Miscellaneous desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

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.

October 15[edit]

Sweating Problem[edit]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Excessive sweating is something that you should discuss with your family physician or another trusted adult. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2Pac performing even after death?[edit]

How did 2pac manage to get featured onto songs like Playa Cardz Right, even 12 years after his death?--203.124.2.26 (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They took songs that he recorded before he died and gave them a beat, or stuck them into other songs. He was quite prolific when it came to writing and recording, as the number of posthumous albums indicates. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a number of vocalists chime in post-mortem thanks to higher technologies, see example here[1]. But I'd take a 2Pac reprise any day, lucky for us. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though keep in mind that the mining of postmortem tracks often means using recordings that the artists deemed inferior in their own lifetime. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other forms as well: when a lost piece by a classical composer turns up it often sounds like a good reason why it was buried in a cupboard in the first place. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there have been some very notable exceptions, such as Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9 and Johann Sebastian Bach's 6 Solo Cello Suites. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand re-balanced ^{deeply bowing while seated – now happily jumping from link to link with new information joy} :) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return trips[edit]

Each year, Norway ships about 60000 tonnes of fresh salmon by air to Japan and many other wealthy countries. China ships countless containers of goods to the U.S. and many other countries. Oil tankers ship oil to just about everywhere. These shipping vehicles are highly specialized that very few things can be shipped from the return trip.

The Norwegian cargo planes are only for shipping refrigerated fish (not frozen). How much imported fresh food do the Norwegians need?
The U.S. ships much raw materials (chemicals, cotton, wood, ...) to China. You don't want to ship them in containers.
Do these oil-producing countries need oil shipped back to them?

Are these cargo planes, container ships, oil tankers return home empty (or only carry dead weights)? -- Toytoy (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe many ships are mostly 'empty' on their return routes (or backhaul routes [2]). E.g. [3]. Indeed according to [4] the price for shipping from US to China is extremely low, way below the actual cost which is what we would expect. I say 'empty' because you're right, many of them actually carry dead weight in the form of Sailing ballast (if they are container ships, they will return with empty containers obviously). This in itself is of great environmental concern see Ballast water discharge and the environment. One recent proposal is to microwave the ballast water before discharging [5] Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logistics and organisation of container shipping is hugely complex, and the container-box itself has allowed for greater levels of speed, efficiency and control over the movement of cargo around the world. The book The Box is a wonderful account of the history of the container shipping industry, from its roots in cargo being shipped in very uneconomical ways, to new economical ways. Container ships will, inevitably, have routes and times where they don't match up what they take with what they bring back, but it is in the financial interests of haulage companies to minimise the amount of time they are travelling without cargo when they could be. Improvements could be made in the system, but theses trips are far from a 1-way cargo movement, even if some of the trips (in isolation) are imbalanced. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a laugh have a look at www.cargolaw.com/2007nightmare_genoa.html--Artjo (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read an article, probably in TIME Magazine, maybe a year ago, that stated empty shipping containers floating (or "semi-floating") in the ocean are a great hazard to small craft -- people who are trying to cross an ocean or circumnavigate the glove alone, for instance -- and the cause is largely due to the fact that it costs more to ship one back empty than it does to make a new one. Thus, legally or not, more than a few apparently get dumped.

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Container ship says that over 10,000 containers go overboard each year, mostly over the side in storms, and I imagine a lot of those are empty. But I would think the empty containers would be profitable as scrap, and America and Europe ship a lot of scrap back to China. Darkspots (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Containerization#Loss at sea says "Containers lost at sea do not necessarily sink, but seldom float very high out of the water, making them a shipping hazard that is difficult to detect." So, first they are hard to find. Second, if you do find it then what? You have to either tow it and a container is not very streamlined and will be hard to pull, or lift it on board. Lifting has it's own problems because the container is probably full of something, either the material it had at the start of the trip and/or water. Either way it's going to be heavy to lift. I would imagine that the cost of salvaging one would be more than the $6,000 - $8,000 price. See Shipping container architecture and this for an idea of the price of containers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think DarkSpots is suggesting that people salvage lost containers out of the sea, simply that their scrap value means they're not deliberately thrown in. I too find it hard to believe that containers are deliberately thrown into the sea - even were it uneconomical to ship them back (which I don't think it is), they could be sold as scrap, as industrial storage, etc etc etc at their destination. You can buy containers as static storage in the UK, and they're not cheap. Noone's going to turn down that opportunity in order to illegally dump them instead.

However, accidently lost containers are indeed a problem for small boats. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a REALLY COOL question. And I mean COOL!. Ok. When looking at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in San Francisco Bay, I noticed that the second hump is taller than the first hump. ( travelling to San Rafael ) WHY? Because we are an importing country, and ships come in under the right side of the center of the bridge, FULL, i.e. they lie low in the water, however after unloading, they ride high in the water, hence the second hump on the bridge, ( to the right if you are exiting San Pablo Bay ) is higher. I would assume that in an exporting country, the incoming side of the bridge would be higher to accomidate empty ships. ( I actually LOOKED at a bridge in Norway, and it has this exact engineering feature, i.e. the incoming side of the bridge is higher! )

--~~~~

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.0.29 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7'os of buyer behaviour by Philip Kotler??[edit]

Q.1 Can anybody please help me and tell me in which year Kotler designed this 7'os framework? Q.2 Can anybody provide me references on elasticity, black box and response hierarchy models?? I need author and dates??

Your help is most appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadmaqsood (talk • contribs) 10:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first came across Kotler around 1981 in his second edition. The 7 Os were there then. So suggest you trace a first edition.90.4.245.85 (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

There is an article Philip Kotler. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money in bank accounts[edit]

Coverage of the Credit Crunch has included the issue of how much the government is willing to guarantee of money in bank accounts (not stocks/shares). In the UK, it has been increased from £35k to £50k. I have never had anywhere near this much in a bank account, and wonder if there any statistics on how many people do? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(any reason why my edits aren't staying in place?) This link (http://www.fscs.org.uk/files/documents/pdfs/cwbrxozcfdsotev.pdf) may be a useful read. It shows that the FSCS expected around 11,000 claims this year - though do note the date of publication (march 2008) - before a lot of this mess became 'public'. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has never previously seen a need to guarantee bank deposits, because we claim to have the most stable banking system in the world (I don't know if this claim is independently verifiable; our banks still rip customers off as they do most everywhere, while their CEOs are pocketing yearly salaries impossible to spend in a life time, but those are different issues). However, recent developments have caused the government to guarantee all bank deposits, with no upper limit, for the next three years. This is not due to any concerns that our banks are going to fail, but just to inspire public confidence in the system, heading off any potential panic before it happens. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Australia have a higher reserve requirement for its banks than other countries, perhaps? That would make deposits safer. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know, Tango, and wouldn't know where to begin looking. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be suggestion 1: Reserve requirement, which says Oz has no reserve requirement, which would not seem to place its banks very high in the safety stakes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything like enough about economics to comment meaningfully on that, but my gut tells me that this one factor alone is not enough to form that conclusion. Afaik, we've never had a bank collapse here; not that many countries could make the same claim. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't realise the UK didn't have a required reserve level. Perhaps Australian banks just voluntarily keep higher reserves? As I understand it, reserves are one of the most important factors for determining confidence in a bank (in specific cases, there will be other concerns like where the money that isn't held in reserve has been invested, of course). --Tango (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6] may be of interest. The move by Australiaa BTW occured simulatenously with NZ (most of our banks are Australian) and similar moves were undertaken in Malaysia and Singapore not long after [7] (and Indonesia and Hong Kong at some stage). As Jack says, the move is generally held to be to ward of concern rather then there being any current widely held concern that the banks will collapse. This link may be of interest [8]. It points out that NZ's four largest banks (which are all Australian owned) are AA rated the same as their parent operation (because it's considered their parent operation will fully support the NZ operation) and only 28/2000 banks that are rated are AA or better which may help put things in perspective. Incidentally the link mentions that retail banks failed in NZ and Australia with loss of depositors moneyhave , but not for a long time and mentions the reasons why the banks are resilient (at least in the authors opinion). Fractional-reserve banking and Bank regulation are decent reads and mentions some of the key ways central banks and government use to try and reduce the risk of bank collapses. As I understand it capital requirement or Capital adequacy ratios are another key aspect but can be quite complicated (See Basel II Accord). It appears most countries following Basel II have the minimim total capital adequecy ratio set at 8% including NZ (the US are using Basel II for some and Basel I for others if I understand correctly [9] & [10]). This may also be of interest and mentions something I forgot, while recent history has shown that ratings are not perfect, I think few will deny that they are still a good indication. Also [11] if you are interested in the history. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So my gut was right. Our last bank collapse was in 1931, but depositors didn’t lose much. We only have 14 banks in total, and 4 of them are AA rated by Standard & Poors. The USA has over 7,100 banks, and they also only have 4 that are AA-rated. To me, this suggests that Australian banks (28.6%) are far safer than US banks (0.06%), on average. (This is just a raw figure that doesn’t consider which of the banks are rated at all, or their respective market shares. If you take these factors into account, the difference may be less; or it may be even greater. I can't imagine that the 4 biggest market-share banks in the USA account for anything like the same proportion of the US market as the top 4 Australian banks do in Australia.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'S' thing in wall[edit]

What is this 'S' thing called? The door in the lower right is a standard sized man-door, just to give you a size reference. And what does it do? Just look pretty or does it have a practical purpose as well? [12] Dismas|^(talk) 20:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it is an anchor for a beam which ends in this part of the exterior wall. The S shape simply distributes the load over a wider area. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the conclusion that I came to as well but what are they called? Wall anchors? Dismas|^(talk) 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Dictionary of Civil Engineering, they are sometimes called a "tieback" ... rather than a beam, I think it'll be connected to a tie-rod the purpose of which is to restrain two walls from further divergence. I'm sure they have other names. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Sorry, I think they were called beam irons or beam anchors. A wall anchor today would be just a steel dowel in a concrete or brick wall. Of course, Tagishsimon is also correct. Such tie rods have been installed when lateral forces, eg as a result of vaults, can´t be balanced by the vertical weight of the wall.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking a bit further: There are a lot of early Gothic buildings where tie rods had to be used. Only later did they hit upon the idea of flying buttresses to "bend" lateral forces. There is, on a different level, the dome of St Paul´s by Christopher Wren who used massive chains to prevent the thing from collapsing. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that on the exterior of a number of older multistory brick residences in South St. Louis (USA), there are star-shaped metal "ornaments" that appear to be tiebacks capping threaded tie rods running through the floor space between the stories. The tie rods seem to be original features of the buildings' construction rather than retrofits. Deor (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Tieback (geotechnical) but the third definition at Tie rod#Subtypes and examples of applications looks like the proper name. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla

Okay, thanks all. It wasn't for a technical reason that I needed to know. It's a book of photography and the wife and I were looking for something to call it in the caption. We went with "beam iron". The book is being uploaded now. So that's what it's gonna be. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 08:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor plate surely? SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish educational system[edit]

"she keeps on handing out d1's for nothing" What are d1's please? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you favour us with any more context? A link? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't really find anything at Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, Scottish Qualifications Certificate, or Academic grading in the United Kingdom. jnestorius^(talk) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It resembles a grade/band combination, except that a 'D1' doesn't exist (grades A-C are each split into 2 bands: A1, A2; B3, B4; C5, C6 - with the lower band representing a better performance in the assessment). Could it be a school slang for something - detention, perhaps? [EDIT: Ah, I see that this is addressed in the last article you linked.] Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At my school (admittedly in England), we had assessments which were a combination of a letter (A-E) and a number (1-5), eg A1. The letter denoted achievement, and the number effort, so a D1 would be someone who tried hard but was ultimately a failure. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were there many A5s? Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My school seemed unwilling to admit that achievement could be that disconnected from effort. Otherwise I would have got a few. Algebraist 10:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]