the eggs for sure; eggs are not (just) fat. For one, egg yolks contain emulsifiers that act to prevent the oil and water from separating (most box brownies I'm familiar with call for both). Additionally, the proteins in eggs will set at temperature, which probably lends supporting strength and allows the brownies to rise properly. Note that most box brownies call for an additional egg if you want "cakelike" (that is, fluffier) brownies, which lends credence to the idea that they're the primary agent that keeps the brownies from collapsing. — Lomn 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)While I cannot speak for your recipe, there is indeed something in eggs that makes them set while baking, which is not found in oil. Experimentally, you can see this by cooking an egg and cooking a small amount of oil: the egg will set and the oil will not. You know this, since fried, boiled, poached eggs are set. Theoretically, it is the proteins denaturing that are responsible; the oil does not contain significant amounts of protein. 86.140.144.220 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to substitute eggs again, stock up on some Lecithin (from a pharmacy or health food store). You can also add a bit to sponge cakes and angel food cakes to make them fluffier. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You can, however, replace the oil with an equal amount of applesauce. That works just fine and has less fat. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

? 86.140.144.220 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

? what? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Export license

I want to mail computer memory (RAM) from the U.S. to a foreign country and am trying to determine if I need to get an export license for this. I can't seem to find where on the USPS web site (or anywhere else for that matter) where I might be able to find this information. Does anyone have better Googling skills than I do here? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

One important bit of info would be if you intend to do so commercially and on a large scale or if you just want to mail a couple of memory sticks home to a friend upgrading his/her computer? It is also important to note that there are countries to which you may not legally mail technology from the US.71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's just a single one-shot eBay sale to Poland. However, I realize that there are a number of restrictions on mailing electronics to foreign countries, so I just need to figure out if this is even possible to do. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite have the time to dig up the exact page, but these 2 sites look like they could answer your questions. [1], [2] Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of lost library book

I am curious about something me and a friend were arguing over the other day. Suppose a person loses a library book they checked out from a library, and they paid a fine for it (the fine is greater than the market cost of the book), and then they find it a long time later, do they still have an obligation to return it? (The fine will not be refunded even if it is returned, due to the time elapsed.) My friend's view was that since the person paid the fine for it, which is at least the cost of the book, then they effectively bought it, and should be able to do whatever with it now. I disagreed, and my rebuttal was that when a person checks out a book, they have an obligation to return it, and that when a person loses it, they violate that obligation, and the fine is the punishment. As a punishment, and not business transaction, it does not need to transfer any rights to the punishee. The library never intended to give up ownership of the book, and thus should not be forced to now. Also, if it were the case that the fine transfers ownership, then hypothetically people could buy books from the library against the library's will, by "losing" them, which would be unfair to the library, especially since some of the books are out of print. What do you guys think? --76.91.63.71 (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I once damaged a library book, courtesy of a monsoon-style downpour and a leaky rucksack, and returned it shamefacedly to the library to be told, as expected, that I would be charged for a replacement. I didn't mind paying, but was surprised and pleased when in return for my money, which came to a little more than the cost of buying a new copy from my local bookshop (probably to cover the cost of new labels, security tag, plastic cover and so on) I was offered the damaged book to take with me. My library effectively treated the transaction as a sale, not a punishment, and I acquired a tatty but readable copy of the book. I take the point that replacing an out-of-print book would be more difficult and perhaps more expensive, but most things can be obtained at a price and I suspect the library's rules would permit it to recharge a lost book at replacement value, whether that be the current publisher's price or that charged by a dealer for a second-hand copy of a rarer item. Karenjc 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

At all library I have had a card at, once the cost of a fine reaches the cost of a replacement, you are charged for a replacement and you keep your copy as stated by the above poster. Googlemeister (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's been a while since you lost the book the library may also not want the book back. If they still find it in demand they'll have bought a replacement by now. Libraries do not keep all books they acquire. (Many libraries I frequented had periodic "book for a buck" sales of old stock.) If a book is not read often it will be replaced in the stacks by one more in demand. Only in rare cases like a frequently requested out of print book would a library like to have your copy back. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I did that once - but it's VITAL to explain that the book is terminally, forever, utterly LOST - or else they may continue to levy late fees. I don't believe late fees count towards the price of the replacement book - hence it's critical to tell them that the book is LOST as soon as the charges look like they might be approaching the value of the book. However, as others have pointed out - once you've paid for a replacement - the book should be yours if it ever turns up again...however, not so if you've just run up the charges to more than the value of the book. SteveBaker (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some libraries will refund most (but not all) of the book replacement fine that you paid if you find the book within the next X months (usually 6 or 12). This is a good thing if you're charged a flat Au$100 (~US$70) for a book, regardless of the cost of the book. Other libraries won't care. Generally, of course, it's cheaper to buy the book from a bookshop, so it's not worth borrowing and "losing" books from the library as a way of getting them.

Depends on the book and the replacement costs. If they charge a flat fee, then there will exist out of print books and textbooks which cost more than that flat fee.--droptone (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, most circulation libraries have book turnover rates that would shock most patrons (median replacement time is often less than 3-6 months for the typical book in the collection). This is dramatically different from a research library which archives large quantities of rare copy. Ordinary use does significant damage to books. Nimur (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the libraries I work at, if you still have an outstanding fine for the item and return it, your fine for the replacement will be waived(the price a library pays to purchase a book is more than what stores sell them for due to licensing issues and to make up for lost revenue a publisher might have because people can read the book for 'free' as well as the processing time and materials required for a new book), but you will still have the late charges which will not be waived. If you have already paid for the replacement of the book, then the book is yours to do with as you please, especially if the library has already placed an order for replacement. If they have yet to place the order, then I am sure you may negotiate for a refund and they'd be happy to accommodate.142.132.4.26 (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on these licensing issues? I was not aware that libraries had to pay special licensing fees in order to loan books in their collection. Are you sure the higher cost is not due to the higher quality editions the libraries buy, or the overheads involved with the distributors the libraries source their books from? Dforest (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please help

What are the qualities that a client interaction manager needs to have as I have an interview coming in couple of days” ideally the clients are the airline counterparts” , and I have to crack this interview coming in a couple of days.ANybody?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first two stops should be the job ad and the company's website. There's usually lots of information in there on what kind of people they have and would like to have. I think the closest we have is Customer relationship management which unfortunately isn't a very good article (some software company advertising). Customer service isn't much better. Your best bet is sitting yourself down (with a buddy/family member if you find it difficult) look at what image the company wants to portrait and what their customers' expectations are (look at some of their customers' sites, too) Then see how your abilities and experience can help them achieve those goals. Airline makes me think of keywords like sophistication, reliability, cost conscious, safety, just-in-time, on-call, 24/7, responsive. Trawling the sites will give you more precise examples. "I have accomplished X doing Y." is more effective than "I can do Y." or "I have done Y." 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Driving in America.

I am a British driver of many years experience (thankfully no accidents) - but next year my wife and I are going to America for a holiday. We have been there many times in the past but I have never driven a car in America. Also, I have only once before (in Mallorca)driven a Left Hand Drive car (with a manual gearbox) but that wasn't aided by Spanish signposts. So can anyone here give me some advice on how easy or difficult I will find driving in America; and also point me to a "Highway Code" equivalent? And are there any helpful virtual reality Left Hand Drive simulation software programmes I could acquire - maybe a Wii game or similar? And finally, what level of insurance should I buy for sufficient cover? Thanks in anticipation.92.23.200.116 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first thing you should know is that, if you rent a car in America, it will likely be an automatic transmission car; these are actually more ubiquitous in America than "standard" manual transmissions. You can get a manual tranmission car (I currently drive one) but, unlike many other places, they are not as common. Otherwise, you will probably find driving similar to other left-side steering countries. You will find the freeway system, the Interstate Highway System, to feature roads comparable to the Motorway system in the UK or the Autobahn in Germany. I have only ever driven in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, so I don't have a lot of places to compare to. But in most places, guidesigns are fairly easy to follow, but your driving experience will vary greatly depending on where you intend to go. DO you have a place in the U.S. you are specifically heading? --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron and yes, I should have mentioned we will be flying to either Miami or Orlando in Florida, and then heading to Key West. Thanks again for your prompt reply. 92.23.200.116 (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Having gone the other direction (from US to UK), I can say that most of the transition is fairly straightforward. Keep particularly aware of left-vs-right turns: in the US, left turns are across oncoming traffic and should be given the same consideration you give right turns in the UK. There's no single source for a Highway Code equivalent, since states are free to enact their own particulars, but any one state's guidelines should be sufficient. I suggest perusing Tennessee's driver's license study guide for its coverage of road signs and conventions. If you prefer to check the state(s) you'll actually be visiting, try a Google search of "<state> DOT" or "<state> DMV" for the Dept of Transportation or Dept of Motor Vehicles, respectively. As for insurance, I would ask your own insurance company (they may provide insurance on a rented vehicle) or a travel agent for guidance. Most rental companies in the US are happy to offer their own insurance at time of rental, but the rates will probably be higher at that point. Exact minimums may vary, but to go back to TN as an example, liability insurance of $25000/person, $50000 total, and $15000 property is the minimum. Alabama has $25000/$50000/$25000 requirements for those respective categories. — Lomn 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Florida's minimum insurance requirements are $10000 personal and $10000 property liability. — Lomn 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Lomn, having done it in the other direction, it is fairly easy. Turns across oncoming traffic are notorious, though; beware of turning left, as you're conditioned to regard left turns as less inherently hazardous. You will quickly adapt to having 4 feet of car on your right instead of your left, and all the controls, save the shift (which will invariably be automatic) will be where you expect them to be. I personally found riding as a passenger in what I would normally expect to be the driver's side rather nerve-racking. Acroterion _(talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) First of all you should e-mail a couple of prospective rental places and make sure they rent to foreigners. (The selection is surprisingly limited!) If you have relatives here it would probably be easier if they rented the vehicle and register you as second driver. You could probably buy insurance through AAA or even the local British equivalent (I know that some German relatives got s.th. through their auto club.) That may not come cheaper than the insurance the rental agency offers. One thing that is different in the States is that lots of our roadsigns are written in "plain text". We don't have many of these icon signs that you'll be familiar with in Europe. Some foreign people find it annoying that "Speed limit" sings come in two varieties "minimum speed" and "maximum speed". School zones are another thing that's not that easy to navigate. They have hours posted when the speed limit applies, but that's usually in such fine print you'd have to get out and study the sign to read that. Sometimes drivers will honk at others going at the "school zone" limit outside of the posted hours. Instead of roundabouts we have "Spaghetti interchanges" twisting exit/access roads in over and under passes. Exits can be on either the left hand or right hand side. One way to help you figure out lanes is to google your starting and destination addresses and then "test drive" the roads at maximum zoom in the satellite map view. That way you won't get many lane change surprises. There are fewer landmarks than in Europe, so navigation information will often be given in "miles driven" and compass directions. Get used to setting and monitoring your odometer. We can't navigate by pubs because we have so few of them :-) Make sure you know both the name and the number of the road you are supposed to take, labeling on signs isn't standard and may be either. Locals may even give you "nicknames" like "the Loop" or "the Bypass" you won't find on any map. Be sure to get complete street names. (e.g. there are several Main St. in Dallas, TX and it's suburbs and "Peachtree" can be anywhere in Atlanta, GA) If you plan a long drive be sure to take some bottled water. Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not regarding saftey, but if you are driving in the Florida Keys, keep in mind that there are several drawbridges between the keys, and you might end up just sitting in your non-moving car for fairly long time periods (1-2 hours not uncommon) if you are going from one island to another. Googlemeister

Both Orlando and Miami are major tourist destinations and car rentals should be well prepared for tourists. Note though that Orlando is about 4 hours drive from Miami and at least one route is a toll road. There is a bus though. Key West to Miami is another 4 hours drive (if you are lucky). The whole distance from Orlando to Key West is about the same as the distance from London to Edinburgh. Rmhermen (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what we had thought of LA, Calif. This was back in the 80s so things might have improved since then. We found that only 2 of the 8 local choices for rental car agencies would rent to foreign tourists and when we went to pick up the car the attendant had such trouble with the concept of non-US drivers license and no local insurance that we went ahead and rented the car for our relatives and paid the "additional driver fee". ... And you'll need a credit card. EC cards or cash won't get you anywhere in the US. For anyone under the age of 24 coming across this, watch out for the minimum age requirements. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and drove in the Orlando area last year. It is reasonably well signed. As Rmhermen mentioned, there are lots of toll highways (motorways). I'm pretty sure that if you rent a car at Orlando's airport (the car rental companies are pretty well organised there and most of the major ones are located on site), you almost have to hit a toll road on the way out. Either keep small change handy, or make sure you go to the booth with the attendant. Another thing to consider is a GPS device for your rental car. It add some expense, but may be worthwhile for driving in an unfamiliar place. As for insurance, if you have a "Gold" VISA or some other premium credit card, it may cover your insurance costs. Let's see.... Speeds are exclusively in miles per hour, and distances in miles. You can usually turn right at a red light after you've stopped, but make sure there are no local prohibitions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another very important thing you should remember is which direction traffic is coming from when crossing a street. A British friend of mine once told me that in Britain there are signs that warn tourists that traffic is coming from the right first instead of the left, but I have never seen anything like that in America (probably due to there being more tourists to England than from England). Just make sure that you look left first before stepping into traffic, as this can be a very simple (yet very dangerous) mistake to make, as your habit of looking to the right first is probably quite ingrained into you. —Akrabbim^talk 20:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant and very helpful responses to my plea for help. Thanks immensely to all of you. Anyone interested in meeting us at the airport and accompanying us to Key West? 92.23.200.116 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to adapt to driving on the other side of the road. After about 10 minutes in the car (ie, by the time you're out of the airport car rental district), it'll seem pretty natural. The main things to watch out for are:

1. Single-lane roads - like the lanes between parked cars in a parking lot or a one-way street - where it's easy to lose track of which side of the road you're supposed to be on - resulting in a need to be extra-focussed when you next turn onto a more normal two-way road.
2. Intersections between "divided highways" (aka "dual carriageways") with other dual carriage-ways - where it's easy to get confused and wind up on the wrong side of the divider(Eeek!).
3. Other subtly different road rules (eg the "Right on Red" rule at traffic signals and the bizarre and often lethal rules of the infamous "Four way stop").
4. Crossing the street on foot...very dodgy! Fortunately, here in Texas, nobody does that - we all get into our cars and drive over to the other side of the street (You may think I'm joking...but I'm not!).
5. I've never had trouble renting a car AT AN AIRPORT with a British driver's license and credit card...however, I advise booking ahead just to be really, really 100% sure. Airports see foreigners renting cars every day - they take it completely in their stride. However, if you are at some back-of-beyond place - life won't be so simple. The credit card thing is very important. Almost nobody takes cheques anymore - and certainly not without an in-state driver's license. You can't pay for either car or hotel with cash! So make sure you have plenty of credit and charge cards!
6. There isn't a single "highway code" book - there is at least one for each state! The rules of the road in the USA are not completely uniform from state to state - and sometimes the differences are pretty serious. For example, in Texas, if there is a police car over on the hard shoulder - stopped. You are required to slow down to either 25 mph or 30mph below the posted speed limit (whichever is more) - or to change to a lane that is not adjacent to the police car. I doubt that this is the exact rule in any other state...but I guarantee they'll have other strange laws instead. There are all kinds of laws relating to how you drive near those big yellow school busses for example. One weird one I heard recently is that in Texas, it's legal to drive in bare feet - in many other states, it isn't. There are states in which it's illegal to fill up your own car with petrol - you have to wait for an attendant to do it for you. I once got pulled over in California (I think it was California) for having my high-beams turned on while driving on a dual-carriageway - even though there were no cars coming the other way!! There are MANY bizarre legal differences to catch you out...but I've found that having a British driver's license and a rental car will allow you to talk your way out of most cop-related traffic incidents...they really don't give a damn about you - and they can just mentally envisage the paperwork it's going to take them to file a charge and the unlikelyhood of you ever paying it! So be super-polite to the cops - look scared (not difficult - just notice the GIGANTIC firearm(s) they'll doubtless be carrying!) - and be suitably apologetic for not being aware of the local laws...99 times out of 100 that'll get you off with a warning.

Keep an eye on the speed limits too - they are generally lower than the UK - but (especially in small towns) they have a nasty habit of dropping the speed limit by 5mph for no readily discernable reason - SPECIFICALLY in order that the local police can earn money for their town by catching out-of town motorists and issuing speeding tickets. It's REALLY easy to fall foul of these on long trips - especially at night. You'll be driving at 70mph in a 70mph limit and a 60mph limit sign will flash past for no good reason - and before you know it, you're up for a $100 fine.

Incidentally - if you're going to be renting a car - it'll be an automatic for nearly 100% certain. If you aren't used to driving automatic (most Brit's aren't) - then that comes as a strange thing. Hardest of all to get used to are those automatics that don't have a hand-brake - but use a ratchetted foot brake instead. Doing a "proper" hill start in one of those comes as a bit of a puzzle! One rental car I had used a hand-activated lever down by your left knee to operate the "parking brake" - it was right next to the bonnet catch handle - and (to my embarrassment) I must have popped open the bonnet a dozen times at stop-lights before I got the hang of it!

The toughest "wrong side of the road" driving is driving a left-hand drive car in a right-hand drive country - or vice-versa. That's *NASTY*! SteveBaker (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Florida is flater than a pancake - hills aren't an issue! 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing that nobody has mentioned is the color of stripes along the road. In the US and Canada, yellow striping is reserved for the left edge of the part of the road you will be using in normal driving. In other words, a two-way road has a yellow stripe down the middle; a one-way road, including one half of a divided highway (dual carriageway), has it on the left. All other stripes are white. So the only times you should ever see a yellow stripe on your right are (a) if you are in a reversible middle lane such as a two-way left-turn lane, or (b) if you have pulled into the lane for opposing traffic in order to pass (overtake) on a two-lane road. (Of course, minor roads may have no stripes at all. And in cities, a one-way street may not have a yellow stripe on the left, but in that case it won't have one at all, only white stripes.) Also, stripes along the edge of the road are not used for parking restrictions. These are expressed by signs or in some places by painted curbs.

In general North American roads use stop signs far more than British roads and yield (give way) signs far less. Consequently people tend to disrespect stop signs, so don't trust other people to stop, but be smart and do stop yourself when you come to one. By the same token, the four-way stop is used for equal-priority intersections where Britain would use a mini-roundabout, which is essentially a four-way yield. At a four-way stop, whoever gets to the intersection first has priority to continue, and in case of a tie, the one on the right of the other has priority. A four-way stop is marked by a standard stop sign with a small plate underneath reading "4-WAY" or "ALL-WAY".

When parallel-parking, you must be facing the same way as in the adjacent traffic lane, i.e. park only on the right-hand side of the street unless it is one-way.

Traffic lights are placed on the far side of the intersection (in most states; a few place them over the middle of the intersection), but still govern whether you are allowed to enter the intersection. If the cross street is wide, you may have find yourself having to stop 100 feet before the light. Sometimes there is a sign "stop here on red signal" reminding you where to stop if you are first in line at the red; otherwise just stop at the first line across your half of the street. If you are turning left, you can pull forward into the intersection as soon as you have a green and then wait for a break in oncoming traffic. (That's if there is no separate signal giving priority for left turns.) Red-and-yellow is not used; if you want to know when the light is likely to turn green, you can keep an eye on the signal for the cross street.

In urban areas the left lane of freeways (motorways) may be reserved for "high-occupancy vehicles", in which case it is marked with diamonds and special striping. In many places two people in the car qualifies it as "high occupancy"; if signs say "HOV-2", that's what it means.

In navigating for long-distance travel, you primarily use the highway number and compass direction. Signs will show "north" and "1" in a highway emblem. The compass direction means the general direction along the road, not the direction of the local little bit where you are -- if you're from London, it's like "northbound" on the Underground (which got the idea from Americans). There are different emblems for Interstate highways (which are all motorways and keep the same number across state lines), US highways (which keep the same number across state lines), and state highways. In fact, almost every state has its own different emblem for its state highways! But you don't have to learn them all, just realize that different ones are used and go by the numbers.

In navigating in cities, note that the same named street may consist of disconnected segments -- this allows for the possibility that in a future year they will be connected. In some cities street addresses follow a systematic plan so that if Maple Street and Elm Street are both north-south, then 800 Maple Street will be due east of 800 Elm Street. So a short street may have large house numbers. In other cities, especially older ones, this is not the case. Street addresses often increase both ways away from an axis, so you have "800 North Elm St." and "800 South Elm St." (In some cities, especially in Canada, the compass direction comes at the end. Some cities have more complicated systems. If you see a compass direction not in the usual position for the city you're in, it's just part of the street name.)

Oh, in most states exits on freeways are numbered by distance, so "Exit 60" does not mean the 60th interchange (junction), it means the one 60 miles from the start of the road (or the state line). This is handy for knowing how far you have to travel, if you know the exit number where you are getting off. --Anonymous, 11:57 UTC, edited 12:01, July 14, 2009.

That last point though rarely applies to toll roads. Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone - I think I'll just stay home - phew! 92.20.21.228 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you're overwhelmed by the prospect of driving in the US, have you considered flying to Key West? American Airlines has direct flights between Miami & Key West airport. It's definitely pricier but the flight's only 50 minutes. —D. Monack ^talk 02:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

metaphysics

Why do bad things, such as untimely death (i.e., in childbirth) happen to good people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkready (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on the problem of evil. There is no universally-agreed answer. — Lomn 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we only notice when they happen to good people and tend to shrug off bad things that happen to bad people. TastyCakes (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Job addresses the same (or similar) issue - the article is long with much discussion of the philosophical aspects of the story - though it does seem fair to summarise that nobody really knows why unfair things happen. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's worth considering that, if they (bad things) didn't happen we would be either

Living in heaven

or Omnipotent gods

It's a vital part of being human - if you (like most people) find that something you have difficulty accepting I can recommend reading Suffering#Philosophy I find the thoughts of Schopenhauer, and to a much lesser extent Nietzsche comforting, I hope you do too.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that seemingly innocuous and harmless concepts such as "comfort", "solace" require the opposite to exist for them to have any meaning - eg without strife there is no solace.

Thus to elimate suffering, you must also eliminate kindness, and comforting behaviour. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They are independent of each other. corr(bad things|good people)==0. Plasticup ^T/C 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

comment The subjective identification of a 'bad thing happening' is quite dependent on who it happens to. Though I'm not disagreeing. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a strange idea that if you help an old lady cross the road you should be less likely to be run over by a bus. Crossing the road will increases the chance of being killed fairly much irrespective of whether it was for a good or bad reason. Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to a question we had earlier about why it's easier to give in to bad habits than it is to pick up good ones. Our threshold for seeing something as "a terrible thing" depends entirely on who it happens to. We are less inclined to say that some event is bad when it happens to a bad person. If your mother's car gets stolen - you're horrified - but when a car thief's car get stolen, we have a good laugh about it. Even if a used-car salesman's car get's stolen, we wouldn't think that such a terrible thing because we don't have a lot of respect for that kind of person. Same event - three different people - produces three different grades of reaction. This is probably enhanced by the fact that we generally perceive (rightly or wrongly) that people close to use (friends and relatives) are more or less "good people" - and we react much more strongly to bad things happening to people we know than to complete strangers - that also introduces some inherent bias into our perceptions. SteveBaker (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Rain falls on the just and the unjust." Everyone has a bullet with their name on it. It's just a matter of what that bullet turns out to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The rain falls always on the just/And also on the unjust fella/But mainly on the just because/The unjust steals the just's umbrella!--TammyMoet (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

… Burma-Shave. Deor (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If it didn't rain, we wouldn't appreciate the sunshine. Stuff happens. 92.27.146.141 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

...unless it got foggy...or cloudy...or we went indoors...or maybe if it got dark at night. Actually, that's a pretty amazingly meaningless saying. SteveBaker (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It works just as well in reverse. If the sun didn't shine, we wouldn't appreciate the rain. Googlemeister (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But I hate the rain...did the sun just stop shining or something?! Corollaries of these awful sayings are always good fun. I'm especially fond of "Every silver lining has a cloud" and "The early worm gets the bird"...which frankly, are a lot more true than the original statements from which they are derived. SteveBaker (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Index funds

I live in Canada and have been putting money into Bank of Montreal index funds (S&P 500 and the TSX equivalent) on automatic payments. I am a little concerned that the fees for the funds are about 1% each - considerably higher than what I've heard index funds generally charge. Is there something I'm overlooking that makes up for this? As a Canadian, what are my other options? I don't think an ETF would work because transaction fees alone would quickly add up to more than 1% for my monthly deposits. Can I buy a fund automatically from a third party mutual fund company and ditch BMO? TastyCakes (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the US I know of actively managed funds that are from about 1.5% down to 0.3% with 1% being a bit above average. Whether or not this is typical for Canada, however, I can not answer, but recently on CNN I saw a chart that showed how well several funds did in 2008 and a higher fund price did not seem to correlate with a higher return. Googlemeister (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware that mutual fund fees can go up to significantly higher levels. My question is for index funds, the type that buys everything in proportion to its presence on the market without any kind of analysis, and is (in theory) much cheaper as a result. TastyCakes (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a chart of Canadian index funds with fees under 1%, as of April 2008. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah perfect, thank you very much. It would seem I should look into TD... TastyCakes (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)