Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 August 16

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.

August 16

Enterprise

I thought that I watched every episode of Star trek the next generation before moving on to deep space 9 but now that I am on season they keep mentioning what happened to the enterprise and how it was destroyed. Can any one please enlighten me as to what happened to the enterprise? was Piccard okay? And what about Data? Basically, what happened in the last episode of the next generation? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Enterprise-D was destroyed in the film, Star Trek Generations. They could have been referring to that. It wasn't destroyed in the last episode of the TV series (that episode ends with Picard sitting down with the other senior officers to play poker in Riker's quarters). --Tango (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a timeline on Memory Alpha that may also help. There are four Next Generation films which take place in various times during the other series. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You should also note that DS9 and TNG ran concurrently for a few seasons, so that's something to be aware of. Aaronite (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I'm on similar quest right now (but ahead of you) and I noticed the same thing. Yeah, it's the movies they are talking about. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But if you're wondering whether Data is okay, you probably shouldn't watch Nemesis... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't watch Nemesis anyway :) TomorrowTime (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The odd/even StarTrek movie rule definitely doesn't apply to Nemesis. It's the tenth movie - sadly, we now have to consider 10 to be an odd number because it was a truly terrible movie. SteveBaker (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't like II or IV. II bugged me because it ruined the upbeat ending of the TOS episode Botany Bay whoops, apparently it was called Space Seed. IV was too much about Roddenberry's politics, which are quite different from mine (I like Babylon 5 and Firefly a lot). It did have a few good lines though — "Take me to nuclear wessels!".

But I liked First Contact reasonably well, mainly for the character of Zefrem Cochrane and the individual-inventor source of the warp drive. --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

IV was about not driving humpback whales to extinction. It's not exactly controversial politics... --Tango (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean the whales, per se. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not so sure Tango. If you were to plot the humpback whale population against the standard of living in the USA, you would find a pretty good correlation showing the standard of living increases as the humpback whale population decreases. Therefore, killing all humpback whales will solve all the problems in the USA. Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Then what did you mean? It's all about whales... --Tango (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It struck me as anti-capitalist withal. --Trovatore (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What, and you only noticed this now? Think about it - obliteration of money, working in order to better oneself and contribute to the society... The whole idea of society in Star Trek is a highly idealized form of communism, FFS. The whole series is a leftist fairy tale. I mean, c'mon, the only major species that "still" uses money is portrayed as runty, greedy, untrustworthy, lustful, abhorrent and slug-and-bug-eating. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're treating the whole canon as one thing, which is probably unjustified. The original series was not quite so blatant on this point (though I do remember being struck by it in the episode where the spy disguised as an Andorian was fomenting discord among delegates discussing accession to the Federation of some little planet, the reason being apparently that it would interfere with mining interests). But it was very front-and-center in movie IV, which is why I didn't like that one very much. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, you're right, I did commit the fallacy of encompassing the whole canon into this. But I did take the time in the meanwhile to watch the movie again (I did like it, after all), and I must say I'm not sure what bugged you so much. The only thing that could be seen as anti-capitalistic in the movie was, IMO, the brief scene where Kirk figures that "well, in this barbaric time they still used money, we should get some, I'll go sell my glasses". I'd be interested to know what it was that didn't sit well with you. (Bear in mind, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just a curious European lefty interested in an exchange of opinions.) TomorrowTime (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm equally confused. Star Trek generally is anti-capitalist, certainly, but The Voyage Home isn't particularly so. As you say, there is one mention of "they still use money", but that's all I can remember. --Tango (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly. It was a long time ago. That was the impression I remember coming away with. --Trovatore (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole business about whether money exists or not is a mess - there is an episode of TNG where people from our time are frozen and resurrected and Picard explains that money doesn't exist anymore - yet the Deep Space 9 episodes are full of wheeling and dealing over "gold pressed latinum" - which appears to function precisely like money - and not just for the Farengi. They are continually talking about how the bar makes money and how much they charge for access to their holodecks. Even in TOS, there are cases where money most certainly exists. (like in "The trouble with tribble" where traders sell tribble to the Enterprise crew). IMHO, the writers simply lost series continuity at some point. The best spin you could probably put on it is that in the future you can get the basics of life without needing money - and perhaps that money isn't needed on board the Enterprise. But in a world with ubiquitous holodecks and replicators - it seems that almost anything you could want in life is just a matter of having a suitable power source. SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicely summarized. But my issue isn't so much money or not-money. It's more what takes its place (assuming scarcity has not truly been overcome). Is it a centralized command structure? The original series is set on a military vessel, so you'd hardly know.

But my differences with Roddenberry show up nicely in Andromeda, where the heroes are trying to rebuild a central state. That's not something my heroes would be likely to do. That's why I'm more at home with Firefly, where, tellingly, the good guys are "The Independents" and the bad guys are "The Alliance". --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The money thing is also explained (more fully, I think) in First Contact, when Picard is describing it to Lily. I think the point is that Earth and other parts of the Federation don't typically use money, but could acquire some if they needed it; although handily enough for the plot, gold-pressed latinum is supposed to un-replicatable. (And wouldn't you know it, Memory Alpha has an article about Star Trek economics.) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the solution is that the definition of "Star Trek movie" is functional, not nominal. Paul (Stansifer) 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

History of longcase clock I own

I have a small longcase clock with a brass face or dial and the name "Thos Wainwright Ashbourne" on the top. It is an 8 day clock with two key holes. Can you help me with the history of the clock and of Thos Wainwright of Ashbourne, in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.99.121 (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Page 8 of this PDF gives some information on Wainwright. Dalliance (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all in the mind... and the location

Is there a disease which only manifest itself when one is placed on a specific area or induced with a specific type of stress? I just read a business magazine article where a guy suddenly develops a rash when he is placed on an area where he has to handle financial responsibilities like his workplace. He seems to consider money and power as evil or something so that seems to be the trigger. The problem seems to be all in the mind since he was reported to be successful and healthy outside the area of finances.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a specific answer for you but our article on Psychosomatic medicine has a section for disorders which may be of interest. Dismas|^(talk) 07:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are cases of "school denial syndrome" in Japan (or sth like that, I don't think that's a proper English expression) - kids can get so wound up by the stress of going to school (exams, bullying, generally not fitting in with the rest of the crowd, stuff like that) that they actually throw up every morning when they are told it's time to go to school. And yes, it's considered an actual problem, not just some lazy brats' way of trying to wiggle out of having to go to school. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

School phobia which is actually a redirect. Sussexonian (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier comes to mind here. It sounds crazy, but for some years during the latter part of his career he experienced severe and debilitating stage fright, but there was never a problem with the other public appearances he made during this time. I don't know whether he had visible physical symptoms, or internal feelings of fear, dread etc. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

NHL goaltender Glenn Hall supposedly threw up before each game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago when I found myself working under a bullying and procedure-violating Line Manager, I used to throw up most mornings before driving to work, so it's not a problem confined to schoochildren! (For interest, I stuck it out until his (and the overall Site) Manager (who refused to initiate the complaints procedure over this) was fired for various incompetencies, and he himself simultaneously left for another company having anticipated his own dismissal.) (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are of course many physical stresses that can make one sick or worse. They include Frostbite, Heatstroke, Drowning and even more unhealthy things such as Crushing by elephant. Being in a location that prompts remembering or imagining such experiences causes unhealthy mental stress.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

An unwritten rule of the refdesk: If possible, always try to find a way to work one of the following two links into an answer: "crushing by elephant", "Japanese toilet" :) TomorrowTime (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Identity of torch bearer

The schedule of the Junior Youth Olympic Flame route states that Pal Schmitt was to be a torch-bearer at this stretch of road called Church Street. The man in the photo is definitely a torch-bearer, because his uniform is unique only to torch-bearers. However, I cannot confirm if this is really Pal Schmitt.

Can anyone identify the person? --TVBdxiang (Talk) 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the man in the photo certainly doesn't look like the 68 year old man with grey hair that our Pal Schmitt article shows. Dismas|^(talk) 10:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest you ask User:Tdxiang, who took that photo ... --Sean 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible that this is either the person who will hand the torch on to Pal Schmitt - or who will take over the run when Schmitt is done. I'm sure they practice the hand-offs before the actual event. If you have details about the flame carriers, I'd definitely check the previous and subsequent bearers. SteveBaker (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not him; here is a picture of him at the time.

The participants are listed here; I tried Googling up some of the names, but haven't found anyone who looks like this chap yet.  Chzz  ►  06:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Could it be Zsolt Gyulay? See [1] [2] (on right) and Google for more.  Chzz  ►  06:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

economic benefit from debit cards

How does the government of a country benifit from DEBIT CARDS? Let me clarify that I'm talking about DEBIT CARDS specifically and not CREDIT CARDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajat hira (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but it saves some money for Bureau of Engraving and Printing.(Or its counterparts in other nations)

It probably makes law-enforcement easier to have traceable transactions. APL (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It also makes economic activity easier - you don't need to have money on you to have money on you (that is physical cash is somewhat redundant). It likely increases efficiency for businesses - they spend less time maintaining their accounts as it is electronic activity with built in automation compared to the more time-consuming dealing with cash-transfers and so on. It also makes banks more efficient and, whilst not favoured at the moment, banks make huge amounts of money and pay large amounts of corporation tax / lend-money to small busineses etc. ny156uk (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from not printing cash and minting coins, I can't see any other way, since the government doesn't run debit cards; the banks and credit companies do. Aaronite (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by the government benefiting? Assuming we are talking about legitimate democratic governments, then they don't try and benefit the government, they try and benefit the country. Debit cards benefit the country because they make it much easier to engage in economic activity (which is generally a good thing - a trade is (assuming no inefficiencies like one party having incomplete or false information) a win-win scenario for the two parties). --Tango (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, the ease of use of debit cards can be expected to increase economic activity. Transactions are securely recorded, so they can also be expected to reduce tax evasion. Debit cards also can be expected to reduce counterfeiting and crimes involving the use of currency, although this may be a limited benefit because (1) currency is still in use, and therefore these crimes can still occur, and (2) there are corresponding crimes involving debit cards, such as fraud and identity theft. A major offsetting consideration, from the government's point of view, is that debit cards give it no opportunity for seigniorage, the difference between the value of a dollar bill and what it costs the government to print it. John M Baker (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Being charged a debit card overdraft will increase the profits of the bank, and those profits are taxed. Googlemeister (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the broken window fallacy might be relevant here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not applicable in this case since we are not talking about a benefit to the economy overall, just a benefit to the government. The glazier benefits from broken windows, even if everyone else suffers. Googlemeister (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That is only if he is incapable of any employment other than glazing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If there hadn't been a bank charge (and an associated, taxable bank profit) the original purchaser could have used his money to buy additional goods and services from other non-bank companies who would have profited and been taxed in their turn. In other words, some of the profit and associated tax burden was shifted from the widget supplier to the bank; you've not made a convincing case that the government coffers are any further ahead. The example you offered didn't indicate how the bank charges improved the overall output of the economy, and so don't demonstrate how overall there would be more for the government to tax. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

He could just have easily not spent it at all though, or spent it on a product from a non-profitable company in which case the (federal) government does not benefit (assuming the person is not on welfare I guess).

San Francisco Chronicle article by John Wasserman entitled "Very Very Terry Terry"

I'm looking for an article by John Wasserman written in 1967 or 1968 about a grand opening at Ghirardelli Square in which the band The Who and Neighbr'hood Childr'n is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.13.170 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We have an article about him under his fuller name of John L. Wasserman, which mentions that he was an entertainment critic for the San Francisco Chronicle (whom you could try contacting, and who might be able to sell you a copy) and that a book incorporating many of his articles (see the end of our article for details) has been published that might include the one you want. The existence of this volume reduces the likelihood of the article being available free on the internet. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As with your last question on this topic, your best strategy might be to contact the San Francisco Chronicle directly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're better off calling your local library; newspapers aren't generally in the business of looking up 40-year-old articles for people, although some do offer such a service for a fee. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)