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.
Hi. I live and work in New Zealand and want to transfer some money from my NZ bank account to myUK bank account. I want to transfer about NZD100 every few months. I asked at my branch the other day, but direct bank transfer is expensive in terms of fees and so on. What is a good (online, cheap, convenient, secure) way to do this? thanks Robinh (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fees charged could be fixed fees or something that is effectively fixed for the amount of money you are transferring. For small amounts like NZD100, the fixed fee can swallow an appreciable part of it. Why not transfer more but less often. For example, if it costs 2% with a minimum of NZD10 then transferring anything up to NZD500 will cost you NZD10. It might also depend on whether you get the NZ bank or UK bank to do the actual foreign exchange part - converting NZD to GBP - they will probably have different fee schedules for that in addition to the bare transaction fee. If you really must deal with a small amount every few months, why not get a friend or family in the UK to do it for you on the promise of a single larger transfer to pay them back. Astronaut (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Currencyfair. It's peer to peer foreign exchange. I've used it for transfers between Australia and UK a few times. Much much closer to the spot rate than anything else offers, and I think the fee is around £4gbp. Banks charged £20 and gave me terrible rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcato (talk • contribs) 12:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posed this question a while back...When I was a young teen, I saw a "movie" on tv. A science fiction movie. Possibly on ABC or NBC or CBS. Maybe it was on PBS. The movie was about meteors entering Earths atmosphere...Simple, right? What was happening was the Earth was actually being attacked by aliens. Now at the beginning of the movie, no one knew of the attack. It was just meteors that had to be destroyed before a collision. So, as in most flix of this nature, all the brains at NASA assembled. The only recourse was to nuke the meteors. The first day, there was one and it was blown up. A couple days later, there were two and they were blown up. Days passed, and there were 3 meteors. The USA has run out of nukes, so Russia helps. So...by the end of the movie, the powers that be release a huge sigh of relief that the meteors were destroyed. Well, they shouldnt have done that...or at least not all at the same time, because thats when NASAs radar shows about 20 meteors entering Earths orbit. Thats how I remember this movieending. I would love to know the name of this movie so I can buy it and watch it with my kids. It isnt. Meteor with Sean Connery, but I believe it was made/aired around that same year or so. I say this because the hairstyles and clothing and cars were generally the same. Please help. Thanks.FredKanada (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would be MUCH better off asking this quesion on our Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment desk - those guys are amazingly good at finding this kind of thing.
FYI: From a science perspective, this is largely nonsense. Nuking a big meteor when it's that close to earth just turns one big impact into a lot of smaller ones. The total energy would be the same - and the total destruction probably even worse. In reality, one has to deflect meteors rather than breaking them up - and that requires doing so when they are years - or preferably, decades - away from impacting us. Sadly, this makes for very unexciting movie plots. The plot point of aliens deflecting meteors to hit us has been used in many science fiction books - because (from the perspective of the aliens) it's a very cheap way to destroy a civilization that doesn't have comprehensive meteor deflection technology. SteveBaker (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will still deposit the same amount of energy in the atmosphere, even if it breaks up. There is a small range of sizes where a high atmosphere disintegration is harmless while a ground strike would be a local problem. But for asteroids that pose serious planet-scale danger, a distributed strike will be at least as bad, and may be worse, since a single large strike will "waste" destructive energy on local overkill, while separate strikes will distribute destruction over a larger area. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding you correctly, even if all the pieces burn up in the atmosphere, there will still be a significant negative effect on the earth due to all that heat generated in the atmosphere? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For smaller stuff, the problem is that you can't break it up into small enough pieces, especially if you're using a nuke shortly before impact. The Chelyabinsk meteor was only 20 meters across, and managed to cause significant damage to several cities; the one that formed Barringer crater was 50 meters across. A 200-meter asteroid, if it hits intact, will destroy a city the size of London, but if you break it up into a few hundred 20- to 50-meter chunks, it could heavily damage most of England (source: trial-and-error using [1]).
For a dinosaur-killer asteroid, even if you could grind it up into dust, the asteroid would add as much energy to the Earth as a month of sunlight -- and it would do so in a matter of seconds (source: Orders_of_magnitude_(energy), around the 10^23 joule point). --Carnildo (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - not even close. In Asteroid, there was just one asteroid (although it breaks up later) and there were no aliens involved. SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I knew all that from the description. But from my long experience of trying to answer these kinds of question, it is as well not to take the OP's recollections at face value. --Viennese Waltz16:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, that makes perfect sense -deflect and make it another species problem vs.cascading in Earth atmosphere, but, as you stated, not much excitement in that.. I didnt think about Asteroid during my months of searching, but as you also stated, its from 1997. Thats when my twins were born. And I wouldve seen the movie on tv before the birth of my first child in 1988. I remember seeing the movie after my family moved when I was a solophomore in high school, so it aired sometime between 1985-1987. Heaven only knows when it first aired. Ive been trying to figure this out for waaaay too long, but I will post the question to the other dept as you suggested. I wasnt sure which dept to inquire, and I didnt want to break the rule by posting to multiple depts. Thank you all for your assistance. BTW.. What is "OP"?FredKanada (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely recall editing the film's article. I definitely remember the escalating number of asteroids in each successive wave, but can't dredge up the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be the right timeframe. The OP said it was about the same time as Meteor (1979). Come to think of it, I believe my film was from the '50s or possibly early '60s. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU!! Gadget850. Based on a short clip on YouTube, I was able to see the last couple of mins of the movie. So the answer to my question (and waaaay too many sleepless nights) is indeed WITHOUT WARNING...No wonder the mom from Malcolm In The Middle looked so familiar. I can only explain that my time frame was off due to "old-timers". Thats what my now teen twins call it when I have a brain fart. LOL. Thanks again for all of your probing and tollerance. Y'all Rock!!
After hearing about this Midnattsloppet thing, I became intrigued, so I decided to go to both the Stockholm event and the Helsinki event this year, to photograph the various shows (such as the samba dance) accompanying the run. The only problem here is, that by the event's very nature, the lighting conditions are going to be quite poor. The Stockholm event is on August 17, and the Helsinki event is on August 31. In both, the shows generally start at 7 PM and the actual run starts at 9 PM. How dark is it generally at that time in Stockholm and Helsinki? I understand that Stockholm is a bit south from Helsinki, so in late summer, it gets dark sooner. However, the Helsinki event takes place later. I have an external flash for my Olympus E-620 camera to help me photograph. Am I right in understanding that for it to be any good, I have to point it horizontally at the shows? If I point it vertically upwards, the light will point to thin air, and absolutely none of it will reflect back into the lens, effectively making the effect worse rather than better. Has anyone here ever been to Midnattsloppet? If so, can I have some suggestions about this? JIP | Talk18:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have a close look at the photo Midnight run in Stockholm. in our article. The shot was taken with an exposure time of 1/4sec, an aperture of 3.3 and an ISO setting of 400.
The interesting bit is the bright umbrella on the others side of the road (slightly off centre to the right in the cordoned off area). I assume that a press photographer in this spot is using a reflective umbrella with their flash (camera mounted or external). Depending on the material (aluminium foil, fiberglass, possibly others) and the options these cost from €15 to €30 online. You will need a special adapter for your tripod, so you can attach both the external flash and the reflective umbrella to it. You may be able to hire the gadgets unless you want to use them more often.
I just placed an order for a compact reflective umbrella. It cost me about 23 €. It will take two to three weeks for delivery, but it doesn't matter, as Midnattsloppet is still over a month away. My external flash attaches directly to the camera hotshoe. I don't even have a tripod, and bringing one all the way to Stockholm seems a bit clumsy. Will it be enough if I just hold the reflective umbrella in my left hand while I operate the camera with my right hand? JIP | Talk17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is given a featured article status, I'm guessing people can still make edits to it. Which means the quality of the article might be compromised. Does that mean that the featured article status will be revoked from it when the quality deteriorates? Or will the bad edits simply be removed and the status of the article preserved? LaAlquimista20:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In short, to summarize the above, so long as the changes to the article preserve featured-quality work (that is the added text is well written, relevant, and scrupulously referenced) per WP:WIAFA, then changes to featured articles are not only allowed, but expected and encouraged. Featured does not mean "in a final state" in any way, and continuous improvement is always welcome. The fact that changes are being made does not make an article unstable. --Jayron3223:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We very often "protect" the articles linked from the front page for a short time in order to prevent the usual wave of vandalism. But because you suddenly have 10 million pairs of eyes on the article, it's a bad idea to prevent all edits because it's very common for serious issues with the article to be spotted within minutes to hours after it shows up on the front page. Because there are *so* many eyes on the article during the day that it's up there, bad edits are gone in seconds to minutes anyway. Generally, the experience is that front page exposure makes an article better.
That said, even though an article is "Featured", it will continue to change over time. New facts come to light - or the thing it's describing changes. Wikipedia standards change too. Periodically, someone will look at an older featured article and decide that it no longer meets the criteria and it's featured status can be removed. This happened to one of my featured articles that had hardly changed at all since being on the front page...years later it was de-listed as featured. The issue was not that the article had gotten worse - but that Wikipedia's standards had grown more arduous. Other articles are de-listed because they've gotten worse though - all sorts of disputes and partisan biasses can drag an article around and turn it into mush.
I personally feel that the repeated churn of tiny, tiny, tweaks often results in an article losing it's "freshness" and becoming dull and leaden. Having one author write in one consistent style really helps - and a bazillion tiny word changes and grammar shifts can really suck the life out of the thing. It's worth periodically having someone take the time to completely rewrite an article - using all of the facts and references from the original. SteveBaker (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
