Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 14

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.

January 14

Cognac expiration

I have a bottle of Martell in my kitchen that I discovered. I opened the box and examined the bottle and I noticed a date in 2005 at the bottom of the bottle. Is it an expiration date or a production date? And does this cognac expire? The article did not say if cognac expires but it is possible. --Blue387 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it expiring. Unless the seal is broken, it should be good for 100 years or so. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Unopened bottles of brandy have been recovered from shipwrecks and have been found to be perfectly drinkable. An unopened bottle from 4 years ago should be fine. Opened bottles can oxidize and pick up some funny tastes, but an unopened bottle is good stuff. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As Duncan Hill has said on previous similar posts, send it to me and I will bravely verify the safety of the contents! Richard Avery (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it will be fine, especially since it sounds like it was stored in a box so won't have been exposed to sunlight (which can sometimes harm drinks, I don't know about cognac). The other thing that can harm alcoholic drinks is extreme temperature changes, but a few years in a kitchen is unlikely to do anything - 20 years in your garden shed, might, but kitchens don't usually vary in temperature that much. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Game soundtrack

Hello, i've been trying to find out what the song/soundtrack is on the playstation 1 game LMA Manager 2002 and I cannot find the information anywhere for what the song name is and who it is by. Can you by any chance find out what the song is called?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel ccfc (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if I'm editing this properly mate, but the song you are looking for is Going out of my head by Fatboy Slim.

Planning a memorial service

We've had a death in the family. Our little girl has been having a tough time coming to grips with the situation for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the death was unexpected and sudden. For another, it involved someone that she had just met and started bonding with, so there's a lot of frustration (and anger) mixed in with the sadness. Anyway, I understand the RefDesk can't counsel people, but I'm hoping I can get some options about what we could do at the memorial. There will be another, formal, memorial later, but she won't be able to attend as it's in another country, etc. and she wants to do something here and soon. Ah, the immediacy of kids!
Anything that talks about different formats, especially if they're geared to kids, is what's desired. I've Googled a bit, but my searches turn up pages discussing whether (and how) kids should attend a memorial and pages on the memorial services for kids that have died, not options on what might be included in one. It will be a family affair, very informal, but I'd like to read about the different scenarios people have employed. I'm not sure I can come up with something fitting on my own, but hopefully I'll know a good idea when I see it. I'd prefer websites to books; we're planning on holding our get together on Saturday, so a book order probably won't arrive in time. Matt Deres (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Memorial services tend to involve people talking about the deceased. If so, you might think about pre-recording a contribution from your daughter to play in the service (on the basis that she might be a bit overwhelmed on the day). The only other suggestion I have - depending on your intended format and the availability of images - is a video projector cycling through photos of the deceased. Oh, and I suppose you could also involve your daughter in choosing music for the service? Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A Release Dove, if available in your area and if affordable, would offset some of the somberness. hydnjo talk 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, now that I recall; a firework or several, fired off in the general direction of heaven, may assist. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the suggestion of fireworks. One or more simple rockets. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that she (and other kids) make art work for the memorial, such as drawings and collages of pics (make plenty of copies of the pics for her first, and make sure she knows not to use the originals). Art is good therapy for kids. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All of these suggestions revolve around expression. The best idea is to consider how the girl in question (and other people involved) express themselves best - visual art, movement, writing, selection of pictures, music, poetry, and just plain symbolism are useful here. If you're still struggling to think of things, consider the special connections that there were between the girl and the deceased. If they had a favourite story, you could read an excerpt, or a favourite song, a teddy bear they played with together, or the story behind a photograph. In expressing this to others, either during the service or in preparation, she can share the connection with others and remember the good bits, despite your loss. My condolences to you and your family. I hope you can find comfort. Steewi (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for the suggestions and the kind thoughts. Fireworks or rockets would be a problem. For one thing, it's juuust above the freezing point of nitrogen outside these days. For another, fireworks, etc. are verboten in most parts of Canada outside the usual Victoria Day and Canada Day festivities. I talked with my daughter about perhaps making up a song about her aunt, or maybe drawing a picture. She's chosen to draw a picture (thanks for the suggestion, StuRat), which she'll talk to us about during the memorial. I think that'll work out nicely, as it will give her something to do and also provide a way for her to express her feelings, both while she's drawing and while she's explaining. Any other suggestions or links? Matt Deres (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm planting a tree in memoriam for a dear friend who died recently.Perhaps doing this can be a comfort as it is a good memorial and can be visited,pruned, fed etc ,a reminder that life goes on.hotclaws 11:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Doonesbury

Doonesbury is a popular political/social comic strip syndicated in hundreds of newspapers and publications across the world. My issue is that this strip is not funny, and the VAST majority of people that encounter it would agree with me. The Wikipedia article about "Doonesbury" needs some kind of annotation that mentions that most human beings on planet Earth think this comic strip is not very humorous. When I try to change the article in a very subtle and non-offensive or unintuitive way, it get reverted immediately. My question is what status with the website would I need to improve humanity and get this vital information posted on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.20.249 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't need any status on Wikipedia to make that kind of edit, you just need a reliable source. You saying "It's not funny, and lots of people would agree with me" is not a reliable source. A blog saying "It's not funny" with a hundred comments saying "You're right" is not a reliable source. A respected blogger saying "It's not funny" might be a reliable source, as might be a professional comic reviewer (is there such a thing?). See WP:V and WP:CITE for more info. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Doonesbury is not intended to be 'funny' in the conventional laughing out loud way. It has an ironic style that attempts to encourage the reader to view American life from a different angle. This might account for why "the vast majority" (numbers not provided) of your acquaintances do not find it funny Richard Avery (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It may also explain why the comic appears in the editorial sections of many newspapers instead of the regular comics section. Dismas|^(talk) 07:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's not pitched at you. It happens. When you "get" something 98.145, or it makes you laugh, you'll know you're the intended market (no reflection on either party). Julia Rossi (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Doonesbury page and judging from the examples it is not pitched at me either. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What level of comics hilarity are you comparing it to? Family Circus? --Sean 13:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you would suggest that Family Circus is somehow better than Doonesbury. "And it's always there, in the lower right hand corner, just waiting to suck." - Go --Dismas|^(talk) 13:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was an ironic comparison. Fact is, 99% of all syndicated comics are idiotic and written for the elderly. Doonebury is a rare exception to this. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an overstatement. Some excellent strips are Get Fuzzy, Frazz, Pearls Before Swine, Non Sequitur. And of course Dilbert. All of these left Doonesbury in the dust long ago (even though Doonesbury remains readable, an amazing accomplishment given how long it's been around). --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The cartoon has changed a lot over the years. In the early days it was a lot more like Dilbert. It's definitely become a 'different kind of funny'. But all of this is irrelevent because you can't say that in the encyclopedia without REFERENCES - and that means finding a reviewer or some acedemic comic-book theoretician or a reputable public survey or something...and I very much doubt you'll find that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This column is about the change; is it a useful source? —Tamfang (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's well worth a read and would serve the OP's purpose well - good find. It is probably a notable source - see the about us page - it's a publication of a think-tank, the Reason Foundation. If anyone has the energy, it might be added into Doonesbury#Criticism. A key quote from the article, for me, is the paragraph: "...In 1972 Doonesbury rewarded intelligence; in 2002 it rewards familiarity with its own mythology and conventions. In 1972 it trusted readers to know the politics and pop culture of the day; in 2002 it trusts us to understand that a floating waffle represents Bill Clinton, a floating bomb represents Newt Gingrich, and a floating asterisk represents George W. Bush. The strip has grown so self-referential that it makes jokes about its own self-referentiality, with Sunday strips devoted to charting the relationships among the characters. And so Doonesbury folds in upon itself, and Trudeau ends up producing his own fan fiction." Disclosure: I've followed Doonesbury for years --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a problem when classifying "comic strips". Even the name implies that they are supposed to make us laugh, when many of the strips don't even have that as a goal. There are (or were) serial strips, like Prince Valiant, Mary Worth. and Brenda Starr, there are also strips designed to "show the irony of life", like Zippy the Pinhead, and those that try to be cute, like Marmaduke and Family Circus, and political cartoons, like Doonesbury, which may try to be funny at times, but that isn't their primary goal, making political commentary is. I always thought they should be better organized than tossing them all together in the same section as "comics". StuRat (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comics can be unintentionally funny. There is a web site (theotherfamily.com) that add alternative salacious captions to every Family Circus strip, and I have seen another which has fun at the expense of the artist/writer of Dick Tracy by ridiculing every panel [1]. Edison (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also Garfield minus Garfield. --LarryMac | Talk 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd categorize Doonesbury along with the many other comic strips that aren't really funny anymore, rely on character humor that most people won't get and survive on the esteem they built up in the past. You know, like Blondie, Hi and Lois and the aforementioned The Family Circus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank heavens some of the best comics, like The Far Side and Bloom County, had the good sense to end rather than drag on past the point of funny. —Kevin Myers 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the sun move?

Does the sun revolve around the centre of the univerce?i thing it might be correct but many told that it does not move at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.147.93 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Current thinking has it there is no "center" to the universe. Everything is moving, though. The sun orbits the center of our galaxy, and the galaxy is moving, too, mostly away from all the other galaxies. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The sun is in a galaxy called the Milky Way, which is a disk of stars and dust with spiraling arms as pictured at right. The sun is in one of those arms. The whole thing turns like a wheel, with a dense, bright hub at the center of the wheel. The Milky Way is one of many galaxies in the universe, and not likely to be at the center of them, if such a concept even makes sense (I don't believe it's known what shape the Universe even is). --Sean 12:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"The sun and you and me

And all the stars that we can see

Are moving at a million miles a day

In an outer spiral arm at forty-thousand miles an hour

Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way"

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life Gandalf61 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a beautiful song (which is much longer than those five lines) - and it even has it's own article: Galaxy Song. I used to sing it to my son at bedtimes so it's stuck in my head! But they really need to update some of the numbers in it to reflect modern knowledge...as our article explains. SteveBaker (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Think about it this way. Relative to our solar system, the sun basically does not move (it wobbles in one place a little bit, if I recall, but otherwise doesn't move). Everything moves around it. But relative to our galaxy, the solar system itself moves. So in that sense, the sun moves quite a lot—but not relative to any of the planets in our solar system. So we don't ever perceive the sun as moving—we move around the sun. But while we move around the sun, the whole solar system moves around the galactic core. And the galaxy moves around itself. And so forth. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The principles of 'relativity' don't entirely apply here because the sun is ORBITING the center of our galaxy - that's not an inertial reference frame - so it's not reasonable to claim that the sun isn't moving.

Hence, the clear and simple answer is: Yes, the sun is orbiting our galaxy.

However, that's not strictly what the OP asked (although, judging from the title of the question, it may well be what (s)he meant to ask - a lot of people get confused between "universe" and "galaxy"). The entire universe (containing untold and possibly infinite numbers of galaxies) doesn't have a 'center' that you can point to. Everything is in motion relative to everything else - and there are structures such as 'galactic clusters' within which the galaxies inside are possibly in orbit. But there doesn't seem to be a 'center' for the whole enchilada - the universe. Space is expanding and all of the galaxies are moving apart - but it's best to imagine drawing each galaxy as a dot onto a balloon and then blowing the balloon up. As the balloon expands, all of the dots get further apart but none of them is "the center".

So, the other not-so-clear but still simple answer is: No, the sun isn't orbiting the universe - but it is definitely moving.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be technically precise. I was just trying to explain the difference between saying the sun isn't moving (because it is the center of the solar system) and saying that it does move (the solar system goes around the galaxy). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this may depend somewhat on your attitude towards Mach's principle. From a Machian perspective you can consider the Sun (or the Earth, or your right pinky) to be fixed, and patch everything up with forces caused by the (strange and otherwise unexplained) movements of distant galaxies. I've never found out exactly to what extent you have to rewrite the Einstein field equations to make this work and would be interested to hear from a cosmologist on the question. But in any case it's a metaphysical issue whether the Sun is "really" moving or not. That doesn't mean there isn't a real answer and it doesn't mean it's not an important question, but it does mean it's outside the scope of experimental science narrowly construed. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange dress like thing

Note: the link that I'm posting is most likely not safe for your workplace. It may not be safe for your home depending on the age and opinions of those in your house.

Can anyone tell me what the article of clothing that this woman is wearing? If it even has a name... Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 13:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of girdle? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, it's a girdle, though our article on it is rather modern-biased. When Heracles took Hippolyta's girdle for his ninth labour, that's probably the kind of thing they were talking about. Matt Deres (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I could only see a woman wearing what looked like a pair of pants which tied at the front. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the one in the middle? I believe that's a bodystocking. howcheng {chat} 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the leather thing. And no, they aren't pants since they don't cover the legs. Thanks for the girdle answer though. That's what I thought but it didn't match up with my (modern) image of a girdle, especially considering the pouch. Dismas|^(talk) 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK so I'll put it in non-UK usage: they are knickers. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my vote is that it's a very thick belt. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all a girdle is, really. I think the only difference is the size and that "belt" is more commonly used to refer to the kind that holds something up (i.e. pants). When you "gird your loins", you're strapping on one of these puppies. In the days before pants, something like this was needed to hang pouches, weapons, etc. from. Here are a couple of pictures of Hippolyta from Greek vases. It's a girdle, not a pair of pants, nor a pair of knickers. Matt Deres (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of Utilikilt. —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods they are called crotchless lederhosen and can be observed in denuded clearings of the Black Forest, typically modelled by similarly denuded Little Red Riding Hoods and Snowwhites (as evident in your link). Unfortunately, the medieval craft of crotcheting has almost been forgotten, a prime reason why such minimalist couture was marketed.

You may also be interested in this [2] scientific treatise on the related matter of vagodynamics.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Euromillions Lottery

A single Friday entry in Britain costs £1 Sterling. But elsewhere in the European Eurozone it costs 2 Euros. Given that recently the £ Sterling has hit parity with the Euro, give or take a few centimos, does that mean that Eurozone winners would get a bigger share of the pot, or are they just getting a worse deal than we Brits? 92.21.46.199 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - a single friday entry in Britain actually costs £1.50. Nanonic (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Either one is probably a bargain price for 1:76,000,000 odds. A ticket for the six-number Powerball lottery that several U.S. states offer will buy you 1 chance in nearly 200 million of winning. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It works like this: 50% of the ticket price is put in the prize fund (the remaining 50% goes to the "good causes" (28%), tax (12%), prize booster fund, retailer commission, staff salaries, etc.). In most Euromillions countries the ticket price is 2 euros, of which 1 euro goes to the central prize fund. In the UK, 1 euro goes to the central prize fund and the remainder of the 50% is kept aside by Camelot to boost the prizes of UK winners in the lower prize tiers (tiers 2 - 12). From time to time, Camelot should adjust the UK ticket price so that 1 euro is always available for the central prize fund - TBH I'm surprised it is still £1.50 per ticket, so perhaps the physical accounting is done only on rare occasions (I rather doubt that millions are actually sent to Paris every week for the draw, only to be sent back to Camelot to pay prizes to the UK winners). The prize calculation method used for UK winners is explained by Camelot here, though it's not explained very well. Astronaut (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is a greater chance of dying in a fiery car wreck on the way to purchase those lottery tickets than there is of actually winning the big jackpot. But you have fun with that. Lottery: A tax on people who can't do math... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. That would be soapboxing on the Reference Desk, and then someone might respond by pointing out that if you can do math, you know that utility functions can be nonlinear. --Anonymous, 04:28, January 15, 2009.

Yeah, but the utility function of the money itself is almost always (this is the ordinary-English sense of almost always, not the mathematical sense) going to be concave downwards (see diminishing returns), so that doesn't help. The reason it's not necessarily irrational to play the lottery is that the utility of the money itself is not the only utility in question. There's also the pleasure that imagining the money can bring to the player; that pleasure in itself constitutes utility. (See subjective theory of value.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

US: cross-country contract

If someone in the US offers a cross-country contract, what does he means? Provided that you both are not in the same US location.--Mr.K. (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard this term used for a contract, either as an employment contract (hiring you permanently) or as a contract for services or goods. What context do you have in mind? --- 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Services. However, from context it looked like a contract that can be signed without both parties meeting in person. --Mr.K. (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LHE revised edition

i beared the title in abbreviation LHE and brought to an end he's own kind..Who the hell is this riddle talking about. it's actually an Italian person and it's talking about a person who had a name that resembles a woman's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.89.129 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked this question before - you aren't going to get a decent answer unless you do what we asked the last time: Please type the question in VERY carefully - making sure that every piece of capitalisation and punctuation is exactly as it's written. Tell us what the context was - where was it written? Those kinds of thing may well be a vital clue and your broken-english version of it isn't helping! Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A fish called Sout? Salp

At the end of the 2-part BBC series Swarm was a fish that looked like a jelly fish (but was according to the documentary more closely related to humans), which lives in groups that form strings and apparently is growing so much in numbers that it may become an important factor in fighting climate change by, put rahter bluntly, consunming carbon and then dying and sinking to the bottom of the sea. The name was only mentiones once and it sounded like 'sout' or 'sowt'. But both these links redirect to a music form called 'sawt'. Anyone know how the name of this fish is spelled? DirkvdM (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Salp. Algebraist 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that it's not a fish (but then, either is a jelly fish). StuRat (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That would explain why the OP thinks it looks like a jelly fish then! SteveBaker (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. that's it. Apparently I rather seriously misheard the name. I also assumed it wouldn't be a fish, but didn't know what else to call it and also I liked the title. :) This was one of those few times I sit up when watching a nature documentary - something unlike anything I have seen before. After half a life of fairly frequently watching nature documentaries, one would think I have seen it all. Anyway, thanks! DirkvdM (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iconic Pricing

Is there a term for when something becomes well known as being at a set price, so the seller resists changing it? Not necessarily a loss leader. For example, for years and years Happy Meals in the UK sold for £1.99, long enough that at least 5 years ago they were using adverts with the message 'still only £1.99' in a nostalgia kind-of way. Long after other pricing increased, the Happy Meals stayed at £1.99; now they all cost a bit more than £2, although the hamburger meal resisted for a bit longer. They are no longer all the same price. Apart from being a sign of the end times, what is this called? Or a different example, penny sweets which must have become a worse deal for the manufacturer every year.

Is there a name for this sort of thing? Thanks. Grumble. In my young day the Happy Meal came with burger, fries, drink, toy, small orange, wet wipe and voucher for small icecream. 79.66.46.92 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be, and I hope there is, a name for this sort of pricing, which must be as old as the five & dime store, or older. Price point is an interesting read, but doesn't quite hit the spot. If there's not, we'd be happy to adopt consider iconic pricing for the position. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for that. Sounds like it might be a more specific 'customary price point': specific as in it applies not just to the 'type' of thing but to that specific thing itself. 79.66.46.92 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes me think of The Two Dollar Shop, which I think may have gone out of fashion because the items now cost more than $2 Steewi (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There are still dollar stores around here, though they have trouble staying in business -- I think we've gone through three in the past five years. --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In a couple of places in Texas there are 85 cent stores. The stuff they sell is mostly utter crap - but for a few specialist items, they are worth going to. SteveBaker (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested to google on "Nominal price rigidity of the nickel Coke". (As an anonymous user on a text-only connection, I can't post a URL here.) I particularly like the bit where they ask if the US would please introduce a 7½¢ coin. Another example of one of these iconic prices is the 5¢ fare that lasted for decades on the New York subway system (the current fare, by the way, is $2.00). --Anonymous, 04:33 UTC, January 15¢, 2009.

And I think Anonymous has supplied an answer to the question: nominal price rigidity. Here's the suggested google search and enough of an abstract of the article to illustrate my assertion. I was, though, hoping for a term to describe the product rather than the fact of its rigid price, along the lines of Giffen good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Several fast-food places in the US had, or still have, a 99 cent menu, where each item is limited to that price. Some, like Wendy's have renamed it as a "budget menu" and increased some of the prices, but this means there's no limit on the prices and each price can be different, so it's really annoying to the customers. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no expression, but you might find one or more reasons here Pricing objectives.76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Much to think on. 79.66.46.92 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My garage door

doesn't close during a certain time every day. Between 8:45 and 9:00 am when I press on the remote it goes down a few inches then reverses and goes back up. Other times of the day it works fine, so the electronic and mechanical systems seem OK. I also changed the battery in the remote, so that's not the problem. I live on the U.S. West coast, where the temperature is about 40 degrees F in the morning. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.95.34 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It has an optical sensor to detect obstructions, right? Is it possible some trick of light or shadow is misleading the sensor? Mine will reverse and go back up if it thinks there is something in the way. Friday (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Always 8:45 to 9:00? It doesn't change with the season? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be a problem with sunlight; however, my house is oriented so the front of the garage does not get any sun until late morning. This started happening only a couple of weeks ago; I expect the problem to go away, but I want to know what is going on so I can take steps to prevent it from recurring.

How sure are you about the EXACTNESS of the time? Seems to me it's most likely temperature-related - and perhaps it really misbehaves before the air has had a chance to warm up after sunrise. The idea of excess light causing the problem seems unlikely because it's breaking the beam that stops the thing - not extra light. Dunno about yours but my garage door opener also detects when the motor has stalled. If that's the case with yours then perhaps the track is simply too stiff early in the early morning chill? I'd suggest lubricating the rails and the chain/screw-drive. I suppose the other possibility is some kind of electrical interference. Do you have any devices in the house that are on timers that might trigger around that time? Things like swimming pool filter pumps could be pushing out nasty voltage spikes and scrambling the door opener's little brain if they are set up to run at that time. SteveBaker (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Any possibility of teenagers with that extra remote just messin' with mom/dad's head? I remember as a young engineer, rigging my boss' desk so that whenever he opened his center drawer his desk lamp would go off. Also, this "feature" was operable or not under the influence of switch under my control so that he wouldn't catch on. :) hydnjo talk 03:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the temperature has much to do with the door. If that was the case then wouldn't the door stick on opening for the first time rather than closing, which I assume is the second movement of the door. Also I would think that 40 °F (4 °C) was too warm to cause a problem. Door openers seem to have a range of temperature operations. this goes from −20 °C (−4 °F) to 50 °C (122 °F) and this Chinese one has a range or −40 °C (−40 °F) to 70 °C (158 °F). They certainly work here where the temperature falls below −40 °C (−40 °F). Where do you keep the remote? If you have it in the vehicle then it may have got cold overnight and be causing a problem. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm obviously not talking about garage doors in general - I'm talking about this one specifically. If something is bent or misaligned - or (most likely) inadequately lubricated - then a temperature change of even just a few degrees will cause a small change in the dimensions of the metal guide tracks and wheels - and in the stiffness of the counterbalance spring and viscosity of the lubricant (if any!). That might be the difference between it just making it - or just failing to make it. That temperature change could be over any region on the scale. The difference between 80 and 85 degrees is just as statistically likely to cause this kind of problem as a difference between 40 and 45 degrees or -10 and -15 degrees. It just depends on how the thing is damaged or misaligned. I'm also not talking about the remote controller gizmo. SteveBaker (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you weren't talking about them in general but it would seem to me that if the door is in anyway bent or misaligned then the first operation would also see a problem and not just the second. I also knew that you didn't refer to the remote module but as it contains batteries and may have been left in the cold vehicle overnight then that might cause a problem. If the OP walks into the garage and uses the wall button to open the door, takes the vehicle out and then uses the remote that might be where the problem lies. That is what causes problems here as the temperate reaches freezing, to the extent that after it gets to −10 °C (14 °F) the remote and/or command start will not work. If the OP is doing it that way then they should try using the wall button for both operations and keeping the remote inside overnight. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The OP says that the door goes up - but won't go down again. It's perfectly possible that (for example) the springs that counterbalance the door's weight are 'tighter' in the chill morning air - so the door goes up with less motor power - but requires a lot more to push down against the pull of the springs. Really - it's such a complicated dynamics problem - there are a dozen ways for different kinds of lubrication or damage problems to produce this kind of symptom in a temperature-dependent manner. SteveBaker (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Depending on where you live it might be a moisture problem. We had something similar when moisture caused a short to occur every once in a while. (related to a leaky drain above in out case) You also might want to check the voltage. Your system might get a power surge/not enough power form the mains because everyone in town is having breakfast. See if you can get a good expert to check it out. (It took us 5 tries to find the right guy.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with trying to find someone to fix it - but ONLY after you've tried lubricating it. Hardly anyone reads the instructions for these things (assuming you even got instructions for it when you bought the house)...however, those instructions will have told you to lubricate the tracks and the worm-gear or drive chain...probably twice a year. I don't think I know anyone who does that. But when you get any kind of a problem with garage door openers, that's the problem three times out of five. Things get corroded and stiffer - and eventually, the motor stalls out trying to move the door either up or down - and the controller assumes it's hit something - so it stops and backs the door back up again. SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a reflection from something, sez me. What else could it be, with the time so specific? But you're not going to know what the reflection is until you lie down on the ground where the receiver half of the "electric eye" is and look for it -- or, alternately, take a dark piece of paper and hold it in front of the receiver. Fun puzzle to solve. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're not getting direct sun light at the time when the problem occurs than you need to turn up the force limits on your opener. Lubricating your tracks, rollers, and hinges will also help. There are knobs you can turn on the opener motor to turn up the force. With the latest models you may have to re program the force limits which will require an owners manual which can be found on the manufacturer's website. Sometimes the sun over powers the censors when it is low in the sky. Also look at our troubleshooting page at http://www.cssgaragedoors.com/troubleshooting.php

Parchment Paper- Waterproof? Greaseproof?

Is parchment paper waterproof and greaseproof? We would like to use it as a liner in a food storage device. We need to know if soups, grease, and sauces will leak though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.242.6.199 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Parchment#Plant-based parchment talks in terms of "grease-resistant" and "moisture-proof. I suspect that enough soup, grease, or sauce would eventually leak through. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the modern "parchment paper" that you get next to the cling wrap and aluminum foil in the grocery story, its coated in silicone, and is pretty impervious to most of that sort of stuff. Your mileage may vary, but in my experience its pretty good for those applications. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont believe we have an article on Greaseproof paper. How shameful--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)