Miscellaneous desk
< February 3	<< Jan | February | Mar >>	February 5 >

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.

Link to mp3 file. Found it in a YouTube video. — Kieff | Talk 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise it, but it makes me think of The Gothic Archies (fronted by Daniel Handler AKA Lemony Snickett). It's kinda cool. Steewi (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a video game called Deja Vu, it says "OPEN DOOR" every time you open a door. Is this valid grammar? It should say DOOR OPENED or THE DOOR WAS OPENED or something. Not OPEN DOOR. Even DOOR OPEN would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a long time since I played Deja Vu, but am I wrong in remembering that OPEN DOOR was a command, in the imperative? That is, you were telling the game that you wanted to open the door. It was not a description of what had happened. Anyway, "open door" can either be meant in the imperative—as a command, as in, "please open the door"—or it can be meant as a present-tense description—"there! an open door!" It is not in any way possible for it to, by itself, be in the past tense. With some extra words, it could be—"there was an open door"—but by itself, no. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh yeah that's ugly. I guess it's saying what your character can notice once you have opened the door. [There is now an] OPEN DOOR. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can u tell me how far the USS Fall River(CA 131) was from the target ships??? She was the flag ship for the tests. Thank u , nedirf... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedirf (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Operation Crossroads says the auxiliary ships took safe positions at least 10 nautical miles (18.5 km) east of the atoll.. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Shurcliff, Bombs at Bikini (1947), the USS MT MCKINLEY (AGC-7) was the "Force Flagship", whereas the USS FALL RIVER (CA-131) was the Target Vessel Control Group (Appendix 8, Support Vessels). Off-hand I don't see any reference in the book to the distance of the observation fleet much less individual vessels. Note that they would have been far away not only for fallout reasons but because most of those participating in the operation were not permitted to see what a Fat Man bomb looked like (the appearance of the bombs were not declassified until 1960—it gives away a lot of its design details to a trained eye). --24.147.69.31 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.......arrested, jailed for having no ID in the US ? 65.173.105.118 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, being an American, there is no law that says that you must have any sort of identification. That's if you're a citizen. Although, if you are believed to be an illegal alien, then you can most likely be held until your identity is proven. Also, legal aliens/tourists/etc. are required to have some sort of identification, normally in the form of a passport, although you aren't required to have it on your person at all times. Dismas|^(talk) 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be arrested for practically anything. Whether or not they can be lawfully arrested is, of course, another question.

Atlant (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada might be of some interest, here. --LarryMac | Talk 13:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems to me that the issue in that court case was that the accused refused to identify himself, not that he wasn't carrying official identification. I think that citizens are not required to carry official identification (though in some states apparently they may be required to "identify themselves"), unless they are driving. Every state requires drivers to carry driver's licenses while driving. Marco polo (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between identifying yourself and proving your identity.If he had said 'my name is Mr.Hiibel'but had nothing to prove that he was Mr.Hiibel,he would still have identified himself. Lemon martini (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions about body piercings: 1. Are there issues associated with the metals used in body piercing? For example, could a person be allergic to a metal? 2. Is a range of metals offered? 3. Do the costs vary much? Is metal tarnishing a problem? 4. Do piercings set off metal detectors? 5. What are some of the risks of body piercing?

Thank you in advance. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Not quite, a person can have a reaction to certain metals. See Contact dermatitis for more on this.

2) Sometimes a couple different metals are offered. It depends on the style of the piece.

3) Costs can vary between metals, how much depends on the metals. If you're comparing titanium to gold to surgical steel, there can be different prices. The metals used generally don't tarnish.

4) They can if the gain on the detector is set high enough, but generally this isn't an issue.

5) See Body piercing. Dismas|^(talk) 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An important issue is to make sure all aspects of the body piercing are being handled by a reputable, licensed professional, as questions 1,2,3 and 5 depend upon this. 130.88.140.120 (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 100 largest law firms globally

It looks like ~95% of the world's largest law firms are based in the US/UK. English is the language of business but in many countries college grads are all fluent in English. And, sure, US/UK are leaders in finance but they are leaders in a multipolar world. None of these advantages can account for such UTTER dominance. So why?

Lotsofissues 09:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The US and UK are very wealthy and powerful countries with a lot of influence. Bellum et Pax (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaking countries have a tradition of respect for the law. What's the point of being a lawyer in a (blatantly) corrupt system, e.g. China, Russia? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why Germany isn't represented? The breakdown goes: UK/US 94, Oz 4, Holland 1, France 1. There are other wealthy and influential nations than the US/UK. Isn't it incredible that they can't be found? Lotsofissues 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)

The practice of building law firms with numerous partners originated in the United States and spread to the United Kingdom. Historically, most law offices in European countries were small, consisting of a single lawyer or a handful of lawyers who worked, often, directly with clients. It was in the English-speaking countries that a business model developed involving a complex division of labor among lawyers and different kinds of support staff, and among lawyers specializing in multiple areas of law within a single firm. I am not certain about this, but I think that large British and American corporations tend to hire outside law firms to handle legal matters, which is a huge source of business for law firms in those countries, whereas large European corporations tend to rely on internal legal staff. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large Canadian and American companies tend to have in-house legal counsel and also to have at least one (sometimes more) private firm either on retainer or by way of a gentlemen's agreement. Each group tends to do a different type of work, though how the work will be divided varies from company to company. The "out-house" firms are specifically used when a third-party opinion is required for decision-making. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, out-house. Do they do the sh*t work? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks - I am a 61 year old grandfather of a 13 year old Scottish grand-daughter who, like most kids that age, is really into pop divas, teeny fashions, etc., etc. For part of her Birthday this year I want to give her a surprise DVD of all the Birth-to-Teen digital pictures I have taken of her over the years (several hundred once edited)including birthdays, foreign holidays, Christmases etc., all set to music. I have the right software so that's not a problem. But what kind of music? I would like it to be "poppy" but to reflect the joy of being young, adventurous, happy, loved, and developing and growing as God intended. Maybe several tracks will be necessary to cover 15-20 minutes or so. Any suggestions will be most gratefully received. Thanks.81.145.242.50 (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a lovely idea! It doesn't meet your "poppy" criterion at all, but What a Wonderful World seems ideal to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like to put a damper on this, but would your grand-daughter actually appreciate this? I'm thinking that many of her age might not, because they prefer not to be depicted as young children but as young adults. I know I have no idea what she's like so I'm not in a good position to advise, but I thought I'd raise it.--217.44.170.51 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 217's thinking of older teens, but 13 is still when it's nice to have someone make you the centre of their (DVD) attention. You could borrow some of her CDs maybe? : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea, and something she'll always keep. While you want the music to be something she likes now, you'll also want it to be something she will like in 5, 10, 15 years time, and not cringe over. Having said that, I have no idea what! Gwinva (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles' In My Life fits the bill nicely: "Though I know I’ll never lose affection for people and things that went before, I know I’ll often stop and think about them. In my life I love you more." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with the worm in mescal? Does it really have hallucinogenic properties? I already looked on the internet and I've seen yes and I've seen no. Anyone? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is confusion here will the mescaline found in peyote cactus?87.102.90.249 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thought that too at first; mescal is just the english spelling. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR: no. --Sean 15:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see your point, Sean. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just saying that, in his personal experience (in Wikipediaspeak, original research), it doesn't. Algebraist 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had a bottle of some distilled drink with a worm in it - drank it and ate the worm - nothing - the liquid was absolutely vile though - tasted (and smelt) like embalming fluid..87.102.90.249 (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it ok copyrightwise to quote eg from here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/15/WIGEM64I001.DTL&type=wine

Mezcal attracted attention north of the border in the late 1950s, when proto-hippies headed to Oaxaca in search of marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms and peyote. Because peyote extract can be used to create mescaline, a popular hallucinogen of the era, and because locals got rowdy after drinking a local firewater named a mezcal that came from clay jars with no labels, the tripping visitors assumed a connection between the similar-sounding substances. In fact, there is none, and mezcal will not make you hallucinate any more than single- malt Scotch.

or try http://www.winexmagazine.com/winexaus/issuetwo/ss.htm section on the right (yellow box) "tequila myths"87.102.90.249 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching for a picture I hope someone recognise it by its description and could send it to me or provide a website where it is displayed. It is a grayscale picture (a photograph) which consists of an illusion trick. It shows silhouettes of anormally tall people, with short shadows, walking on plain ground (maybe on cement or sand). The picture is taken from a height. When it is flipped on the side, the silhouettes appear to be the people's shadows caused by an evening sunlight (hence they appear taller than the people). Does someone recognise it? thank you. 212.98.136.42 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that photo but don't know where it can be found, sorry :( ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing that the only purpose for a company to exist is to make as much money as possible. To maximize profits. Why? Why must it be like that? I refuse to believe that it is like this. Why can't the company simply give people jobs, while making the world better by making a great, useful product or selling services people like, naturally making a profit, but not at the cost of morals and "doing the right thing"? At some point, you have more money than you can waste. Isn't it enough to be able to give your employees a good income?

Sigh. I get pissed off when I hear that companies buy other companies, ruining a product, and sell-outs who care more about the money than their child (the product/company name).

There is no point in being greedy after a certain point as far as I'm concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly traded companies are expected to maximize the return to their stockholders, so formally speaking, yes -- that's the only purpose. However, it's naive to assume that "maximize" is always interpreted in the strictest possible sense. Plenty of companies (most if not all, I would expect) contribute to charities, for instance. This is unlikely to be with the aim of maximizing profits. Others may decide that "maximize" means to fill the market niche they occupy rather than rampant expansion, which seems to fit the spirit of what you'd like to see. Finally, this question has come up before, and a cursory search of the archives should find related content. — Lomn 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the notion that a business's purpose is to make as much money as possible falls part of business philosophy, i.e. it is only a necessary philosophy under which people govern businesses. The philosophy when applied remains quite correct - in order to compete, grow, and nurture your business you do have to take care of profitability. Any other philosophy that said "grow as fast or as slow as you please" or "forget about the competition, they're not threat" or "forget about generating revenue to reinvest into your company." The other sad side of the story is that many small businesses don't do well, and very few stay open longer than 5 years. I'm sure you agree that the philosophy to run at a profit (and maximize the profit to ensure you continue to run at a profit) is sound business sense. And as others point out, many companies get to the point where they invest in charity, spread the success amongst its staff, or are able to invest in research to improve their goods and services which in many cases is good for the consumer. Rfwoolf (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at mutual company and cooperative. The way the business is setup, however, is not the issue - the issue is in your perspective. You appear to be deciding that the drive for profit means that firms will pay low/not treat staff well etc. This is not the case. Most businesses pay salaries well above any national minimum requirement. Most businesses provide benefits above and beyond that laid out by national law/regulatory requirements. Look at the high-profit companies Operating Margins, they are generally tight in highly-competitive industries. The profits are huge but they are part of the business, nothing else. Shareholders/Owners don't just pull all that money out, it gets reinvested/spent within the business and some distributed to the shareholders. Companies can (and unfortunately many do) treat their employees poorly, provide a poor amount of pay, not help society but so can any other form of organisation - government, businesss, societies, groups etc. etc. The problem is not 'greed', it is the application of making money. Businesses can make money in many ways (and paying staff more does not necessitate reduced profits). ny156uk (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore it - the people who talk like that are called shareholders/financial analysts (..no offence to them).. For people who work for a company there's a sense of pride in doing a good job or making a good product. Often people start a company just to make something they really want to exist - nevertheless losing money hand over fist is not the way to go. You're probably getting a narrow view of the world from the news .. something like that?87.102.90.249 (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a company is privately owned by an individual or a group of individuals who have other goals for the company than maximizing profits, then the company need not maximize profits. However, to stay in business (and not wipe out the owners' savings), the company must run at least a small profit, sufficient to replace worn out equipment and such.

On the other hand, if a company is publicly owned and traded, then it will have to compete in the market for investment capital. Public investors seldom care about much beyond maximizing the return on their capital. For most people, that is the point of investing rather than accepting the meager returns offered by savings banks. Also, investing in a company involves taking on some risk that your investment will lose value if the company falters or fails. People expect to be compensated for this risk with competitive returns (profits). The price of shares and the company's ability to borrow money for investment depend on the returns generated by the company. So, really, publicly traded companies have little choice but to do what is necessary to maximize returns. Sometimes this will mean offering employees excellent wages and benefits to attract the most qualified staff. Other times, particularly if the company's product does not require skilled labor, this will mean minimizing labor costs. So, it isn't a matter of greed for the companies. It is a matter of survival in the fiercely competitive marketplace that is the precondition for capitalism.

Note that I am not defending this system. I am myself a kind of democratic socialist who favors ownership by workers. However, I came to that by recognizing that capitalism offers no alternative to the tyranny of capital markets. Marco polo (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a company does anything other than try to make money any way it can, it will be destroyed in the marketplace by its competitors or find itself the target of a shareholders' revolt. Let's say you're a garment company, and all of your competitors make clothes in sweatshops. But you decide to have your clothes made by a supplier that treats its workers well. That will probably be more expensive, which means that you may have to sell your products for more than your competitors do. If there's no market out there for more-expensive, non-sweatshop clothes, you're in trouble. Most people know their single purchase of a T-shirt isn't going to make a difference, so they opt for the cheaper, sweatshop T-shirt. That's why we need government to get involved to do things like outlaw sweatshops -- because the nature of the free market precludes companies from doing it themselves. That's a gross oversimplification, of course, but should explain the basics of it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am hearing rumours of another delay to the 2 CVFs currently in development by UK MOD. Can someone point me to a web page of good reputation for confirmation of this?

I can only find rumours without back up...

Cheers Gertie100 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/01/12/cnbae112.xml this page of good reputation states that they are only 'fears' nothing solid87.102.90.249 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words as of today it is still just a rumour.87.102.90.249 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having just seen "A Thing About Machine" (Twilight Zone episode), I wonder how they made the typewriter seemingly type one its own. I mean... technically. Also, some questions about old TVs:

1. Why were they round (screen)? 2. Can they be plugged in today and used to watch modern broadcasts? 3. Same questions 2 but for ancient radios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Round screen CRTs are technically easier to build than rectangular-screen CRTs (the mechanics of the glass envelope are simpler). So the first tubes were round but, yes, they still used the same standards and so would still be able to display a modern broadcast. And ancient AM radios will still receive modern AM broadcasts.

Atlant (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They'll be able to display modern broadcasts until February of 2009 (in the US), when over-the-air broadcasting will no longer display in the same format. At that point, you'll need cable TV or a new television. And I doubt if the old TV sets with the round tubes have cable connections. Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave some thought to mentioning that, but in fact, the TVs will still work with anything (like a VCR, DVD player, video game, or set-top box) that includes a modulator that can output channel 3 or 4.

Atlant (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very old US TVs would be able to receive channels 2-13, but not the higher (UHF) channels, which were introduced later. In some countries there have already been incompatible changes like the coming change to digital in the US and Canada. A very old British TV would not be able to receive modern broadcasts, even if it could be tuned to the channel, because the number of lines per frame has changed. --Anonymous, 20:12 UTC, February 4.

I don't specifically remember the typewriter in that episode, but teletype machines have been around since the 1920s. That episode aired in 1960. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wires hooked to the arms of the typewriter keys ,threaded under the typewriter.Someone lies under it and pulls them. hotclaws 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many Venevisión International studios are there in Miami, Florida? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Another Venevision International studio in Miami, Florida

==

Will there be 3 Venevision International studios in Miami, Florida? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2--143.200.225.109 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any industry standards dictating that a roof which sustained damage in the form of uplifted (not broken) shingles should be replaced rather than repaired? Gabe W. Lawson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.12.17 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very probably yes, there are industry standard practices. Depending on where you're from, turn to a local construction company, they will probably tell you first hand what you should do, upon a site inspection I presume. Hope this helps. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking because you've already been told by a roofer that you need to replace the roof, and you are doubtful, then you might try getting a second opinion from a different roofer. Try saying that you want the shingles replaced, see if you get an objection from the second roofer that you need a new roof, then ask why. Marco polo (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a DJ on BBC Radio 4 in the mornings, he interviews politians as well as numerous other people, what puts him outside the scope of your average radio dj interviewer, is that he seem to be rather hard on his interviewees, he eats lying polititians for breakfast. and is great fun to listen to I think his name is John Nochty (Nochty pronounced like Loch Ness Monster) can some one please provide me witha link to his article, if there is one, as well as the correct spelling of his name, if there is not one, i will start one, but first i should get his name right. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.35.90 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be James Naughtie. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though do you mean John Humphrys, the more combative of the two?--217.44.170.51 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them could really be called a 'DJ'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of where Wikipedia categories are really useful. When I have this sort of question, I look up the name of someone in a similar job and then click on the appropriate category at the bottom of the article. For example, Mr Naughtie will then be found under "BBC newsreaders and journalists".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone familiar with these systems? Do they have limits? Or can you collect unemployment for eternity?

Lotsofissues 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You may find articles like Swedish welfare and Unemployment benefits in Sweden useful. --169.230.94.28 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a useful link. But how long can one use the basic fund? 128.54.77.45 (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this official pamplet: http://www.regjeringen.no/Upload/AID/publikasjoner/veiledninger_og_brosjyrer/2008/the_norwegian_social_insurance_scheme2008.pdf for an overview of the rules (in Norway). Unemployment benefits are detailed in paragraph 10, on page 21. I live in this society and must say I think it works very nicely. One of the main issues discussed here these days is whether too many people end up on disability pensions; that is, I admit, a challenging issue. (and to answer the original question: you can't collect unemployment benefits forever, but you'll always be sustained by the state to some extent - something like food stamps in the US, I would imagine) Jørgen (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jorgen. So it looks like 1-2 years for unemployment based on income. 66.91.224.203 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right. And to get benefits, you have to actually be employed - no good if you, for example, go idle straight from university. By the way, unemployment in Norway is now extremely low, around 2.1 per cent at one measure. Jørgen (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good secondary question would be "Can I come over and take advantage of your system and live for free ?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of worry about such "welfare tourism" when Sweden was joining the EU. What actually happened was that the Swedes started traveling to Lithuania for cheaper dental care... (Actually, the EU rules don't allow you to take up residence in another EU country (even if you are already living in an EU country) unless you are employed, or are looking for work for "a limited period" on the order of 6 months. Non-EU citizens would need a residence permit, which would not typically be granted for visits intended to take advantage of the welfare system.) --169.230.94.28 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an obituary or date of death on her anywhere on the net. I haven't actually resorted to trekking to a library yet as there are none really close to me. However if this woman is still alive she'd be 107ish which is possible I guess. Williamb (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If our birth date 7 October 1898 is correct, she'd be 109 now. Quite possible, but unlikely. Other than some stray facts about her matches, I've found no biographical material about her at all on the web, unfortunately. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to get the word out to do a search? The info would much more likely be found in the UK than here in the states. Williamb (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the issue here is putting the word out quite effectively. Many thousands of people read these pages, and I'm sure someone will have the information, or know someone who does. That's assuming she's died, which she may not have. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She apparently married (1) an "M.R. Watson", and (2) married a "W.L. Blakstad" in July 1933 (with a news story appearing in the New York Times in October 1933). Any obituary would presumably be under that or (another) married name. - Nunh-huh 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't find one webwise. It would help I guess knowing the nationality of Blakstad etc. Not sure where she died at could have been almost anywhere in the world if she did. Williamb (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i live in a small village, in Fife, Scotland, we get a semi-regular window cleaning service and when i lived in the larger towns of fife there was a regular service. My question is, do other countries such as USA, Mainland Europe etc have this type of local, town/village size service? From reading novels, watching the 'box' i do not recall seeing/reading of such a service, all responses would be gratefully ackownledged, taPerry-mankster (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poland: Businesses normally have regular window cleaning services that they pay for, so that it feels nice for the customers. Private houses - no. Cleaning ladies clean our staircases once a week or two, but I don't think I ever saw them cleaning the windows on the staircase (I live in a block of flats). Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any such service in North America at all. Either you clean your windows yourself or you hire someone to do it. Businesses have to hire people as well, unless it is a skyscraper in which case it is usually done by robots bought by the building owners. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote re: Poland. Your windows open in so you can clean them yourselves, right? In my country they open out so we need ladders and such. :P A Polish friend of mine has listed it as one of many things that don't make sense here. ;) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it makes sense to me, means it doesn't take up space inside and you can't walk into it and hurt your head. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mean that the municipal government cleans the windows of privately-owned property? When I was renting, my landlords cleaned the windows twice a year, but, believe me, the cost was included in the rent somewhere. (We were always warned, well in advance, to close the windows and pull the shades. Perhaps they knew of George Formby.) The same is true of office buildings. I have never heard of this service for private ownership, though. There are certainly private companies that clean windows, but you contract with them and pay them directly. I've never seen a robot doing a skyscraper. I have, however, seen a person on a "stage" cleaning the 26th floor of an apartment building. I speak here of timee I have spent living in Canada and the US. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know there are robot window cleaners on the Sears Tower, I see them go up all the time. They may have had them on the WTC towers as well. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live (near Bristol), there's a local window cleaner who comes round every couple of months. We pay him, and I assume he only works locally. -mattbuck 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise in Sutherland.--Johnluckie (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had one too, in Yorkshire, until he fell off a ladder... Gwinva (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh perry! i meant that we pay for the service sorry everyone, was just curious if there is the same kind of paid service for private/local authority house's in the rest of the worldPerry-mankster (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a small town in North Carolina in the US, I've only heard of this sort of service being something businesses used.--droptone (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this from? Is it true? Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texans think everything is bigger because their trees are so small. -Arch dude (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it was something other than their trees, if yo know what i mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.138 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say some people might take offense to that. I believe this would come from the fact that Texans eat more than any other state (I mean no offense, it's true) and thus their food portions are much bigger than the rest of the country. I find evidence for this at my local supermarket, where any food labeled "Texas" or "Texan" comes in a much larger portion, e.g Texas Toast and those gigantic "Big Texas" cinnimon rolls. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse; those items are called that because "everything is bigger in Texas". The phrase probably dates back to the days when Texas was little more than huge open ranges and wide open sky. It then became something of a pride/macho thing, so you end up with the stereotype of the obese Texan with a huge 10-gallon hat driving an oversize Cadillac with steer horns on the front. Matt Deres (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. I haven't woken up yet and won't be fully awake until about 6 in the evening. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Texas article certainly goes along with that sentiment, though it's explanation is unsourced. Note also that Texas was the largest state in the US for over 100 years. As to the original "is it true?" question: of course not. — Lomn 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas cattle rancher to Idaho sheep herder: Ah kin drave mah truck all day long and not git outside mah property.

Idaho sheep herder: Yea, I used to have a truck like that.

(sorry) Pfly (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]