Miscellaneous desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 12[edit]

Haiti hurricane[edit]

It is not yet the hurricane season but there is concern that a hurricane could exacerbate the earthquake disaster. The concern is reasonable because Haiti lies near the main storm path. Today the CNN weather lady said that the chance of a hurricane this year had increased because Haiti has not had a hurricane for several years. Does this "increased chance" conclusion make sense? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if dice have a memory. If you flip a coin that is known to be fair 20 times and it lands heads 20 times, your odds of getting a heads result on the next flip is still only 50/50. Googlemeister (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it sounds to me like another case of the law of averages fallacy, unless it's a calculated effect of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation which apparently does have some influence in that area.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disasters strike fairly?^{[citation needed]} Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If she said that, she or her writer should be fired. But they won't be. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worded like that, no. But if there's a pattern of hurricanes striking Haiti at specific intervals, similar to that of a volcano erupting on an interval basis, then one can conclude that Haiti is "overdue for a hurricane," but nothing more.--WaltCip (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "overdue". Like a baby perhaps? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that. Again, in the absence of a strict formulaic pattern, an occurrence being overdue does not necessarily equal its imminent occurrence.--WaltCip (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there is kind of a "probability" associated with Haiti being hit by a hurricane, based on various factors, including how wide Haiti's island is in proportion to the Gulf, and also on possibly observable patterns of wind and water currents. But each hurricane situation would carry its own st of factors, none of which is likely to be that it's "overdue". Each event should be considered independent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could also predict, using some kind of statistical correlation, the probability of a hurricane occurring with a particular interval, such as 25 years. If Haiti tends to be hit within some range of occurrences within each 25 year span in recent history, you could project the probability of a particular quantity of hurricanes occurring sometime within the next 25 year span. But as you say, "overdue" does not mean "imminent". It just means that conditions have not been right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is easiest to treat each event as independent but long-term (longer than a year) oscillations or trends might exist. The longer the historical data the more certainly an oscillation can be detected. Could the non-occurrence of a hurricane last year further confirm a hypothesis of an oscillation that makes a hurricane likely this year? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be "memory" in cyclogenesis, if no cyclones form and the ocean gets hotter and hotter the chance of a severe one forming increases. So there may be a truth in what she says. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McDonalds[edit]

I have heard that McDonalds (the restaurant) was not doing so well and needed to be saved, so the government helped bring it back up. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.45.107 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. This financial press release says that McDonald's net income was $4.5bn in 2009, up 6% on $4.3bn in 2008. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More people eating there because of the financial crisis :P Rimush (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which government? Woogee (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you know. The government. The people who "should do something about it". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are a few governments that could be rescued by McDonalds :-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 billion sounds like a lot, until you realize the U.S. Government spends that much in just a few hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all countries are as flush with cash as the U.S. Government budget by country lists at least 80 with annual income below $4.5bn. -- 174.21.247.23 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deaths of children of senior political figures[edit]

It seems likely that in the next few months the Prime Ministership of the United Kingdom will pass from Gordon Brown to David Cameron. Both men had eldest children who died, Brown's a few days after birth and Cameron's after a few years of severe health challenges. I have a couple of questions. Is this unique in post-World War II developed countries, for two successive heads of government or of state, to have suffered this loss? And have the two men ever referred to it? Has it given them a sympathy for each other, away from the world of party politics? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'[F]or two successive heads of government or of state, to have suffered this loss' - that's extremely specific, so I would guess it would be about as rare or not rare as you can imagine. As for whether the two men have ever referred to their loss, to the best of my knowledge, it has hardly been mentioned by either of them, probably partly to avoid being accused of trying to gather sympathy from the public but also because it is, in fact, not exactly a relevant topic in most conversations about politics (though it may be perfectly relevant in some). Sympathy for each other? Yes, I have heard of both men referring to each other's loss in light of their own experiences. I hope this answers your question. I would look around for some links, but I'm a little busy now. Maybe someone else can find something. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, only yesterday Gordon Brown shed tears in an interview when talking about the death of his daughter. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not at all "likely". We don't know yet. 92.29.82.48 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they express sympathy for each other, for example, as recorded in Hansard on February 25th 2009[1], when Gordon Brown said:
I know that the whole House will want to express our sorrow at the sad death this morning of Ivan Cameron at the age of just six, and our condolences go out to David, to Samantha and to the Cameron family. I know that, in an all too brief young life, he brought joy to all those around him, and I also know that for all the days of his life he was surrounded by his family’s love. Every child is precious and irreplaceable, and the death of a child is an unbearable sorrow that no parent should ever have to endure. Politics can sometimes divide us, but there is a common human bond that unites us in sympathy and compassion at times of trial, and in support for each other at times of grief. Sarah and I have sent our condolences to David and Samantha, and I know that the whole country, and our thoughts and our prayers, are with David, Samantha and their family today.
They probably don't talk much to each other in an informal non-political environment. The forthcoming election is very likely; the outcome less so. Dbfirs 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I meant, had they referred to the coincidence, the potential bond if you like, rather than each referring to his own loss. Brown's condolences for Cameron hints at the shared experience ("common bond"), but if you didn't know of it, you wouldn't necessarily be enlightened. I am curious of other countries too. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The child morbidity rate in the UK is around 5 per thousand for children under 5 years of age - and the average family size is 1.8 children per couple. So there is a 1:200 chance for a child to die and about a 1:100 chance for a family to lose one of their children. So for any prime minister to have lost a child is 1% and the probability of two successive prime ministers to do that is 1:10,000 - so I'd say the odds of this ever happening before in the UK are rather slim - but there are around 200 countries in the world - almost all of them with much worse childhood death rates and almost all with larger average family sizes. Assuming two such "important" people per country (King + Prime Minister, President + Prime Minister, etc), and 200 countries and these people changing office (let's say) once every 5 years - we're seeing about 100 changes of leadership every year - and that means that this probably happens every 50 to 100 years. Worldwide, it's almost certain to have happened many times in the past - in the UK, it's almost certain that it hasn't. SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In World War I pretty much everybody in some countries lost their eldest son, so I'd guess it's happened before. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steve, your numbers make sense. If you are correct that it probably happens every 50 to 100 years, then it is about 50/50 whether it has actually happened since 1945, other than in this example. It's not entirely an arbitrary date: the last great war of the developed world was over, and antibiotics had been discovered. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E.Howard Watch Co.[edit]

Please be advised that in your list of "Watch Manufacturing co's A-Z", someone has missed one of the most important Watch Makers (if not the most important)of early American pocket ,Wall,Gallery,Bank,Regulator,Train Station,etc.timepieces ever made ! The E.Howard watch CO.of Boston Mass!!! In their day, E. Howards pocket watches and all other timepieces,were the best ever made!! Thank you! Mr. Stewart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.40.83 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a source for your 'fact'. If so then that company can be included, indeed, you may wish to include it yourself. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company of E. Howard & Co. is already the subject of an article in WP. I have therefore added it to the list of American clock and watchmakers. Richard Avery (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please be bold and just click "edit this page" at the top of the article you're reading, and make the changes yourself. And be sure to include inline citations to support the claims you include in the article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the E. Howard Hunt "watch" "company" -- it's called the CIA. (Sorry -- couldn't resist.)

                         Sorry never heard of them!!!!!!  Mr. S.

Taser[edit]

Hello. My uncle is a paramedic and last night he told me a story that I dont think I believe. Last week they got a call that someone's pacemaker had stopped. They got to the house and the heart was going again. The son had used a taser to start the heart again. This does not sound true. Can someone comfirm or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.84.125 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds a few people telling such stories. Nothing entirely reliable that I can see, but one story quotes doctors as saying it was probable. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The taser/defibrillator is on sale now. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Dual-use' technology? ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a Reliable Source? File:Ape shaking head.gif. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A taser sounds like the kind of thing that could seriously mess up a pacemaker. Consider the vunerability of pacemkers to the metal detectors at airports. Astronaut (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the guy had a pacemaker? More likely his heart stopped beating and it functioned as a crude defribrillator.--92.251.207.52 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defribrillators don't restart hearts, they restore them to a natural rhythm when they're beating erratically. --✶♏‭ݣ 06:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said that he was joking last night. --206.80.30.13 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)97.123.84.125[reply]

Pulling vendingmachines off campus[edit]

I was told when I was in 10th grade the soda machine people have to sign a contract with schools "The machines must stay until 2009" why is this illegal to pull away soda machines befor the cutline violation of law to yank off items?--69.233.255.251 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the claim heard at the schoolyard is true, then probably a soda machine operating company signed a contract with the school board or school district by which the company said they'd maintain and stock the machines at the schools through the end of 2009 and give the school X% of the revenue; and the school said they'd let them. In the US, if two parties (like, the company and the school district) sign a contract, then both sides must honor their side of the contract, or the injured side can sue for damages. That may be the reason the school didn't want to remove the soda machines before the contract expired. (Though many service contracts like this are renewable, contracts always have a limited term.) It would not be illegal for the school to remove the soda machines — no criminal charges will be filed, and nobody is going to go to jail — but the soda machine company would be able to sue the school for damages. What I don't understand is that if there is political pressure to get rid of the soda machines, why the school didn't just come to some settlement with the vendor, pay them 90% of the profit they would have realized during the year or whatever, and get rid of the machines. You know — won't anybody think of the children? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We went over this a couple months back. There were many explanatory answers given, so you might want to search. Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is another thing I would like to see tested in court: School district takes out the soda machines, soda machine company sues for breach of contract, school's defense lawyer asks company rep "are you really putting your company's profit ahead of the health of children in this school district?", dumbstruck silence from the rep, end of case. Astronaut (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soda company rep to school board: "Why did you think when you signed the contract that soda is good for children?" Dismas|^(talk) 02:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be relevant at all? It's a matter of contract law, and has nothing to do with children's health. anonymous6494 07:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called grasping at straws when you think you might lose the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying "Think of the Children!" is not a get out of jail free card that allows schools to make any contract they like and then break it whenever they feel like. APL (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics[edit]

What time CST does the opening ceremony start at? --75.50.53.200 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different news reports I looked at in Google News are showing different times from 5:30 to 6:00 PST, which would be 7:30 to 8:00 CST. --Anonymous, 7:20 pm EST = 00:20 UTC, February 13, 2010.