Miscellaneous desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 8 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 10 > |
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. |
For the purpose of family tree research could the towns of Armadale and Bathgate be considered the same? What information I've found on your site is that Bathgate appears first in the 12th century but there is no elaboration on Armadale. They are approximately 2.5 miles apart now but in the 1800's I wonder if that meant anything.
Thank you, -- ScotsBloodline ( talk) 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If this constitutes a request for legal advice please feel free to ignore/delete. My question is simply this: If a man marries a thai woman in thailand is that considered a legal marriage in the western world, specifically UK?
cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 ( talk) 07:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This site ( http://www.th4u.com/thai_marriage.htm) has some info. It suggests that yes it would be considered legal but that the UK would require 'evidence' by way of an Affidavit or Statutory form. 194.221.133.226 ( talk) 07:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a note from someone where the bottom part is whited out. I would like to see what is whited out, but the person signed her name on top of it. Is there a way to see what is under the white out without damaging the note? Anonymous--12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In the US, does the government have any way to legally prevent a company from getting so big that it's collapse would cause a recession or depression ? Certainly if they engage in anticompetitive practices an antitrust suit can be filed. And media companies can be limited by arguing that having control over too many outlets (newspapers, radio, and TV) infringes on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. However, if a company has no media outlets and doesn't do anything bad, can it be broken up just because it's "too big" ? StuRat ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The US has the Federal Trade Commission ( http://www.ftc.gov/bc/index.shtml). I would expect that went considering mergers/acquisitions they consider whether or not it is in the interests of the public for the companies to merger (or be acquired), but can't find definitive confirmation either way. ny156uk ( talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
US antitrust law cannot prevent the organic growth of a company (even if that company eventually grows to monopolize its market). Antitrust law can only prevent anticompetitive behavior (which might lead to growth) and certain very large mergers (see Merger guidelines). Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Regulation tends to discourage startups, and thus favors bigness. — Tamfang ( talk) 07:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In Marin County, California there is a narrow tunnel about a half mile long. It is so narrow that it has a single lane to service both directions. There is a traffic light at each end of the tunnel, which stays red for about five minutes to allow traffic from the opposite end to go through. For a minute or two both ends have a red light to allow traffic already in the tunnel time to exit. Are there other places in the United States with a similar set-up? Where is the longest red light located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.90.166 ( talk) 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
See Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel in Alaska. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want this to sound like a rant, but I have to give some background first. In Australia, Christmas and Easter come with various traditions. One of them is how the road toll is reported in the media. Leading up to the events, we're told that all the police are going to be on duty, and speeding/drink-driving/drug-driving/mobile phone-using/seat belt non-wearing drivers "will be caught". We're assured it's not about revenue, but the public are being given an incentive to drive safely, and arrive alive. That's all good. Then the deaths inevitably start happening. That's bad. What we get given, though, is a state-by-state breakdown, which is updated frequently. Newspapers have maps, with the state figures shown prominently. We're told things like "<state> has had its worst Easter road toll on record, with 17 deaths; <other state> has had only 3". Maybe the fact that we have only 6 states and 2 territories lends itself to this type of comparison; I doubt it would happen if we had 50 states, like the USA. But apart from that, I've always wondered who is interested in this type of information. Why would a person living in Tasmania (say) have any real interest in knowing the number of people killed in Western Australia (say)? At any other time of the year, reporting of road deaths is generally confined to the state concerned, not broadcast throughout the nation, unless it's something particularly horrific or record-breaking. (I've always regarded this daily (or even hourly, on radio) reporting of the state-by-state tallies and the national total as extremely ghoulish, but I seem to be a lone voice on that score because it's become such a hallowed tradition that I doubt any opinion I may express on the matter would ever have any effect.)
The other part of the reporting is that this year's figures are always compared with last year's figures, state-by-state and nationally. I've always wondered what makes whatever last year's figures were some sort of benchmark. What if last year happened to be particularly high; or particularly low? What does that comparison tell anyone? I'd have thought a better comparison would be with an average over, say, the past 10 years. But why compare this year's figures with any previous years at all? When fewer people die this year compared to last year, newsreaders have a happy face; and when more die this year than last year, they put on a sad face. They seem to treat this subject as some sort of contest.
So, now that I've veered too close to a rant, what I want to know is: Do other countries have similar media practices? -- JackofOz ( talk) 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In the UK we have the national road deaths figures that come out and a big thing is made of them. I've never seen this sort of "this <festive> period we saw X deaths, compared to last year where we had Y deaths" but certainly the UK media is very interested by road-death statistics (and i'd have to say quite rightly - whilst under 3000 (2008 saw 2,943 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/27/transport1) is impressive obviously the less the better. Comparing this year vs last-year is pretty common-place in every sort of media reporting and it's definitely questionable statistics-wise, but then they often use it to be able to produce a 'good' or 'bad' story - ultimately the long-term trend is less interesting (news wise) if it is only showing a 0.5% drop per annum. ny156uk ( talk) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you were particularly interested in assuming good faith among the media (not that you should, but it would likely be good exercise, like biking up a mountain... on two flat tires... with a large elephant on your back), you could say that they hope that the comparison between areas will provide a sense of competition. "Those beery swine in Tasmania had only three kills last year; no way we're going to exceed that amount! Come on guys, let's bear down!" Um, maybe. Matt Deres ( talk) 13:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Miscellaneous desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 8 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 10 > |
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. |
For the purpose of family tree research could the towns of Armadale and Bathgate be considered the same? What information I've found on your site is that Bathgate appears first in the 12th century but there is no elaboration on Armadale. They are approximately 2.5 miles apart now but in the 1800's I wonder if that meant anything.
Thank you, -- ScotsBloodline ( talk) 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If this constitutes a request for legal advice please feel free to ignore/delete. My question is simply this: If a man marries a thai woman in thailand is that considered a legal marriage in the western world, specifically UK?
cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 ( talk) 07:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This site ( http://www.th4u.com/thai_marriage.htm) has some info. It suggests that yes it would be considered legal but that the UK would require 'evidence' by way of an Affidavit or Statutory form. 194.221.133.226 ( talk) 07:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a note from someone where the bottom part is whited out. I would like to see what is whited out, but the person signed her name on top of it. Is there a way to see what is under the white out without damaging the note? Anonymous--12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In the US, does the government have any way to legally prevent a company from getting so big that it's collapse would cause a recession or depression ? Certainly if they engage in anticompetitive practices an antitrust suit can be filed. And media companies can be limited by arguing that having control over too many outlets (newspapers, radio, and TV) infringes on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. However, if a company has no media outlets and doesn't do anything bad, can it be broken up just because it's "too big" ? StuRat ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The US has the Federal Trade Commission ( http://www.ftc.gov/bc/index.shtml). I would expect that went considering mergers/acquisitions they consider whether or not it is in the interests of the public for the companies to merger (or be acquired), but can't find definitive confirmation either way. ny156uk ( talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
US antitrust law cannot prevent the organic growth of a company (even if that company eventually grows to monopolize its market). Antitrust law can only prevent anticompetitive behavior (which might lead to growth) and certain very large mergers (see Merger guidelines). Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Regulation tends to discourage startups, and thus favors bigness. — Tamfang ( talk) 07:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In Marin County, California there is a narrow tunnel about a half mile long. It is so narrow that it has a single lane to service both directions. There is a traffic light at each end of the tunnel, which stays red for about five minutes to allow traffic from the opposite end to go through. For a minute or two both ends have a red light to allow traffic already in the tunnel time to exit. Are there other places in the United States with a similar set-up? Where is the longest red light located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.90.166 ( talk) 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
See Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel in Alaska. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want this to sound like a rant, but I have to give some background first. In Australia, Christmas and Easter come with various traditions. One of them is how the road toll is reported in the media. Leading up to the events, we're told that all the police are going to be on duty, and speeding/drink-driving/drug-driving/mobile phone-using/seat belt non-wearing drivers "will be caught". We're assured it's not about revenue, but the public are being given an incentive to drive safely, and arrive alive. That's all good. Then the deaths inevitably start happening. That's bad. What we get given, though, is a state-by-state breakdown, which is updated frequently. Newspapers have maps, with the state figures shown prominently. We're told things like "<state> has had its worst Easter road toll on record, with 17 deaths; <other state> has had only 3". Maybe the fact that we have only 6 states and 2 territories lends itself to this type of comparison; I doubt it would happen if we had 50 states, like the USA. But apart from that, I've always wondered who is interested in this type of information. Why would a person living in Tasmania (say) have any real interest in knowing the number of people killed in Western Australia (say)? At any other time of the year, reporting of road deaths is generally confined to the state concerned, not broadcast throughout the nation, unless it's something particularly horrific or record-breaking. (I've always regarded this daily (or even hourly, on radio) reporting of the state-by-state tallies and the national total as extremely ghoulish, but I seem to be a lone voice on that score because it's become such a hallowed tradition that I doubt any opinion I may express on the matter would ever have any effect.)
The other part of the reporting is that this year's figures are always compared with last year's figures, state-by-state and nationally. I've always wondered what makes whatever last year's figures were some sort of benchmark. What if last year happened to be particularly high; or particularly low? What does that comparison tell anyone? I'd have thought a better comparison would be with an average over, say, the past 10 years. But why compare this year's figures with any previous years at all? When fewer people die this year compared to last year, newsreaders have a happy face; and when more die this year than last year, they put on a sad face. They seem to treat this subject as some sort of contest.
So, now that I've veered too close to a rant, what I want to know is: Do other countries have similar media practices? -- JackofOz ( talk) 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In the UK we have the national road deaths figures that come out and a big thing is made of them. I've never seen this sort of "this <festive> period we saw X deaths, compared to last year where we had Y deaths" but certainly the UK media is very interested by road-death statistics (and i'd have to say quite rightly - whilst under 3000 (2008 saw 2,943 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/27/transport1) is impressive obviously the less the better. Comparing this year vs last-year is pretty common-place in every sort of media reporting and it's definitely questionable statistics-wise, but then they often use it to be able to produce a 'good' or 'bad' story - ultimately the long-term trend is less interesting (news wise) if it is only showing a 0.5% drop per annum. ny156uk ( talk) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you were particularly interested in assuming good faith among the media (not that you should, but it would likely be good exercise, like biking up a mountain... on two flat tires... with a large elephant on your back), you could say that they hope that the comparison between areas will provide a sense of competition. "Those beery swine in Tasmania had only three kills last year; no way we're going to exceed that amount! Come on guys, let's bear down!" Um, maybe. Matt Deres ( talk) 13:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)