August 16

Is there a standard term for a situation in which a road experiences a specific arrangement of a pair of sharp turns? I'm talking about a situation in which road A meets road B at two different spots that are close to each other; the driver on road A must turn onto road B and immediately turn back onto the other section of road A to keep going, because the two portions of road A do not meet road B at precisely the same spot. If my explanation be unclear, look at 39°9′51.5″N 86°32′27″W / 39.164306°N 86.54083°W / 39.164306; -86.54083 — here Fairview Street experiences the situation about which I'm asking, as a driver using Fairview must turn onto Third for a few feet before turning onto the other section of Fairview. I grew up calling these turns "doglegs", but dogleg doesn't list anything like this. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example of Fairview Avenue that you cited is exactly th kind of thing I would call a "jog". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always called it a "jog", as in "Haggerty Road takes a jog at Plymouth Road":[1]. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I live right down the road from a similar situation. When I mention it at all, I've usually called it a jag but sometimes a dogleg. In my case, it's a bit more confusing since the intersection is actually 3 roads coming together. Road A comes in from the East and from the South. Road B comes in from the West. And road C comes in from the North. So if you want to stay on road A, you have to make a 90 degree turn. Dismas|^(talk) 04:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I write these in a cue sheet for cycling it is

X km L Streetson Street

400m LR Streetson Street

So I think of them as left-rights or right-lefts. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US we would call it a "jog". In fact, in Driver Ed. we had to traverse a street like that, and the teacher said, "OK, make the jog." Same idea as "jag", maybe. The term "dog leg" doesn't exactly fit, because it means something that turns at a larger angle, such as 135 degrees or so, as with a golf course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out

Jog (dislocations). Same idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've always called it a "

staggered junction" (in the UK) Rojomoke (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I've heard "dogleg" used of both a staggered junction and a "hairpin bend". perhaps it depends on the breed of dog? Dbfirs 07:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Dictionary [2], using The American Heritage Dictionary, gives "To make a sharp bend or turn: The street doglegs to the left", as well as [3] "An abrupt change in direction: a jog in the road." Looking at the golf course article, it seems the situation you describe is a double dogleg.  Card Zero  (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bitch of a combined dogleg and jog combined with a helluvan intersection if you are driving north on the

Not a hunter here, but I just saw an ad for hunters that made me laugh. They were wearing expensive camo gear, so they can sneak up on their prey undetected, along with expensive bright orange vests and caps, so they wouldn't get shot as often. So, do hunters really wear this combo ? Are their prey really so blind as to not notice the bright orange bits ? (I suppose if they are colorblind, you could make something that would stand out to humans, but not the animals. However, these orange items seemed to be uniform on color, not various orange blobs in different shades.) StuRat (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, yes, they really wear that combination. Dismas|^(talk) 04:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer the second, this Straight Dope forum thread claims that it's because A) deer are color blind and B) it's mandated by law to save lives. This link provides the laws of each US state and Canadian province. Dismas|^(talk) 04:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much hunting is done by staying quietly in-place, not by moving. Orange is only required from some game in some seasons. So if I have insulated waterproof camo bibs for turkey season, duck season or archery deer season, I will still wear them with the orange coat and hat required for firearm deer season. Rmhermen (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't mind being shot during duck and turkey seasons or impaled with arrows during deer season ? StuRat (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being that you're from Minnesota (right?) you really ought to know this stuff. Most ruminants are color blind (hence red cape and bullfighters being a myth), therefore orange doesn't affect them. Turkeys, on the other hand, are quite intelligent, and see color. Not to mention usually in your neck of the woods people are hunting deer with high powered rifles that can, in theory, go for miles. Whereas with turkeys they're using shotguns that are scarcely effective past 100 yards (or less). Most bowhunters and black powder hunters don't have to wear orange.

The bigger possible issue is that detergents most people wash their clothes with tend to give off light in a particular spectrum that deer can see. It's not about "color" at least how people can see it. And stu, your latest response above is really stupid. Shadowjams (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Michigan. It may well be true that turkeys and bow hunting make wearing orange more of a handicap. However, that in no way reduces the danger of accidental injuries from other hunters who can't identify you as human. So, this makes it riskier to hunt fowl or with bows, if not wearing hunter orange. I was asking if he minds taking that increased risk, and putting a funny spin on it. I guess it was over your head. StuRat (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I got the joke. Dismas|^(talk) 07:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partly it is the hunting method (shooting downward from a tree stand is usual in archery deer season), partly it is the simple number and quality of hunters in the woods (firearm deer is hugely popular, brings out all sorts of hunters) Rmhermen (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the responses. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Did Cat can eat or drink chocolate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.183.44 (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate is very bad for cats. See picture 8 at this link. Dismas|^(talk) 06:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd necessarily place a great deal of credence on the suggestion on the website linked that cats shouldn't eat "Raw Meat and Fish". What exactly do they think a feline's natural diet consists of? But yes, chocolate definitely isn't a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some truth to that though. Feral cats that live near the ocean are often emaciated due to the fact that their main source of food is fish. Basically they're not getting a good balance of nutrients and the over abundance of fish in their diet is harming them as well. The reason why I think they also mention raw meat is due to the possibility of the human caretakers can get E coli. and salmonella. I feed all my dogs and cats raw food and I've seen the "raw food is bad because of bacteria" argument a lot. In general, it's the humans that have issues fighting these things off while the dogs and cats can handle it better than humans can. Given that WebMD is a human centric site, I'm not surprised to see the same arguments. Dismas|^(talk) 00:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of theobromine in chocolate makes it toxic to some animals.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including cats. (And dogs.) The toxicity is related to the amount of raw chocolate ingested (dark chocolate is worse than milk chocolate; baker's chocolate is basically entirely toxic) and the weight of the animal. Don't feed chocolate to cats. They apparently won't seek it out often themselves (unlike dogs), but since they have such low mass it doesn't take much to make them sick or kill them. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So a direct answer to the OP's question could be, "They can do it once." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even someone whose English was excellent might miss the joke there, Bugs (har har, English is ambiguous about recurring vs. truly one-time events), much less someone whose English is demonstrably not and whose IP resolves to Malaysia. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought it was funny Bugs, even if others criticise you for inserting humour into this thread... gazhiley 10:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It is a lot of potential misunderstanding to exchange for a small amount of humor. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had they read the previous responses, and had they observed the italics, there's a pretty good chance they would get the point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As

That suggests that there is theoretically a safe (albeit very small) amount of caffeine that a house cat could consume without being killed or seriously damaged by it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the case for all toxins. See

LD 50. This, Why Is Chocolate Bad for Dogs?, is a very good short article for laymen on pets and chocolate (with cute pixtures!) I read through Real Clear Science. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You can buy chocolate treats specifically formulated to be safe for dogs - it's likely there are similar products for cats somewhere to be found old chap. But don't feed normal chocolate to any pet as previously advised! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes about as much sense as cocaine-free crack pipes for kids. Why would you want to encourage a taste for chocolate in your dog? μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you don't have a dog. They will eat anything, they don't need to "develop a taste for it". Connoisseurs they are not. If cat feces and roadkill seem like treats to them, good luck keeping them away from chocolate. However, if you are eating chocolate, and the dog starts begging for some, giving him some fake chocolate might shut him up. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fifteen years. They'll eat anything left on the floor, and she would eat meat out of the trash, but never once a cake or cookie or candy from the table. I somehow doubt the dog would complain, if given a milkbone (which I used to eat when little), that it wasn't the same chocolate flavor as what you were eating. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have concluded from many StuRat responses related to dogs that he does not have a dog. Or in any case does not understand them. Giving dogs what they want does not shut them up. It encourages them to do the exact same behavior again to get the exact same results. They are nothing if not consistent in noticing the correlation between their actions and their rewards. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shuts them up for the time being, which is sufficient for many dog owners. Yes, it trains bad behavior, but many owners do it anyway. StuRat (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They used to sell tobacco-free candy in the shape of cigarettes. All white, with a red tip to imitate red-hot burning tobacco. Kids would pretend to be smoking, mimicking adults, until the sugar craving got the better of them and they chewed them up. Someone finally realised the stupidity of this. And I still wonder which would be worse: a real cigarette, or a few ounces of sugar and poisonous colours and chemicals. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real ciggy would be worse, as it could lead to a tobacco addiction. Of course, sugar addiction is bad, too, but it's difficult to imagine a world in which kids are never exposed to sugar. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ate those as a kid. My mum smoked. My 3 older brothers all smoked. All of my uncles and my grandfather smoked. I've never smoked. Not even tried it. Not once ever. I miss those lollies. I don't see anything stupid about them.

talk) 23:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I remember a Quote of the Year from a few decades ago. An Italian man said "I've been smoking since I was 14 and it never did me any harm". Then it was revealed he'd just turned 114, and had been smoking for 100 years without any ill effects. On the basis of that one example, should we conclude that smoking is perfectly safe? Obviously not. But that's what you just did: you used your solitary experience and made a generalisation out of it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any generalisations. I just formed my own opinion, that those lollies weren't stupid, from my own experience, that eating them didn't influence my behaviour. Likewise, I've formed an opinion, from my experience of seeing children being wrapped in progressive layers of ever thickening cotton wool, that the ones doing the wrapping assume kids are purely the sum product of all of the percieved negative influences in the world. Some of us at least, develop minds of our own and don't deserve to have our small pleasures taken away on the assumption that we're devoid of original thought.

talk) 01:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

True. However, I think ads and movies showing smoking to be "cool" and "sexy" do far more harm, as teenagers view those and decide they want to be like that. I don't think there's much of a problem of younger, candy munching kids smoking. Any notion of it forming a positive image of smoking that remains until their teen years seems rather far-fetched. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, does Assange have any prior connections to Ecuador? Is Ecuador unusually disposed to not sending people to the US? Leaving aside all the other issues (whether or not extradition from Sweden to the US would happen, whether the US have any grounds to request it), if a person were seeking to avoid the US, Ecuador seems a... small and unusual choice. Are there any known links, was it simply the nearest Embassy when he was on the run....? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.230.34 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of factors at play: 1) Latin American countries tend to take a more lenient view of the concept of "diplomatic asylum" than their European or North American counterparts; it stems from a tradition of presidents ousted by coup d'État seeking refuge in the Embassy of a neighboring country. We had a question about this when Assange first took refuge in the Embassy, if someone can dig it up from the archives. 2) Various articles (see this one for example [4]]) claim that Ecuador President Rafael Correa has taken a personal liking to Assange, following an interview last May, even though his country may not always be a model of upholding journalistic freedom. --Xuxl (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Ecuador has been speaking out about US intervention in Latin America, which has a bodycount in the millions. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-20/world/world_assange-why-ecuador_1_julian-assange-wikileaks-state-department-world-tomorrow probably has what you're looking for. 71.215.68.200 (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some relevant information in our article on Julian Assange, too - back in 2010, when Assange had spoken about possibly seeking asylum in Switzerland, "Kintto Lucas, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ecuador, spoke about giving Assange residency with "no conditions"." Back then, Correa was very dubious about the idea, but I guess that is what led to the interest and the interview last May. Warofdreams talk 15:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What IS going to be interesting is just how he is going to get to the airport from London!85.211.154.5 (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought all they need do is give him a diplomatic bag and say he is the courier. In films people are put inside diplomatic bags but I don't see why, perhaps to save face for the host country.

Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"Diplomatic Bag" is a concept, not necessarily a literal hand-carried container. A country can designate a truck or a shipping container as a diplomatic bag if it wishes: size (or comfort) is therefore not a real-world (as opposed to Hollywood) constraint. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the Ecuadorian embassy is in a flat, which means he would have to cross the pavement. As soon as he steps on the pavement he could be arrested. However, if he's in a diplomatic bag or wooden box, how would the police know what's inside? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Central European Time says that CET means UTC+1. This implies that "CET" cannot be used as a single name for UTC+1/UTC+2, whichever happens to be current in central Europe at a particular time of year. How do you refer to the time in central Europe in a way that's neutral with regard to whether it's summer or winter?

For example, in North America you frequently see "ET" when the distinction between EST and EDT either is irrelevant or can't be made because different times of year are being referred to simultaneously. What I want is the equivalent of "ET" for the CET time zone. I understand that this kind of thing potentially carries some ambiguity because some places may not move to daylight time at the same time (or at all), but it generally works.

This question arose because I've encountered a time given as "CET" even though it's presently summer, so I think the person (who is writing from Spain) probably really meant CEST, but it bothers me somewhat that I have to make this assumption. 96.46.200.95 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just use GMT+1. People in the UK I have dealings with, who are currently in BST, tend to know I am still one timezone ahead of them regardless. If I need to clarify, I might use CEST (or CET, depending on time of year), but then clarify this is GMT+1, because a lot of people are not familiar with the abbreviations for time zones. Additionally, I would never use UTC, as most people have never even heard of it (it's merely the name of a brand of milk in some countries). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In North America, we see these kinds of abbreviations all the time, so they're familiar to most people. I suppose that's because you're relatively likely to need to deal with other time zones within your own country, whereas in Europe most countries lie entirely within a single time zone. As for the suggestion "GMT+1," I thought GMT was different from "British Time." That is, I thought British Summer Time would be GMT+1, so that CEST would be GMT+2 (and CET would be GMT+1).96.46.194.95 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yes. GMT is UTC+0 and BST is UTC+1. As KageTora said, in context people are going to know what you mean. Another option is to just refer to a city, "London time" is completely unambiguous. That only works if the people you are talking to can be expected to know what timezone that city uses, of course. --Tango (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish the person had just written "Spanish Time." On the other hand, it would be good to have something similar to EST/EDT/ET. 96.46.194.95 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you say GMT+1 I would assume you mean the same thing as UTC+1 regardless of context. In fact, I thought KägeTorä - (影虎) was suggesting saying GMT+1 when you mean UTC+1 and GMT+2 when you mean UTC+2 until reading the followups. Using GMT+1 to mean BST+1 is very strange and I would suggest it's a bad idea to use it outside Europe (if it really does work there as claimed here). In fact, unlike in the OP's case where if someone says CET but I know they're currently in CEST, I might wonder like the OP if they really mean CET or they actually mean CEST, I'm almost definitely going to think when some says GMT+1 they really mean GMT+1 (i.e. UTC+1). Our article Greenwich Mean Time doesn't even mention using GMT to mean BST or GMT depending on the time of year, and in countries without daylight saving time they may not even be aware of the concept but may be aware their time zone is GMT+8 or whatever. (In Malaysia for example GMT is somewhat thought in schools, but the concept of daylight saving time is not.)

As for the OP's issue, although NZ uses similar convention to the US with NZDT (UTC+13) and NZST (UTC+12), the abbreviation NZT is AFAIK almost never uses. I think one of the reason's is because there's little use. NZ by and large only has one timezone (sorry Chatham Islanders) so within NZ there's little reason to say you mean NZ time most of the time. Outside of NZ, it's generally more helpful to specify you mean UTC+13 (or GMT+13) perhaps also mentioning NZDT (but probably not NZDT by itself as that would require people actually know what it means) or UTC+12 (or GMT+12) for precision and simplicity for others since it's a bit unresonable to assume people will be aware of the the precise starting and ending time of NZ daylight saving time. So at the boundaries it's unnecessarily confusing even if the people know the offsets of NZ timezone. Yet they will hopefully be aware of their timezone compared to GMT/UTC (again I'm presuming GMT to mean more or less the same thing as UTC here, which is the way I've always used it and experienced it, not the odd description above of using GMT to mean BST or GMT which as I mentioned I've never encountered before now). Alternatively you may simply say New Zealand/Auckland/Wellington time, this is what satellite TV broadcasts and similar usually do.

I admit I'm still somewhat confused by the OP's dilemma, if it were me unless the person was idea going to be incommunicado until after the time or is dead, I would simply ask for clarification if I'm confused by what timezone they mean. (And as mentioned, I would probably do it in this case, but probably not if they'd specified GMT+1.) BTW what country has UTC brand of milk?

Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must be getting on a bit, now - what I meant was this. Still could have been worse, there is a company in the UK that sells roller towels for toilets. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

With all the facts in hand, I'm about 99% sure that the person meant CEST, not CET. As this was for work, I didn't want to split hairs with them. (I feel much more comfortable splitting hairs here on the Wikipedia reference desk.) They were most likely trying to help by writing CET, but made what I suppose is an error. What upset me was that when I first looked up CET on Google, it said UTC+1, so I could easily have understood the wrong time if I hadn't looked into it any further. 96.46.194.95 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who's wondering what the big deal is here, it's an excellent question, and while it might be "splitting hairs", they are indeed significant hairs.

There are two issues, I guess. (1) The notion of a "time zone" often does include a definition of that zone's DST rules. (2) If you want a zone name's definition and usage to be unambiguous, then your definition has failed if you have to "ask for clarification".

I share the OP's concern about our Central European Time article. It says that (a) it is UTC+1, (b) it used in most parts of the European Union, and (c) "all member states of the European Union observe summer time". But, I would say, those three facts can not all hold true. In particular, for about half the year, all of those member states of the European Union are not on UTC+1.

If someone says to me, "Let's meet in Madrid on July 1 at 12:00 CET", I have a problem. That statement contains a glaring internal inconsistency and is fundamentally ambiguous. Maybe it means, "Let's meet at 12:00 according to the time zone everyone there in Central Europe uses", in which case, I should plan on being there at 12:00, acording to my watch. But, strictly speaking, it means "Let's meet at 12:00 UTC+1", which will be at 1pm according to the clocks that everyone in Central Europe is using. In other words, saying "Let's meet at 12:00 CET" on July 1 is basically the same as saying "Let's meet at 12:00 but under the assumption that, unlike everyone around us, we had not adjusted our clocks for the summer."

Summer time is hard. It's basically a real-life

talk) 15:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]