Miscellaneous desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

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.

December 29

kleenex facial tissue

does or did kleenex facial tissue use a substance like fiberglass as a binder in its makings thus causing irratation to the face — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don C Stephens (talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about Kleenex though by "kleenex" you may mean Facial tissue in general. Where did you get the idea about its binder? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems doubtful. According to the article, fiberglass as we now know it was invented in 1938, and Kleenex in the 1920s. Why would Kimberly-Clark add a new and most likely expensive ingredient to an already successful product? The Kleenex FAQ description of the manufacturing process mentions nothing other than wood pulp, although the biodegradability answer does refer to "an additive to make it strong". This page claims malic acid in Kleenex can cause Contact dermatitis. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once worked in a lab where Kimwipes were abundant. They're also made by Kimberly-Clark, and resemble Kleenex more than a little bit, but are rather abrasive; I did sometimes use them on my nose though, just because they were handy. I can imagine a rumor spreading from Kimwipes to Kleenex. —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think the OP has got confused with fibreglass tissue which is the first layer to be applied along with the gelcoat to provide a smooth surface (a clean face) when removed from the mold. The article obviously need this important detail to be added.--Aspro (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other point is that, facial tissue is cellulose fibre, which only needs heat, moisture and pressure to bind it. Glass fibre on the other hand, is sprayed with a resin to keep it from falling apart. That resin can irritate some skins. --Aspro (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paper may contain some silica from the original plant material. Could you be thinking of that? This can scratch glasses, so the synthetic cloth is better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheque-less payments

I am involved in a small social organisation (in the UK) that charges an annual membership fee. Members receive reminders when their membership is about to expire, and most of them send a cheque in with their renewal form. I understand that the British banks want to do away with cheques (as our Cheque article confirms). I wonder how similar organisations get paid in those countries that have already abolished cheques. I should say that although some of our members are technologically aware and would be happy to institute payeents electronically, many of them are not. --rossb (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Australia. While we still have cheques, their usage is now quite small. Two small organisations I'm part of accept direct deposit or transfer of funds into their bank accounts. The transaction record allows for something like a surname or invoice number to be included, so you know whose money it is. DOn't if that's possible in the UK, but it works for us. It's much less labour intensive than cheques. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on cheques in the UK is a little misleading. 2018 is a target date but no firm decision has yet been made. It is highly dependent on alternatives being in place by then. Full details are available here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You already have five options: Direct debit (involves some work for the organisation), standing order (needs the member to set this up, or sign a form produced by the organisation), cash (not always convenient), direct credit (as in Australia, where you just publish the organisations account number to members and they can pay by internet banking or by visiting their own bank), and cheque (which will be replaced by a voucher system in 2018 or whenever). Dbfirs 18:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many electronic options including the oldest and easiest of just paying by MasterCard/Visa recurring payments. even my grandpa can do that. actually you can get someone to help you set that up if you have to. Roberto75780 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using MasterCard and Visa for decades, but I didn't know that it was possible for the cardholder to set up recurring payments, or even one payment. How does one do this? I thought payments were always originated by the payee. Dbfirs 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) What about giro payments? Seems to me to be the standard form of payment for these sort of things in Denmark. And it includes both analogue and electronic options (although in order to encourage people to use electronic payments, they charge an outrageous fee for analogue payments here). --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Bank Giro Credit" in the UK is the way that customers pay funds into any account at their own bank or at the recipient's bank (or any other bank on payment of a fee), but it requires publication of the recipient's bank details, as I mentioned above. For a small organisation, it is not cost-effective to print specialised credit forms for the recipient's account. There are significant costs involved in setting up credit-card systems, so I would not recommend that option when other options are free to both organisation and customer. There will probably not be any need to change your current procedures. Dbfirs 09:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems the UK is not ready for No-cheque society yet, if you still have people in your org. who do not know how to make an online payment to a sort code and account number. You can't send cash by post, and all other payment forms are either expensive in comparison to cheques, or require to travel to your local bank branch or local post office. I think we'll have cheques for longer than 8 years. --14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many small businesses in the UK still rely on payment by cheque, even though it costs them money to deposit these into their account. Cheques will be replaced by a similar system called "vouchers" for those who prefer to make this type of payment. I use about two cheques per year from my own account. The "vouchers" will be cheques by another name except that the payee's bank details will need to be entered by either payer or payee. There is some concern about security if the vouchers are not returned to the payer's bank for signature checking. Dbfirs 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I run a Scout group in the UK, and we have many members (or rather, their parents) who still use cheques to pay for camps, etc. Direct debit is very expensive to set up, and not viable for an organization our size. We do have most of our membership subscriptions paid by standing order, but this is not viable for some families on low-incomes who are also unlikely to have access to online banking. We also use cheques on our group account to pay for large purchases such as tents, campsite fees, and the like. We have had exactly no information at all from our bank about the end of cheques. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the banks haven't yet decided on the details of the "voucher" system that will replace cheques, or even on the exact date (possibly later than 2018) when central clearing will cease. Direct Credit (Bank Giro Credit) is an alternative, but requires the customer to visit their bank (or your bank with cash). By 2018, I expect that almost all families, even low income ones, will have access to online banking, but the voucher system will cater for the small minority who don't want to use it. The even smaller minority without a bank account at all will have to continue to pay cash. At present, the banks don't encourage voluntary organisations to set up internet banking because of the difficulties involved with requiring two signatories or equivalent authorisations, but this might change by 2018 so that cheques will not be needed to pay for tents, camping etc. I also run accounts for voluntary organisations, and neither of the banks involved has mentioned the withdrawal of cheques. Dbfirs 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voucher = piece of paper with your name and account details, payee and amount. Cheque = piece of paper with your name, account details, payee and amount. I suppose it could work! DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason I look forward to the disappearance of cheques is that it will remove one of the most obvious, annoying, and, quite frankly, disturbing differences in spelling between UK and US English. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas / New year.

Is it intentional that Christmas and New Year's are exactly one week apart? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 13:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas occurs on December 25 every year, and New Year's comes every year on January 1, so they will always be separated by 7 days. According to our article, the date of Christmas was selected in the distant past, and although there are many theories about how December 25 came to be used, there are no records that would help us to verify the reason for that date. Personally, I think it is probably a coincidence; it doesn't seem likely that having the holiday exactly one week before the end of the year would have been a priority for the early church leaders. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are various competing stories about how the date of Christmas was selected; see Christmas#Date of celebration. The most likely explanation is that the date was fixed on the winter solstice, which falls on 25 December on the Roman calendar. (The date was retained in the modern calendar, even though the winter solstice actually falls a few days earlier in our reckoning.) Whether the solstice has independent significance within Christian teachings or was selected to coincide with (and usurp) pagan solstice celebrations is debated: Sol Invictus#Sol Invictus and Christianity.

The placement of the new year has also varied through the ages. See New Year and New Year's Day for some examples. Note especially New Year#Historical Christian new year dates, which shows an assortment of new year dates to line up with an assortment of Christian celebrations over the years. Christmas style dating pegs the start of the new year on Christmas day, while under Annunciation style and Easter style dates the new year begins on 25 March and either Easter Saturday or Good Friday, respectively. We are currently using circumcision style dates – the least festive name by far – where the new year falls on 1 January: the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story I always heard was that Christmas was an adoption of the Saturnalia and New Year's was the celebration of Janus, the Roman god of new beginnings. schyler (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anunciation Day was assigned to the first day of spring, which was then March 25th, and it fit with spring fertility celebrations; and hence Christmas came 9 months later, at the winter solstice, which was then December 25th, and had to do with the "rebirth" of the sun. The Romans who imposed Christianity as the state religion associated the Christian God with the sun god, which squares with beliefs about God bringing goodness and light and so on. When they knocked 10 days off the calendar in 1582, they really should have knocked a few more off to get the solstices and equinoxes back in sync with the holy days, but they didn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate things further, the Catholic Church treats the first Sunday of Advent as the start of the Church year, making the Sunday before that, the Feast of Christ the King, the last Sunday of the year. I don't know what you'd call that, or how that decision interacts with other reckonings of the New Year.

86.164.67.8 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, christmas was intended to be on the winter solstice (shortest day of year). at that time, the new year started 3 months later, on the first day of spring. Roberto75780 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That feast has the rather pretty alternative name of the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus. I can't help thinking that calling them "holy name style dates" would have contributed more to their sooner uptake than the rather painful-sounding "circumcision style dates". Marnanel (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would serve calimari at that feast, except it isn't kosher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Quality SVG Map of Europe/EU?

While the standard svg map of Europe is quite good for viewing at the scale of the continent, when you zoom in to the country level, it looks really terrible. Is there a higher quality version available somewhere? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any better? I don't know how the SVG is constructed, but it may be simple to remove the cub-country borders. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buying things and then going bankrupt (in the U.S.)

Resolved

Hello, I know some people who have told me that they are going to buy a 50 inch TV because they are going bankrupt. I take this to mean that they are going to buy it and then go bankrupt so they don't have to actually pay for it. So, my question is, is there a law against this? Can they get in trouble for planning on buying expensive things right before going bankrupt? I'm not asking for legal advice, just a yes/no question, does such a law exist? It seems to me this must be illegal. Or, at least that such things would be taken away after they went bankrupt. These people are going bankrupt because they have a long history of a whole bunch of stupid purchases. But, at least early on they at least somehow stupidly thought they would actually pay for all the stuff at some point, unlike this situation. StatisticsMan (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend should seek legal advice before declaring bankruptcy, and before making any major purchases in advance of an anticipated bankruptcy. While I cannot comment or advise your friend on his specific situation, I will pass on a column: 12 myths about bankruptcy. Myth number 12:

I can max out all my credit cards, file for bankruptcy, and never pay for the things I bought. That's called fraud, and bankruptcy judges can get really cranky about it. The trustee in your case will review all your purchases right before your filing. He knows what to look for.

A bankruptcy judge can opt not to discharge some debts, may insist that the debtor file for Chapter 13 (financial reorganization and repayment plan) rather than Chapter 7 (forgiveness of debts), or may deny the bankruptcy petition altogether; the interim trustee may sell many types of non-excluded assets; and the acquisition of goods and services with no intent to pay for them may lead to criminal prosecution under theft or fraud statutes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with all these sorts of scams, Judges don't robotically give you what looks right on paper, they're allowed to use common sense, and they've seen these things a lot more than you have.

(I wonder if your friends had better be nice to you now that they've said this to you. Wouldn't the credit card companies like a witness to this sort of pre-meditated scam?)APL (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The jails are full of folks who thought they were smarter than the justice system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but insufficient information. (One could just as easily boast, "Our justice system successfully tracked down, arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced one hundred percent of criminals...in our jails!" Or even turn your statement around: "The streets are full of folks who really were smarter than the justice system.") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only because they haven't been caught yet. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without speculating on the legal or financial aspects, I have a friend who starts and goes through companies like most people go through cars (e.g. every two years or so). One of the things he told me was that, at least in our state, assets you've acquired 60 days before declaring bankruptcy were out of reach of the courts, or something like that. So 60 days before one of his companies is about to go up, he liquidates all of the assets one way or the other and charges them to himself, so that when they do file bankruptcy, he gets to say that the company legitimately has zero assets, or something like that. I don't know the legal or financial details, to say the least. But all of this imposed upon me the fact that you really have to know what you are doing to do this kind of thing "right", that is, to exploit the technicalities of the system in order to profit from it, without getting in trouble. If your friend does not have experience in this area, or wise counsel from someone who does, I would suspect he is going to get himself into a bit of trouble just trying to logic it out on his own. (This also imposed on me that I would have no aptitude at business, for this kind of ruthless exploitation of the rules is not really my cup of tea!) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain at least, all your assets get seized and sold to pay off your debt, so the above scheme would not work. 92.29.127.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Assuming that all the assets are able to be located... Googlemeister (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult to hide assets due to tight money laundering regulations, so you'd get them confiscated and you'd be sent to prison as well. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is incredibly easy to hide assets once you have them. Obviously I am not talking about real estate or a Ferrari or anything like that, but if you want to hide $1,000,000 from the government, all you have to go out and buy a few hundred ounces of gold. Then, using your standard shovel, you could bury it. People have been doing stuff like that for centuries. Maybe the government tracks sales of that size, but them knowing that you have 700 oz of gold is not the same as them knowing where it is so that they can go seize it. Googlemeister (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! StatisticsMan (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the law

Does the Brazillian legal system not make uncontacted tribes or other remote tribes face prosecution the way other brazillians do? I know FUNAI is quite adamant about preserving their way of life by leaving them alone, but what about when they kill people, why dont they face murder charges? Even animals face concequences! I am at a loss as what should be done in that situation, obviously you cant try and prosecute a man who has lived isolated with a hundred or so people his whole life the same way you prosecute a person who has, or expected to have, regular society upbringing and morals, but you cant just leave them either..? What do they do in other countries? Roberto75780 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like soapboxing disguised as a question. Try being more specific. For starters, what the blazes is FUNAI? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FUNAI == Fundação Nacional do Índio, the arm of the Brazilian government that is supposed to look after indigenous peoples. Marnanel (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) You seem to feel very strongly about this, but you have not provided much information about the case (presumably) you are talking about. Could you tell us what it is you are referring to? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, some Native Americans live on reservations. They have their own tribal laws, which apply to crimes committed there. However, crimes committed outside the reservation are prosecuted under normal state and federal laws. StuRat (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question what you do in other countries is somehow out of place. Most countries don't have isolated tribes, which wouldn't ever understand the laws of a their society around. As a matter of fact, they are 'put to trial' according to their own traditions. Quest09 (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prison

How would one go about escaping from a cell in the Conciergerie? 85.210.114.49 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rock hammer and a poster of Rita Hayworth? --Jayron32 20:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Pimpernel? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See A Tale of Two Cities#Book the Third: The Track of a Storm. Deor (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bribery might work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one important element in any prison escape. Others include friends on the inside, friends on the outside, making tools, clothes, and weapons, finding an escape route, and timing the escape well. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Clint Eastwood movie, Escape from Alcatraz, might be a good object lesson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the conciergerie is a museum, one's best bet is probably to alert a curator or guard that one somehow got locked into a cell. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start singing the Marseillaise, and hopefully a crowd will gather. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the prison escapes in the The Count of Monte Cristo or The Wind In The Willows. 92.29.127.80 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ring up the concierge and ask him for a key. Edison (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..then see how long it takes to fall to the ground. Oh, sorry, wrong problem. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unpaved major roads

The last unpaved portion of Virginia's primary state highway system is a few miles of a mountainous portion of VA 91, which has been unpaved since the route's formation in 1940 and will remain as such for a long while. Are there any other major segments of US state highway systems, or equivalent systems (British A-roads, German Bundesstrassen), that are still not paged? 68.98.136.85 (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA factbook states that none of the roads maintained by the UK or German government are unpaved. It also states that over 2million kilometers of US roads are unpaved.[1] Nanonic (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a lot of the highway network in Alaska -- including numbered state routes -- is unpaved (it being impractical to maintain pavement in subarctic and arctic conditions). One example is the Steese Highway from Fairbanks to Circle, which I'm pretty sure is still gravel for most of its length. Antandrus (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other "highways" that are unpaved (or mostly unpaved) in Alaska include the Taylor Highway, the Top of the World Highway (if I remember correctly), the Denali Highway, and the Dalton Highway. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I would categorize that stretch of VA 91 as a major highway. There are certainly state highways in other states that are unpaved. Another example is the Moki Dugway of Utah State Route 261. Marco polo (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia State Route 91 is a state highway. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland's Route 1 (the 'ring road') is likely that country's longest and busiest highway, encircling the entire island and connecting most (all?) of the major centers of population — but it still has significant unpaved stretches, particularly in the north. Once you get out of the capital region, actually, a lot of Iceland's highways are unpaved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the full loop in 2006, and I only remember a few segments in the NE/E being unpaved (no more than a few stretches, none more than 10 miles long I'd guess), as you say, once you're off the ring road, it's a whole different story. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd call it "major", but the last few miles of California State Route 270 are unpaved. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]