Miscellaneous desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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 11[edit]

Do Australians ride kangaroos?[edit]

It sounds like a silly questions. And I know that Aussies will answer: "do Americans ride fat people?" Wikiweek (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no silly questions. It isn't the question's fault if it gets asked. AFAIK, no, you cannot ride a Kangaroo. They are not domesticated animals. --Jayron32 01:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An animal doesn't need to be domesticated to ride it. Ostrich racing occurs, even though ostriches aren't domesticated. That said, temperament matters a lot, as a very excitable animal won't tolerate being ridden. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the physique of a Kangaroo would preclude any ability to ride it. Secondly, they're not adverse to assaulting you if provoked. Thirdly, RSPCA Australia ~~would cut your balls off~~ be upset. Nanonic (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're also nowhere near big enough. The largest kangaroos are about the weight of an adult man. Even a light riding horse weighs five times as much. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you tie them down first. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I was waiting for someone to bring that up... --Jayron32 01:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It must be so pretty with all the dear little kangaroos flying about." DuncanHill (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anyone that brings up dingo-related infanticide needs to be slapped. Oh, shit. I just did myself, didn't I... --Jayron32 02:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you could find a large enough kangaroo and a small enough rider, and even if the kangaroo was freakishly friendly, and even if the kangaroo could keep its balance with a rider clinging to its back .... I'm not sure they'd make a very pleasant mode of transport. Their locomotion is a bit ... bouncy. APL (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To your second question, I understand that some Americans do ride other Americans, but possibly not as a mode of transport. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For fun then? [1]. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they ride elephants in India and camels in Saudi Arabia and Moose in Canada, it seems reasonable that they would ride kangaroos in Australia. 205.193.96.10 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just went looking for our article on Moose riding, but look, it's a redlink. :-( And I don't think they ride elephants very much in Africa HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They ride moose in Canada?? Pfly (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, in the Moose#Domestication section, there's discussion of a plan in 18th century Sweden to use moose for postal distribution and cavalry, but the plan was scrapped in part due to the aggressiveness of the moose - I can't find any statistics, but a number of web pages mention that moose are actually more dangerous for maulings than bears. (Although there apparently was a breeding program in the Soviet Union to breed tame moose.) As appealing as the image of a Mountie riding a moose is, there is no evidence to support it in practice. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of that statement is not unlike "If they speak French in France and German in Germany, it seems reasonable that they would speak Antarcticese in the Antarctic". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad used to ask us before trips to Toronto, "You do speak Canadianese, don't you?" Pfly (talk)

All else aside, remember that jockeys need not be adult men, even small adult men. Child camel jockey asserts that children as young as four years old are bought for the purpose and their growth deliberately stunted. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of a kangaroo alone shouldn't be a problem. Ostriches and ponies are also smaller than horses, but people ride them. Quest09 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this, and let us know what strategies you would use to stay on board. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they ride elephants in India and camels in Saudi Arabia -- I don't know about elephants, but they do ride camels in Australia too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And as a result of those imports, there are now more camels in Australia than in any other country on Earth. Mostly wild. I always said they should have picked Chips Rafferty to play "Lawrence of Australia" rather than Nancy-Boy O'Toole. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Indiana Jones movies elehants are rode in India.(I may be wrong on which movies it is, but I have seen it in movies! I never thought I would need to remember this:)Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 03:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Growing car models[edit]

Why do most car models in the North American market always grow over the years? I'm not talking about average cars in general growing or shrinking, I'm talking about individual models keep growing, and then newer models that never existed before fill the exact same size category of these new grown models. A couple of examples include Ford Explorer going from 2 row seating to 3 row seating and much bigger. I think Honda Accord is now in the Full Size class although it used to be Mid-Size, and in the late 80's was a Compact. This applies to many other cars and light trucks. Also, the definitions for size classes of cars and light trucks themselves have changed over the years to allow for bigger and heavier vehicles in the category, and I think they are now categorizing them based on weight more than dimensions. Whats the reason for this? Roberto75780 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this article interesting. - manya (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just America, you already cited Honda (Japanese); German car manufacturers follow the same trend. That is how over the years we saw the introduction of the Mercedes Benz C-Class, BMW 1 Series, Audi A1 & A2 etc. It's all about economics and the psychology of "bigger is better". If you're upgrading your car to the latest model you want to feel like you're "getting more" than what the previous model gave you. Q.E.D. Interestingly, none of the manufacturers seem to care that people's garages don't magically grow to keep up. Zunaid 09:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess it's because selling to your curretncustomers is easier than getting new customers. And the current customers are always getting older and fatter and lazier and more interested in comfort than being sleek and hip. So the models get bigger and you bring in new models to sell to younger people. Dmcq (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a secret![edit]

I was updating List of the busiest airports in Canada and using Passengers enplaned and deplaned on selected services — Top 50 airports as a reference for 2009. Some of the entries have an "x" and I'd never really thought about it. I got curious and went to see exactly what the x stood for. It turns out that the "suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act". Now given that some airports, for example Fredericton International Airport, provide the figures, why would Statistics Canada need to keep the numbers confidential? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speculating a bit, but since airports in Canada are quasi-private entities, some of them may just not have consented to release of the numbers they provide by StatsCan, even if they release the data on their own. Under Sec. 12(2)(b) then, the information can not be disclosed, although it can be used to calculate a total. The exceptions in Sec. 17(2)(g) wouldn't apply since an airport is not a "carrier" nor a "public utility" per se. I imagine airports may not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act either, but not positive. Franamax (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK that does make some sense. The idea behind not letting StatsCan release the figures may have something to do with the appearance of how busy an airport is. If you look at the busiest airports list and the 2009 "Canada's 20 busiest airports by passenger traffic" most airports tend to claim larger figures than StatsCan report. Although not obvious from the list the same holds true for aircraft movements. For example Toronto Pearson claimed 418,017 movements in 2010 but StatsCan says 417,761. I wonder if any government funding is based on the number of passengers/aircraft movements. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada does not have a Freedom of Information Act, but Access to Information laws, both at the federal and provincial/territorial levels. Those only apply to government entities. Privately-run airports would indeed not be coverewd by such laws. --Xuxl (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the federal level, but at the provincial level many provinces do indeed have Freedom of Information Acts, search for FOIPOP in your favourite engine. And you're missing the grey zone of airports under the NAS which are owned by the feds but run by Canadian Airport Authorities, which are not really "private" entities but almost a law unto themselves. This is how Pearson airport in Toronto has among the very highest landing fees in the world and is sometimes a matter of controversy in Canada. Franamax (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about the National Airports System. That means that Fredericton International Airport is owned by Transport Canada as per this but operated by the airport authority. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be the confidentiality of the airports per se as the confidentiality of the users of the airports which is at issue. If you have an airport which is primarily used by a single airline or other entity, the publication of total flights may be seen as compromising their confidentiality. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IES[edit]

what is the salary of an engineer working for government after passing IES (Indian Engineering Services exam)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.10.106 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update my company's profile[edit]

I work for On Telecoms S.A. and I have recently updated the company's article on Wikipedia. I also need to update the logo. As you can see in the company's official website (www.on.gr), the logo has changed. I am not an autoconfirmed user, nor an administrator and the logo has all rights reserved, so I cannot upload it in the commons section. What can I do to update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria.economides (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can wait until you are autoconfirmed. All that requires is for you to make 10 edits and wait 4 days, and it happens automagically. In the mean time, you should REALLY spend some time reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Jayron32 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donations[edit]

Do donations ever actually work? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 12:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Donations to what? Work for what purpose? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say was, do money-based donations ever cause their desired effect? For example, suppose there was an advertisement saying that people in a developing country would get cleaner water if donated to. Does that actually happen if enough people donate? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 13:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as the organization is ethical, their goals are achievable, and their methods effective. Many organizations that do good are sustained by donations- I look around my own city and see a school whose construction was 50% funded by donations, a food bank which uses donations of food and money to feed hungry people, and a homeless shelter that uses donations of money, food, materials, time, and skill to provide shelter and services to homeless people... and that's all less than a few blocks from where I'm sitting. Just do your research into the organization you're thinking of donating to, and make sure that they are legitimately using the donations to provide what they say. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Charities Commission ensures that donations go where they're supposed to and do what they say they're going to do. I imagine that other countries have sinilar regulation. Alansplodge (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donations to the Wikimedia Foundation certainly have the effect of keeping the world's greatest free encyclopedia in business. (Keeping this thing running isn't free!) APL (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on charitable organizations outlines the criteria by which a number of English-speaking western countries determine whether or not an organization is a 'charity' for tax purposes. In general, they lose their tax-sheltered or tax-exempt status if they fail to use the donations they receive to carry out good works. Many jurisdictions impose caps on the fraction of income which can be used for marketing, fundraising, office staff, and other overhead. There are often public disclosure laws which require registered charities to report on how they spent their money; if you really want to know where your donations are going you should seek out these filings and reports. Charitable donations are a voluntary, personal choice — if a particular charity can't explain to your satisfaction how your donations are going to be spent, take your money to one that will. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a man who once "ran" a charitable organization (I was W. Master of a lodge of free and accepted Masons), I can entirely confirm that some donations go directly to charitable works. I was proud of our low overhead and the fact that when we got a check it went right to a charity program, or to pay for an endowment to keep a charitable program running indefinitely. I'm not sure how other charities operate but if your question is "do they ever" go directly towards programs, I can answer firsthand with a yes. My secretary took receipt of checks that were spent the next week on scholarship programs for trade apprentices. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are giving their money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Foundation has clear goals with an actual end (e.g., wipe out polio from Earth) rather than merely cause an effect without end. If there is an answer as to whether money-based donations ever truly cause their desired effect (rather than just perpetuate a continued need to donate), the Gates Foundation should be able to answer that. -- 06:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, March of Dimes was also founded with a clear goal with an actual end: getting rid of polio in the United States. They succeeded in that goal, but rather than dissolving, they decided in 1958 to try to reduce premature birth and infant mortality, problems that will probably never be eliminated. Buddy431 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick queen question[edit]

Supposing the Queen gawd bless'er lives to celebrate her 100th birthday, who does the telegram/telemessage/whatever it may be come from? Will she have a little message with Happy Birthday Me from Me on? Lemon martini (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She'll only get one if she applies for one and sends off her birth certificate as well. Nanonic (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is her original birth certificate a state secret, like Obama's, or could any interested party buy a copy?Edison (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check your facts. [2] [3] 72.77.95.134 (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You check your facts. The original "vital records" document is still a secret. [4]. Edison (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She'll get rather a lot of happy birthday messages. The tabloid newspapers won't be backward in coming forward, for starters. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the Duke of Edinburgh is 90 this year. If they're both still around in ten years' time, will he get a telegram from his missus? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Willard Scott will send her a jar of Smuckers... --Jayron32 19:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament will declare a national holiday, and we will all send her our thanks, though not necessarily by telegram. Dbfirs 00:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are opportunities to rehearse celebrations ahead of that time. On May 12 of this year, at which time she'll be 85, Elizabeth will pass George III and become the second-longest-reigning British monarch. On September 11, 2015 (age 89), she'll pass her great-great-grandmother and move into the number one spot. The pressure will then be off and she can coast to her 100th birthday. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's mother got a telegram, so I guess here husband could expect one also. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He should have to apply like anyone else. I wonder who his local Member of Parliament is. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominally, it is Mark Field. Visit [5], and search for SW1A 1AA, which is Buckingham Palace's post code. CS Miller (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you are, Phil. Regards to the wife. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

helicopters in hangers[edit]

How do the airport people get the helicopters without wheels into and out of the hanger? Do they have a special cart that they use to pull it in and out? Googlemeister (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters without wheels tend to be rather small, so usually a hand-operated tug is used - see some photos here or here , found by googling for "helicopter tug" -- Ferkelparade π 16:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One uses “ground handling wheels” or a proper purpose built towcart. Here is a video of a Robinson 44 Helicopter getting its skates on . [6]--Aspro (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<not-serious>Also they tend to be placed in hangars not hung from hangers.</notserious> MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did they start off calling them "hangers" if nothing was "hung?" Edison (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with hangar. 129.120.141.200 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Ah, different spelling. "Hangar" rather than hanger. Same pronunciation. (I expect the "hanger" spelling is common.) Short OED says Hangar, French, unknown origin, for a shed or shelter. American Heritage Dictionary says from Old French, likely from Latin "angarium," a shed for shoeing horses. I had always assumed they literally hung dirigibles from the beams of the structure to keep them from dragging on the floor. The Wiktionary etymology claims it from from a term for a fence around or hear a house seems unlikely, compared to the AmHeritage etymology from the Latin word for a workshed. Google News Archive shows common use of "hangar" for an airship, aeroplane, or airplane shed by 1910, with the earliest use around 1906 for dirigibles. By 1910 someone commented in an aviation magazine that we had imported "garage" as a word for the shed a car is kept in and "hangar" as the word for a shed an aircraft is kept in. Edison (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thackeray used "hangar" in 1852 to mean a coach-house or covered space for storing a (horse)-coach. The Latin via Old French derivation seems most likely, but the route is obscure. Dbfirs 00:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storing Valentine's Day Roses Outside and in the Dark[edit]

I bought my live-in GF a nice bouquet of roses today for Valentine’s day. I was planning on stashing them in my home office till Monday morning when I can surprise her with the flowers. However I was told by a co-worker that roses should be kept somewhere cold like outside. The temp between today and Monday has a low of 28 and a high of 45. Is that too cold? Additionally, is it okay to keep it in our dark shed? Will the roses need light? They will be kept in water the whole time. Thank you in advance. --Endlessdan (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that live roses can be surprisingly cold resistant provided they're kept out of the worst of the weather; I've seen rose blooms while there was snow on the ground, for example. So long as it's reasonably sheltered, I imagine it would be alright (though, as I said, my experience is more with live ones than with cut ones). Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mother and grandmother were both florists. I got used to coming home to find roses in the fridge! If the temperature outside doesn't go below freezing you should be fine keeping them outside. It might be better to keep them in a friend's garage or fridge. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that prolonged exposure to temperatures below freezing (32 Fahrenheit) would probably damage the roses. I don't think they need light. A refrigerator might be the best solution. If a little heat from your house leaks into your shed so that it won't fall below freezing, that might work, too. Marco polo (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP is somewhere much warmer, where it will be 28 centigrade at night and 45 centigrade during the day. In that case, keep them in the fridge. Astronaut (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to imagine where he would live where he thought that 28-45C was cold. Maybe Venus I suppose. Googlemeister (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]