Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 28

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.

November 28

Orphanage in Nepal

How would it be possible to make an orphanage in Nepal? I have been thinking about this for a few years, making an orphanage for children whose parents have been killed in the Civil War, and for street children.
I was thinking about either buying an existing one, or buying the land to build a new one. Obviously the former would be cheaper. How can I go about either of these?
Of course, with the current turmoil, things would be difficult, but even so, I would still like to do this. Does anyone have any ideas or knowledge in this field to help?--KageTora - the RefDesker formerly known as ChokinBako (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you'd want to hook up with someone who knows all of the local tax, real estate and financial laws. In Canada, I'd recommend a CA, CGA or CMA. I'm afraid I don't know what the equivalent would be there. If I were one though, I would certainly do that sort of work pro bono. He or she would be able to give you a ton of information about local governance and regulations, but most importantly, they'll help you put together a financial plan, and determine what resources you'd need to get started. They might even be able to help you with the 'land transfer' type stuff that a real-estate agent would normally handle. Finding the specific laws and regulations MIGHT require a lawyer, or just a friendly contact with another orphanage operator and/or the public regulator.NByz (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Try talking to the people at the Himalayan Trust...they may be able to give some advice . Boomshanka (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Boomshanka! You have just opened the world to me! Thanks! Great link!--KageTora - the RefDesker formerly known as ChokinBako (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

XBOX 360 game patches

Is there a way that updates and patches to any XBOX 360 game can be downloaded to the game when they become available. Do later versions of the same game have new patches applied.--logger (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Last time I checked about this they didn't seem very willing to allows us to play Xbox games. But I think your Xbox 360 should tell you, which games it will play and which games won't. Though I am not for sure, you should go to http://www.xbox.com/en-US/ Maybe they have your answer there. Cardinal Raven (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

How much does eating at the Taj Mumbai cost?

I know there are multiple places so what's the range?

Hotcheetos (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If I've got the right hotel here, didn't it cost some people their freedom for awhile? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of restaurants at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower in Mumbai. You can probably look up the individual restaurant names and find reviews which include price estimates. Plasticup ^T/C 05:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a review of Aquarius where an entree apparently cost US$60. Extrapolating from that, two people + wine would come to US$300-350, although I expect prices will be coming down in the following weeks. Plasticup ^T/C 05:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Scienttist Way

All right, so I was watching a documentary about other human ancestors and a question came in my head while hearing scientist say "This is not possible, this changes everything". As a scientist shouldn't they be open minded? I mean their theories are always been adding to, always been experimented and there is still so much we don't know why is something not possible because it doesn't fit at that moment in time. Shouldn't they be open minded knowing that there will always bee more data found. Thanks for answering this wonder of mine.

Were the Red Feathers Fly ~CR

Cardinal Raven (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Welcome CR, your wondering led me to think of the Hobbit found in Indonesia in 2003 where "possible" appears in the first sentence of that article. I take it when a scientist says, "This is not possible" there's a moment of "this cuts across what we know up to now" and a bit of denial thrown in before the next statement, "this changes everything" which is a kind of acceptance there might be, well, changes. The Indonesian find created quite a stir and not everyone agrees with the face value of it (see controversies section here[1]). Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that was the documentary I was watching. It as called Alien from Earth. It just got me thinking. I guess you're right in a way it could be like a phase. Kind of like someone dying denial, anger, and then acceptance. Though its probably not as simple as that. I'm sure anger is pure madness of experiments.

Always Cardinal Raven (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

On the question of whether scientists are really open-minded or not, you might take a look at Thomas Kuhn's very-well known work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is one approach to answering that question. Kuhn's answer is basically, no, scientists are not, generally speaking, open-minded for things which fall widely outside of the possibility of their particular worldview (their paradigm in his terminology), their way of thinking about their particular field of work, their shared concepts. But lo! you say, this means they are not open-minded! Kuhn identifies this essential conservatism of scientists as being the source of the strength of science—the better a science can figure out which assumptions to stop questioning (at least provisionally), the more it gets at what we consider to be "progress" in science. But every once in awhile, evidence comes along that cannot be added into the old set of assumptions, and a brand-new, sweeping set of assumptions takes its place. Kuhn's mechanism is a bit problematic for a number of reasons, but it's not a bad way to start thinking about the question... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting!NByz (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

While a new theory comes along you need sceptics. Open mindedness is OK as far as it goes - but unless you have people who aggressively attempt to bring down the new theory, it won't have been given enough of a hammering to be widely accepted. Open mindedness doesn't mean believing in any old crap. It means being able to change your mind when the evidence is "sufficient" to overturn the extant theory. That significant numbers of scientists are still arguing vociferously against the hobbit theory simply means that the evidence isn't convincing enough yet. SteveBaker (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

'Intestinal pressure'

I was playing Wii Fit today and it said something weird- 'Stronger abs will increase intestinal pressure and improve digestion!' Is there any truth to this? Nadando (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet the science desk would jump all over this!NByz (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you need to ask yourself what does "improve digestion" mean. Is it a reference to a more rapid digestion or is the digestion more efficient so that all nutrients are absorbed. I think most peoples' digestive systems work just fine. Now, let's look at increasing the tension of the abs to increase abdominal pressure. If the abs are tighter I suggest the pressure (if pressure is increased!) would push the diaphragm upwards or push the sides and back of the abdominal cavity outwards. This claim looks a lot like all the other health bulls**t everywhere, eye-catching but useless. Richard Avery (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

terrorism

How can we get rid of terrorism????

can we ever live a peaceful life???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.143.13 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, not a humanclopedia.

But I will answer the question because that is the kind of person I am. I think the way we can get rid of terrorism is words. We always tend to fight terrorism with terrorism and that doesn't seem to be working.

Chaos is peace as well, we need a little bit of hell to live a little bit of peace. They all work in a balance. Though these are just opinions and these are the real answers you are going to get. Just opinions nothing based on fact.

Sorry little birdy.

Always Cardinal Raven (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

thanks but i dont think there is no solution to anything in this world,it may differ..of course chaos is a part of life....but do you think killing innocent life is a kind of chaos you would like to live with? Is it not possible to reduce the intensity of it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvatisharma (talk • contribs)

How do you know it isn't working? Maybe it would be even worse if we weren't fighting it. TastyCakes (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not start or participate in debates here. This is not an appropriate place. Consider posting your question on the Wikiversity Help Desk instead (they allow debates). --S.dedalus (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't butcher words like that either. Encyclopaedia#Etymology. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I will interpret your question as "what is the consensus of the expert's opinions on how to decrease terrorism ?". I would say that most believe in a "divide and conquer" strategy. That is, they believe that those who are only engaging in terrorism because they have no other source of income or for some other trivial reason can be convinced to reform by improving the economic, social, and political situation in their home countries. Longstanding political problems, like the Israel/Palestine issue and the India/Pakistan issue, must also be solved to deprive those trying to create terrorists of this "ammunition". On the other hand, there is a tiny, hard-core group of terrorists who will never reform, and must either be killed or imprisoned for life. In Afghanistan/Pakistan, the first group roughly corresponds with the Taliban, while the latter group is al Queada. Madrasses (religious schools) which teach children to be suicide bombers, must also be shut down or reformed to prevent the next generation from becoming terrorists. StuRat (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

“there is a tiny, hard-core group of terrorists who will never reform, and must either be killed or imprisoned for life.”—I don’t believe that this is a common view at all. Deradicalisation is accepted as a standard tool in dealing with extremists today. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone holds the position that we should try to convince Osama bin Laden to reform and become a good citizen. There certainly are others who can't be reformed, as well. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few people do, but bin Laden is an extreme example. In general terrorists are terrorists because of socio-political realities, not because of any particular religion or indoctrination. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't even mention bin Laden. You do still need a plan to deal with them, however, and you're going to have to look a long way to find people who don't even think prison is appropriate in cases like his. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

An action being taken right now (Nov. 28 - Dec. 1) by the international advocacy organization Women Without Borders is a conference being held in Vienna to launch a community-based initiative called S.A.V.E = Sisters Against Violent Extremism. Follow the link for reportage as it develops. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, watch out for that one saving the world. Any day now we'll all live in a secure peace thanks to S.A.V.E. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Most instances of terrorism are connected to broader conflicts, such as the Kashmir question and the other unresolved grievances between India and Pakistan. Resolving those conflicts would remove the main root causes of terrorism. There is an entire discipline devoted to understanding how to resolve conflicts and forge peace. You might want to take a look at our article Peace and conflict studies and follow links from that article. Marco polo (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that terrorism of the type currently being spread in the name of Islam (deservedly or otherwise) is akin to a disease that has spread across the world and has become an epidemic. As with other diseases, where scientists and biologists seek cures, so I believe that humanity at large will one day demand that their leaders "cure" their communities of radicalism and thus terrorism. And how will they do that you might ask? By the most intrusive social and personal controls on a level with those in the book "1984". Cameras everywhere, internet screening, ID cards, impenetrable border controls, state-sanctioned school and church inspectors, bank account surveillance, eradication of hard currency - only electronic transactions allowed, permits for travel and car purchase, rationing of petrol, telephonic and e-mail snooping. Don't believe me? Wait and see. 92.22.73.169 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't. Terrorist is a tactic. It's like asking, "How do you rid of surrounding your enemy?" or "How do you get rid of bombing?" 67.184.14.87 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is guerrilla warfare an early relation to terrorism? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I see a major difference. In guerrilla warfare, the target is still enemy troops, but unconventional means are used to attack them. In terrorism, however, the targets are the civilians. The first is therefore consistent with the laws of war, while the latter constitutes war crimes. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Playing "language lawyer" isn't very helpful. Clearly our OP really wants to know (a) How to avoid being surrounded and/or (b) What you can do to escape if you are surrounded. (How can you prevent terrorism from being employed as a tactic against you. What to can you do to get rid of a terrorist onslaught it once it's started). Sadly, it's a pretty effective tactic - nobody ever really succeeded in preventing it. The best you can do is remove the cause of your enemies' discontent with you so he no longer has cause to attack you - but if you can't (or won't) do that - you're in for a rough time. SteveBaker (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One effective but immoral response is genocide, or the threat of genocide. Even if terrorists don't value their own life, they generally don't want their entire nation/tribe/family/gang killed off. For example, some tribes of Native Americans engaged in terrorism in the 1800's (as did the European settlers), by butchering settler families. Killing off the members of the tribes which launched those attacks eliminated their base of support and the "terrorists" were eventually caught or killed. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is simply one form of the most common tactic of behavioural modification used by humanity - 'do what we say, or bad things happen to you' To change this we would have to change the most basic principles of almost all societies. No more deterrents like prison, no grounding the kids, no political sanctions etc. The main problem here is what to replace this system with, because given the nature of most people, if they have nothing to fear, they will seldom choose to do the 'right' thing. Making everybody be nice by convincing them it is the best course of action is about the best answer I can find, short of breaking the typical suspension of disbelief which might make someone think terrorism is justified in terms of their religion/national cause etc.

clueless

the author of a book about a people who's country he never step foot on...name the author and book ..clue relation to hitler..please wikipedians assist me with this question..

Well, Hitler wrote a book about the Jews but never visited Israel, which didn't exist while he was alive. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem relevant, as the Jews whom Hitler blamed for Germany's woes and ultimately targeted for extermination were not Israelis but inhabitants (citizens, residents, et al.) of Europe and North Africa. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been travel writers that its been revealed never visited the countries they wrote about (well, I heard about at least one), but I don't see a connection to Hitler there. --Tango (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam's answer may not seem relevant to a historian, but maybe it would in a trivia quiz or puzzle forum. Guessing, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Brrrr... it's a discouraging thought to us historians that the designers and doers of trivia quizzes wouldn't know (?) about millions of Jews having lived throughout Europe during Hitler's lifetime and close to two millennia before. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AS a historian and a player of trivia, it wouldn't surprise me at all... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Kafka wrote Amerika, yet never set foot in the Americas. The Hitler relation is a bit far-fetched here, I admit, but Hitler occasionally set up his mobile Headquarters in a special train called "Amerika" for a while.

Another author of German literature, Karl May, wrote many fat books on the Wild West long before he visited the United States in 1908 (and the westernmost point he reached was Buffalo). There is a Hitler connection here too. Klaus Mann wrote a famous essay Cowboymentor des Führers ("Cowboy mentor of the Führer") in which he proposes the influence of Old Shatterhand's bible-thumping antics on Hitler's racist concepts. The notion has been deprecated in more recent studies, but the myth persists, and Hitler probably did read and enjoy some of May's Wild West books as an adolescent. He also received the complete works of Karl May as a gift when he was Reichskanzler. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet you could find plenty of Cold War era academics on either side who never set foot in the countries they were writing about. Further, it's really only pretty recently that many people have had a chance to travel. Shakespeare certainly never visited the Caribbean (setting of The Tempest), and probably never visited Italy or Illyria. Calderón de la Barca certainly never made it to Poland (nominal setting of La vida es sueño), though I think, in reciprocity, Jan Potocki did actually make it to Spain (setting of the Saragossa Manuscript). And then there are all the modern books set in Ancient Rome. Not to mention science fiction set on other worlds. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching for a specific site (marketplace for technical solutions)

Some months ago I came across a site where users could ask for and offer technical solutions. It was organized like an open marketplace and not IT oriented. Does someone know what site is it?--Mr.K. (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like our Computer Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I said, not IT oriented. It could be our Science Ref Desk, but more professional. Nobody is expecting that you search a couple of weeks for a technical solution and then post it to the Ref Desk, but in this specific site, the projects were in this direction. Mr.K. (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Found: InnoCentive! --Mr.K. (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

i have been assigned a responsibility to take care of the emailing department of my company,i.e any mails sent to customers querries regarding complains, information, online enquiries,hence, want to streamline a system to ensure a crisp and comprehensive email structre with monitoring and guiding agents.can anyone guide me OR to a link describing the most important elements i should check upon to ensure 100% customer satisfaction in an emailing process? any suggestions would mean a lot.thank youSeekhle (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First for some things not to do:

A) I sometimes get company e-mails that say "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS". Maybe they list the correct address to reply to somewhere in the e-mail, maybe they don't, but, in either case, I can't use the REPLY button because of this, which makes me angry.

B) Don't include any advertising in the e-mails.

C) Don't route any customer requests to anyone who doesn't speak English (or, more generally, the native language of the customers). Send those people to class to improve their language skills, until they can be more of a help to customers than an annoyance.

Now for things to do:

1) Each person wants to feel they are speaking with the same person each time they contact the company, who knows their history, account numbers, etc., and whose name is known to the customer. Nothing is more frustrating than dealing with somebody new every time you contact the company, who is completely ignorant of everything you said to the last person, and probably doesn't even know who you are.

2) I suggest keeping e-mail threads intact so, if somebody new does come into the loop, they can read through the history instead of asking all the same questions again. This might be complicated by the fact that the customer may discard those threads in their replies, so you would somehow need to reconstruct them.

3) Be sure to list all the relevant info in each e-mail, such as account numbers, order numbers, transaction numbers, phone numbers, etc.

4) Being transfered to somebody new is also annoying, so be sure the first person the customer request is routed to is actually able to help.

5) To ensure a quick response, route customer requests to a customer service rep who is currently available, not one who is on vacation, behind in their work, or just left the office for the night. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also add: A) Only email me when email is the most appropriate form of communication. B) Provide me with direct links to pages that are relevant to what you are emailing me regarding (a link to my sales order, a 'track your order' page etc.) C) Don't pretend the email is written by an individual unless it actually is. An automated/computer-generated letter is perfectly acceptable for most situations, it's really only resolving complex/sensitive issues where the 'personal touch' is more important D) (related to C) Have communications review automated letters for sense, clarity, mistakes and general remarks. That is the best feature of automated letters - they can usually be written to a higher level of readability than rep X trying to explain a concept yet rep X doesn't really know how to write. E) Be wary of personal information. Many consumers are worried about online transactions so never repeat data/information back to customers that is irrelevent/they should already know - if such facilities exist provide links to secure/password-protected pages that show your information - this can put many customers at ease. F) Have some decent SLAs (service level agreement). Realistic ones are better than small/shorter ones. If you can set my expectations and meet those expectations that is 90% of the service. The next step is doing the same again but faster. It is, however, more important to be accurate with how quick you will respond/deal than it is how quick you claim you can do it. I know it's corny corporate stuff but keeping your promises is a big thing from a customer perspective. Hope this helps ny156uk (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Temperate climate in USA?

Is there anywhere in the USA with a 365 day, mild, temperate climate, please? In particular there must be no snow, no high humidity/excessive heat (as Florida) and be away from earthquake, hurricane and tornado zones. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Much of California pretty much fits the bill except for the earthquake zones. But keep in mind that earthquakes, even in high-risk areas like the Bay Area or Los Angeles, are relatively infrequent and kill far, far, far, far fewer people than, say, automobiles. They do more property damage than anything else, and in areas where multiple earthquakes are expected or anticipated much of the architecture is fairly reinforced anyway. The West and Southwest can have very high heat though it is dry, which is not too difficult to deal with (it's very easy compared to the high-humidity heat you get elsewhere). A dry heat of 100º is completely tolerable compared to a high-humidity of only 75º. And of course there is also Hawaii (which have volcano zones but my understanding is that they are limited in scope). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend San Diego as having the most ideal climate in the US. As the above contributor said, you are in the earthquake zone, but SD is not noted for quakes nearly as much as Los Angeles and San Francisco are. As the above said, I would also recommend Hawaii. There was a cyclone over Kauai a few years back, but that's rare. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I lived in Cardiff By The Sea in North County near the city of San Diego for 19 years,and it is indeed a wonderful climate all year round,the cost of living is high in CA in general,and we used to say that we all pay a sunshine tax by living there,but it was worth it for good health.Now I am back in cold London!But visit Spain now for the sun! It was lovely all last week in Fuengirola. Fluter.

Another option, depending on how much humidity you can tolerate, is Austin, Texas. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) I would also point you towards south-eastern Washington, such as the Tri-Cities. The area averages maybe one inch of snow a year, each January. And it is away from natural disaster areas (although I must mention the Hanford Site is in the area should you be worried about other potential disasters. Useight (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Inches of snow isn't a good measure of climate: the Tri-Cities area is semi-desert in the rainshadow of the Cascade Mountains. The temperature routinely gets below freezing in the winter, and above 100F in the summer. --Carnildo (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for Hawaii. The temp is always moderate. There are volcanoes, but they are the slow, predictable type that you can easily outrun. The humidity might be a bit high, in some locations, though. StuRat (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii doesn't count as temperate, and Austin can be quite humid and gets hotter during summer than almost anywhere in Florida. As you can see from this map, the earthquake hazard is quite small in the Sierra Foothills region of California. This region never experiences hurricanes, tornadoes are extremely rare, and snow is very light and melts quickly except in the higher elevations. Towns in this region include Grass Valley, California; Auburn, California; Placerville, California, and Sonora, California. If you need to be absolutely certain that you will never see a flake of snow or experience hot, humid weather, then you need to be on the coast of California, despite the earthquake risk. I second the suggestion of San Diego. Marco polo (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

While Hawaii is in the tropics; it being a series of small islands means it doesn't get as hot as large land masses in the tropics, so the temps are more in line with what the original poster had in mind. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There are also cooling breezes. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the type of unchanging, yet mild, climate is rare on the earth. Given the tilt of the earth's axis, the places on earth that find the least change in climate are those in the tropics, that is within 23^o of the equator. The U.S. is about midway between the equator and the poles; and this part of the earth always experiences the greatest variation in seasonal climates. The only place on earth that has extremely small temperature variations, AND has a mild climate is probably the Altiplano of South America. La Paz, Bolivia is probably your best shot for a major city with the smallest variation in mean anual temperatures; however its also extremely high altitude (over 10,000 feet) presents its own challenges. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another high-altitude equatorial climate, and a good deal warmer than frigid La Paz (it rarely gets above 60 F there, though the sunshine is intense due to the altitude) is Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (8000 to 9000 feet). Can't vouch for the air quality or quality of life though. In the US your best bet is probably Hawaii, and in the continental US, the California coast. Every place mentioned has either hurricanes or earthquakes. Antandrus (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Seattle is as close as you’re going to get to that. The nearby large bodies of water keep the climate temperate almost 365 days a year. There are very rare earthquakes, but as I say, I think Seattle fulfils the largest number of your specifications. --S.dedalus (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but remember that Seattle has a high number of active earthquake faults underneath it. Periodicly, every several hundred years, large magnitude 9 earthquakes occur such as the 1700 Cascadia earthquake. Some areas still get oppressive heat AND occasional snow, such as parts of Florida. Also, climates may shift with the effects of global warming. Also, Hawaii does get occasional hurricanes such as Hurricane Iniki. According to my atlas, the only place in the United States with a "temperate" climate is the west coast region. Although this region does experience very occasional snowfall, and the summers are actually rather cool, and occasional earthquakes and tsunamis may occur in the region, and rain storms and monsoons may occur, how about Eureka, California? ~AH1^(TCU) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It also rains a lot in Seattle. Although Boston gets more over-all precip than Seattle does, it rains more days in Seattle. Eureka's also cold and wet. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• "it rains more days in Seattle": of course, we locals don't count drizzle as "rain". Perfectly normal Seattle conversational exchange: "Is it raining out?" "No, just drizzling a bit." As my late Uncle Bill used to say, we have a great climate, but lousy weather. - Jmabel | Talk 21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)