Miscellaneous desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 6 >

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.

September 5

Candidate death

What would happen if McCain or Obama died between now and the November election? Would the parties just switch to their VP picks? Would there have to be some kind of nominating process again? Maybe this has never happened and it's unanswerable- so has it happened in the past? Nadando (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends on the parties' bylaws; someone else may be able to answer that. But you might see Mel Carnahan for some sort of similar case, not necessarily a precedent given the rather different circumstances. --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is time to change the ballot, then the party's bylaws would be relevant, if not, I'm not sure they would have much say (directly, at least - the electors come from the party, so could be persuaded even if they can't be ordered to vote a particular way). --Tango (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to President-elect, if the elected president dies after the the election and after the Electoral College meet, then the VP becomes president at the end of the last president's term. If a candidate dies before that, but after the election, then it would be up to the electoral college to decide. I believe some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the person they pledged to vote for, which would be impossible if they were dead. The laws may say what to do in case of death, but if not it would be a personal choice, I think. If they die before the election, there may be time for the party to select a new candidate, if not, there is precedent for a candidate to be on the ballot posthumously, in which case I think it would be up to the electors again. See U.S. Electoral College#Death or unsuitability of a candidate for a little information on the subject. --Tango (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nit: The electoral college (as a whole) doesn't meet at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. "Meet" in a metaphorical sense - all cast their votes. --Tango (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1872 election found Horace Greeley die between the election and the casting of votes by the Electoral College; it wasn't as important becuase Grant won handily, but while a lot voted for the V.P nominee, not all did.

I agree that otherwise, if it's too soon before the election, voters may simply be asked to vote for the Vice Presidential candidate as President; perhaps he or she would come on and make a speech and announce that they were going to be running. That would be the simplest solution, anyway, as the two are on together as a ticket.Somebody or his brother (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check on what the Democratic Party did in 1972 when Thomas Eagleton was hounded into withdrawing as their Vice President nominee because he had been treated for depression. The Presidential nominee, George McGovern, selected a replacement Vice President candidate, Sargent Shriver, who had not been one of the top 70 vote-getters in the Vice Presidential balloting. Shriver got fewer Vice President votes at the convention than did Mao Zedong (who was not eligible). The choice of Shriver was confirmed in a special meeting of the Democratic National Committee. Unless the rules have changed, such a national body of party leaders might be able to meet and select a new nominee for President as well, should the presidential candidate die before the general election, and in time to prepare new ballots and program voting machines. It might be the Vice Presidential nominee, or more likely one of the other leading candidates for the presidential nomination, setting up a possible divided administration, if the vice president candidate allied with the deceased presidential nominee stayed on the ticket in the number two spot. Apparently the election could proceed with the dead person's name on the ballot, and the electors would then have to work out a replacement. This would be greatly to the detriment of the party with the dead candidate, because the electors would likely split their votes among various favorites, making it very difficult to win. Could this result in a split victory, with the Vice President of one party and the President from the other? The Vive President from the deceased candidate's party might get all that party's electoral votes, with two or more getting the dead candidate's presidential electoral votes, throwing the presidential election into the House. All very complicated. Edison (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What suburbs exactly belong to the North Shore suburbs in Chicago exactly?

It is currently stated in this article that only the suburbs built before 1963 when the "Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad" was taken down are considered to be the North Shore suburbs. Are there any reliable official sources (beside Wikipedia) which would indicate which are the suburbs which are considered to be North Shore suburbs or is it open for interpretation? Acidburn24m (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes words like "X is considered by some to be part" of the North Shore suburbs. My guess, for what it's worth, is that NSS is an elastic term, often stretched by real estate agents hoping to increase the perceived value of an address. In the Washington DC area, "Greater Potomac" (Maryland) at times seems to encompass everything this side of West Virginia. — OtherDave (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real bright line definition seems to be that it has to be (1) a community (town or village), (2) in Illinois, (3)north of Chicago, and (4)adjoining Lake Michigan. It appears that towns to the west, which do not touch Lake Michigan, are wanna be's, so as to get more for the real estate. There is nothing "official" about it, since they are not in the same county or political, voting, taxing or zoning unit. Maybe their being stops on a defunct train line counts for something, but it seems a reach. Are there any communities left out because they did not have a train stop on the defunct line? Edison (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a hard criterion to test by. The North Shore Line had an awful lot of stations on it, like most of the interurbans, and I doubt any significant populated place was missed. There are a couple of counterexamples: Mundelein and (especially) Skokie, which both were served by the railroad, but neither of which seem to be considered North Shore towns. Morrand (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that there are several different ways of defining this, depending on where you're coming from. So, for instance, if you look at the "Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad", it would restrict the communities to only those served by that line, or close to it. However, there is also another usage of the term "North Shore", which implies a class distinction, since typically the North Shore neighborhoods are very affluent. There is a certain air of snobbishness in something being called "North Shore". This usage, then, would be a lot more difficult to pin down where precisely the lines are drawn, since there are also some fairly poor towns along the Lake Michigan shoreline between Chicago and Kenosha, Wisconsin. Saying that someone is from the North Shore, therefore, has different meanings, and is not something that can be completely and accurately defined in a simple way. Saukkomies 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comparison of the effectiveness between television and internet

comparison of the effectiveness between television and internet in terms of content,accesbility,credibility,popularity and entertainment value —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkds21 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the effectiveness of doing your own homework as opposed to getting others to do it for you. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of being helpful (and directing people to resources is fine for homework too). Have you looked through the articles Television and Internet, then also places such as Global internet usage and the article Internet culture and its category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_culture) will help. Obviously you can make your own theories/ideas about this - you can compare the number of hits a popular internet-site gets versus the viewing figures for major tv shows. You could use the analogy that the internet is a pull-medium whilst tv is a push-medium (e.g. news online is a case of finding the articles that interest you, whereas on tv the news-broadcast shows you what the station believe is the 'main' news - so whilst information on most news-events exists online, only a small portion will be played out on daily news on tv). Above all - be thankful that you have a reasonably interesting question to answer, rather than some of the essay questions I get in my course which at times make me wish I hadn't chosen to do politics! 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The internet is much more effective than television as a means to ask people for help with a homework assignment." A+ — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Salote Coronation 1953 companion

Queen Salote was accompanied by a tiny man dressed in a frock coat and spats in her open carrige in the Coronation Procession. Who was the man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstorey (talk • contribs) 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her lunch (according to Noël Coward). -- JackofOz (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I jut hit edit to add that, but I see Jack got in first. (For full quote, see Queen Salote). Gwinva (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Master denied saying it (while wishing he had), ascribing the line to "a member of White's" DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting, but we still haven't answered the question Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Salote seems to have been 1.91m / 6' 3" tall. The chap on her side (about half a head shorter on one photo) would not have been tiny but of more than average height. Which does not answer your question, either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset timing

This could be a coincidence/nothign, but I was looking on BBC weather and noticed that the sunset time was dropping every day by 2 minutes (19.39, 19.37, 19.35, 19.33). From looking at sunset and some of the articles around it I couldn't see if this is some sort of 'average' (i.e. as it recedes each sunset is approx 2 minutes earlier in the evening) or whether it varies and reduces slower sometimes and faster others. I did see the little 'map' thing in the top-corner of one of the pages but it doesn't make a great deal of sense. Anyone? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain exactly what doesn't make sense -- that the time of sunset changes or the amount it changes by. Anyway, the time of sunset certainly shifts: it's a function of the Earth's axial tilt as it orbits the sun. In the summer the sun is more nearly overhead (though never fully so as far north as the UK) than in the winter and thus traverses a longer arc across the sky. The Earth's speed of rotation doesn't change, so a longer arc means a longer day. As we're moving from summer to winter, we're seeing shorter days, so sunset is progressively earlier.

Regarding the amount of time that sunset progresses and regresses, I expect (though I'm not certain) that this is a sinusoid function. When near the solstices, there's very little change in the noontime position of the sun from day to day. However, near the equinoxes (such as is the case now), there's a comparatively large change. Two or even three minutes daily change is reasonable for a latitude as northerly as the UK, though it should drop back to one minute (or none) from day to day as December approaches. — Lomn 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the rate at which the day grows shorter (and sunsets occur earlier) is greatest around the March and September equinoxes (that is, at this time of year). The rate of change is smallest at and around the June and December solstices. For very complicated reasons that I forget, the sun will set earlier and earlier until around 10 December, more than a week before the actual winter solstice. (Sunrise will get later and later until around January 6, more than a week after the solstice.) While the sun sets about 2 minutes earlier each day in the UK in September, the rate at which the sun sets earlier will decrease after equinox. By sometime in October, it will be setting only one minute or so earlier each day, and by early December, it will be setting only a few seconds earlier each day. Then, after about 10 December, the sun will start setting a few seconds later each day. By late January or so, it will be setting close to a minute later each day. By March, it will be setting about two minutes later each day. Sunset keeps getting later until June, but at a decelerating rate. And so on. A similar but inverse process happens with sunrise. Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, the reason that sunrise and sunset are on slightly different time cycles is probably a function of Earth's orbit being elliptical instead of circular. — Lomn 22:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might play a small part - but mostly it's because the sunrise time changes continually through the year - so between dawn on one day and dawn the next, the sunrise time has changed. Since the sunset time is somewhere between those two dawns - the sunrise time it's "opposite to" is not quite the same as either the dawn time on the same day or the dawn time on the next day. Ergo, sunrise and sunset cycles have to be shifted by roughly half a day. This would be true even if the earth's orbit was circular. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an absolutely wonderful phenomenon called the Analemma that shows how this works. If one was to set up a stationary camera that took a photograph of the sky where the sun would be at the same time every day, the result over a year long exposure would be that the sun would move around in what generally appears as a figure-8 in the sky. Now, there are some globes that are made that incorporate the Analemma on their surface - typically it's printed off the coast of Peru and Mexico. This same figure-8 diagram appears on the globe, and along its line is indicated what day of the year it is. How one uses such a tool is that if you take a particular day - say, September 11th - you can then find on the Analemma on the globe precisely where the sun will be directly overhead on the planet. You can further examine the Analemma on the globe and see very clearly that the months near the Equinoxes are stretched out along the figure-8 a lot further than the months near the Solstices. So, since we are approaching the Autumnal Equinox, which takes place on September 22nd, the sun is moving southward at a very rapid rate right now (which, again, you can determine from the Analemma on the globe). When we're in December there will be a dramatically smaller incremental change in the amount of time between sunrise and sunset each day (which will again be indicated on the Analemma). Saukkomies 16:32, 11 September 2008

walrus on a walrus on a walrus

I have seen a small baby walrus balanced on a large walrus.

how many walrus of different size can you stack, son? Bradley10 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's walruses all the way down. — Lomn 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the egg man? --- OtherDave (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the walrus! DuncanHill (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even lift one. How many can you stack? - Lamba jan 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to know if any of the walruses has a bucket. --LarryMac | Talk 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear they're making them smaller these days...

Royal Schools

I took guitar lessons for years and my teacher graded us every now and then and at the end he gave us a certificate stating that we had achieved grade 8. I that was 10 years ago, I can play anything you give me to play. I am fully competant. However recently I have heard that the only recognized music exam grading system is Royal Schools. why is this? Does all my hard work count for nothing? How would I atain my grade 8? would I need to start from one going through RS? Will I need to learn to read music? does one need to pay RS for these exams? if so is this not a monopoly? 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Jilted and annoyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said what country you're in, but in the UK, the recognized music examination boards are the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, Trinity Guildhall (formerly Guildhall and Trinity, which merged in 2007), London College of Music Examinations, and the National College of Music London. The Royal Schools are the largest, but by no means the only recognized board. Algebraist 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):According to our article, there are three examination boards in the UK. If your teacher gave you certificates he had run up on a laser printer, they're probably worthless. You infer you cannot read music - I'd have thought this was a prerequisite of getting a recognised musical grading. Your hard work does not count for nothing - you can play the guitar. What more do you want? If you want to pursue more formal guitar or musical education, you might well need to sit formal exams. And yes, all exam boards charge for their services. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, to get higher than grade 5, you have to take theory tests as well. Those would almost certainly require reading sheet music even if the practical guitar tests didn't. --Tango (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tango's right. If you wish to sit a practical exam higher than Grade 5 for the Associated Board exam, you must have passed Grade 5 theory first. Ka renjc 19:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address the other issues you raise in your question, such exams are all about attaining a nationally recognised standard. Exams from boards like the Associated Board, LCM et al are no more of a monopoly then GCSEs or A-levels. I could go and learn French from the French lady up the road, and she could give me certificates to say how well I had done, but if I want a recognised qualification, I have to take a GCSE or similar in it. It wouldn't mean I wasn't any good at French - just that I didn't have the right piece of paper. And yes, of course you have to pay music exam fees, just as for any other recognised qualification including GCSEs and A-levels. (State-educated children's exam fees are paid by the school, but they aren't free, and independent schoolchildren and adults at night school, for example, get a bill for sitting their exam.) You need never sit a formal music exam if you don't want to, and all your hard work will be evidenced by your skill as a musician, not by some bit of paper. Ka renjc 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP writes "I can play anything you give me to play" but then says "Will I need to learn to read music". If you can't read music how can you play anything that is given you to play? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA line of succession and eligibility

The President and VP both have to be natural citizens over 35, but as far as I know this does not apply to the speaker of the house, the president pro tempore of the senate, or the cabinet members - so, what happens? Is the person in question just skipped, or is it a case that the rules don't cover (constitutional crisis)? --Random832 (contribs) 17:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone too young, or not "native born," or who has previously served 2 terms as President who was in the cabinet would be skipped over. It has been claimed that at big occasions when the cabinet is present, like an inauguration, there is an eligible cabinet member at a remote location inspecting a military base or some such. Edison (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Presidential line of succession#Notes. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the case with Madeleine Albright. From the article - "Not being a natural born citizen of the United States, she was not eligible as Presidential Successor and was excluded from nuclear contingency plans." She was born in Czechoslovakia --Bennybp (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Henry Kissinger, born in Germany and secretary of state under Nixon and Ford. Since the Constitution requires the president to be a native born citizen, a foreign-born cabinet officer (or speaker of the house, or president pro tem of the Senate) would be ineligible for office. Regarding the "designated survivor," a standard bit of television commentary before a presidential address to a joint session of Congress is to identify who's absent for this reason. I see that in 2007, there were two: attorney general Alberto "I can't recall" Gonzales and Senator Robert Byrd, who was 90 years old at the time. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the policy of always having a designated survivor mean they never have full cabinet meetings? --Tango (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As at least two people in the line of succession wouldn't have any reason to be present (the Speaker and President pro tempore), I'd say no--it's only at the State of the Union that you get everybody under the same roof and they need the contingency plan. Whether or not the Speaker and President pro tempore are actually constitutionally eligible to succeed is a much more interesting and complicated question (which I believe our article on the Presidential line of succession addresses, in part). User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.32.35 (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked our article to be sure I was right--anyone interested in that constitutional argument re: the two members of Congress in the line can read more here. Nice to know that, in a crisis, we'd have a constitutional nightmare to work out. Thank goodness the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently demonstrated their ability to rise above partisan politics. ;-) User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.32.35 (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a line of succession for the Supreme Court, to make sure that there is someone alive to sort out the constitutional nightmare? DuncanHill (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the position is filled by the nomination of the President and confirmation by the Senate. (If the Senate is willing, this can be quick - less than a month.) If the Senate is in recess, the President can make a recess appointment without Senate approval, which lasts until the next Senate election. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the nightmare is the lack of a president, so that doesn't really help (and I'm not sure the senate being wiped out counts as it being in recess, although they may be able to go into recess while inquorate, so that might not be a problem). I suppose the lack of a Supreme Court would mean that no-one could complain about people violating the constitution and whoever can rally enough support could just get on with the job of cleaning up the mess. --Tango (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old BSA merit badge

Let's say I wanted my very own Boy Scouts of America "Atomic Energy" merit badge with the old-school AEC logo (not the new, boring "Nuclear Science" one). Where would I find such a thing? Ebay and the traditional locations seem out of luck; surely there must be some sort of Merit Badge wholesaler out there? Can one buy merit badges if one is not in the BSA? (At least, hasn't been for a decade) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a community of Scouting badge & memorabilia traders and collectors, one place to start is [1]. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have that one- earned it in 1975 or so. No actual nuclear materials were involved. We take Scouts down to North Anna Nuclear Generating Station every few years to work on this one. There are a number of traders out there. International Scouting Collectors Association does not actually sell any collectibles, but they do have recognized dealers.[2] --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Radioactive Boy Scout would sell you his? --Sean 14:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonica

Have a mouth organ I would like to know if you might have some Idea of it's value.Round about price to ask for it. If there is any value at all. It's called The BandMaster Deluxe Chromatic. 3-full octaves, all sharps and flats. Made in G.DR. Seydel's System Germany/East. 1-12 Slide Bar. No date. Does have original outside box and original plastic case. All in good condition. You can tell it's probably very old. D.Lax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.213.231 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one on an auction site here [3] with an estimate of $40 - $60. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties Of War

In seeing numerous photographs of casualties in battles, I have noticed a lot of them have either no trousers on, or have their trousers pulled down to just above their knees. What's happening here?--ChokinBako (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No specific examples to give you, but if you haven't noticed it before you won't know the answer, so don't worry.--ChokinBako (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to have noticed this in numerous photographs, yet you can't provide any examples? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some common aspect to the photos you're talking about -- era, location, nature of the conflict? I can't recall anything like this in photos in histories I've read of the U.S. Civil War, or the two World Wars. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is in reference to Eric Cartman's theory on South Park that people "crap their pants" right before they die. Halli B (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they have suffered injury to the lower body or upper legs ? Or is this too obvious ?86.202.158.135 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

I can't say I have noticed this phenomenon, but it would explain the importance of putting on clean underwear before going into battle. DuncanHill (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I first noticed it in pictures of the Iraq War, with casualties on both sides being in such a position. The reason it caught my attention last night, was because I was watching a documentary about the Battle of Saipan in WW2, and I saw the same thing there. These were not soldiers caught in the camp, or in the field hospitals, or in bed, or anything. These were soldiers caught running into (or away from) battle.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is prisoners rather than casualties, then pulling their trousers down would be a cheap and easily improvised way of stopping them running away again. DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]