December 11

A friend of mine is wondering about the name of a kind of cake he had in Britain (specifically, a school canteen in Sussex) made up of bananas, ground-up biscuits, whipped cream, etc. It's something like "Benoffi". Any ideas? 133.25.61.35 (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banoffee pie 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which was invented in Sussex where it remains very popular.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very beginning of Obama's speech on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, he said "Your Majesties, your Royal Highnesses, ...." My question is why would he say both? I understand that the Norwegian royals were there, and presumably other royalty -- is this difference in address warranted simply by the fact that one set is sovereign and the other set visiting, or is it because of differing conventions in the nations that had royalty attending? I assume that it wasn't a mistake on his part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.180.134 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only monarchs and their consorts get "Majesty". Other persons of princely rank get "Highness". If various royals were in attendance, not all of whom were monarchs and consorts, then he'd be covering all the bases by using both forms of address. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any members of the British Royal Family were present, but Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh (who is not His Majesty) †, Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales) and Charles' siblings, Princes Anne (the Princess Royal), Prince Edward and Prince Andrew, are all Their Royal Highnesses (H.R.H.) Only H.M. The Queen is Her Majesty.

† The uncrowned consort of a British Queen regnant is no longer made King; Prince Albert was His Royal Highness. However the wife of a British King is usually made Queen and Her Majesty. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"no longer"? When was the consort of a British Queen regnant ever King? The only one I can think of is Philip II of Spain, and I don't think he ever actually did anything while married to Mary which qualified as royal. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William III of England, to answer your question. To answer the OP, differing countries have differing styles, and there were a number of members of the royalty and nobility. It is probably the case that Obama was covering "all of his bases" here and useing both forms, which should have covered everyone present regardless of local protocol. --Jayron32 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can buy that, though technically William was something like third in line to the throne, anyway.  :) 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some google search and can't find the info, so I hope you people can help. In the UK do you need a tv license if you own a television but never watch it, for example it's in a box in a cupboard with the plug removed? I read somewhere that you don't, and that the license is only for watching or recording television, not actually just owning a television set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.54 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Television licensing in the United Kingdom, licenses are needed for devices that are "'installed or used"' for 'receiving a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public.'" Given that TVs used exclusively as monitors or games consoles do not need a license, a TV that is not being used does not seem to need to be licensed either - only TVs that are actively in use to watch live programming. Obviously, if you ever decided to rescue the TV from the closet, then you would need to get a license. Xenon54 / talk / 11:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is detailed information in this Parliamentary document. It states that good evidence that a TV is installed but not being used is if no aerial is plugged in and the aerial socket is covered, and that the TV is detuned so that channels are not received - but none of these steps are necessary. So, according to this document, a TV in a box in a cupboard with the plug removed would certainly not need a license, but one plugged in and apparently ready to receive transmissions still does not need a license provided it is only ever used for permitted purposes, such as watching pre-recorded DVDs. Warofdreams talk 12:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just try arguing that with the Authority! They claim that a TV plugged in, etc., is in use. You have to prove that you only use it for games. And in court after court if necessary until you run out of money. This is a government institution we are talking about! Of course simply owning a TV that is clearly not in use does not rquire a licence to be bought. To switch slightly - I cannot understand why the British (and I am British) don't collect the TV fees with the property taxes (as in France). Then individuals can opt out via a tick box on the payment form. A far more efficient, and cheaper, way of collecting the tax.Froggie34 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Froggie34.[reply]

A better question is how they can justify such a fee in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Television licence, which goes into detail for many countries' license fees and what they are used for. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, specifically for the Brits, Television licensing in the United Kingdom and Television licensing in the United Kingdom (historical). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten that British TV is largely or totally publicly-funded. In a case like that, the license makes some sense - kind of a "voluntary tax". The USA is largely commercial TV, and public TV relies on a combination of public funding and individual pledges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, it has long been the policy of the US government that the airwaves are "free", that is you have the right to receive signals that are sent over the air. Now, if those signals are scrambled or encrypted or whatever, you may not have the right to unscramble them without a license of some kind for the decoder box, but that's a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI BB UK TV is a mixture of 'publicly funded' and commercial. There are several channels of BBC programmes and there are 3 other terrestrial commercial broadcasters. In addition cable and satellite companies can provide dozens more channels of 'TV Lite'. The major advantage of 'publicly funded' TV is no interruptions every 10 or 15 minutes for advertisements. I have watched US TV and I have watched UK TV. I know which irritated me more. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Channel 4 is, unbeknownst to most people, also publicly owned. Unlike the BBC it shows adverts to fund itself, but was ultimately set up by government and originally was guaranteed a certain minimum income from it if the advertising didn't work out. The only fully commercial terrestrial channel in the UK is ITV (which, interestingly for some of those discussing below, is usually more or less rubbish). 93.97.184.230 (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial TV (and radio, for that matter) have always had advertising, which is certainly irritating, but without it there would be no TV or radio as we know it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy claim, Bugs. To start with, many pay TV channels without advertising are "commercial TV". And in 1939 and 1940 there were no ads; see History of television. You could imagine a new type of TV that was very expensive, with the excess cost used by the manufacturers to fund broadcasting. Ads are not required for TV to exist — show some imagination. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The argument that "it's what we've had so far, thus it couldn't have been any other way" is not actually rigorous at all. Especially when there are other economic models (and especially when everybody has for the last few years been noting that subscription models seem to produce far better content on the whole, and advertisement-based models all seem to slip into "reality TV" modes). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would take issue with the "far better content" claim. Most of the best shows of the last decade — Babylon 5, The West Wing, Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series), Supernatural (TV series) — came out of the ad-based model. Granted, there are a few HBO or Showtime shows that belong in the same company (Dead Like Me, possibly The Sopranos which I never really watched so I can't comment, maybe True Blood), but I don't see a real trend along the lines you state. --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this thread derailed quickly. Thank you Xenon54 and Warofdreams for the helpful answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.54 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of ink spilled lately in business/entertainment periodicals on the fact that the trends that you get with ad-based models are generally pretty bad—lowest common denominator, lukewarm sitcoms, and, finally, reality TV (which is so much cheaper than making "real content", and caters so strongly to a channel-flipping audience, that it has, for example, completely replaced anything resembling music on the so-called music television channel). I do think you can make the argument, even without that, that the percentage of critical darlings on HBO/Showtime are a lot higher than the percentage on the ad-based model. Part of that is just the scale involved, but a lot of that is the investment model (the pay channels have a lot more riding on each show—ad-based channels seem to follow a "chuck a lot at the wall and see what sticks" model). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a wandering thread... :-) Anyway, as I recall, it's a broadcast receiving license for tv, so if you are not receiving broadcasts for tv, then you don't need one. Not that they will leave you alone, you will be hounded by phone, mail, and people at the door who will be convinced you have a tv (even if there is not a single unit in the building) - they have the vision that no one in their right mind would want to live without a tv (I know someone without a tv, so I know this is what they do). But without any proof there is nothing they can do - of course if you are watching tv without a license then they may catch you - but I think there are only a very few detector vans, they prefer the badgering method.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. with respect to the amount of ads - if I recall correctly it's 8 minutes per hour max here.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would that it were only eight minutes! or is my mental stopwatch faulty? Dbfirs 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do i repalce the oil pump seal in my 87 2.4 turbo diesel totota pick up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezelyota (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hire a Mechanic or take it to an auto-repair shop...Get a Haynes Manual - they are well worth the investment if you plan on repairing your car as it breaks and personally i've never seen another company produce manuals that are anywhere near as good as Haynes do. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the manuals for Toyota - find the one that matches your vehicle and you should be fine(http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&categoryId=14540&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=10215&top_category=null). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against the above endorsement of Haynes Manuals one can weigh such comments as "Haynes manuals' reputation for poor information quality" (Scheinwerfermann 14:52, 27 July 2007), "there is a great deal of support for my dim opinion of Haynes' manuals." (ibid 03:03. 19 August 2007), and "I identify with your prejudice of Haynes being the Big Book Of Lies, some of their info is a/ unclear, b/ out of date, c/ just plain wrong in certain instances..." (82.46.180.56 18:31, 22 April 2008). Full disclosure: I own Haynes manuals for 4 vehicles in 2 languages and they are well thumbed manuals.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the Haynes manuals are often referred to by old car enthusiasts as "The Big Book of Lies" (that term is so commonplace in our Mini club that you hardly ever hear the real name for them!) - but in truth, they are the best of a generally bad bunch. To be fair, many cars go through small design revisions at intervals of maybe 6 months or less - and with the wide range of optional extras on some cars, it can be literally true that no two cars are the same. When a car manual spans maybe half a dozen years of models - there are bound to be differences. So while I'll continue to describe the books as "The big book of lies" - I own a bunch of them and I'd certainly recommend them above other similar books. SteveBaker (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I thought your Mini got munched. Did you get another one or do you just still go to the meetings and sob quietly? :) Franamax (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Haynes car manuals that I have seen are aimed at the home mechanic and give some advice about the degree of difficulty or special tools needed for various repairs. Generally they are helpful enough for a task like the OP (replacing an oil seal) but not much use for motor engineering such as reconditioning a transmission or race-tuning a camshaft or a carburetter. This could be SteveBaker's mini club. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a body of law growing up that says somebody can't sue you for violating their free speech rights if you say you don't want to hear it? 4.249.3.116 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have the right to free speech, but there is no compulsion for anybody to listen.Froggie34 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Froggie34[reply]

Maybe you could give a more specific scenario? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled that there would even need to be law on this. The possibility of such a suit existing at all, let alone being successfully prosecuted, would be as unjust as a robber being able to sue the home owner for injuries sustained in the act of robbing a house. We know there have been cases like this, but let the absurdity end there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that, in general, anyone can sue anyone. That doesn't mean the suit will go anywhere. But I'd like to hear an example of what the OP is talking about - because, frankly, I've never heard of anyone suing on such a basis. If someone's standing on a soapbox speaking in public, there is no compulsion, by anyone, to pay any attention to him. And he has no basis for suing someone for ignoring him. If they try to stop him from talking, that might be a different matter, although "disturbing the peace" and other things could come into play. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Bugs says, there are not many laws — in the US, anyway — that prevent people from suing someone, even for something utterly stupid. If it's stupid enough then you would just show up in court, and you or your attorney would move to dismiss the case, for one reason or another, and the judge would quickly agree; and you may be able to go after them for damages for filing a trivial court case. Their attorney is considered an officer of the court and has certain obligations, including the pursuit of justice, and participating in the lawsuit you describe might get the attorney into trouble with the judge and get him fined. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that whole "anyone can sue anyone" canard thrown around for a while. There's an element of truth to it, but (I'm going to use federal rules here because a lot of states fashion their rules after them) Rule 11 provides some strict penalties against attorneys that file frivolous claims, but there's nothing limiting Rule 11 to attorneys. Criminal appeals by defendants are different, but civil cases can in theory be subject to a number of frivolous claim sanctions. Shadowjams (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could imagine a situation where someone is cold-calling your home phone line at 2am - and when you try to sue them for doing it, they claim that you are infringing on their right to free speech. It might not be unreasonable to deny them that claim by simply saying that you don't want to hear what they have to say to you. Arguably, the right not to be forced to listen ought to be as firmly enshrined in law as the right to be able to speak freely. If someone stands outside my bedroom window yelling through a megaphone all night - I think it's entirely reasonable to use the law to make them shut up...free speech notwithstanding! Obviously there are other ways that the law could handle that - but there are certainly cases where you could imagine it being worthwhile (as well as cases where it would be a disaster). I'm not aware of any body of law that's growing around that idea though. SteveBaker (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the test is usually whether the restrictions on expression are content-neutral. If the physical means of your expression interferes with my peaceful enjoyment of my lawful abode, as opposed to what that expression signifies, then I have a claim against you.

This is a distinction that a lot of people seemed to miss, in the debates over "desecration" of the US flag. (Note in passing that the word desecration carries with it implications of sacrality, which ought to be seen as idolatrous by Christians, but that's not the point here.) So people would argue, in apparent seriousness, that the court's decision allowed someone to rip a flag off a building and burn it.

But that's total nonsense. You aren't allowed to rip anything off a building and burn it. It's destruction of property; this is completely independent of what the thing burned signifies. If on the other hand you're punished for burning your own US flag, in a way that you wouldn't be punished for burning, let's say, an old T-shirt, then it's clear that the law is aimed at the meaning rather than the physical act. And that's where the 1st amendment should step in and say, no, the government's not allowed to do that. --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard anyone argue that a lack of prohibition against specifically burning a U.S. flag could be interpreted as a right to burn any U.S. flags at will. That seems like just reductio ad absurdum on the face of it. I've never heard it put forward as as serious argument. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid logical technique. You mean a strawman argument. --Tango (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman or not, people did argue it, and appeared to believe it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty silly argument. I mean, there is no law against burning flagpoles either - but that doesn't give me the right to just set light to anyone's flagpole - unless I own the thing or have permission from the owner. So if people are seriously making that claim, they are idiots. SteveBaker (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is clearly ridiculous, stated that baldly, yes. But the only slightly more subtle version that you proposed, involving the megaphone, seemed to be one where you countenanced the idea that free speech might be relevant, even if it ultimately lost out.

And of course it does get subtle in the corner cases. Content isn't always irrelevant (threats of violence are not protected speech, even if they don't break any noise regulations). And free speech concerns are sometimes held to override restrictions that a property owner might legitimately impose in a neutral-content context (see the Pruneyard case; I think it was wrongly decided, but I wouldn't say it was a slam-dunk). --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could i use options in pairs trading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarathsv (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pairs trade article suggests to me that you might buy a put option for the higher-priced of the two stocks, and a call option for the lower-priced. I don't know whether this is a better or worse idea than simply shorting the higher-priced stock and buying the lower-priced stock. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information on the formation of the Network of Baptist Associations, a networking organization for Baptist Associations and networks across North America. Where should I look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgilstrap3761 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a site called Google where you can go and search for things like this. Type "network of baptist associations" (including the double quotes) into the search box and press 'search'. Any one of the first eight links in the resulting search will give you contact information. Formation information is under the "About us" menu. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember vividly from many years ago having heard of human beings being used as crash test dummies for Capital punishment. Does anyone know where/if that happened, or, more likely, where the legend emerged? --77.211.125.218 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it on snopes.com. It's ridiculous on the face of it, of course. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I can't see it happening. Aside from anything else, you'd have someone totally panic-stricken - trying to escape from the car - and generally not behaving in the slightest like an unsuspecting motorist. If you strapped them down to stop them from doing any crazyiness - the mere act of doing so would screw up the results. No - I don't think this has ever happened. SteveBaker (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past corpses have been used as crash test dummies. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? APL (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crash_test_dummy#Cadaver_testing - so yes, that definitely happened. Bodies of criminals who'd recently suffered capital punishment even...but live criminals...no. There are also people who voluntarily become human crash test dummies. But forcing a criminal to do it...I very much doubt it. SteveBaker (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...a possible example of cruel and unusual punishment? Astronaut (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site may be of interest. Not a convict, but a living CTD. Matt Deres (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help, I guess that it was cadaver testing that I heard of. All the best --77.211.85.60 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Crash Test Dummies are here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]