March 23 Information

this question is moved by the original poster toe the Computer ref. desk.

My wife and I are over 60. I was born in June on a Thur., she in July on a Sat. How is it that now, our birthdays occur on the same weekday? 198.50.63.15 ( talk) 02:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This can't happen - I think there must be a mixup concerning dates somewhere. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC), reply

I think the poster means that in 2011 (or any other year used for both birthdays) the two birthdays fall on the same weekday. This will happen whenever the number of days between them within the same year is a multiple of 7, for example June 30 and July 7, so there is a whole number of weeks between them. The weekday for a birthdate changes from year to year, because 7 doesn't divide 365 or 366. You must have been born in different years. PrimeHunter ( talk) 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oops! On second thoughts, yes it can. As PrimeHunter states, if you were born in different years, for your birthday to fall on the same day now, your birthdays must have been on the same day of the week in the year the younger of you was born. (Unless I've got it wrong again...) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Sure, it can easily happen if they were born in different years. It would have been helpful if the OP had given the actual dates and years, then the answer would have been obvious. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I wonder whether the poster was quoting a puzzle and not actually talking about himself. By the way, we have an article about calculating the day of the week. PrimeHunter ( talk) 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

He could also use this nifty website, [1] which will produce a calendar for any year. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Note that while the weekdays may have been different when they were born, the birthdays occurred on the same day of the week when (and since) the younger one was born Nil Einne ( talk) 08:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Not sure I follow the first part of that, Nil Einne. It's only been since the birth of the younger person that there have been two birthdays to compare. But you're right: the two birthdays have always fallen on the same day of the week. It's a different day each successive year, but always the same different day for both birthdays. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I meant that while they may have been born on different days of the week, they have fallen on the same week day every year since the younger one was born (or if you want since there have been two birthdays as you said). In other words if the OP thinks about it, there's nothing really surprising here. Even without bringing two birthdays in to it, most people who recognise it in any way must know their birthday (or other consistent dates, anniversaries, holidays that fall on a defined date such as Christmas etc) doesn't fall on the same day of the week every year. So it follows that even if someone's birthday is the same day of the week as yours it doesn't mean you were both born on the same day of the week (unless you were born on the same year presuming your birthdays don't cross the February-March/leap day boundary). Nil Einne ( talk) 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

What is the significance of red doors on many churches, regardless of denomination? 198.50.63.15 ( talk) 02:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Someone did quite an extensive research here. There are a number of theories. The most common answer being that the color represents the blood of Christ which is the key to salvation for Christians. ќמшמφטтгמ ^torque 03:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

...or it's a replay of the blood-smeared doorposts of the Passover. Or the blood drinking ritual. There are plenty of bloody biblical references to choose from. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 09:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Or could it be that red paint was available and cheap? Froggie34 ( talk) 10:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This answer is so facile it disgusts me. If you're going to take the trouble to build a church, you are going to choose the right color -- especially for the door. 10 square feet? 20? Economics are not going to be a serious concern here. Gah! Vranak ( talk) 13:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You assume that there is a "right color". Unless there is, I'd guess that whoever chooses the colour would pick it primarily for being cheaply available, and in line with their personal aesthetic preferences. Warofdreams talk 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Let's be reality. No one paints a door red for purely economic reasons. White or black or brown sure, but red? Just no. It has obvious religio-spiritual-emotional connotations. Vranak ( talk) 15:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you have any evidence for that supposition? Warofdreams talk 15:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

How about you go look at a red wall for ten seconds and see what you feel. There's your evidence. And if you can't find one, could it be because no one paints something red haphazardly, which is the original idea that I was so offended by. Vranak ( talk) 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Looking at google images, the percentage appears to be around 20%. Around the same percentage as for house doors. Synagogue doors appear about 10% red, mosques also about 20%. The unscientific sample does show that mosques are far more likely to have yellow doors (also around 20%) but the overall impression is that church doors are not especially likely to be a given color, meaning the null hypothesis holds - that the color is pretty irrelevant. Collect ( talk) 10:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps connected with barns often being painted red in some countries: Falu red, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010_December_16#Why_are_barns_red.3F 92.24.179.207 ( talk) 14:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I'd be interested in another survey which took denomination (and country) into account. Some denominations are far more prone to keeping up traditions than others. Marnanel ( talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Popular on Episcopalian churches, due to association with England: [2], as well as Christ's blood. An Episcopal ref which mentions the red paint on barns: [3]. Episcopal red door: symbol of sanctuary, of Christ's blood, of the blood of the Passover Lamb: [4]. Again Episcopal: "If we paint the door red, people will be curious and come inside": [5]. An Episcopal church door, "red to keep the Devil out:" [6]. At the Cathedral of Notre Dame, in Victor Hugo's "The Hunchback," a red door led from the church to the cloisters: [7]. An Episcopal reference which says the door is red for the martyrdom of the Saints: [8]. There is an old joke about a visiting preacher who was mulling over what to preach on, when he noticed the church had a red door. He prepared a fine sermon about the red door tradition, the martyrdom of saints, the Blood of the Lamb, etc. Just before he was to give his fine sermon, the local church treasurer stood up and said "I'm sure you all noticed that I painted the church door red yesterday. And red it's going to stay until we raise enough offerings to make the mortgage payment. Now our guest preacher..." Edison ( talk) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Not sure about the association with England. I've visited hundreds of English churches and I can't remember seeing one that was painted at all. English oak is the usual material for church doors over here - years ago there probably wasn't much else available to make a big door with. Church doors are often decorated with elaborate iron hinge-straps and fancy knockers and handles, but oak-coloured oak is de-riguer over here on churches ancient and modern [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Alansplodge ( talk) 17:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

By coincidence I walked past a red-door UK church on my way home. The paint looked new. I think it was a church built in Victorian times so the door may have been pine rather than oak. I think pine used to be regarded as being inferior, so that may be why it was painted. A few days ago I noticed that another church had painted its notice-board red. It used to be some other colour. 92.28.242.170 ( talk) 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there a database anywhere online which records the number a languages a book has been translated into? ќמшמφטтгמ ^torque 02:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I very much doubt it. Publishing databases are maintained by the ISBN agency responsible for each country or region. Although these databases are combined to form an international database, each language edition has its own ISBN, and in most cases a different title and a different publisher as well, so it's almost impossible to link them. However, the original publisher will usually keep records of the allocation of foreign language rights, so the information should be on their database. If you have a particular title in mind it would be best to ask them.-- Shantavira| ^{feed me} 08:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, books are not required to have an ISBN or be registered in any sense. Self-published books, some small press books, older books, etc. can be ISBN-less. I've run across unauthorized translations of books as well, e.g., an online, Bulgarian translation of Barry Hughart's Bridge of Birds. This is something I've pursued as a researcher for specific titles, and so far the only way to find translations is to be stubborn and use a lot of different tools, such as OCLC's WorldCat. I usually search for everything by an author (including variants of the author's name if relevant) and browse through ALL titles listed. Even then, as large as WorldCat is, it's still an incomplete registry of what's available. Are you looking for translations of a single author or translations of a single work? Which specific author and/or which specific title? Knowing that I might be able to direct you to the appropriate available tools to answer that question. -- Quartermaster ( talk) 18:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the answers. Actually I am just looking for a general database for a nerdy purpose of compiling a list of books with the most number of language translations. Perhaps create a new article here, something along the lines of List of best-selling books or The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written (book). But im not sure if its practical, useful or notable enough for wikipedia. Otherwise i'll just be using such data for personal satisfaction. Worldcat seems like the best place to find such data, so far. Goodreads doesnt seem very complete and its a wiki so it might not be very reliable. ќמшמφטтгמ ^torque 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I a working on List of Seattle bridges and cannot find a length for the West Seattle Bridge. Any help would be great. Cptnono ( talk) 04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Just for a rough estimate, it looks to be about 1200 feet from shore to shore, including the span over the island. StuRat ( talk) 07:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The West Seattle Herald published another article about the renaming of the bridge where it says the length is 2,607ft. It doesn't seem to be on their website, but is in the Nexis database (West Seattle Bridge honors Jeanette Williams, West Seattle Herald staff, 30 October 2009). It looks to be based on wire copy from the State News Service; I can send you a copy if you need it.-- Kateshortforbob _talk 12:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh my God you rock. If you have the article you can shoot it to me through my email in the tool box it would be awesome. Cptnono ( talk) 08:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Done :) -- Kateshortforbob _talk 10:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, i just read the article Tax bracket and it seems like in the USA, married couples pay tax on their combined income that an individual making that total would pay. as a result, getting married inevitably puts you both in a higher tax bracket and makes you pay more. I always thought getting married was supposed to make you pay less, and you often even here of people getting married just to reduce taxes through some loophole. I even heard of obsurd scenarios where buisness partners try to pretend to be gay and get married in some places as a tax loophole. so how is this possible if getting married effectively cuts ur tax-exempt income in half and puts you in a higher bracket? one other question, if i did infact understand it correctly, doesnt getting married become a major tax burden that would make people AVOID getting married? whats the rational behind that anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto75780 ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

We cannot give any tax advice here. The US tax laws have varied over the past few decades. Internal Revenue Service publication 501 for 2010 taxes says: "Married Filing Jointly: You can choose married filing jointly as your filing status if you are married and both you and your spouse agree to file a joint return. On a joint return, you report your combined income and deduct your combined allowable expenses. You can file a joint return even if one of you had no income or deductions. If you and your spouse decide to file a joint return, your tax may be lower than your combined tax for the other filing statuses. Also, your standard deduction (if you do not itemize deductions) may be higher, and you may qualify for tax benefits that do not apply to other filing statuses. If you and your spouse each have income, you may want to figure your tax both on a joint return and on separate returns (using the filing status of married filing separately). You can choose the method that gives the two of you the lower combined tax." Consult a qualified tax adviser, accountant, or tax attorney for any specific advice on your situation. Edison ( talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

If only one of you is working, or only one is making a substantial income, there's an obvious advantage in that you get more personal exemptions from about the same income. Having children makes for even more deductions. That might have been the original rationale. If you're both working and making good money, it can still come out better than single, but it depends. The best advice is to figure it out both ways (joint vs. separate) and see which one works out better. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, there is a fundamental conflict in combining the "business partnership" aspect of marriage with the religious aspects, by law. Thus you will get the situations you described. Marriage should be viewed as a purely social/religious affair, with no legal implications, so as to avoid the government deciding who can and can't get married. If the government then wants to grant the right to any pair of people to form a "business partnership", then they can do that. StuRat ( talk) 15:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The article Income tax in the United States doesn't really answer the question, but it has a number of links which might. Also note that certain aspects of the tax laws (capital gains, for example) are enormously advantageous to be married filing jointly. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

We actually have an article about this: Marriage penalty. Looie496 ( talk) 16:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Our article on tax brackets does not state that married couples filing jointly in the United States pay the same tax rate as a single individual with the same income. In fact, if you look at the brackets listed, you can see that married couples are taxed at about half the rate of individuals making the same income. The so-called marriage penalty is in fact an advantage for most couples. Marco polo ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi all, I have these pair of trousers that are slightly too loose at the waist for me. They don't have any bits of fabric to support a belt (think jogging trousers/sweatpants) and they are not elasticated so can't be pulled in. They also can't be tailored to take in the waist as the waist part of the trouser would be ruined. As I'm writing this, I did think of braces/suspenders, but I feel I am too young to wear these haha. Any idea? Thanks! -- 86.174.137.130 ( talk) 13:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Exhange them for a pair that fits, or donate them to your local thrift shop, and buy a new pair that fits. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

(EC)If you get suspenders, have the tailor or someone sew in buttons, rather than wearing the clip-on suspenders. Much cooler. What other fashion is a bit out of the ordinary, and favored by corporate executives, cartoon characters, rural geezers, mimes and clowns? Edison ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

And doctors. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Congrats, you're in fashion already: [14]. StuRat ( talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Some suggestions:

1) Save them for if you gain weight.

2) Wear them around the house where you won't be self-conscious if they droop a bit.

3) Sew a shirt to them at the back, so the shirt will act like suspenders.

4) Wear them with thick long underwear, and/or over another pair of pants, in winter. StuRat ( talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Or have the tailor add belt loops, or perhaps a cloth "channel" and a drawstring. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I wish I had your problem! Swap you for mine? 92.4.35.114 ( talk) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Two thoughts: firstly, if the waistband is fastened with a button and buttonhole then simply move the button to the correct place. Also, if it fastens with a hook and eye, or press studs, then move one part to the correct place. Another thought: if there is no waistband (a style referred to I think as "grown-on"), you could take in the side seams. Just pinch in each of the sides by about a quarter inch and sew them up. Nobody is going to notice that - who's going to look in that detail at your waist? -- TammyMoet ( talk) 10:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Moving the button doesn't work very well, as it makes it fasten "off-center" and causes bunching below the button. StuRat ( talk) 22:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

If that offends your aesthetic sense, then take the side seams in! -- TammyMoet ( talk) 09:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, that would seem to be more seemly. StuRat ( talk) 09:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I have recently quit smoking and would like to start living a healthier life style. I have not run anywhere in over 10 years, my fitness level must be zero. I would like to start swimming or running as I was quite a good swimmer in my teenage years. However I do not want to go to the local public swimming pool as I probably cant even do one length without passing out from exaustion, lol. I would like to run but probably cant run to the end of the street. How can I build up my fitness level gradually from home so that when I go to the gym and swim, I dont look like a fool that cant even get to the other side without gasping for air. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.144.75 ( talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I am in the same position so have begun walking and cycling to build up my initial fitness and also my self esteem. Also do a few home exercises using say a Wii Fit Machine - Brilliant, and a Body Ball and Trunk Curler - quite cheap all of them. And do a bit of easy reserach on the internet and take advantage of all the free info. thereon. And then, join a club if you can afford it. You will be amazed at how far in front you are of the many other out-of-condition folk you will meet, and how friendly and supportive everyone is. Go for it and good luck. I joined 9 months ago and so far have gained 5 pounds!. 92.4.35.114 ( talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree that the best thing would be for you to start by going for daily walks as a form of exercise. Every couple of days increase the distance and/or speed of your walk. On weekends, plan a longer walk, if possible involving a hill or two. Aim to keep up a good speed. If you have a bicycle, you can alternate walks with bicycle trips. If you can walk a mile (1.6 km) at a brisk pace, you will have the ability to swim several laps at a pool, if you know how to swim. Marco polo ( talk) 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

To address the "safety" side of your question's title, you should always consult a doctor before starting any type of exercise program. Good luck. 10draftsdeep ( talk) 21:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Here's something from the NHS which says it will get you from being a couch potato to running 5km or for half an hour in nine weeks. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/c25k/Pages/get-running-with-couch-to-5k.aspx What puts me off doing it is looking silly running along, particularly at the start. I hope the link and podcasts work outside the UK. 92.24.188.210 ( talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

about.com has a similar 8 week programme to get you running. Those sorts of programmes work well if you're committed to doing it, reduce chances of injury or discomfort or disillusionment by doing too much too quickly, lack the 'embarrassment factor' of gyms...and are free. If you can't complete one week's goals...then repeat it the next. Good luck with it. Gwinva ( talk) 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I watched the Chancellor, George Osborne, delivering his Budget today in the House of Commons. It took him about an hour to reveal the Coalition Government's revenue-raising and spending plans for the foreseeable future, including a few well-leaked tasty bits and not a few surprises, such as the fuel revenues. Immediately upon taking his seat, and following a few procedural remarks by the Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition Ed Milliband, rose to his feet and began an amazing attack on the Government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Budget, and even an ex-Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, who left office several governments and years ago. But the most amazing fact (to me) was that during his attack, he was reading from copious notes (about 21 pages of A4 carefully prepared and detailed notes) that left no doubt that he had seen a copy of the Budget document and had been given the opportunity for him and his advisors and analysts to reply and respond in the way that he did. So is it the case that the Leader(s) of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are given access to the detail of the Government's Budget Proposals before they are delivered in the House of Commons, and thus to the electorate, so as to allow them the chance to pre-prepare such an immediate and detailed response? If so, and maybe I am being somewhat naive here, such practices are disgraceful and would clearly lead to insider information being leaked to the big players in the money markets, to the ultimate detriment of the government's tax-raising plans. 92.4.35.114 ( talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I cannot answer your question directly, but I can make a few points. Australia inherited the Westminster system from the UK, and it operates a Budget Lock-up on the day of the Budget, in advance of the Budget Speech, which is always delivered at 7:30 pm. Certain journos are permitted access in order to prepare their post-Budget stories for later-night TV and the next morning's newspapers. There is no access for any politicians, and particularly not for members of the opposition.

Budget leaks are not unknown, but for an opposition to be reading from prepared notes to criticise government measures he's only just heard about is not a surprising political development, and we don't need to assume any sort of leak or privileged access for that.

I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in Australia these days many features of the forthcoming budget are announced by the government in advance. By the time the Budget Speech is actually delivered, there's usually little of any headline-grabbing interest left for the Treasurer to announce - it's all detail. It's a very far cry from the celebrated incident when a UK Chancellor of the Exchequer waved a sheaf of budget papers to waiting media while on his way in to the House of Commons chamber to deliver his budget speech: even though none of the media could possibly have seen what was in the papers, the Chancellor lost his job over it, on the grounds of breaching Budget confidentiality. Boy, they were tough in those days; but they've gone way too far in the other direction these days, in my view. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

In the US it is standard procedure for legislators to be given copies of important documents before they are released. There is nothing underhand about this, it is simply recognized as the only way to allow people to respond intelligently to events. There is of course an agreement (not always respected) that the contents will not be leaked before the official event. Looie496 ( talk) 20:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I think it's very unlikely Miliband was given access to the text of the budget in advance. It's a famous thing in Westminster that one of the hardest tasks faced by the Leader of the Opposition is to respond to the budget on the spot without having seen it. The notes he was reading from would have been worked up by his advisors and consisted of their responses to the most likely scenarios. -- Viennese Waltz 20:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

That difficulty is recognised in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition gets his right of reply two nights later, when he's had time to digest the detailed contents of the Budget Papers. He will still usually criticise whatever he would have before he actually saw the papers, though. That's politics. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

If Milliband didn't have any response at all then the Shadow Chancellor would have been accused of not doing his job. Nanonic ( talk) 21:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Presumably, having worked opposite these Conservative MPs and followed the news continuously for the last few years, Mr Milliband and his associates would have already had a reasonable idea of the direction the government was leaning in. Meanwhile, perhaps the copious amount of notes refered to simply represents answers to a range of different proposals, and he was searching through to find those that were still relevant. 148.197.121.205 ( talk) 09:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah that's pretty much exactly what I already said above. -- Viennese Waltz 10:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I think that if he had been following the news continuously for the last few years, he would be extraordinarily tired now, and allowances should be made.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I follow the news continuously, except that I take a nap when they have fluff news or sports or traffic or tell me about upcoming shows or celebrity gossip. I get plenty of sleep. :-) StuRat ( talk) 08:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

"Continuously, except ...". That's like saying "Except for this very long list of failings, I'm perfect".  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply