Miscellaneous desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24

Music in supermarkets

How is the music played in supermarkets selected? Is there some kind of feed or playlist or station that is the same throughout a specific chain? One discount chain I go to seemingly plays any pop that would have made its way to radio stations in the past 30 years or so, no matter how obscure. Pinback for instance, who I love, but who have also never even broken through to any level of mainstream radio airplay as far as I know. I also remember hearing something a while back about how they will never play anything above a certain tempo, because it would be make shoppers walk too fast and therefore buy less, is there any truth to that? Recury (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we have an article on this, it is hidden under some other name. But this on-line music store specialises royalty-free music (which may account for the older more obscure songs at your store). The site has two columns of places listed, ranging from grocery stores through dentists to airports, for which they claim to provide music appropriate to the psychological needs of their respective customers. They don't say if this is based on studies or their own guesswork. I did hear once of a theatre fire in which lives were saved by playing loud marching music, thereby reducing the panic to the exits, but this might be just another urban myth.- KoolerStill (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Industrial music services, which lists several such systems, including Muzak. Broadly speaking, I think that the very large chains (e.g. CVS Caremark) make (or copy) their own playlists and insert their own desired promotional or informational announcements in between the songs. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it varies a lot depending on the customers they are trying to attract. When I complained to Somerfield about their force-fed muzak they told me their selection was targeted at a BBC Radio 2 customer base. The worst muzak I've heard was in the former Woolworths (UK) who appeared to target young deaf people, so it's not really surprising that they went bust.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organizations which collect royalties for song composers are zealous about not allowing businesses to play music for free, at least in the U.S> and Canada[1]. "Old" rock and pop songs are rarely old enough to be public domain, and stores do not usually play popular songs of the 19th century. I know of a small store in the U.S. which has a satellite receiver which picks up a store music channel which is played over the public address system. The owner pays a monthly subscription fee. The songs are really well done instrumental covers of pop, rock, and jazz tunes of the last several decades, and the original artists get their royalty checks. There is more than one channel. The songs are from some huge playlist and repeat only after weeks have gone by. In the U.S. Muzak was and maybe still is carried on an FM subcarrier transmitted by regular FM broadcast stations, which is only audible on special receivers. If a restaurant or bar in the U.S. plays a regular FM station, they risk fines. Maybe they pay an annual license fee. Nothing here constitutes legal advice, but there appear to be special provisions for small Mom and Pop stores in the US to play an ordinary radio (not PA connected). Edison (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think the muzak versions of "Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Old Oak Tree" were the most execrable things ever devised by the mind of man. But when I hear what's played in supermarkets these days, I'm not so sure. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it can easily be MUCH worse! Many years ago a Kroger branch near us installed motion detectors under various food counters so that they'd play some god-awful sound effect as you walked past. For example, as you passed the seafood counter, you'd hear sounds of the ocean and seagulls...at the dairy counter, cows mooing. I spoke to the manager and told him in no uncertain terms that he'd lost my several thousand dollars per year business by doing that...and asked whether he thought that it would actually attract people to his store in any conceivable way. He just muttered something about headquarters coming up with the idea and how his staff had been complaining about it - and there was nothing he could do about it because it's "policy". Meh. SteveBaker (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The store I worked at in High School installed stuff like that. Us employees figured out that if you stuck a piece of tape over the sensor, it shut up. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing lines on the Tube

I will be travelling from Heathrow to Victoria by tube with a heavy suitcase and a carry on bag. I will need to change from the Picadilly to the Circle/District line at either Gloucester Road or South Kensington. Can anyone tell me which station would be the easiest in light of my luggage. Thanks 80.254.147.68 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the District/Circle line is one of the shallowest on the Underground, and the Piccadilly line one of the deepest, I wouldn't have thought there was much to choose between the two. Gloucester Road tube station#Station layout makes mention of a lift, whereas there is no mention of lifts in South Kensington tube station, so I'd go for Gloucester Road myself. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is actually to change at Hammersmith where all you have to do is walk across a platform as the two lines run next to each other at the same level. Your journey time on the train will be slightly longer, but as your interchange will be much quicker and easier your overall journey will be a couple of minutes quicker. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the "journey time on the train be slightly longer"? Do you mean the time spent on the District/Circle line train? By the way, I silently fixed your link to Hammersmith. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The District Line stops at West Kensington and the Piccadilly doesn't, and the District may also make a longer stop at Earl's Court because different branches of the line meet there. Also, Gloucester Road or South Kensington are served by more branches and therefore more trains than Hammersmith, so you may get one at bit quicker. But that's only after you get to the platform. As Thryduulf says, the easier change of trains at Hammersmith is the dominating fact. Change at Hammersmith (or the next stop, Barons Court, which has the same layout). By the way, before boarding the District Line train at the other side of the platform, do check the departure sign to make sure it is not going to Edgware Road. (That is not a normal route but they can occasionally be diverted that way.) A train to any normal, i.e. any other, destination on the District Line is fine for Victoria.

Final comment: if by any chance your reason for going to Victoria is to get a train to Gatwick Airport, consider taking the bus (coach) from Heathrow to Gatwick instead. Then you don't have to change at all, and it should be faster unless traffic is pretty bad that day. --Anonymous, 09:51 UTC, June 24, 2009.

Heathrow Tube

Can anyone tell me which terminal at Heathrow has the easiest access to the tube system. Thanks 80.254.147.68 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quickest access would be Heathrow Terminal 4 tube station, as the other station serves the other three terminals. But note that Terminal 4 is a long way from the other terminals. There are lifts at both stations for disabled access.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) All the terminals have easy access to the tube - see Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3 tube station, Heathrow Terminal 4 tube station and Heathrow Terminal 5 tube station. Terminal 4 has a slightly lower service level than the others, and I believe that Terminal 4 also has the longest walk from the terminal, but this is not very significant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

company watchdog

I recently read in a research paper about a old company called Jardine Matheson Holdings, now based in HK but operated by the Keswick family of Scottish descent. The company doesn't have a very innocent past (established itself trading opium), but they don't do that anymore (hopefully). It's an absolutely huge company now, with arms reaching all over the world.

The paper I read detailed the activities of JMH in Indonesia as they burn (illegally) huge swaths of rainforest to make room for oil palm plantations, and how groups were attempting to stop them by influencing buyers in the UK by raising awareness of the problems with oil palm. Now obviously this was done because such groups lack the resources to attack the company legally, which is unfortunate.

Anyway, my question is to do with the fact that this kind of information is "out there". Is there a watchdog that reports on the activities of big companies like this? The reason why I ask is because I'm sure investors would be interested to know, if they could, of this sort of exploitation. JMH is such a huge entity and it's businesses span many industries all over the world, so a large scandal could potentially effect many of it's children companies, or companies that it holds large investments in. If there is such a watchdog, is this kind of information available on the internet?

I'd be grateful for any relevant information at all. Thanks! 124.154.253.146 (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look for reliable sources. Google should help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For criminal conduct, the "watchdog" is the police. For breaches of corporate law or regulations, the "watchdog" is the local securities regulator - and the stock exchange plays a part by enforcing its listing rules and other such rules.

For wholly owned subsidiaries of Jardine Matheson, you would look towards its "home" jurisdiction - Hong Kong. For other companies affiliated with Jardine Matheson, but which may themselves be listed or incorporated or domiciled in another country, you would look towards that jurisdiction.

If you want to report illegal activities by a JM company, you might need something more solid than a "paper" - but that depends on the paper. Then you would find out which country the illegal activities are alleged to be carried out in, and contact the police there.

If the local police do not agree with you on the assessment of the legality of those activities, then I'm afraid there isn't that much you can do to get those activities "reported". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from any government or legal regulation, there's been a movement in many countries for "socially-responsible investing", a service much sought not only by individual investors but by those who manage the funds and pensions of charities, churches, trade unions, local governments and similar non-profit institutions. Several watchdog groups exist and have various systems for ranking companies on their policies in such areas as business ethics, the environment, tobacco, alcohol, armaments, human rights, energy, labour policy, equal opportunity, fair treatment of suppliers and relations with the inhabitants of the areas where they operate. There are also a number of investment funds which give preference in their portfolios to what they judge to be socially-responsible securities. The few names and details I have escape me now, but try Googling phrases such as "socially responsible investment". Outside pressure, including pressure from investors, does sometimes have at least a fleeting effect on corporate policies, as seen in the cases of South African divestment and distributing infant milk formula in the Third World. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two sites approaching the issue from contrasting viewpoints, found by Googling "Corporate Social Responsibility monitors" and "Corporation Watch":

More specific search terms should bring you closer to the particular things you're seeking. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just want to have a exciting experience and a good feeling for protecting nature. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you have hard evidence of criminal wrong-doing, and aren't just spreading slander and rumor, why haven't you gone to the police? DOR (HK) (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the question more carefully. The information is at least second-hand since it's from a research paper and hardly solid direct evidence upon which the Indonesian police can act (always assuming they wished to do so; there are often huge profits to be made by local landowners, soldiers and other authorities in such plantation of Borneo/Kalimantan, which has been happening for decades). I'm sure that the groups that are fighting the rain-forest depletion (perhaps the Rainforest Alliance) have already pursued whatever direct paths to prosecution and police activity might be open to them. And the original enquirer said they don't have the funds to pursue litigation. Which is why (I assume) they're pursuing a campaign of public agitation and investor education, in order to generate enough pressure on management to discourage further cutting. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there was some misunderstanding. I was using JMH as an example; I have no intentions of accusing the company of anything or spreading rumors. My question was if there existed organizations that seek to represent investors' interests in reporting accurately what sort of activities a company (any company) is involved in. I used JMH as an example because it obviously takes advantage of the fact that it's a global entity with investors in countries far from its operations. The same can be said about many big companies. Something along the lines of "corporate social responsibility monitor" sounds about right, I'll do some more searching, thanks. 124.154.253.146 (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

business strategy

why does the External environment factors that are uncontrollable by organization influence the business policies.

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. (Moreover, if this isn't a homework question and you really need someone to explain why a fire or an earthquake, just to pick two random examples of an external environmental factors, influence business policies, I'd have to suggest that perhaps you just aren't thinking very hard about this.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Because no business is an island, entire of it self. —Tamfang (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a leading question. It supposes that external forces influence business policies. Sometimes they don't. There's a word for those businesses: Bankrupt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or (bang up to date here) Government-owned. (That might be two words). --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem: Leading question </pedant> AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic Buenos Aires

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford disappeared for several days, with his staff telling reporters he had gone hiking, but when he showed up he said he had actually gone to Buenos Aires to "recharge" because he wanted to "do something exotic." What are some of the more exotic things for tourists to do in that city (besides the opera, the symphony, and seeing notable buildings)? Edison (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct answer to the question, but the definition of exotic suggests that for a South Carolinian to visit Buenos Aires, Argentina would be considered exotic in and of itself. Coreycubed (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what might he do in Buenos Aires that is "exciting and foreign" as the definition cited says? Edison (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This msnbc article says the exotic and foreign thing he was doing was an Argentinian mistress. [2] Livewireo (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, more coverage on that then on the mass riots in Iran. I guess the media knows how to set priorities. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends where you are. Here in the UK, the exotic appeal that Buenos Aires holds for Governor Sanford has entirely passed us by. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like unbalanced coverage, then. We in the states heard recently all about Brit politicians getting in trouble for billing the taxpayers to rent porn or to have the moat cleaned. Our evening news even gave considerable coverage to the Profumo Affair back when. Edison (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went and checked the BBC News website again after posting this; they are reporting it, and giving it high profile - as an 'Americas' story. Since they removed the option for UK users to see the international home page by default, I wasn't seeing it there. So they are reporting it - but have recently made a stupid alteration to their site which conceals it and makes them look unbalanced in the way you describe. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also warranted a mention on the 10 O'Clock News. Angus Lepper^{(T, C)} 00:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read something tonight that if there's any good news about this story, along with the one the other day about the GOP Senator out west, it's that this won't really hurt the GOP much, since their poll numbers are already so low. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hijabi nude pics

Is there a website where I can view the pics of Muslim girls who are naked and wearing hijab?

The obilgatory xkcd link states there is porn of everything. On the other hand, our article on hijab states In popular use, hijab means "head cover and modest dress for women" among Muslims, which most Islamic legal systems define as covering everything except the face and hands in public. So unless it has other meanings, it's difficult to see how you could be both naked and completely covered. Googling "hijab porn" comes up with pictures you may be interested in. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP could look at pictures of women in hijab and imagine how naked they might be underneath. Edison (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, where is this OP?

"OP" means "Original Poster" it refers to the person that asked the question. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we keep a list of strangest questions ever asked on the RDs? This one would have to go toward the top. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone does, but feel free to start. Algebraist 01:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such things have been attempted in the past... 124.154.253.146 (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it here that someone once asked for pictures of people having sex whilst wearing Hazmat suits? I did see someone randomly requesting that in a non-porn place somewhere last year. The thought of someone having that as a specific fetish cracked me up... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's nigh impossible. I mean, if the woman's covered head to toe in a hijab, how will anyone know if she's naked underneath??? 117.194.224.3 (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that by hijab the OP means headscarf only. He is not talking about a burka. That is my guess, at least. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about "strangest", but it's pretty creepy. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded about the Wierd Al Yankovic song and music video Living in an Amish Paradise. The article says "In one part, two boys are looking at a supposed Amish porn magazine (the cover slogan says "Plow My Field!"), but in the centerfold all the woman is showing is her shin (this, anyway, is considered to be very scandalous)." Then there's "Anything Goes (song):" In olden times, a glimpse of stocking was thought to be something shocking..." In the Dick van Dyke Show, the network set a strict limit on how many episodes a season Mary Tyler Moore could wear Capri pants, which revealed the shape of her well-toned calves. Annette Funicello was not allowed to wear a bikini in the 1963 "Beach Party" movie. In the 1970's the shape of womens' nipples was often visible through blouses or swimsuit tops, after an iconic 1976 poster of Farrah Fawcett in a red swimsuit displayed hers, such that stick-on nipples were added to store mannequins. Now aging hippie ladies are about the only ones with any nipple show through. Edison (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but why would you want that? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but those ladies are wearing "jilbabs," not hijabs. (NSFW) Edison (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this might be what the OP is after - women wearing nothing more than a jilbab and a smile. It seems to exist. Steewi (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very reminiscent of "Wearing nothing but a Wimple and a smile," like a Nun given to debauchery. Edison (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this question before, in the last six months or so. There is an actual term for this fashion trend of "sexy" hijab, but I can't for the life of me think of it. My Google-fu is weak tonight, but search terms like "hijab-sexy" and "hijab-chic" seem to get you what you're looking for. Matt Deres (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed so hard when i read this i told a couple of friends who decided in there ultimate wisdom to find some pictures/video----suggest you look harder there is a TON of this stuff----but i absolutly refuse to give you the links lol it has people in Burkas lets say lifting and showing ect...but not being a perverted person i absolutly refuse to give any links LMAOChromagnum (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is just a note to remind you of our policies regarding respect and politeness on Wikipedia. In a nutshell, sarcastic comments such as this and insults such as this are not productive. The relevant guidelines can be found at WP:NICE and WP:BITE and are more formally laid out at WP:Etiquette. You've made some positive contributions on the RefDesk, but you should keep in mind that disruptive behaviour is not tolerated and can lead to disciplinary action. Matt Deres (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have gone to these pages and seen the comments you have mentioned there is also one on a scientology page!!!!

I am extremly angry about the comments signed with my account name please except my extremly sincere appologies i have just caught my work colleuge using my account to go through the refrence desks please remove the two comments you have seen plus the one i caught him doing on scientology page.

I will issue an appology if needed to the relevent pages, if you feel the need to take action i can understand however this will not be happing again. Frustrating because i enjoy this site but feel i will be frowned apon now, rest assured this issue is resolved again my appologiesChromagnum (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Study of human sexuality

I want to know

1. Is there any post-graduate degree (MD) or diploma offered by any recognized medical school in sexual medicine after completion of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, particularly in the US, UK or Canada?

2. Is American College of Sexologists a government-recognized institution? Does a Fellowship of the American College of Sexologists (F.A.C.S.) have any academic validity?

3. Does American Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists recognized by the government or by medical school accreditation bodies?

4. Does any university (recognized by the government in which it is located) offer postgraduate degree/diploma/certificate in sexology? SuperRobotCat (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the US or Canada, but the UK I think sexual medicine would be a specialism within medicine, rather than a separate degree. You would go through the standard process for becoming a doctor and would specialise in sexual medicine once you get the chance. --Tango (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two different things are being talked about. Sexual medicine is a branch of medical science focussed on sexual health, and regulated and accredited (generally) in the same way that other branches are. Sexology is a general study of sexual matters, and seemingly not that tightly regulated. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore on DJ Clayworth's bit, sexology is more ofa cross-disciplinary focus of study rather than a degree. It covers aspects of medicine, psychology, sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and other smaller portions of other fields. Studying any of these can lead to a career in sexology if you select your course of study well. Consider choosing a university where there is a centre for research in sexual health. The medical aspect is covered in specialised research following a degree in medicine. This means that you would complete your degree in medical science and then find a research group focussing on sexual health. There are different aspects of this, including sexually transmitted infections, reproductive health, impotence, genetic conditions of the sexual organs, psychiatry of sexual conditions, etc.

I cannot comment on the official recognition of the professional societies. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most cars

What junkyard has the largest number of broken cars? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does something stop being referred to as a car and start being referred to as a pile of parts? Dismas|^(talk) 11:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it is not identifiable as a car. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would an otherwise intact car, which is missing only its outer sheetmetal, and thus not "recognizable" be a car, or would the shell itself, without any working parts, be "recognizable" as a car? Most junkyards are in a state of flux, with cars in various states of dismantle as parts are sold, sheetmetal is packaged for recycling, etc. etc. One could certainly rate a junkyard based on raw tonnage of material contained, or sales of parts, or some other quantifiable rubric; but a raw headcount of cars inside the junkyard becomes problematic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I am looking for the one that processes the most cars a year. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be "Harry's U-Pull It" in Hazleton, PA. At least, that's what their site claims. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering files "permanently" deleted in recycle bin

Moved to WP:Reference desk/Computing Exxolon (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California State Parks' Opponents

It seems like I've only been hearing one side of the whole state park closure debate. It seems like everybody wants to keep the parks open. Yet, clearly there are some people who want to close the parks. However, I haven't seen much of an argument other than "outdoor recreation is a luxury" and "we have to do this, there's no alternative." What do those supporting closure of the parks have to say about the studies that show the parks are an integral part of the state's economy? What do they have to say about all the tourist money lost if the closures go ahead? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While no doubt there are some people who want to close the parks, my personal suspicion is that almost none of those people are actually in government. In my opinion the proposal is a way for Schwarzenegger to rattle some cages; if it actually stays that way in the budget it's probably because he miscalculated. Or maybe he even wants it to be that way for a year or so, but again not because he really wants them to be closed, but more to convince people that things are serious.

No comment on whether this is actually a good plan. It's just my intuition about what he's thinking. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 24 billion dollar budget gap that has to be closed or the government will start being unable to pay its bills (unlike the federal government, California can not run a deficit and finance it with borrowed money). I don't think it's a matter of people hating the parks, it's a matter of them prioritizing other things, like education, prisons etc. Would you rather parks being temporarily closed to visitors or releasing a whole bunch of prisoners early? That's the kind of tough choice facing the government, and to be honest I don't really buy the "integral part of the state's economy" line. Well let me rephrase that: integral, perhaps, important, probably not. No it's not ideal that people wouldn't be able to visit the parks, but something has to give. TastyCakes (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That money has to be cut is certain. The parks budget is at best a small piece of that puzzle, though, and it's not clear that eliminating it will actually save money (people will go into the parks anyway; there's really no way to keep them out, and without rangers there they are more likely to cause wildfires, which are very expensive).

So you have to wonder — did Arnie really think it was so important to shave off a tiny sliver from the cutbacks to general assistance, education, MediCal? Or that he could push through cuts of, I don't know, 15.1% to those things, but not 15.2% (just making up numbers here — I haven't actually done the arithmetic)? Or, did he want to make a point? My guess is that he wanted to make a point. He may have thought that there were a lot of people who voted against Props 1A-E who wouldn't notice the cuts in the aforementioned big-budget items, but would notice the closure of the parks. As I said in my previous edit summary, this is just speculation on my part, but it rings true to me. --Trovatore (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably he wants to make cuts to a wide variety of things so that he can cut something that each voter actually uses. It's too easy for the voters to say "Eh, It'll work itself out." if the cuts don't affect them personally. APL (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It's to make a direct hit on voters. And, frankly, it's to make them suffer the consequences (i.e. to punish them) for voting against the tax hikes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather they released the prisoners early. California's prisons are horribly overcrowded and many of the inmates are there for no good reason, serving inflated mandatory sentences under Three Strikes or stupid drug possession laws. -- BenRG (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's an idea: Instead of releasing the prisoners, turn them into forest rangers. They'll be paid prison wages, and it will cut down the overcrowding of parks by tourists. Maybe just don't put any arsonists in that job, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the idea of putting them all on the Channel Islands (the California ones) and just let them take care of themselves. you wouldn't need thousands of guards, just a few patrol boats to make sure they dont have their buddies rescue them. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea, until the President's plane crashlands there, and we have to send in Snake Plissken (who, at 58, is no spring chicken) to get him out. 86.149.201.131 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAYER

Why isn't Bayer in the article of list of main pharmaceutical companies by size?

That is a good question, even if it's not a RefDesk question. It appears to have been removed by an IP editor back on June 2 with no explanation. APL (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last year's Fortune Global 500 listed Bayer as number 155 among all international companies, marginally below GlaxoSmithKline (no. 151) and noticeably above the Roche Group (no. 175).

See Fortune magazine, July 21, 2008 (Vol. 158, no. 2), page 166, or go to the Fortune Global 500 web page. (Incidentally, the next Global 500 list should be out next month.) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, need I remind everyone that If there's a problem, go ahead and fix it...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even seen the article in question; I just happen to have the Global 500 issue of Fortune. Is there something that stops you from heeding your own reminder? ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the source material; you apparently do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've seen the list — no, I don't have enough source material (e.g. for the amount spent on research). I was merely confirming that Bayer AG (now BayerSchering or something) belonged in the list. The Fortune Global 500 link I gave will give you about as much as I have before me here. My impression is that someone was updating the list and somehow passed over both Bayer and Schering-Plough, which are now apparently merged. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about the list of only pharmaceutical societies and not of all kinds of socities.I'm chemist and i know that Bayer is one of the main in the world.