February 9

I am searching a dating / matchmaking service for seniors (my mother is age 74). I am NOT looking for a service such as Match or EHarmony where you browse profiles and contsact people on line. Rather, I am seeking a service that sets senior up on blind dates with one another. My mother lives in Westchester County, New York. --70.23.81.136 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled "seniors meeting seniors New York" and found half a dozen suitable-looking services. I don't think you'll have a problem finding something. It's just a matter of figuring out the right search terms! SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking around Flickr for pictures to upload to the commons when I came across a picture from the ongoing Seventh Fleet exercises in south Asia. Being familiar with government works on Flickr, they usually are considered public domain and pictures taken by the federal government are in the public domain as they're created by an employee of the government. However, this picture says "All rights reserved," which I found to be unusual; here is the picture in question.

Am I allowed to upload this picture to the commons? --Blue387 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't know who took the photo (and whether they were employed by the government at the time) - then you wouldn't have established that it's in the public domain. But it does say "Uploaded on February 4, 2010 by Amphibious Force 7th Fleet" - which strongly suggests it's OK. There are no guarantees though - our

WP:COPYRIGHT page says that: "Works produced under a commission from the U.S. government by a contractor are most likely copyrighted." - so if the 7th Fleet paid a contract photographer to take the pictures then they could be copyrighted. But I'd say we were on pretty firm ground here. SteveBaker (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The picture caption says "U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Geronimo Aquino". That sounds like a military rank and not a contractor. --Blue387 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stretch to conclude anything other than that the images are inappropriately licenced on flickr, and should be public domain. I think a strong case can be made for loading them to wikipedia based on the image descriptions. I could not find a means of contacting the flickr uploader. Does anyone know more than I about that aspects of flickr? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Flickr account, I will message the user. --Blue387 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough call. Pictures taken by U.S. government or military personel, as part of their duties as government or military personel are generally (but not always) public domain; however not every picture taken by someone who happens to hold a military rank qualifies as public domain. For example, someone who happens to be a "Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class" as a rank, but takes an picture merely as a private individual taking a picture for his own personal use, still retains copyright on his pictures. Just because it is a) a picture taken by someone in the military or b) a picture taken of a military subject or even BOTH, does not mean that it is public domain. You would have to establish that the picture was taken as part of his military duties, such as documenting something for a military publication like Stars and Stripes or a military yearbook or something like that, and not just him as taking the picture on his own just for his own use. --Jayron32 04:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See

Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#United_States_Federal_Government which says exactly what I just said above, and I quote, "It is not enough that the employee was working at the time; he/she must have made the work as part of his/her duties, e.g. a soldier who takes a photograph with his/her personal camera while on patrol in Iraq owns the copyright to the photo." --Jayron32 05:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The same photos are all posted on [1], which is generally considered a source of government public domain photos, though in each instance they recommend you check the XMP metadata of the images for confirmation.

The Flickr image's metadata has the following:

	Byline	MC1 Geronimo Aquino
	Byline Title	Navy Public Affairs Support Elem
	Caption / Abstract	GULF OF THAILAND (Feb. 03, 2010)...
	Copyright Notice	Copyright: 2009
	Country / Primary Location Name	THAILAND
	Credit	USS Harpers Ferry LSD 49
	Date Created	20100203
	Keywords	HTMS Surin (LST 722)
	Object Name	100203-N-6692A-154  
	Province / State	GULF OF THAILAND
	Source	Digital
	Writer / Editor	MC1

Whereas the defenseimagery.mil of the same image has this:

	Byline	MC1 Geronimo Aquino
	Byline Title	Navy Public Affairs Support Elem
	Caption / Abstract	The Thai navy ship HTMS Surin...	Category	K - Foreign
	City	HTMS Surin
	Copyright Notice	Copyright: 2009
	Country / Primary Location Name	Gulf of Thailand
	Credit	USS Harpers Ferry LSD 49
	Date Created	20100203
	Headline	
	Keywords	HTMS Surin (LST 722)
	Object Name	100203-N-6692A-154
	Original Transmission Reference	
	Province / State	GULF OF THAILAND
	Source	digital
	Special Instructions	Photographs approved by C7F and CTF...
	Supplemental Category	Unclassified
	Urgency	
	Writer / Editor	drclancy

Both of which seem to imply a copyright. The latter at least has a contact e-mail. Unfortunately, this metadata approach to tagging photos is a little inconsistent—whomever uploads them to the defense site seems to set them personally, so they vary quite a lot, so I'm not sure it is indicative. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a message back:

Hi, Please go ahead and use it, it is public domain. I will make the change. Thanks. Sincerely, LCDR Denver Applehans CTF 76 PAO

Followed by: Hi [my name], I just tried to change the license and there is no public domain option, only creative commons, do you know how to put a no copyright notice on it? Thanks. (end)

The White House has a special "United States Government Work" license instead of the usual licenses. I've e-mailed Flickr to seek advice on which license to choose. --Blue387 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that in the US (I'm Canadian), it's almost unheard of to pay for stuff on debit, and that everybody just uses cash or credit card. Is this true, and if so, why? Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not true. Lots of Americans use Debit cards. I used one as my primary means of paying for stuff for a long time; indeed I only switch to a credit card when I found one that had a really good "rewards" program; I still never carry a balance. --Jayron32 04:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debit cards caught on faster in Canada than they did in the U.S. because almost everyone in Canada uses one of five or six national banks, which allowed for the success of the Interac system. Americans now use debit cards more than they used to but still not as much as Canadians do, I'd say. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally know people here in the US that don't use debit until they have no other options. The reason that they give is that if someone steals the information, on a debit card, the stolen money belongs to the individual, whereas on a credit card, it belongs to the company. In theory it shouldn't affect the customer either way (the money should be paid back), but that's the reason. Falconus^{p t c} 12:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This WSJ article points out that in May 2009, in the US, Visa reported that Visa-branded debit card payments exceeded Visa-branded credit card payments. The article speculates that this reflects increased fiscal discipline among US consumers, which would be because they are realizing it's a bad idea to keep paying 19.9% interest on their credit card balance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure where the rumor like that came from. I have been using the things almost exclusively for 8 years or so and I am from the US. Granted I am only a sample size of 1, so not a very useful statistical study. Googlemeister (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most people I know (once again a small sample size) have visa branded debit cards, and many of them choose to have the cards processed as credit cards if the choice is available since processing as a debit card takes several extra steps. I'm not sure if this is normal for debit cards, but depending on the methodology used to calculate the number of transactions using debit versus credit, this could skew the results. Keep in mind I'm only speculating based on anecdotal evidence. Caltsar (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trend pointed out by that WSJ article was on dollar volume, not number of transactions. The "several extra steps" you mention is the simple entry of a PIN number, which is unnecessary for credit cards; this would not skew anyone's estimate of the number of transactions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, many credit cards now require PIN authorization instead of a signature. --

^{talk email} 14:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

And then there are the people who take the extra steps to type out "number" after the acronym PIN when the N stands for "number" already.  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our RAS syndrome article lists several excellent and well-founded excuses for my behavior. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typing in a PIN isn't really an extra step, because the alternative is, waiting for the CC slip to be printed out, signing it, and handing it back. So in most cases it's one less step.

In the situations where you've got one of those on-screen signatures, well, that's still a step, and they never, ever work properly anyway. APL (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it is usually cheaper for a vendor to process it as debit than credit. If you say, "whichever you prefer" when they ask, they will always (if they are paying any attention) choose debit. I go with debit, myself, because I don't see any good reason to incur additional costs for the poor vendor (it doesn't cost me any difference either way in the immediate sense, though in the long term such additional expenses are probably reflected in costs). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My local gas station has set up their pumps to demand your Zip code when you use credit and a PIN for debit. I asked them why they started doing that since it doesn't seem to increase security measurably (if you find or steal a credit card, it's pretty easy to guess which Zip code the owner lives in). The manager said it was PRECISELY so that people would stop using their bank cards as credit cards (which costs him 2%) rather than as debit cards. Since it's slightly more hassle to enter a Zip code than a PIN (well, if you have a 5 digit Zip and a 4 digit PIN as I do), that might actually work! SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in knowing what the age-breakdown is. My parents still use credit cards more often than debit. I started off using debit (I had a debit card much earlier than a credit card, and now most ATM cards are debit cards as well), and have always used it almost exclusively. I wonder if there isn't a generational difference in both card using, as well as attitude towards credit (which scares the bejeezus out of me). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This purely anecdotal and OR, but I live in the United States, where I used debit cards regularly during the late 1990s. Then in 2000, someone captured my card information and PIN and started making fraudulent debits to my account. Fortunately, my bank alerted me to the suspicious debits, but the money had been taken from my account, and I had to wait for a full investigation by the bank for the money to be restored to my account more than a month later. During the interim, I was without that money. I experienced a similar compromise once of a credit card account. In that case, the charges remained on my account until the investigation was completed, but I was not required to pay them, and if the credit card company had demanded that I pay, I would have been able to appeal. Ever since my experience in 2000, I have avoided debit cards because I prefer to let the bank take the risk from fraudulent transactions rather than expose my own bank account to that risk. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I really don't understand why anyone would use debit cards when credit cards are an option. Credit cards are much safer, and provided you pay the full balance every month, you don't pay any interest. I think that's also true in Canada, right? When I lived in Canada I couldn't get an unsecured credit card, because I hadn't established a Canadian credit history (my American credit history didn't count at all, which doesn't really make sense to me), so I got a secured one with a small deposit; I don't remember paying any interest. But then again maybe you wouldn't on a secured card, given that really you haven't borrowed anything. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but since debit is so ubiquitous in Canada, we just don't worry about fraud until it actually happens. There are advertising campaigns about hiding your PIN and changing it regularly and people standing too close to you at the bank machine and all that...but I don't think it's something we worry about too much. With a debit card it feels like you are more in control of your own money, since it comes directly out of your bank account. A credit card is someone else's money. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't your che{ck|que}ing accounts pay interest, though? Granted interest rates are pretty low right now, but if I get half a percent, and if my time-averaged balance on my credit card is $1000 (but paying off the full balance every month), that's fifty bucks a year. Doesn't cover the annual fee, but it's better than nothing, assuming you're going to have the credit card anyway. Plus I get a kickback from the 2% the vendor pays (airline miles, cash rebate, what have you). --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another consequence of this, at least in my experience, is that when Canadians use credit cards, they use them like debit cards, and are unable to pay off the balance every month...makes them kind of difficult to use regularly. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Can Any One Tell Me How To Make A Amplifier At Home With A Diagram —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachandeep (talk • contribs) 07:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This site looks pretty good. Friggums (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • It would help, OP, is you explained exactly what kind of amplifier you wanted. The one Friggums points out is a jewel of craftsmanship, but might not be just what you want, and finding those transformers these days would be a bugger. PhGustaf (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a small transistor amplifier project. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you type in "weather" as a search term in Google UK, a weather forecast for London is supplied at the top of the page. Who supplies this please? The Google forecasts for my area shows mostly sunny weather, both the http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/ and the http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ show grey cloudy weather. As currently where I am the sky is mostly blue, then on a one-point comparison it is also more accurate. 92.29.127.70 (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wunderground.com, see for example google vs the weather underground output. Nanonic (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For U.S. data, I am pretty sure that wunderground just repackaged the raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration databases; they may do something similar for other countries like the UK, whatever their equivalent national weather service bureau is. So it may be just that Google an weather undergound are using the same source data rather than one getting its info from another. --Jayron32 07:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in any information on Koeppen Snappies,made in the 1950's. They were sold by Kauffmans dept. store in the city of Pittsburgh Pa. Are there any avalable any more? Where were they made? Any info. would be apreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.116.16 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're quick, you can buy a box for $12 on eBay: [2] - oohhh - it's empty :-( Anyway, the photos show "Made in the U.S.A. by Ernst Koeppen, Oradell, NJ". The ingredients list says: Flour, Vegetable Shortening, Baking Powder, Salt, Sugar, Cheese and Spices. The US trademark office says that "Snappies" were introduced in July, 1935. The trademark holder is American Home Products and the trademark has now expired (which means that it's 99% certain that the product is no longer sold). SteveBaker (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A strange question, but does this sound realistic for a school timetable, for year 10 with the GCSE options added in:

monday-   science  english  maths    lunch   option 1 option 2
tuesday-  maths    science  english  lunch   option 2 option 1
wednesday-english  option 3 language lunch   science  IT
thursday- science  english  maths    lunch   option 3 option 1
friday-   option 2 science  option 3 lunch   maths    IT

?

148.197.114.158 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some UK law stating that an hour of physical education is compulsory through secondary school, which you appear to be missing. --Mark PEA (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Citizenship/PSHE/etc too (half to one hour a week); I am also familiar with the idea of a "games afternoon" in addition to PE but I have no idea whether this is at all compulsory (or, indeed, yet; they recently revised the PE requirements). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Latin or a living foreign language (perhaps that's an option)? Don't they teach "Divinity" or "Religious Instruction" in British schools now? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought those things were dropped out in the year or two preceding GCSE. SteveBaker (talk)

Languages have been optional at GCSE for a few years now. It's caused a BIG fuss because it was supposed to be accompanied by increased language teaching for younger children, but loads of children haven't really received that. Instead, because languages are perceived as a 'hard' subject that will get lower results, and given the targets children and schools are set, fewer and fewer state school students take language GCSEs, and not all of them will have that much choice about it (at that school).

Latin hasn't been common at British secondary schools of any type for decades. Ditto Divinity and RI. 86.183.85.88 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RI (or RE) must be taught in maintained schools, but parents do have the right to withdraw their children from it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is called Religious Education or Religious Studies. No-one calls it Religious Instruction - that would be preaching, not teaching, and schools don't do that any more (although there is still a requirement for a daily act of worship of a largely Christian nature, but that is interpreted very broadly these days). --Tango (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article
  National Curriculum (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) may help answer these questions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm pretty sure you'd find both a morning and afternoon break in a real timetable, in addition to the lunchtime one. Ah yes, and you're missing the likely inclusions of Registration once or twice a day and Assembly, possibly daily. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or two more thoughts: firstly, for some reason, it seems rather repetitive. Given that all sorts of teachers teach lots of different class setups, you're unlikely to get the same two mornings. Afternoon breaks are somewhat rare in the UK at secondary level, but not implausible, if you consider Dweller's suggestion. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(On the English Wikipedia!) If you include redirects,

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D. Now to check if those links I've just pasted actually work :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Nah, let's not count redirects. The longest one in my Watchlist is

Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, you definitely got mine beat.

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D is 209 characters. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

just curious part deux: how did you find that article? I can't even imagine how one would beggin looking for the longest article name. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry1250 beat me to it - but there was some technical discussion on the Wikipedia technical forum a year or two back about what the maximum possible title length is (it's 255 characters) - and some of the guys there searched for the longest one with some software tools written especially for the job. I believe we did have a "for real" 255 character title at one time - but it was considered to be artificially and unnecessarily long just for the sake of hitting that record and was eventually shortened. The record (over all time) has to be Test of maximum page name length: 255 characters; test of maximum page name length: 255 characters; test of maximum page name length: 255 characters; test of maximum page name length: 255 characters; test of maximum page name length: 255 characters; test. These days it's a redlink - and you'll find that you can't recreate it because it's protected. However, it was, briefly, an actual article and at 255 characters, it must have held the record then. SteveBaker (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine. The title only clocks in at 35 characters, but it represents a word that's nearly 1,200 characters (and whose only claim to notability is that it's so long). There's even a note at the top of the page that the title was shortened due to technical restricions. Buddy431 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's

smiles, which has a mile between... never mind. Marnanel (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Titin used to be called methionyl...isoleucine, which was short for a word so long it crashes my computer when I try to copy it. 189,819 characters; you can find the word here. Vimescarrot (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear a recording of someone actually saying that word. Maybe Daniel Tammet might pencil that in as his next memory project. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie titles longer than

Oh, I used my toolserver access, ran it as an SQL query. Which is so totally what I was given the access for :) Incidentally, I'm not really sure it's fair to include deleted edits - the number of maxed out entries like aaaaaaaaaassssssssssddddd people create is astonishing (pi to 250+ places is also particularly popular). The longest page name ever (include namespace identifier) was Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rising of the Northern Earls at (254 + 16 = 270 characters). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the German Wikipedia (Verordnung über Sicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz bei der Bereitstellung von Arbeitsmitteln und deren Benutzung bei der Arbeit, über Sicherheit beim Betrieb überwachungsbedürftiger Anlagen und über die Organisation des betrieblichen Arbeitsschutzes) or the French Wikipedia (Convention sur l'interdiction ou la limitation de l'emploi de certaines armes classiques qui peuvent être considérées comme produisant des effets traumatiques excessifs ou comme frappant sans discrimination) can beat that. Hut 8.5 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]