Miscellaneous desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 21

Figuring out familial social status

So, this is a question that will probably result in a lot of jibes, but I hope that there will maybe be a proper answer somewhere. I am wondering what err... social group, I guess (I don't want to say class), my family falls under in the United States (middle class, upper middle class, upper class). If my dad earns 300.000 USD with a possible bonus of up to 60.000, my mum earns 220.000 with a possible bonus of 60.000 (before taxes), we have an apartment worth 3,5 million USD and a house worth 1,2 millon plus hmmm... idr, maybe 6 million USD in stocks, what category do we fall under? What percentile as well? This is leaving out personal debt which I know nothing of I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 01:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financially, you are squarely in the upper class, probably in the top 1% or so of all incomes. Socially, it is, well, complicated. There are parallel social classes which exist in the same financial brackets; for example the Nouveau riche, the Hollywood A-list, and Old money would likely all run in different social circles... --Jayron32 01:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, good question. Well let's see. The original basis of the wealth comes from my great grandfather (on my mother's side) who owned a factory in first Austria, then France, and then the United States. My dad is from a decidedly poor family (happens when you've got six brothers and sisters), whereas my mother was of course a bit more priveleged and her mother (Yahweh rest her soul) was a very financially wise woman with regard to the stock market. You of course have their own income which is usually used to pay for daily expenses, maintenance, mortgages and education. Which does that make us? Old money or nouveau rich (thank God it's not Hollywood A-List :p)? Not that I would ever associate with such people (of either group), eck; I guess it would be more how we are viewed by others. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 01:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While your family is clearly in the top percentile in the United States, it falls well short of the top 0.1%, according to Affluence in the United States. This might put your family outside the most exclusive social circles. I don't think that "old money" or "nouveau riche" are clearly defined categories, nor do those labels encompass all affluent people. However, from what you say, your family is clearly not nouveau. On the other hand, acceptance as "old money" is all about family name and recognition by those who consider themselves "old money". That is to say, it is really about social relationships. I think, if one has to ask, one is not "old money". Marco polo (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we are not in that group of 500 or so that controls almost half the wealth? That is fortunate.

Well our family name (which I am never sharing :p) is decidedly not very well known (though the name comes only from descendants of my grandfather (on my dad's side). We don't associate with any wealthy people (except my little sister who associates with what I guess you call a "Gossip Girl" crowd), and as you say I don't quite know myself. :p Errr... so does that make us anything? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 01:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky! Bielle (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's lucky? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 19:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From [1] your families household income may or may not be inside the top 0.5% depending on the bonuses and how much the figures have changed since 2006. Edit: From the 2008 [2] figures it's looking even more likely your household is in the 0.5% particularly as it sounds like the figures are excluding any additional income like interest, dividends and realised capital gains. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does being in the top 0,5% mean anything though? I think that outside of the upper crust fancy people you are just regarded as rich (I'm fairly certain I would not be welcome at the Occupy Wall Street thing... I think, I'm still not sure what they're about). Is there a term for people in the percentile that do not wish to associate with other wealthy people? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 19:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—Wavelength (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You're in the TOP 0.001% richest people in the world!" - If it were all combined for one person. I like their idea of incorporating donation. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 02:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the USA really equate money to social class quite so directly? In Australia we have CUBS. It stands for "Cashed up bogans". Plenty of money, but definitely no class. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, yes. It is mostly about either money or having come from a wealthy family last I checked. Of course, we all know that social class has nothing to do with actual class. A lot of my sister's friends have about as much class as a drug dealer (I'm fairly certain some are), whereas some of the regular people I know have as much class as a proper king or queen; such is the effect of money. In fact it appears to be an inverse relationship (the richer you are, the less class you have; most of the time). What the heck is a Bogan? My Lord, have you switched to Kiwispeak? No, there is still some English in there so can't be Kiwi. :p - note I wrote this bit before I noticed that you wikilinked, but I'm still leaving it in. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it is quite as cut and dried as all that. Actual old money people can be incredibly snobbish toward new money people, more than they are to even the middle class or the poor. They seem to find the idea that money is all it takes quite offensive, even though in the end it is all it takes to get in the halls of power. I know of a case of a gentleman who was from a family that had advanced from dirt poor to fantastically wealthy in a generation. They had managed to grow a single corner store into a chain that continues to expand through the Midwest, acquiring a local media empire and an entire multinational corporation along the way. They had a private jet and a mansion right nest to the country club. The country club that would not let them in because they hadn't been rich long enough. Apparently subscribing to the idea that living well is the best revenge, he simply built his very own tennis courts and 18-hole golf course. I'm tempted to name this person, but my mom, who worked for one of his closest friends, is unfortunately probably not considered a reliable source so I probably shouldn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the Top 2% to the the Top 1%

Related q: So I remember a while back, I believe at the start of the current downturn, people were talking about the Top 2% (wealthwise), but I do not remember the context. Now I see people talking about the Top 1% all of a sudden. Why this change? It seems like it has only come about with the Occupy Wall Street protests. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 19:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall such distinctions changing. Do you have a reference for either or, better, both? Bielle (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, might be a bit tough, but I'll try. I think any 2% stuff would be older though. I am mostly going by what I see on protest signs (always a good source!), but I see it on proper news sites as well. Here is one for 1% from Washington Post [3] and this page has a few links [4]. As for 2%, let's see. This from the Huffington Post (though there is a mention of the 1%) [5]; Wall Street Journal [6]; and something about both [7]. Looks like the 2% stuff related to W's tax cuts, and is still around, but idk about the 1% stuff as I rarely read about US news these days. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 21:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at social class is through one's relation to the means of production and this relation's effect on social power. Specific income levels don't really effect this. The owner of an oil field might lose millions in a year, but he or she will still be in higher social class in comparison to the guy who drives a semitrailer and makes 60k. You don't mention how your parents make their money, but your great grandfather owning factories would place him squarely in the bourgeois class as he had direct control of the means of production. These days (late capitalism, as some might call it), some people (I imagine this includes your parents) make relatively large amounts of money in the form of wages (selling the only thing they control, their labor), rather than from profits produced by the labor of other people. Technically these people are still laborers and in perhaps anachronistic terms, part of the proletariat. This laborer/owner relationship is really independent of the amount of money in question, just look at any sports strike, athletes making millions of dollars a year still come in to conflict with the team owners. Comedian Chris Rock once summed this up as the distinction between "rich" and "wealthy," Shaq is rich, but the guy who cuts Shaq a multimillion dollar check is wealthy, saying "Here you go Shaq. Don't spend it all in once place". These days I would say that the bourgeois are no longer the real ruling class, having ceded some of their power to a new class of technocrats who control the financial system. Again these technocrats might make less money per year than a professional athlete, but their social power is vastly greater.

Additionally, the type of labor has an influence on ones position within the labor class. These aren't really positions of differential power, rather this has a greater impact on social interactions. The aforementioned truck driver might make more than an accountant at the same company, but they are still separated by their type of laborer and are less likely to associate with each other. I think this is covered more completely in Social class. A successful industrial sales person might make more than a lawyer, but again they are separated by their labor type. I think it might have been Marx who said "the abhorrence of job is inverse to its pay" or something like that. --Daniel 00:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you know I never thought of it that way; a person, regardless of wealth, who sells their labour rather than benefiting from the labour of others is still a member of the proletariat (Good argument to use if a socialist uprising starts :p). Both of my parents are attorneys who are given jobs to do by their bosses and have their labour contracted out. The bosses reap the benefits of their labour. That was a very clear and coherent reply btw (don't see many of those oftentimes).

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 01:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While your family does technically belong in the proletariat class and your parents are subject to the same sort of alienation from their labor as the guy who cleans their toilets, the issue to keep in mind here is privilege. People whose parents make that kind of money have access to just about every opportunity available and even if they screw up they get multiple chances. If I was making up classes, I might define them by access to opportunity. There is a fantasy in this country that everyone has a shot at success. Despite the presence of scholarships and various forms of social welfare this sort of equality just doesn't exist in practice. Poor people have poor children and rich people have rich children. Sure they're are slides in both directions and people love Cinderella stories of the kid in the ghetto working hard and making it big, but in reality these are rare exceptions rather than the rule. What it boils down to is a class that gets to do what they want (within certain bonds) and a class that struggles to put food on the table. --Daniel 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That being, of course, an entirely fictional narrative, with means-tested children being eligible (except perhaps in the more savage parts of Calgary and Brisbane? I don't know...) for medicaid, food stamps and section 8 housing, and free education up to age 18 and pell grants and other subsidies for higher education, while the middle class must either go into debt or have their parents pay hundreds of thousands for such things out of pocket. I know both AIDS orphans and GED holders with debt-free advanced degrees and radio internships with Howard Stern on one hand and the "privileged" children of nuclear engineers with college loans greater in size than their mortgages on the other. That the poor "suffer" in the west is basically a fantasy based on distance. Class is an affect, and Eminem is its royalty, not Alex P. Keaton. Even the poorest and least educated have K-12, cable, internet, widescreen, A/C, Air Jordans and chinese takeout--none of which any emperor of Rome had. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Economic mobility. The US has one of the worst if not the worst social mobility of the industrialized world. The fact is people born into poor families have a tiny chance of becoming rich and a pretty poor chance of becoming middle class (Howard Stern internships not withstanding). Whether this is because they are a bunch of lazy do nothings who would rather worship Eminem than get a job or because of inequities inherent in our system, I don't know. The poor do have a fairly high standard of living from a historic perspective, but that does nothing to mitigate the fact that their standard of living is vastly different than the upper class. If you don't think the poor suffer, you should spend a week at my apartment complex where the half staved children of meth addicts knock on my door looking for food. --Daniel 05:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Meth Addict. Not "poverty", but meth addiction. Well, you'll be happy even the Lohans of the world are subject to that. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the year in Britain for re-focusing the debate on class: Owen Jones's Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class. He -- although not all of his interviewees -- draws the line between working class and middle class where the latter have substantial control over the conditions of their work. So, as a point of comparison to the very different social construction of the USA, if your family lived in Britain and your parents did similar jobs for similar salaries, they would be considered middle class, or upper middle class. They still work for a living: they don't spend their time administering their trust funds, running charities [they founded for their own pet causes], and developing their tennis skills. If they lost their jobs, and didn't quickly find others, then presumably your standard of living would suffer. Who was it who said that the truly wealthy live off the interest of the interest of their money? But others would say that you are part of the ruling class in that you have access to power, directly and indirectly. Social class does not correlate precisely to money. [Signed the next day by BrainyBabe (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Use of DNA to Prove Someone is Dead

My father (in his 70s) today said that the person that was killed today and purported to be Muammar Gaddafi may not be him, as, according to my father, lots of dictators have doubles who gladly let themselves get killed for their cause. I personally do not believe this, and the videos/pictures I have seen on TV certainly look like him. I am in no doubt that it was him. However, I would like to know 1) if there have been any instances in recorded history when a double was killed instead of the real person; and 2) if DNA evidence will be used to prove it was in fact Gaddafi. I know about the theory that the body of Adolf Hitler was someone else, and that Saddam Hussein was reported to have lots of people working for him who looked like him. Cheers KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Dave? --Jayron32 03:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political decoy cites the unfortunate Gustav Weler, who looked very much like Hitler and was shot by the Nazis themselves to confuse the advancing Allies. I rather doubt he was glad about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They probably will use DNA if they get the chance to. It's not a hard test, especially not with someone like Gaddafi who must have DNA'd up his palace considerably, and had a bunch of known family members. They used DNA in confirming Bin Laden was dead[8]. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do in New Orleans

I've seen this work for others before, so here's my shot at it...

I'll be traveling to New Orleans, LA, in January. I'll be staying at the Hampton Inn near the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center and will not have a car available to me. So, what is there to do within walking distance or, if the public transportation is good in NOLA (is it?), a bit further? I'm not really interested in sports. I do have interests in local culture, science, nature, and a little history. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting shitfaced, and exploring the French quarter seem like the smartest ideas for one in NOLA. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 02:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popular? Yes. Smartest? Not according to me. Dismas|^(talk) 02:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not smartest in terms of wise, healthy or worthwhile really (the drinking at least). Then again, I don't drink. I would ask at the hotel itself for what cultural pursuits are nearby or use Wikitravel which often has good info. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 02:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things I like to do that are reasonably close to where you'll be swtaying:

French Quarter. Not just for drinking, lots of music, shops, etc. Café du Monde for coffee and beignets, a muffaleta from Central Grocery, dinner at Franks on Decatur, Jazz Preservation Hall, etc.
Ogden Museum of Southern Art on Lee Circle, plus other galleries in Warehouse District
A street car ride to various parts of the city, Garden District, out Magazine, lunch at the Camelia Grill

And depending on when you get there in Jan, Mardi Gras will usually be starting about that time, so some parades may be going, but dress warm. It may only be 35 or 40, but it is a damp cold down here that is different fromn the dryer cold of the north, lol. He iro 03:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well I didn't realise that was close the French Quarter, but now I can give him the actual district article for the French Quarter. [9]

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 03:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also these Category:French Quarter and Audubon Aquarium of the Americas are also all close. Prolly like a 5 to 15 block walk for alot of stuff. He iro 03:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep your wits about you. In my foolish youth, I did the standard drink-yourself-shitfaced-in-the-French-Quarter thing and ended up being abducted, driven to a housing project in a very scary part of the city, robbed at knifepoint once in the car in which I was abducted, and then again on my way out of the housing project after I escaped from the car, having begged for mercy, promised not to press charges, and pointed out that my assailants were much likelier to live happy lives if they didn't kill me. After the second robbery (all they got was my watch), I broke a bottle for use as a weapon and ran to a freeway viaduct, where I walked in the breakdown lane toward the distant skyscrapers until the police picked me up and told me that I was lucky to be alive, since New Orleans then had the highest murder rate in the United States. I think it is no longer the highest, but it is still near the top. So, I do not recommend getting drunk, or even walking the streets alone at night in New Orleans. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice lol. Sounds like you got a little too drunk, or turned down the wrong dark section of the quarter. I've always managed to avoid that in the 20 yrs I've been going there, but a few times I did get a little nervous about where I had wandered to. But like the bar district in any large city, you should keep your wits about you when consuming mass quantities. He iro 15:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National World War II Museum is nearby (about 0.4 miles) at 945 Magazine Street. We enjoyed our visit there. Jackson Square is worth seeing, with the former colonial seat of the government, The Cabildo, which is now a museum, adjacent to the St. Louis Cathedral. Ride the streetcars around town to the zoo. (Watch Cat People (1982 film) before you visit the zoo). Edison (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to several conventions at the Morial, and found that there is so much to do in the French Quarter that I never felt a need to go anywhere else -- music, food, shops, art galleries; you don't need to get shitfaced to have a good time. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one time I have been there we followed our hostesses advice and never went outside the quarter, especially after dark. The rest of it is just a city, and a damned dangerous one at that. The quarter is all you need to know, except maybe the WWII museum. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Ariane 5 Flight 501

There's a few videos on Youtube. This one looks like a fairly comprehensive, but looks like it was taken from a TV broadcast. There's also a better angle from another camera, which can be seen at this site. They claim the video source is from the ESA, but I can't find it there (don't want to remember their spectacular failures, I guess). The ESA website does have several still images of the launch, including one of the explosion, but I can't find any video. Where would I go about finding the original videos of the launch? Buddy431 (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pick my next job please

Hi there, any ideas about jobs I should look for? I've got a job in a university library, but not really enough hours and anyway I'm bored. Been doing this for a few years now. I'm studying for a part-time (distance learning) bachelors degree, but still nowhere near graduating. And I love my course, but it won't get me a job unless I become a teacher. So I'd move anywhere and try most things that don't involve a pay cut (now I make GBP £750 a month which isn't much!), but I'd like a job with prospects beyond just admin or store clerking. A busy library is a bit cleaner and quieter than a supermarket, but they actually have a lot in common (I've worked both). Justlooking24 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you arrange a meeting at your local Job Centre, they will be able to help you work out what jobs would suit you. There is no way we can help without a lot more information that you've provided (you haven't even told us what qualifications you have). --Tango (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a job with prospects and decent pay and you are not a uniquely talented athlete or performer, you have two main options: 1) go into sales; 2) acquire a skill that is in demand and that commands a good pay rate. To succeed in sales, you need to be an extrovert with excellent "people skills", and you have to be very motivated, energetic, and organized. Even so, you are very vulnerable in sales to swings in the economy. Probably the less risky option is to acquire a skill that pays. When choosing a skill, think about your natural aptitudes. Are you "handy"? If so, consider a trade such as carpentry, plumbing, or electrical work. Are you good with numbers? If so, consider going into accounting. Are you a tech whiz? Then you might want to go into technical support or software development. The best-paid skills tend to require a university-level training in a relevant field, such as finance, electrical engineering, or law. It sounds as if you have chosen to pursue a field that does not lead directly to a lucrative job. If you want a really lucrative job, you may need to shift your field of study. Otherwise, choose a skill that doesn't require a special university degree. While you acquire that skill, you may need to get by with a job like your current one. Marco polo (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get your university or college's careers service working for you. They have to offer something, to distance learning students too. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bored, eh? I refer you to the television show Dirty Jobs. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things happening in London this weekend

Hello all - me and a friend are going to London on Saturday for LITS, staying over into Sunday. Can anyone recommend anything for two slightly geeky thirty-year olds to do in the capital? The internet only wants me to go to the West End when I google activities. FreeMorpheme (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are you geeky? There are so many museums in London! This site gives you an idea, as does our own List of museums in London. This site doesn't refer you to the West End for things to do at night. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to London to solve these puzzles? Or is there some other LITS that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on? I do crossword puzzles, so I have nothing against solving puzzles. Just want to be sure we're on the same page metaphorically speaking. Dismas|^(talk) 09:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just guessing, but I think the OP means the London International Technology Show. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot on what kind of "geeky" you are. I greatly enjoyed the Sherlock Holmes Museum, and would recommend it to anyone who's read and enjoyed the books. It's actually the house that Holmes and Watson rented preserved as a historical landmark. (As if that were somehow possible.) It's located more or less exactly where it should be.

Shouldn't take much more than hour to go through, but the joy is in the attention to detail, so if you're not rather familiar with the books you'll probably think it's a waste of time and money. APL (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you can't do this weekend is go down to London to visit the Queen, because we Australians have borrowed her. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Science Museum and Natural History Museum are obvious choices: both free (except for some special exhibition, and they discreetly invite donations) and very close together; and near the (perhaps less geeky) Victoria and Albert Museum. The NHM at least is worth seeing just for its architecture. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to mention the British Museum, which I consider a bit geekier. More monumental ancient artifacts and art, fewer school tours, reduced aroma of peanut butter. Wait, do I mean it's nerdy? Geeks like technology, not ancient things. Maybe you want the Science Museum after all. Card Zero (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this isn't geeky enough, but if you're a fan of the 'chuck-everything-in-a-room-together' type of museum that we seem to be fairly good at in Britain, may I heartily recommend the Horniman Museum and Gardens? It's one of my favourite museums, with a slight 'eccentric professor' feel to it. Particularly good is their stuffed walrus; in case you do go, I won't spoil it for you, but here is the link in case anyone else is interested. It's a bit of a trek from the centre of town, but worth the time if you have a spare afternoon. Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could go to the computer museum in Bletchley Park. It probably helps if you're also a crypto geek. It's about 1hr on the train from Euston (take the Milton Keynes train). They recommend about 1.5hrs for the guided tour. There's also the Imperial War Museum. The artillery section is in South London, the aircraft section is in Duxford, near Cambridge - its about 1hr by road from Bletchley to Duxford, but there doesn't seem to be a sensible way to go by public transport. CS Miller (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks chaps that's great. And yes, it's the show rather than the puzzles fun though they are FreeMorpheme (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Brunel Museum is good, although you won't need long to look round it. Although it's from a year-and-a-half ago, this site has some good ideas which might interest you. Warofdreams talk 15:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For getting around, you might want to try the Boris Bikes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an affordable art fair in Battersea Park, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Time Out may have some more suggestions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a must-do, for me, is travel from the London Eye jetty to Greenwich on one of the Thames Clippers (you just turn up and get on, paying your fare once onboard ... just walk past the ticket office. Make sure you do not by mistake get one of the ploddy ploddy tourist boats). Then you could have lunch at Greenwich, maybe visit its museums or just have a walk up the hill to the meridian line, and perhaps travel back into London on the DLR via Canary Wharf (well worth getting off there and looking at the jolly big buildings) and underground. On the clipper, sit or stand outside at the back and feel the engines throb when they take it up to full speed on the down-stream section. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum of Docklands is at Canary Wharf, if you're going that way (and yes, Greenwich is a good idea). The Museum of London is good too. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the big museums and galleries, the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons of England (which is open on Saturdays) is fascinating (if you like that kind of thing). But be sure to leave promptly at 5pm; that's one place where you wouldn't want a Night at the Museum scenario. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, but I bring to the attention of the refdeskers -- ta-dum! -- Nerdy Day Trips. Also, if the OP is still looking, the Bloomsbury Festival has some geeky components. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Formerly) Sulfur-Rich Island in South Pacific

I once read quite a while ago in National Geographic about an island in the South Pacific that, due to its great and easily accessible reserves of sulfur combined with its low population (it's a small island), had one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world. More recently earlier this year, I heard again about this place, but that things were now a lot more bust than boom now that humans had just about gutted all that sulfur. But I can't remember the island's name. Does anyone know the place I'm talking about? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Nauru? It was phosphate not sulphur. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. Thanks. Wow, 90% unemployment (looking at the article)20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on one's formal definition of unemployment, that may have also been the case before the western world started mining the place, and may not have been a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the result of not thinking ahead and switching to a service industry-based economy, like the UAE did. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting: Nauru doesn't have an official capital. Does this make it unique or are there other entries on the List of states without national capitals? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican City State is sometimes said to be its own capital, but in reality it does not have a capital that is in any sense distinguishable from the entire country. If it did have one, that would be a city within a country within a city within a country. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The settlement on Nauru is a ring around the coast, so there is only one town, but there are districts such as Yaren where the parliament house is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breast shape description

So here's an odd question. I see that Wikipedia doesn't have an article talking about breast shape (whereas there is one about body shape). I'm not sure what shape description to use for a certain breast type. It shape type "h" in this chart.[10] My gf says pear-shaped, but I don't think that's right. It's for a Hebrew assignment believe it or not. I want to get the English so I can translate it into Hebrew (the fruit analogies and what not still apply in Hebrew). So how do you describe 40DD breasts of that shape? Let's also try to keep things tame here. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 17:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "teardrop" is the best phrase to use there. Does that work? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pert but not particularly pendulous? Dualus (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teardrop sounds more like saggy and old with a bulb mass at the end (sorry for that image). These are more attached, full, world-class breasts I am describing. I'm afraid I don't get what you mean by pert and pendulous (except that the second has relation to a pendulum). Then again my understanding of the shape types is a bit limited (I'm not sure what she meant by pear-shaped). I am on a train atm btw, so my searching ability is limited. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 22:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're searching for breasts on the train? Here's hoping it's a bumpy ride.... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assignment is doing a full physical description of someone's body. As my gf is an Israelit I was able to work with her. :p So, I am describing this portion of her anatomy as part of it. I suppose I could also just put big and leave it at that (shape isn't 100% necessary). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 02:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did your girlfriend know that "pear-shaped" is used to describe a certain female body shape? Germaine Greer discusses breast shapes here and here. I think the most neutral term is "large-chested". By the way, word of the day is ptosis, not, after all, an ancient Egyptian deity. (And we even have an article on ptosis as applied to breast shape.) BrainyBabe (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's more of a science (mainly physics) and math kind of girl (very sexy), so I had to tell her that it's usually a body shape description. Well that would be a good description for size (they give her breathing problems sometimes, poor thing), but not shape. Interesting article, but I'm afraid it's lost me my appetite. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Tishrei 5772 02:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear referents: "that" and "interesting article". Pears are not large, so I don't see why they "would be a good description for size". I provided several articles, so saying one of them disturbed your dinner is not very specific. Also, I would beware of assuming that metaphors and similes translate word for word between languages. For all I know, there may be a language where (to keep to the fruit analogies) saying someone is like a banana means s/he is tall and slender, and another where it refers to a character that is soft and sweet. (I don't mean this to sound negative -- just a caution for writing with clarity.) BrainyBabe (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know Flinders Petrie is probably like 15 or whatever and can't stop talking about his buxom bisexual Hebrew girlfriend, but for fuck's sakes, seriously? This is getting ridiculous. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you have something against bisexual Israeli women? (I do agree he should have accepted "teardrop" and find his objection baseless.) μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Adam, like myself, rather wishes that he did, if you take my meaning </Benny Hill mode>, but may, again like myself, be finding the existence of such an ideal girlfiend (on top of Sir William's family's extreme wealth, his father's academic achievements, and so on) beginning to strain the bounds of credibility. Assuming in good faith that she does indeed exist, my concern would rather be that, from the wealth of personal details about her and himself that Sir William has already vouchsafed, both would probably be identifiable in meatspace, were one inclined to try, and that she might therefore have some concerns about being discussed on the public intertubes in such a manner, for considerations of both modesty and personal safety. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.39 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was rather more eloquent than my outburst :) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meatspace? There's something unsettling and sinister about that word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Blame William Gibson for originating it and Rudy Rucker for promulgating it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.23 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date for living person - Glen P. Robinson

I'd like to add a birth date to the article Glen P. Robinson, but none of the references I have been able to find about him list that information. Is there a free website that would have that kind of information? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an actual birthdate, but we can get it to about a 12-month period. In april, 1963, he was 39 years old: [11]. That's the best I could find. --Jayron32 18:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think it'd be sufficient to guess 1924, then? I know there's a corresponding template, too: {{birth year and age}} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I just discovered {{Birth based on age as of date}}. Sweet :D —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use the second one; it is unclear the exact year, so that would be the correct one. Check the link I provided for the exact date of the Time Magazine article, as well. And be sure to cite it. --Jayron32 18:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Thanks for the suggestion. ^_^ —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three reference works give his date of birth as September 10, 1923. --Antiquary (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I added that :) Out of curiosity, how'd you find his middle name? I don't remember coming across it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got that by searching for "Glen Robinson 1923" at Google Books, which (at any rate when I repeated it just now) gave me the name Parmelee at the bottom of page 1. --Antiquary (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easter services

location of st. ann's bay to runaway bay, need a church for easter services staying at Gran Bahia Principe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.132.66 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't specify a denomination. Does it matter? The Runaway Bay United Church is less than a mile away from your hotel. There is also the Church at Runaway Bay. The closest Catholic church seems to be Our Lady of Perpetual Help in St. Ann's Bay. The closest Anglican parish seems to be the Parish Church in St. Ann's Bay. Your hotel's concierge should be able to help make arrangements for you to attend the church of your choice. The concierge is also likely to have more information about the options. Marco polo (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they would have the Easter schedule ready yet, though. While they are likely to be the same as previous years, you never know. Mingmingla (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...but upon rereading the question you never asked for that much, so never mind. Mingmingla (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]