Miscellaneous desk
< February 2	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 4 >

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.

February 3

Why isn't basketball big in Britain?

Except for maybe Scandanavia, the British Isles are the only area of Europe that does not produce great basketball players and competitive teams. Why is this? I can understand why, say, baseball isn't popular--because they play cricket instead. But there's no real sporting equivalent to basketball. Please explain.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is netball, which is popular among girls in British schools and Basketball in England claims it is among the second tier of popular sports in the UK. It may simply be because the UK is a small country with a long sporting history. Football, cricket and rugby are such popular sports and had a big head start: all and were played in an organized form for at least 50 years before basketball was introduced in the late 19th century. Rockpocket 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It helps if there are people 7 feet ( 2.1 meters) tall or so who have the type of muscle tissue useful in fast jumping. Edison (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but statistically speaking any population should have quite a few of those if you are searching for them. (And lest we are tempted to provide some sort of biological explanation, let's remember that Britain is not racially homogenous.) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; how many people live in, say, Slovenia or Lithuania, compared to Brtiain.....yet those countries seem to churn out basketball players with no problem.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that basket balls were the same size wherever.--Johnluckie (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At my gym basketball is popular but there is no street culture of playing basketball. The reason why is because if the weather is good PE teachers send the kids out to play. If the waether is crap they send the kids out to play. They do not use the gym facilties in case the kids damage or use them up. Thats why we have no gymnasts or trampolinists or other basically indoor and equipment oriented sports. Sad but true. The teachers are tossers. Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize, but at least you still have physical education in your country.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the comment about the head start traditionally british sports have had over basketball it will probably never even come close to catching these sports. I think it is becoming more popular though with the improvement of the national team (now including a few young NBA stars) and i believe it will probably only get bigger with the influx of eastern europeans to britain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.232.163 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in a word 'fitba' - {speaking from a scottish veiwpoint} football is played at school, on the streets and watched on the TV, other sports are played {my mates and i played rugby and for one summer, street hockey}, but most kids play football.Perry-mankster (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 1 - length of race

Hi, how long in time (hours/minutes) is the average formula 1 race? Do they vary hugely between circuits? ps. I think 'Sports' should be put under one of the categories on the reference desk main page. Boomshanka (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2007 Formula One season the winning times for the first 8 races were (in order of the races run):

1:25:28.770
1:32:14.930
1:33.27.515
1:31:36.230
1:40:29.329
1:44:11.292
1:31:09.965
1:30:54.200

Which seems to suggest that the races are set up to last around 1.5 hours. Rockpocket 03:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 1hr30 -> 1hr 45 is probably usual. Races are limited to 2hrs, and you usually get close to that in the wet, though not quite there. Spa Francorchamps or Monte Carlo are probably the slowest races as they are in turn extremely long and extremely slow. -mattbuck 03:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the length of an F1 grand prix is defined by distance rather than time, so the duration really depends on how fast the distace is completed. This is all regulated in [1], section 5.3. A Grand Prix is 305 km plus the remainder of the lap that completes that distance, unless it's at Monaco where the distance is 260 km. The two hour time limit that Mattbuck mentions is also there, but I can't recall more than maybe once that it has come into play in the last couple of years. /Kriko (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Cricketer

One more for the kids back home; does anyone have any idea who the tallest (international or other) cricketer is/has been? I know Jacob Oram is 1.98m (6ft 6 in)... thanks :1 Boomshanka (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some candidates from the past - Curtly Ambrose, 2.01m (6ft 7in). Joel Garner known as 'Big Bird' stood 2.03m (6 ft 8 in). There was a fairly tall Aussie bowler in the early ninties but I'm not sure if he was taller than these two. Oh and Peter Fulton is pretty tall, he's nicknamed 'Two-metre Peter' but neither our page or cricinfo's gives his height. For a definitive answer you might want to ask the gurus at cricinfo. Lisiate (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tallest first class cricketer ever always used to be cited as Anthony Allom, a seam bowler who played a handful of times for Surrey around 1960 and was claimed to stand 6ft 11 in. But in those days no one went up to cricketers with tape measures to confirm their claims, and modern sources usually drop a couple of inches off his height. Will Jefferson of Nottinghamshire is usually cited as 6ft 10 in, although it's been known to vary half an inch either side (I've met him, but to take a tape measure to him would count as original research ...) AndyofKent (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions:

Did you know about

The "Killdozer" ? Seen it on the history Channel show Shockwave.
that Mississippi will make it illegal for FAT people to go to resteraunts, incl. burger joints and greasy spoons ? Heard about this on the news.

Did you know about this ? 65.173.105.118 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the Killdozer. Didn't know about the Mississippi law. Cryo921 (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it's not obvious, I'll iterate that a claim such as the Mississippi law would absolutely require appropriate sourcing to be added to an article. I'm quite skeptical of the claim as stated (I'm quite skeptical period), but I could see a case where some state representative has introduced a bill that will never see the light of day, one of thousands such unremarkable events each year. — Lomn 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source for the Mississippi story.[2] It is simply a proposed law that has zero chance of passing, just as Lomn speculated. --FreeKresge (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Printing USPS customs forms

When completing a united states postal service customs form online do you need a special type of printing paper or can you use regular printer paper. I look at the samples of the customs forms and they are small so i am wondering if i need small paper.--logger (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which for in particular are you referring too? I don't think it will matter unless you need to print it on a label or something. Cryo921 (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Form 2976A Thants the one--logger (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think regular paper will work. If not you can always trim off the excess. Cryo921 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Travel stickers"

In comic books and sometimes movies you see pack cases/briefcases with tons of stickers on them that say the name of a country or city. What are these called, and do they exist IRL? And why do you put them on the briefcase?

I'd call them a form of bumper sticker. They certainly exist, and are often placed on briefcases, suitcases, etc, to show where the traveler has been. They do not serve a formal purpose. — Lomn 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you travel by air and check your baggage, you know that a tag with a bar code and flight information is attached to the handle of your bag. Other forms of tag were used in the past. Well, baggage was also commonly checked on ships and trains when most people traveled that way. (Of course, what you checked might be different in the case of a multi-day voyage.) I think it must have been true at one time that the destination tag was a sticker applied to the side of the bag rather than fastened to the handle. Since stickers are hard to remove, they would accumulate on the bag over time, creating the effect being asked about. This could have inspired the "bumper sticker" type stickers that Lomn describes, after handle tags replaced the other kind.

But I'm guessing. Anyone actually know how baggage checking actually used to work, say 50-100 years ago? --Anonymous, 09:27 UTC, February 3, 2008.

When I was young (around 100 years ago) colourful stickers were commonly used to identify baggage. They also acted as a form of advertising - for most people, however, they were a kind of status symbol. (They were hartd to remove, anyway.)90.4.247.4 (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

Google Books result, describing the stickers. --LarryMac | Talk 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page isn't open to the public, or maybe it depends on where the query is made from. What's it say? --Anon, 01:10 UTC, February 6, 2008.

police chase

In the US, are the police obligated to chase everyone who avoids them? For example, if I was pulled over for going 5 over the limit, would the police be required to pursue me until I was caught, or could they decide that it wasn't worth it and give up? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can use their own discretion depending on the circumstances, but more than likely you'd get chased. Sometimes what they like to do is trail a suspect until they can get a helicopter in, and then follow from a distance from there. Bellum et Pax (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be extremely suspicious if you decided to flee for going only 5 over the speed limit, assuming you mean something like 5 mph or 5 km/h. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the desire to escape the police, even if you haven't apparently done anything/much that was illegal, indicates to them that you are likely afraid of something else even more illegal (like the car you are in is stolen, or you are transporting contraband, or you have a warrant out against you, etc.). So they'd probably assume it was "worth it" in such circumstances. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're only going 5 over, then they'll catch you almost immediately. So to avoid them you'd have to speed up...so disregarding all the other fine reasons above, the speeding offence has just increased in seriousness. Gwinva (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many police jurisdictions have policies forbidding the police from chasing your for minor occurrences such as minor traffic incidents. They have your license number, anyway, and can track you down that way. They're also forbidden in other jurisdictins from chasing faster than a certain speed limit. That's to prevent accidents with innocent bystanders. The rules are up to each jurisdiction. (This is in the US). Corvus cornix_talk 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the following text is a reference to some video game.

What video game is this text a reference or parody to:

"With the release of "DumbGood", the final reGame of the season, two children entered a state of extreme frenzy after just seeing a copy in a shop window. Their mother, trying to inflict some sense into their heads, opened them with pliers and barked some military words. The effect was disastrous: the children became giant tortoises armed with blowtorches and nukelar [sic] weapons! After leveling the entire Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, the two demigods went into heaven for a Eon of peace and fraternity." [sic]

71.220.211.235 (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read it? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Uncyclopedia. So there's no guarantee that it's a reference to anything, it may just be a stream of stupidity. FiggyBee (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMNT? I don't recall seeing a tortoise with weapons anywhere else... --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mutant turtle in one of the episodes of the first season of South Park, and I think he has some weapons. Unrelated to the OQ, just for you, Antilived. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from here, which is Uncyclopedia's page detailing nonexistent crimes based on existing video games. Therefore, it must be a reference to SOME video game. 71.220.211.235 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City lights

Something that has had me wondering for a long time. If you are looking at very distant lights (maybe street lights or car headlights), they tend to flicker constantly and any lights up close are solid and do not flicker. What exactly causes lights to flicker when veiwed at long distances and not short distances? Kelownian Pilot (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same phenomenon that makes stars twinkle. Basically, turbulent air refracting the light. FiggyBee (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing Coins to Canada

in order to send coins to canada it says in the United States Postal Service restrictions page for canada that i must do the following:

Coins; banknotes; currency notes; securities payable to bearer; traveler’s checks; gold, silver, platinum, manufactured or not; jewelry; and other valuable articles may be sent only in registered items.

Does this mean that i must add on registered mail service to my package to ship to canada or must i make insurance mandatory--logger (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means they have to be sent as registered items. I assume the payment for registration includes an insurance premium as it does in the UK (otherwise there's not much point in registering them). Check that the insurance is adequate for the value of the goods.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right thank You--logger (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing coins or other forms of money is generally a very bad idea. Even registered, the envelope may arrive empty. I would not personally ever send cash by mail if it is identified as such. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

boy or girl name

is Burleigh generally a boy's or girl's name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.138 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's generally a surname. FiggyBee (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some cultures (southeastern USA, e.g.), it's common to give a child the mother's maiden name as a given name without much regard to gender, so around here it could be either. --Sean 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were just given that name and asked what gender the person who had it was, I'd probably guess female, but wouldn't be confident. If you're thinking of naming a child Burleigh, consider that it is pronounced the same as "burly". Steewi (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the only Burleigh I've ever known was a "he" of Jamaican ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santegeezhe (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a baseball player named Burleigh Grimes. --FreeKresge (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bovril/Marmite drink

If I were to make one of these, how much bovril/marmite should I use?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reference for you, but I think in my life I once dissolved a teaspoon of borvil/marmite in a cup of hot water. So my anecdotal answer is 1 teaspoon per 250ml or thereabouts. Rfwoolf (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks. Was it nice? :D Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Yahoo Answers found here: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071129085713AALsnJU the answer is 1-2 teaspons per half a pint, depending on how you like it Rfwoolf (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a mug of this drink every night before bed and I use 2 heaped teaspoons of either product dissolved in scalding water, to which I add 6 or so drops of tabasco. Stir, drink, enjoy, go to bed, tummy "full", sleep, snore and wake up fresh and ready next morning. Don't think women like the taste when you're kissing them after drinking it though?81.145.242.50 (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow on beaches

How does snow settle on beaches? I would have thought the salt content of the sand would act just like grit on roads and melt it? thanks, RobertsZ (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See them. [3] [4] [5] Oda Mari (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There are a couple of principles at work. First of all, salt doesn't prevent water from freezing, it just lowers its freezing point. Seawater (about 3% various salts by weight) will freeze at a temperature just a couple of degrees Celsius below zero. Even very concentrated solutions of salt (twenty or thirty percent sodium chloride) will freeze if the temperature gets low enough: twenty below, give or take. Road maintenance crews take this into account when sanding and salting roads in the winter—if very low temperatures are forecast then their trucks will spread mostly sand, to improve traction on the ice and snow. If temperatures are forecast to be only slightly below freezing, road crews will spread mostly salt, to encourage melting. Back to your original question, then, if temperatures are low enough on the beach then the snow won't melt regardless of the amount of salt present.

The second point is that it takes a fair bit of salt to melt appreciable quantities of snow. If enough snow falls, the salt present will be diluted to the point where no additional melting can take place. As well, snow that melts and dissolves salt in the top layer of sand will tend to sink further into the sand, carrying salt with it. This leaves less salt at the surface, inhibiting further melting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The third point is that road salt is often calcium chloride, which heats up when it dissolves in water, while sea salt is mostly sodium chloride, which doesn't. --Carnildo (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18 to buy a lighter?

I'm 17, and I purchased lighters before. WEll today I go to the gas station and the cashier tells me I have to be 18 to buy a lighter. I was at a shell/true north gas station. Is this a store policy, or state or local law? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the state and municipality. It could also be a cashier confused about the applicability of laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. You'd have to be a bit more specific about where you were for us to take a guess. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOrthwest Ohio. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting

I go to an East Coast Ivy League school renowned for the intelligence of its students and all that, but lately it's struck me that a huge percentage of the students got in here because of sports (and strong academics) rather than academics alone. I think it's somewhere close to 30 percent of the students in my grade were "recruited". And of course that means that they were still quite smart and hardworking in high school, but it inevitably also means that were it not for athletics, they wouldn't have gotten in here, because they weren't THAT smart and hardworking. And I was wondering why my school even bothers with recruiting. We are basically uniformly noncompetitive in athletics. Because we will only recruit students who are also extremely good in school, our athletic standards aren't up to even competing well in the Ivy League divisions. And apart from one historic game that draws many alumni every year, there is tremendously low fan support or interest in athletics. I went to my friend's varsity tennis game the other day, and there were maybe 20 fans total. For a varsity sport. With so little interest among the student and alumni bodies in athletics, I don't see why my school bothers recruiting. How would they make any money off of it with so little fan support and such relatively middling athletic talent? If they aren't making any money, what are they trying to accomplish? They are simply lowering the quality of their applicant pool (and probably their odds of having rich alumni to donate) by accepting students for non-academic merits. Am I missing a part of the picture here? I just don't get why the school invests itself in this so much. It's quite costly for them, I suspect. 140.247.41.23 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to introduce a mix of students into the school? Whether you are the best sports-school or not really doesn't matter - unless you only believe in competing in events you stand a chance of winning. Perhaps the school has a tradition of welcoming less academically gifted students, but ones who excel at other forms of intelligence (academia after all is really only a small part of real world intelligence). I would also note that somebody who is 'given a chance' and then becomes very successful may be more likely to donate - if they feel they've been given a chance when they might have been passed over if the school were more 'normal' in its hiring policy. Sports themselves are a huge indicator of many positive traits - team-work, commitment, openness to learning, drive, psychological strength etc. etc. and they may believe that these traits are equally as important as being academically excellent in a series of other subjects (i'm not trying to suggest one form of intelligence is better than the other). ny156uk (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That makes sense, but then why such a huge percentage of the population? And why would the school focus on one form of diversity and not others? And the school certainly doesn't have a history of accepting non-academic students. And by academics I mean everything school and extracurricular-related (People here are editors of high school papers, founders of NGOs, kids who did serious research in high school, etc, not just skilled SAT takers.) I don't mean to be dismissive, but I don't see intellectual diversity and giving students a chance to be sufficient reasons for my school to recruit about 500 athletes every year. It just seems far-fetched. I have my suspicions that somehow my school makes big money off of this. I just don't see how. 140.247.41.23 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the government give funding/tax reductions/whatever to the school based on having a high-level of sports background students? The school will presumably make money on almost every student. I'd say the amount of students that go through the system V those who donate a significant amount will be such that hiring based on potential future donations would be unlikely. A school must also get the right 'mix' of students for the courses and qualification it can deliver. It me be bound by regulation (or even just market demand) to offer courses in areas that are more likely to have students from a sports background. I think there could be any number of reasons, you could always approach the school and ask them about it? (If you haven't already). ny156uk (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have figured out which college you attend based on your IP address, and I am somewhat familiar with it. I think that Ny156uk's first answer was correct. (The second was an intelligent guess, but incorrect. The US government doesn't offer funding linked to athletic recruits.) Harvard does make a point of leavening the population of brainiacs with people who have other abilities—not just athletes but people with musical talent, for example. It is probably also true that they have discovered, over the years, that athletes who meet their academic standards have intelligences in areas such as teamwork that tend to make them very successful in business. Those same people might tend to be very grateful to Harvard for offering them the connections and credentials to succeed in business. A decade or two later, that could yield very substantial alumni contributions for the university. Marco polo (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My height, and predicting it

Hi. I'm a very tall 16-and-a-half year old, and I've always been curious about my height. I've always wanted to get a good estimate of how tall I'm going to be when I stop growing. My doctor predicted I'd be 6'2" - 6'4" when I was a kid, which I have since surpassed. Here's my height chart as far back as I can remember (all were measured sometime in the first quarter of the given year; I was born at a normal size).

Year	Height
2003	5'7"
2004	5'10"
2005	6'0"
2006	6' 2 1/2"
2007	6'4"
2008	6'5 1/2" (possibly 6'6")

If there's anyone with some expertise in this field, or anyone who has a good guess, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at the human height article. I'm not going to pretend I can make an accurate guess, but maybe the section I pointed you out to will be of some help. And just out of curiosity, how tall are your parents? --Emery (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that article, but I will definetely re-read that section. My mom is 5'8", and my dad is 6'1". My tallest relative is my uncle, who's 6'3". 70.105.164.43 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This (http://www.eparenting.co.uk/health/howtall.shtml) would give you a rough estimate if you put in your parents height. I think they say it is basically the average of your parents /- a given amount depending on whether you're a boy or girl. Not very scientific and there are many factors that will affect how tall you become but as a nice little gauge it might be helpful ny156uk (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy with your height then it doesn't matter so much. I'm 5' 7" and I am incredibly envious :-) - Whatever height you are, just be happy with it! Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Growth projections are notoriously unreliable so don't make any plans for NBA stardom just yet. I was projected to be around 6'10", but then I basically stopped growing after the beginning of middle school (12-13) so all those years of shooting the basketball went to naught, sans the benefits of the exercise.--droptone (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year of Maryam Nemazee

The date of birth of Al Jazeera English news anchor Maryam Nemazee is 4 october 1975. Some more background informations, her place of birth is Dubai, she grew up in London, Englan, she has graguated from Oxford university . Tee tolten (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly taxes in Twilight Zone episode?

I just watched an episode of TTZ and I wonder how the tax could be over 90% of the one million dollars?! $900,040 or what they said is more than 90% of a million and I don't get this........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not a marginal rate - eg 90% on all earnings over $500,000 with earnings up to $500,000 taxed at a lower rate or rate? Some countries used to have the highest take rate at this level or higher - for example the United Kingdom had an extremely high top marginal rate (over 80%) up until around 1980 I think. Lisiate (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Taxes really can be that high, and higher. Here's a quote from the biography of James Herriot, the English author. "In 1976... [James] had to pay a top rate of tax of 83%, together with the hardly credible figure of 98% on investment income." 75.157.3.142 (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top rate of income tax was 95% in the UK in the sixties, as recorded in Taxman. Algebraist 00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

95?!???!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than that, at one point in the 70s the top tax rate could work out higher than 100%, so there had to be special provisions to reduce it in that case to make sure people were making something on the money. Skittle (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Lindgren, the creator of Pippy Longstocking books for children, was once taxed at 102%, and this may have contributed to the defeat of the Swedish government at the following election, according to the article on the author. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a novella by Keith Roberts, (but I can't remember the name) where one group of people (artists, I think) are taxed at over 100%, and become wards of the state, with their own minders to keep them out of mischief, or something. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The highest tax rate ever in the UK was a scarcely credible 147½%! It only lasted one year - the 1947/48 tax year - and was charged on unearned income in excess of £5,000 (about £125,000 in today's terms). Anyone earning more than £2,000 - about £50,000 in today's terms, so not just the super rich - paid tax at a marginal rate higher than 100%. AndyofKent (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Carper ?

Looking into family history found the job undertaken by an ancestor was a CARPER in Scotland. First thoughts were he was involved with fishing of Carp.... but is this the case ? please help. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliveybabey25 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has this quote from 1835:

The business to which children are first put in this business is carping; that is, preparing thistle-teasels for the workman, who fits them into the rods and handles for dressing the cloth. The little carpers sit at this easy work.

Algebraist 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?teasel comb, have a look here[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Avery (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the Internet died?

I don't know how to put this, but the Internet has died to me. It was much... better years ago. It was full of life, and joy. These days, everybody ignores me and nobody wants to talk about stuff. At the same time, more people than ever use it. WTF are they doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they're diluting it? Be a wiki editor instead! : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be as good of an indication as any of what people are doing on the internet. anonymous6494 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]