Regarding the bus photo in the earlier question about destination blinds, can anyone tell me why there is a chrome bar on the outside front corner of the bus on the upper level. Who needs to hang on here? Window cleaners? 121.44.96.70 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is there to protect the bus from overhanging branches. Since double-deckers are the only common traffic that high in London, they tend to sustain a fair bit of damage on the nearside top corner. You'll see some similar form of reinforcement/protection on most double-deckers - or signs of damage if they aren't protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so, aren't they on the wrong side ? Shouldn't they be on the side towards the sidewalk, where the trees would be ? StuRat (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect from the photo that the bus is on a one-way street of some sort which is the exception rather than the rule. Since this is in London, the bus is shown on what would normally be the "wrong" side of the street. Dismas|^(talk) 07:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this Google Maps link proves that the bus is on a one-way street. Dismas|^(talk) 07:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And without meaning to offend anyone who already realises, readers need to know that vehicles travel on the left hand side of the road in the UK, so the bar is on the correct side. (I was going to say right side, but that may not have helped.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the bus itself that's on the "wrong" side, as mentioned, it's on a one-way street. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the doors are on the left too, otherwise the passengers would be stepping out into the traffic. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to retrofit a non-kerbside door on some buses; the many traditional British double-deckers sold on for tourist use in the USA and Canada are examples. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bar is related to the emergency exit. Here in Birmingham, the front windows on the upper deck, can be kicked out in the event of an emergency, and the bar will enable you to slide down to the ground, or is the bus is on it's side, help you to pull yourself out. I assume London buses are the same. --TrogWoolley (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the back window that's the emergency exit. The linked photo is from an American travel blog that asks: "Notice the sticker. It says “Emergency Exit.” this sticker is two floors off the ground. The question is this: in an emergency, you turn the handle, pull open the window/door/exit hatch and — then what? Jump? I hope I never have to find out." The answer is that it's the way out in the unlikely event of the bus turning onto its side. Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the bus was upright but on fire, I'd be glad to risk a broken leg to jump from there, rather than burn to death. Also, if the bus went into water, the lower level exits might all be quickly submerged, and thus impossible to open due to the pressure differential, if they open outward (until the interior was also filled with water), so an upper level exit would be important. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do sometimes fall over, like this one in Belfast a couple of weeks ago. You've got to be going some to make it happen; here's one being tested a wee while ago. I was going to say StuRat, that you'd have to drop a bus into a fair depth of water to worry about pressure equalising; then I found this artist's impression of the No 78 jumping across the bascules of Tower Bridge in 1952. There were twenty rather surprised passengers on board at the time. Perhaps they should have life rafts fitted too ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the French word that means a woman's perfume enters the room before her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.244.75 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single word that means all that? Would you be satisfied with an expression? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a woman I could always smell before she entered the room. Unfortunately, she didn't wear perfume. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The French for that phenomenon would be Le Pew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this specific phenomenon would be deja pew. Staecker (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or "colognialisme".LANTZY^TALK 20:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Pheremone#Humans. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Parfum fugitif" is a reasonably common expression. It's often used in a metaphorical sense. LANTZY^TALK 20:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

1. How many countries sent any form of rescue teams to Japan? 2. How many countries and international organizations offered assistance :

116 countries and 28 organizations specified on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami 128 countries and 33 organizations specified on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#International_response

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGStevens (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in starting a blog, however, I would very much like for access to this blog to be available only to people that look up certain things on youtube and watch videos on those subjects that I have put there, most likely with the site linked to under each one. Is this possible and how do I do it, would I need to set up a password or something for it? As well, would I be right in thinking that in that case I can post a couple of things now that noone anywhere would see until I upload my first video?

85.210.126.209 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could password protect the site (there are various ways to do that and the best one would probably depend on how the site is set up and what kind of hosting you are using) and then put the password next to the link in the description of the youtube video. If you did that then no-one would be able to access the blog until you first posted the password. We might be able to come up with a better solution if you explained why you want to do this. Most people setting up blogs want those blogs to be read by as many people as possible. Why do you want to restrict yours? --Tango (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at www.tinyurl.com because it can be used to replace your blog internet address (URL) with a kind of password. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogger is free and lets you password-protect your blog; so is LiveJournal. You need to think more carefully about who you want to allow to access it. Do you want to only let people you know? Or people you've pre-approved? Or do you want to hide the blog from search engines, etc, so people would be unlikely to stumble across it? One way would be to publish your email on your YouTube profile and then say "if you want to read my blog, email me", and then send them a link and password. However, if you do this you can't really be sure who you're giving passwords to. On LiveJournal you can have a blog that's not passworded but is also not indexed in any search engines or directories (of blogs, etc), so people would be unlikely to find it unless they knew the blog's name; some other blogging sites allow this, but I'm not sure about Blogger. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only way you can tell whether someone has actually watched your video is to ask them about something found only in the video. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for something on Amazon, I became suspicious of two particular products, which are seemingly identical, by the same company and using the exact same picture, but very slightly different details are given for them. of the two, (assuming these details are accurate) only one appears on Google Product Search, and that seems to be the one most other people on the site are buying. So, something odd going on there, is there any way of finding out the reason for this, and whether I would be making a mistake getting the less popular one?

85.210.126.209 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I don't know, but my guess would be that they were syndicated to the Amazon site through two different routes, each time they were described for the purpose. This wouldn't be a reason for concern, although the duplication was presumably in error. If the maker is trusted, then it's probably an error like that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Companies often offer multiple similar items. They might have gotten lazy and used the same pic for both. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, update time. Searching around, it seems the company does offer two nearly identical products with the two different specifications, but yet they look noticably different in some pictures, but not on amazon's, whilst some other online shops use also use the same picture for both. I wonder if they actually do three, or if they decided the differences didn't matter. Though it does to me, and I am determined to get the right one as a present, since it would be awkward and annoying to have to return it and try again. Perhaps I will try the company website... 85.210.126.209 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]