Porsche and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
auto windshield installation instructions |
||
Line 1:
{{Unicode|}}{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 July 1}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 July 2}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 July 3}}
= July 4 =
== Noah's Ark ==
Is there a reference to how long it took Noah to build the Ark? Are there only modern day guesses?[[User:66.169.2.51|66.169.2.51]] 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:The ambiguity over the nature of [[Noah's Ark]] makes this nearly impossible to answer in any meaningful way. The Biblically literal Ark would have been nearly impossible for Noah, his sons, and retainers to build, and would have taken decades, if we grant that they could have done it at all. However, the concept of some Ark-like vessel is probably more reasonable, but any definitive answer as to the time it took to build it would be lost in the mists of time, along with what the Ark really was. Ark-like boats, of more modest stature, could be constructed from a variety of materials, often in less than a year. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:Noah was 600 years old when the Flood started and was over 900 when he died. They had plenty of time to create an ark the size the Bible stated. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>[[User:Bibliomaniac15/Enlarge your edit count|BUY NOW!]]</sup> 04:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::A common mistranslation/misunderstanding is that in the original Greek (from which many modern English translations derive) there is a confusion between the terms used for months and for years. So the original author(s) of this story probably meant to say that he was 50 years old (600 months) when the flood started and 75 years (900 months) when he died. This would still have been an impressively long life at the time when the story is set - but at least it's plausible. The ark on the other hand...hogwash...nothing in the story stands up to even the smallest inspection! Still, it's a good story - and it's one that shows up in a lot of mediterranian cultures in various guises so it probably pre-dates the Bible. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::"Original Greek"? Lol. In the '''original Hebrew''', the text is explicit that Noah entered the ark in his 600th year (Gen 7:11 + Gen 7:13). He was 950 when he died (Gen 9:29). The Bible isn't specific about when Noah was commanded to begin construction; medieval commentator [[Rashi]], (based on [[Sanhedrin]] 108b) comments on Gen 6:14 that Noah was given 120 years to build the Ark... as a favour to his neighbours who might have a chance to ask why he was doing this and have a chance to repent. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 15:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I know (of course) that the bible was originally in Hebrew - but most modern English texts are derived from Greek translations of the Hebrew (which is even more confusing because of the lack of any vowels in the written form). I didn't just make this up - it's a very common theory. See for example: [[Methuselah]] for several possible explanations for this confusion in the early parts of the bible. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 12:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I can't see any mention of year/month translation confusion in that article, although there is some treatment of a theory that assumes a confusion over dating systems. However, the Hebrew text is unambiguously speaking of years. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Proof positive that you didn't read it properly! "''Another theory suggests lunar cycles were mistaken for the solar ones''". Solar cycles are years, Lunar cycles are months...well, approximately. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 02:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Getting shot in torso ==
Generally, how long would it take for an average human to die or fall unconscious if he/she was shot in a non-vital (not heart, lungs or diaphram) part of his/her torso, such as the stomach, intestines or liver? [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
: I am not a doctor ... but I don't know that death or falling unconscious is a foregone conclusion. In other words, I would think that a person can get shot in the torso and not die and not fall unconscious. I believe that it happens all the time. "Lots" of people get shot and still manage to escape from the crime scene, or drive themselves to the hospital, etc. I believe it's fairly common. In fact, probably ''more'' common than actual death or unconsciousness (given the scenario as you describe it). I also believe that an important factor is loss of blood ... how much is lost and whether or not the blood flow is stemmed. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
:: It would also depend on the shot. A .22 bullet from a hand gun could cause nothing worse than a puncture wound. The same sized bullet from a rifle, however, would cause much more internal damage -- possibly from [[hydrostatic shock]]. --[[User:Mdwyer|Mdwyer]] 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Just to expand a little, a shot to the intestines would probably eventually cause [[sepsis]]. But I think the immediate killer would be blood-loss. The rate of blood loss depends on the extent of the injury, and how well the bleeding is controlled. --[[User:Mdwyer|Mdwyer]] 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:Also, it is apparently [[Stopping_power#Psychological_effects|very common]] for people to faint when they're shot (or even shot ''at''), so they could fall unconscious immediately. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
: People have been drilled through the heart (with a small bullet) and kept going for several minutes. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: Surely getting shot in the stomach, and therefore allowing your stomach acid to seep out, would be rather painful? --[[User:Saxsux|saxsux]] 12:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Moses ==
In the bible, when moses met god (the burning bush), the lord told that his skin would melt away, it was some sort of desease, what is it called?
: Could it have been [[Leprosy]]? --[[User:Mdwyer|Mdwyer]] 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::I was just about to say the same thing, but now that I think about it, Leprosy doesn't make the skin actually melt away.
:It was Tzaraath, Tzaraath is like Leprosy, but it's the only one (out of the two) that is mentioned in the Bible, Mose was probaaly being told that he'd git it if he disobeyed God (Since Tzaraath is believed to be caused by sin.) Thank guys, I would never have figured this out without you :)
:::Tzaraat is usually translated as leprosy, but they're not analogous. The Bible is explicit that as well as people's flesh, tzaraat could also infect the walls of their homes and their linen etc, not a feature of leprosy. Tzaraat was usually a punishment for speaking evil - at the [[Burning Bush]], Moses had just opined that the Israelites wouldn't believe him. Regardless of whether Moses' prediction was accurate or not, God gently punished him for this disrepectful speech. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
== Bible ==
According to the bible, someone was tooken by angels and lifted to heaven in a (I believe it was 'firey') carrage, and in other words, some one and the bible didn't die, who was he?
:That would most likely be [[Elijah]], who departed in a chariot of fire. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That's it! the chariot of fire, everything, Thank you! :) now I can complete my quiz, IQ test for Christians, and begin on IQ test for Dummies :]
:If it's one of those online IQ test, screw those. They are worthless and don't mean much. [[User:Splintercellguy|Splintercellguy]] 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a special IQ test for Christians? Do they have a different IQ to other people (I'm sure [[Richard Dawkins]] thinks they do!). Sounds more like a general knowledge test on the bible. One question is, are you less clever for not knowing the answer, or more clever for knowing where to find it? [[User:Cyta|Cyta]] 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a test I'm making on Bebo. It's to test your knownelge on Christianity.
:Making? Or taking? Wouldn't this then be considered [[cheating]] and quite [[sin|unchristian]]? As you pointed out it is meant to be [[your]] knowledge. Seems odd to ask the questions to get answers to actually pose the questions. Maybe you should consider basing the quiz on questions you already know the answers to? [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
:I don't see how an IQ (Intelligence Quotient) can be derived from measuring how much you can memorize from one particular book! You could describe it as a memory test - or a Bible knowledge test - but trust me, it has nothing whatever to do with intelligence! Real IQ tests work very hard to decouple the ideas of 'knowledge' from those of 'intelligence'. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 15:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
==
The bible talks about an animal with four heads, two of which was a human and a lion's, and I think a monkey, what was the creature's name?
:Is this a reference to Daniel 7:6? There are plenty of searchable version of the [[Bible]] on-line that will enable you to look for all these answers. See [[Bible]].--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::[[Daniel's Vision of Chapter 7]] involves 4 separate animals, not multiple heads ( 1. a lion with wings, 2. a bear with ribs in its mouth, 3. a leopard with four wings and four heads, and 4. a nondescript, but terrifying and powerful beast.) these animals had no name and represented 4 kingdoms to appear on earth.
::It is more likely that you are thinking of the [[Merkabah|Merkabah vision]] in [[Book of Ezekiel]] (1:4-26). The vision involves a throne-chariot of God, and a four-wheeled vehicle driven by four [[chayot]] "living creatures", each of which has four wings and four faces (of a man, lion, ox, and eagle). [[User:Jon513|Jon513]] 13:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
== Paul ==
How did Paul (Apositle) die?
:[[Paul the Apostle]] was arrested in Rome, and either died there, on en-route to, or in Spain. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :]
== About Mail order business ==
I want to know what mail order business really is.Is it tough
or does it command any seriousbusinessskills.[[User:218.248.2.51|218.248.2.51]] 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid
: I think you might want to read up on [[Multi-level marketing]]. --[[User:Mdwyer|Mdwyer]] 08:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::Not every mail order company is involved in MLM. It's rather misleading to direct the OP solely to that article. Depending on the market and the number of potential customers there are for your business, it can be very tough. And yes, you will need to have good business skills in order to run the business. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
: eBay has provided a way for people to edge gradually into the mail order business. They take case of interfacing with the customers, collecting the money and all the tricky parts - you are left to the mundane tasks of buying product and dealing with shipping, returns, etc. It's an easy way to get started. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
== MONARCHY ==
WHEN THE HEIR OF THE CURRENT QUEEN IN BRITIAN IN OTHER WORDS PRINCE CHARLES GET TO THE THRONE, DOES HIS WIFE BECOME A QUEEN OR SHE RECEIVES ANOTHER TITLE
:The article on [[Camilla_Parker_Bowles#Titles.2C_styles.2C_honours_and_arms|Camilla]] covers this. [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
IS IT TRUE OR FALSE THAT THE ROYAL BRITISH FAMILY CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE DESCANDANTS OF KING DAVID AND JESUS CHRIST.
Common sense suggests the answer is false (a comment like that from a Royal might provoke uproar in the media). Though, please don't write with caps lock on - it makes messages much harder to read.[[User Talk:martianlostinspace|martianlostinspace]] 11:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks martin for your help, but i saw a clip which shows the family tree of the royal family and it showed king david, and jesus and sorry for using capitals, i taught it was easier to read, regards tancred
: I have seen family trees of the Royal Family, claiming descent from King David and going right back to Adam and Eve. As I recall, these claims originated in the early Christian era as a way of enhancing the legitimacy and status of royalty. Prior to Christianity arriving in England, English royalty sometimes claimed descent from our native gods. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 11:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::Surely they must be descendants from adam and eve, just like the rest of us are, if the Bible is to be believed? [[User:213.48.15.234|213.48.15.234]] 11:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, but most of us commoners can't trace it all the way - and certainly not via King David! [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 11:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::::To be [[Christian_views_about_women#Mary_Magdalene|descended from Jesus]] - that would imply that he successfully sired children surely? [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
:::::Laurence Gardner's book ''"Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed"'' (ISBN 0-14-100615-3) posits just such a descent, with all sorts of genealogical charts. Quite an interesting read. Whether it's believable or not is another matter. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:I didn't read your question because I don't like being shouted at. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 12:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::When i first arrived on the web waaay back, I used to type in CAPS too, just made more sense to me. Back in the days of mIRC, I got booted from quite a few channels before I learnt my lesson. So perhaps the poster is a newb :P [[User:Rfwoolf|Rfwoolf]] 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I am sure they can trace there ancestry, through the kings of Wessex to Woden. I believe there was a theory (possibly due to [[Gildas]]?) that traced Britain's origins back to people fleeing Troy. There's all sorts of crazy theories, but I think tracing anything back through the 'dark ages' would be impossible. [[User:Cyta|Cyta]] 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:Three separate answers to three interesting questions:
:#It's perfectly possible that some people claim that the British Royal Family are descended that way - but then some people claim you can run cars on water or that NASA never went to the moon. What the questioner actually SHOUTED was a question of whether the royal family themselves claim this - I very much doubt that they do - but we aren't addressing that question by asking whether we've seen such family trees out there.
:#When a man takes the throne, his wife becomes "The Queen" - but when a woman comes to the throne, her husband is not "The King" - weird, sexist - but true. There is a long tradition of royalty choosing how to be named - some people change their names when they take the throne others pick and choose between the many titles that formally apply to them - choosing the one that they prefer - or the one that seems politically correct. Camilla may choose not to use the title "The Queen of England" - but it is hers whether she chooses to use it or not. Many people would say that Princess Diana "deserved" the title - but didn't get it - so Camilla's preference for a different title is likely to be a political correctness thing rather than a personal preference.
:::*Not true about Camilla. As a Queen Consort, the most she could ever become is "Queen Camilla", not "Queen Camilla ''of <anywhere>''". But even if she were the Queen Regnant, she still wouldn't be "Queen Camilla of England". She would be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". This is not a pedantic distinction. There is no crown of England. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oooh! Good info! Thanks for the correction - my bad! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 12:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:#Typing in ALL CAPITALS has been shown in many careful experiments to be less readable than text written in all lowercase - which in turn is less readable than correctly capitalised/punctuated sentences. The reason for this is that when you are reading rapidly, your eyes can pick out words from their shape on the page alone. The overall shape of UPPERCASE words is pretty much just rectangles - forcing your eye/brain to pick out and recognise every single letter individually - which is slow and tiring. The varying nature of the ascenders (b,d,f,h,k,l & t) and descenders (g,j,p,q & y) of lowercase provide more varied word shapes that are a useful shortcut for recognising small, common words - so lowercase is easier and more relaxing on the eye/brain. Best of all - write using proper English - mixed case, punctuation, good grammar and spelling. But if all else fails and you truly can't bear to do it right - you should prefer lowercase to CAPITALS. Worse still, there is a common online convention of using all-uppercase words for emphasis and to indicate THAT YOU ARE SHOUTING in systems that don't support '''boldface''' and ''italics''. So if you type in UPPERCASE ONLY, people who spend a lot of time online subconsciously think you're SHOUTING AT THEM. It's truly, genuinely, offensive to them - doing it repeatedly will make people unreasonably angry with you! I can tell you that MY REPEATED USE OF CAPITALS IN THIS REPLY is already raising the hackles on some of our readers! This surprises many people who are relatively new to the Internet - but it is undoubtedly the case.
::: There's a typeface called Orator, designed for reading aloud; its lowercase is small block capitals. The benefit is that it slows the reader down and makes tongue-tangling less likely. Or so I conjecture. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
'''Comment''' The original poster has '''already apologized''' for typing in caps, I think we can [[WP:DBTN|be forgiving]] and stop rubbing it in. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:SteveBaker's reply looks to me more like the detailed explanation of why is shouting frowned upon rather than rubbing it in. — [[User:Shinhan|<font color="blue">Shinhan</font>]] < ''[[User_talk:Shinhan|<font color="navy">talk</font>]]'' > 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, Steve, for your witty+informative reply. There's the true spirit of the ref desk. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 07:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have seen claims that the Queen is descended from [[Mohammed]]. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:Given the way royals intermarry, that's not totally impossible. The Hashemite Kings of Jordan certainly ''are'' descendants of Mohammed. -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 09:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
: When [[Prince William of Wales]] was gestating, Sir [[Iain Moncreiffe]] (I think) wrote a book titled something like ''HRH: Genealogy of the Royal Child'', which went into considerable detail about possible Moslem and Asiatic ancestors among others. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== Ten Commandments ==
As one of the 3 Ibrahimic Faiths alongside Judaism and Christianity, do Muslims have to abide by the Ten Commandments as handed down to Moses?
:There is an article on [[Islamic ethics]] and a link to a site quoting the [[Quran]] in the section on [[Islamic_ethics#Moral_commandments|moral commandments]]. [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
::see [[Ten Commandments#Muslim understanding]]. The view that the ten commandments are the foundation of morality is largely a Christian idea. In Judaism the 10 commandments are no more important that the other divine [[613 mitzvot|Commandments]]. In Islam they do abide by the 10 commandments for their own reasons but it could not be said that they do so "as handed down to Moses". [[User:Jon513|Jon513]] 12:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Added to which, Christians can't actually agree on which 10 commandments they are obeying. Exodus 20:1-17 or Deuteronomy 5:6-21 ? - they are very different! Jews and Protestants have "thou shalt not covet" listing a bunch of very specific things you can't covet. Catholics and Lutherans have a blanket rule against coveting your neighbor's wife or his property. Exodus (21:7) allows parents to sell their daughters into slavery (21:17) requires kids who "curse their parents" be put to death! The Christian story of the commandments has Moses struggling down the mountain with the ten commandments carved into stone tablets - but he gets so upset with what everyone's been getting up to while he's away - he drops the tablets and smashes them to bits ("Ooops! My bad!"). A normal person would just copy what God said onto a handy scroll and maybe get someone to chisel out some more tablets - but no, Moses goes back to God to get a new set - which (surprisingly) have a whole different set of rules (''"Er, sorry Moses - what did I say was rule six last time? 'Thous shalt not kill'?...Ohhh - sheesh - you know, now that I think about it that's going to make wars a bit tricky. This time, let's go with 'But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck.' - yeah that's much better."''). http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/What10.htm has both sets. The whole thing is a complete mess. We have commandments that nobody in their right mind would obey (God wants me kill my son when he swears at me!) - we have a total mismatch between first and second sets of commandments and we have so many layers of interpretation and mistranslation that any source you can actually understand is a dubious guide at best. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 22:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 are almost identical. Exodux 34 ([[Ritual Decalogue]]) is not referred to by anyone as the 10 commandments, but some believe that it was written on the second set of tablets. Exodux 21 has absolutely nothing to do with 10 commandments and the only reason to mention it is to disparage religion. [[User:Jon513|Jon513]] 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::Jeez. Add all of that to the Qu'ran rule that all Muslims should kill any non-muslim who refuses to convert to Islam, and you have a pretty devastating idea of how an all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful God has carefully planned Man's mutual destruction.
== Royal Mail ==
Slightly following up the mail adressing question a few days ago: A year or 2 ago I managed to get a wrongly addressed letter through my door. The only pieces of information that matched my address were the house number and street name. It had a postcode. Any idea how this mess up could have happened? They always say that as long as the postcode is correct it will get there. But the postcode on the letter was nothing like mine. [[User:213.48.15.234|213.48.15.234]] 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:Two years ago? I get someone else's mail delivered to me practically every week, usually with a different postcode. There is a form on the Royal Mail website specifically for complaining about this, but it hasn't had much effect here. The bulk of the mail is sorted automatically, but a lot of it still has to be done by eye, for example on larger items or if the machinery cannot read the postcode. In the end, it all comes down to the efficiency and attitude of your own postman/postwoman.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
== Buying an [[anteater]] ==
Not to invite spam, but does anyone know where this animal can be obtained? I Googled but didn't come up with anything. I am in the [[United States]]. Thanks in advance. [[User:74.140.211.161|74.140.211.161]] 14:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:OK, I'm curious. What do you want with one? --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] [[User talk:Richardrj|<sup>talk </sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/Richardrj|<sup>email</sup>]] 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::It's for my wife. [[User:74.140.211.161|74.140.211.161]] 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Nice idea for a present, then. What does she want with one? --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] [[User talk:Richardrj|<sup>talk </sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/Richardrj|<sup>email</sup>]] 15:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Totally ignoring the fact that you want a ''freaking anteater'', have you tried asking around (calling, emailing) wildlife reserves and foundations? A lot of them have odd or rare animals like that that you can either adopt or rent from them --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please treat your wife with a suitable product from your local pharmacy. An anteater needs a lot of ants and may tickle her excessively. Besides, they are wild animals and unsuitable as pets. They inhabit South and Central America, so I doubt your local wildlife center will have one going spare.--[[User:Mrs Wibble-Wobble|Mrs Wibble-Wobble]] 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::: This lady's blog [http://taqmanduagirl.blogspot.com] indicates she has a few pet [[Tamandua]]s. Why not ask her where she got them? [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Cool! Thanks greatly! [[User:74.140.211.161|74.140.211.161]] 20:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:[http://shop.book.uci.edu/ePOS?this_category=56&store=446&form=shared3%2fgm%2fmain%2ehtml&design=446 Does it have to be alive?] [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
==Fido as another term for dog==
How did Fido become another name for dog? [[User:Oneworld25|Oneworld25]] 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fido . Loyal as in [[man's best friend]]? [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
== Madison Column Garden ==
Why is [[Madison Square Garden]] named Madison '''''SQUARE''''' Garden? It is obviously built in the shape of a column.
Really been bugging me.
--[[User:67.177.170.96|67.177.170.96]] 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:As the article says, it's IN [[Madison Square]] --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. In that case, why is it called a garden? It's obviously a stadium! A bit of misleading advertising...--[[User:67.177.170.96|67.177.170.96]] 20:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::[[Madison Square Garden#History]] Please. Your comments are answered right at the start of the article --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I see. I apologize. My ignorance is astounding at times... --[[User:67.177.170.96|67.177.170.96]] 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::It's good to acknowledge one's ignorance from time to time. It gives one a certain ''je ne sais quoi''. :) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
== Penn Station (New York) ==
[[Penn Station (New York)]]
How deep is Penn Station below ground level? Can't seem a find a number anywhere. My google kung-fu has failed.
--[[User:67.177.170.96|67.177.170.96]] 20:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:I googled on ''tracks'', ''feet'', ''underground'', and ''"penn station"''. The third hit was [http://www.hdrinc.com/Assets/documents/Publications/RailLine/November2004/PennFarley.pdf this PDF document], which says the tracks are 40-60 feet below street level. (I assume you're referring to the deepest level, i.e. track level.) Now that passage in the document refers to the [[Pennsylvania Station (New York City)#Original structure|original]] Penn Station, but I can't imagine that they would have changed the track level when building the present one; in fact, the Wikipedia article says that only the above-ground structures were demolished, although presumably what it means is those above track level. --Anonymous, July 4, 2007, 21:12 (UTC).
== What do I need to compost at home? ==
I live in an apartment building in San Francisco and would like to begin composting at home. Though there is a wiki article on what [[compost|compost is made of]] as well as [[composting|common practices]], there isn't much information as to what a person needs to begin. Do I just need a pail with a lid? Or do I need to go with the worm-option?
I don't have a garden, just a balcony with some plants, so I don't need a major system in place or that much dirt.
Can you help?
[[User:67.161.57.96|67.161.57.96]] 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:Try WikiHow or Google --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::... the question does point out a hole in Wikipedia's coverage, though: composting in urban settings. Certainly a non-negligible number of people do it but there's no information about it, so if anyone has data on this topic it'd be worthwhile to share it so we can add it to the project. '''[[User:JDoorjam|JDoorjam]]''' <small>[[User Talk:JDoorjam|JDiscourse]]</small> 20:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Turns out it wasn't such a hole, after all -- see [[vermicompost]]. —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::A compost bin on your balcony would be one way to go - you can get compost starter kits from gardening stores - or add a handful of dirt (I mean [[soil]] us term?) to get the bacteria/bugs/whatever that composting requires.
::Compostting shouldn't stink - so that shouldn't be a problem - but once working the thing becomes a home for all sorts of creepy crawlies - something to consider when you only have a limited space - they might start invading your apartment/house/
::Pail with lid works - don't forget the airholes - and if posible a flap at bottom to easily remove composted stuff - don't worry about worms (of which I've no experience but it sounds a bit like growing maggots on dead meat)[[User:213.249.232.111|213.249.232.111]] 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
* Where I live we have several community compost bins at ground level for our flats.This means I get everyone else's kitchen waste as well:)Could you find a bit of communal ground to put a bin up in?It's of benefit to the whole community as it removes a lot of stinky rubbish from everyone else's rubbish sacks. [[User:Hotclaws**==|hotclaws]] 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The recommended way to compost indoors or on a balcony (i.e. when you have no yard at all) is with a [[worm bin]]. <s>Let's see if this link comes up red, or if we have an article on them... (Well, we didn't. I've started it, but it's somewhat stubby.)</s> —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Scratch the above; see our article on [[vermicompost]] for much more information. (Oh, and don't worry about having to "go with the worm-option". [[Redworm]]s are marvelous creatures. They would love nothing better than to turn your kitchen scraps into compost for you, and if you give them the chance they'll reproduce like mad until there are exactly enough of them for however big a compost bin you want to keep, and they're not slimy or noisy or smelly or anything. Truly one of Nature's underappreciated miracles.) —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:You do realize that composting is about the worst thing for global warming. Methane is the primary gas and it is significantly worse than CO2. Recent studies show the worms are the culprit. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::No, I didn't realize that, and I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::Methane is only produced in [[anaerobic respiration]]. As long as you aerate your compost (stick a pitchfork into it) properly, there will be no such problems. Unsurprisingly, nobody wants to aerate landfill sites, so sending food waste to landfill will generate methane; composting will not. --[[User:Saxsux|saxsux]] 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
=July 5=
==Mail==
The post-office / mail questions above got me thinking. Does anyone know what would happen in the following scenario? If I mail a letter, and I forget to put a stamp on it, the Post Office brings it right back to me (because my return address is on the top left corner of the envelope). So ... let's say that Person S (Sender) wants to mail a letter to Person R (Recipient) and that S is too cheap to buy stamps. So, when S mails a letter to R, S simply (and incorrectly, yet intentionally) puts the return address of R (instead of his own return address) in the top left corner of the envelope. (In other words, he purposely writes the Sender's address in the portion of the envelope traditionally reserved for the Recipient's address ... and vice versa. He flips the two.) This creates the "illusion" that R was sending the letter and that R put his own (R's) return address on the envelope. The Post Office sees this ... and returns the letter to R, who the Post Office assumed sent the letter with no stamps. So, the end result is that S was able to send a letter to R with no stamps. Am I missing something here ... or is this a "fool proof" way to send letters without postage? If so, why isn't "everybody" doing this (i.e., why is this not a widespread problem)? And, more importantly, how would the Post Office even be able to recognize / counter this? Thanks. (By the way, this question assumes that both S and R live in the USA.) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] ([[User talk:JosephASpadaro|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JosephASpadaro|contribs]]){{#if:02:58, 5 July 2007| 02:58, 5 July 2007|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:This might work within the same city, but it's highly doubtful that the postage service would recognize it over any real distance --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 01:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::In the UK, the letter is delivered, but the recipient must pay both the original postage and an additional fee to cover the extra cost to the Royal Mail. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 01:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm guessing that if it was done over any real distance. The postal service would realise that the place the mail was posted at was closer to S than R, it could work if S travelled most of the distance to R and posted it, but that would completely void the point. [[User:213.48.15.234|213.48.15.234]] 06:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Since it won't cost you anything, I suggest you try it and then fill in the answer your own question.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 08:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I don't think it wise for Wikipedia to be advising questioners to defraud the government. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::[[Abbie Hoffman]] recommended the technique decades ago (in [[Steal This Book]]) as a way to avoid paying for stamps. I would imagine that it still works (in the US, anyway), but I've never tried. [[User:Ergot|ergot]] 20:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
== Drinking and Blurred Vision ==
I often have a stange vision experience while drinking and I was hoping someone could explain it to me.
When drinking (Vodka or similar, not beer), sometimes my vision becomes blurry...standard enough. But, one eye (the left one) almost always becomes VERY blurry while the right is mostly unaffected. Is this normal?
What causes it?
Thanks,
--[[User:67.177.170.96|67.177.170.96]] 04:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:That's not normal at all, and you should switch brands of vodka ASAP. Also, make sure the vodka is ending up mostly in your mouth - if you're getting it in your eye, you're doing it wrong. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 06:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Could it simply be a side-effect of the relaxing properties of the alcohol? I frequently get a stuffed up nose when I enjoy a drink. Perhaps the muscles in one eye are slightly weaker than the other, causing it to relax more easily and lose focus? You may wish to seek medical advice in reference to this. [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
:::Don't worry, I don't regularly pour Vodka into my left eye. I've had many different kinds of hard liquor over the years; they all produce the same effect.--[[User:67.177.170.96|67.177.170.96]] 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::::My eyes have differing focal lengths - my right eye is very short-sighted and my left eye a lot less so. Possibly this is what's happening to you when you're drunk. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Sometimes when I bite into something sour my left eyelid twitches. (Hasn't happened recently but the effect was reliable when I was adolescent.) —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
==Bindweed==
how can i contact other users with questions about bindweed articles - not only in Wikipedia?
:Hi, sorry -- I don't really understand your question, but we have two article about [[Bindweed]]; you could try their talk pages to discuss with other editors. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 09:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::For Wikipedia articles, click the "discussion" tab at the top of the relevant article. It is not clear to what "users" and what non-Wikipedia bindweed articles you are referring. If you have a specific question, try asking it here.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 09:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
i am searching for a particular article i saw one time on field bindweed, is there a way to get help from wikipedia with finding it? It showed pictures and gave infromation on a whole continent (long ago) that had been destroyed by roots of field bindweed and also a modern city destroyed by them. The continent was small. i maybe remember it being off the coast of Italy.
SisterMarie
:Well, you could try asking on the talk page for [[Convolvulus arvensis]], which covers field bindweed. I found [http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7462.html this] article very extensive, but it's not what you're looking for. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 09:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::A [[continent]] off Italy? Do you mean an [[island]]? Or could you be thinking of [[Atlantis]]? If it ever existed, it was drowned rather than decimated by [[bindweed]]. Bindweed is not really that harmful, though it spreads rapidly and could overgrow a city that had already been abandoned.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 10:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
== Bathrooms in single sex schools ==
Do all-girls school have boys bathrooms and vice versa? --[[User:203.51.134.89|203.51.134.89]] 10:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
* I went to an all girls secondary school that had bathrooms labeled "Boys"(Lovely carvings in stone over the door).This was left over from when it was a mixed sex and age school but only girls used them because only girls were pupils at the school.For the first three years ,I entered in a door named "Infants" as well)[[User:Hotclaws**==|hotclaws]] 10:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:I guess they would also have boys toilets for any visiting boys from another school or for siblings attending say, a school play, and vice versa of course. [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
::My all-boys school had several female bathrooms for female staff. [[User:213.48.15.234|213.48.15.234]] 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::This is generally the story. I mean, think about it -- surely some people of the other sex must show up from time to time, and need to use the bathroom? In general, though, there are fewer of them than in a co-ed school. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 11:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Before it was refurbished, I don't remember seeing any female toilet in my boarding house at school. I suppose there must have been one tucked away somewhere though for the cleaners, visitors, female teachers on [[homework|prep]] duty etc. After the refurbishment there were a number of individual toilets more like you might find in somebody's home, which could be used by either sex. Our school had (when I started; it went fully co-ed while I was there) girls in the sixth form, so there were ordinary male and female toilets around the teaching buildings. [[User:PeteVerdon|PeteVerdon]] 19:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
: Of course, they do. As mentioned in the above posts, the bathrooms fulfill the needs of ''all'' people in the school building, not just the student body. This includes faculty, staff, family, friends, guests, vistors, etc., who clearly might be of the "other" gender. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
Is there an article about [[bathroom segregation]] or something similar? [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:I found it. It's [[Washroom#Gender and public washrooms]]. [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Journalism college - fake stories ==
Does anyone know of any online resources about the fictional stories jouranlism students write about?--<big>[[User:Keycard]] 12:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:A very elaborate hoax was the series of stories in "The Daily Egyptian" at Southern Illinois University about [[Kodee Kennings]],a precocious little girl whose father Dan was stationed in Iraq [http://media.www.villanovan.com/media/storage/paper581/news/2005/09/02/Verge/Girls.Iraqi.War.Story.Was.An.Elaborate.Hoax-974390.shtml]. She told the reporter how hard her life was. Then Dan was killed in action. The problem was, he didn;t exist, and the girl's "guardian" had actually borrowed the girl (not named Kodee, and whose father was not in the military)to play what she thought was a part in a movie, and had also hired a man to play the father. She claimed the reporter was in on it, but he denied it. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 14:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Try the ''[[The Sun (newspaper)|The Sun]]''. They make stuff up all the time. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::There are some references to plagiarism and false stories by both professional and student journalists on the Regret The Error blog[http://www.regrettheerror.com/]. You'd have to go through the archives to look for fabrications. --[[User:Charlene.fic|<font color="blue" face="Matisse ITC">Charlene</font>]] 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
==Exchange Rates==
Me and a mate are curious, which currency is the 'strongest' in the world, that is which can you get the most GBP for currently. What currency is it and how many GBP can you get for 1. Thanks [[User:Mysticaloctopus|Mysticaloctopus]] 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Per our [[table of historical exchange rates]], the Kuwaiti Dinar was worth about 2 British Pounds in 2006. It's worth noting, though, that this is not a proper definition of a currency's strength. For instance, even in the [[superdollar (economics)|superdollar]] era, the US Dollar still exchanged for less than one British Pound, even though it was the stronger currency. — [[User talk :Lomn|Lomn]] 13:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::Yes - indeed. It's worthless to use the raw exchange rate. We might say that the British pound is strong because it's worth $2.00 or so - but by the same math the British penny is worth only $0.02 so if we use that metric, we'd have to say the penny was horribly weak! So by that way of thinking is the UK currency (which can be expressed in either pounds or pence) weak or strong? No, we have to consider the relative increase or decrease in value over the longer term historical value. For as long as I can remember, the pound sat at around $1.50 - now, suddenly, it's worth $2.00 - so it's clearly strong right now (or conversely, the dollar is weak). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 18:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::There are at least two different ways in which the word "strong" is applied to currencies by people knowledgeable about international finance. Neither usage of "strong" refers to the raw exchange rate. One usage refers to the relative exchange rate of a currency. This is the usage of the word in the last comment (by <s>an anonymous poster</s>SteveBaker). In this sense, a "strong" currency is one that has risen relative to other currencies. In recent years, currencies that have risen dramatically relative to other currencies include the pound sterling (GBP) and the Australian and New Zealand dollars. Another, related but different usage of the word "strong" refers to the relative demand by investors for that currency, which in turn tends to drive its exchange rates up and has other effects, such as the ability to issue debt denominated in that currency without offering unusually high interest rates. By this measure, the euro might be seen as a stronger currency than the British, Australian, and kiwi currencies, because its exchange rate has risen despite offering relatively low interest rates, whereas the British, Australian, and New Zealand currencies have risen largely in response to the high interest rates their central banks have had to offer to attract financing for those countries' [[current account]] deficits. Because of these two subtly different meanings (and because of popular misconceptions that a high raw exchange rate reflects "strength"), it is probably better not to use the word "strong" but to use more precise and descriptive language instead. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The exchange rate itself doesn't mean the country is well off. The [[Cyprus pound]] is currently worth £1.15 but you wouldn't say Cyprus is a rich country.
:A good example is the [[Canadian dollar]], which is considered to be "very high" now at about 94 cents to the US dollar. That's "high" because the Canadian dollar spent most of the past 30 years in the range of 70-85 US cents. With the Canadian dollar nearing parity with the US dollar, Canada is more expensive to do business in, and American goods are cheaper for Canadians to buy. If it wanted to, Canada could issue replace its currency with "new dollars" at the rate of 10 new dollars for every 1 old dollar. The new Canadian dollar would trade at the rate of 9.4 cents to the US dollar. But that wouldn't make the Canadian currency any weaker compared to the US dollar. It would still be cheaper to buy a Big Mac in the US in terms of [[purchasing power parity]]. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Any Diplomacy players out there? I'm Austria ==
I'm in Autumn 1902 now, and as a relatively new player to this game I'm just wondering how I would go about repelling Italian and Turkish attacks with only an acquiescent Germany.
[http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9437/dipvw8.png]
[[User:AlmostCrimes|AlmostCrimes]] 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Not claiming a great level of expertise here, but here are a few ideas for whatever they are worth:
:#Tell Italy that Turkey is planning to stab them. Tell Turkey that Italy is planning to stab ''them''. Don't give too many details - assume they are going to tell each other whatever you say to one of them - but fuel their paranoia.
:#Your best ally against Turkey is Russia. Tell him that Turkey wants your support into Rum. With luck he will think this is cover for Turkey grabbing Sev so he will order Ukr-Sev, which Turkey will see as a threat.
:#France would be a good ally against Italy, but he seems to be in all sorts of trouble. If you can set Germany and England against each other this might take the pressure off France and he ''might'' push a fleet into the Med - but I wouldn't count on it. Alternatively (or as well as), you could advise Italy to secure his western flank before there is an ''English'' fleet in the Med.
:Good luck ! [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
== Mar Saba ==
While idly browsing wikipedia while waiting for a computer to do something I came across the [[Mar Saba]] article. It has no map co-ordinates, but from the description I think I've found it at {{coord|31.725|35.220}}. I'd like to add the coordinates to the article, but I'm not sure I've got the right place. Can anyone either confirm that I'm right, or tell me where I should be looking? --[[User:Hughcharlesparker|Hugh<small>Charles</small>Parker]] <small>([[User talk:Hughcharlesparker|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Hughcharlesparker|contribs]])</small> 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:I've taken a look at this ___location in Google Earth. It looks to me like a recent housing development and not an ancient monastery. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:According to some Google Earth bookmarks, the Google Earth image itself, and other plausible information, the monastery appears to be at approximately {{coord|31.705|35.331}}. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 15:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you, and thanks to the editors who fixed the coordinates and the description of the ___location in the article. --[[User:Hughcharlesparker|Hugh<small>Charles</small>Parker]] <small>([[User talk:Hughcharlesparker|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Hughcharlesparker|contribs]])</small> 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Sheets for a non-standard-size mattress ==
In September I'll be moving into a dorm where the mattresses are 54"x80". It's becoming clear that if sheets in this size are available at all, they'll be very expensive. Will a fitted sheet made for a 54"x75" or 60"x80" work okay, or will they fail to stretch far enough or bunch up on themselves? [[User:NeonMerlin|<span style="background:#000;color:red;border:#0f0 solid;border-width:1px 0">Neon</span>]][[User talk:NeonMerlin|<span style="background:#0f0;color:#000;border:red solid;border-width:1px 0">Merlin</span>]] 16:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:I get a number of hits by searching Google with the terms [http://www.google.com/search?q=sheets%20for%20dorm%20beds sheets for dorm beds]. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::Google offers about 13,000 hits for "long twin sheets" which are available in every store such as Sears or Penney's in the US and by mail order. Nothing expensive ofr exotic about them. Just convirm the size the bed will be and order 2 sets of fitted sheets. Fitted sheets for a wider or shorter mattress would not be very pleasant to sleep on. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::But long twin is 39"x80"; this is substantially wider than that. [[User:NeonMerlin|<span style="background:#000;color:red;border:#0f0 solid;border-width:1px 0">Neon</span>]][[User talk:NeonMerlin|<span style="background:#0f0;color:#000;border:red solid;border-width:1px 0">Merlin</span>]] 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::::54"x80" is known as "long double", "XL full" or similar combinations. There are many available off the shelf, like these [http://store.ambiencelinens.com/basicbedding-flannel.html] [http://www.jcpenney.com/jcp/Products.aspx?DeptID=0&CatID=029161&Grptyp=STY&ItemId=12b4878&CM_REF=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jcpenney.com%2Fproducts%2FC046496.jsp] [http://www.amazon.com/Mystique-180-Thread-Count-Fitted-Sheet/dp/B000IBF19G/ref=sr_1_1/102-0803656-4037760?ie=UTF8&s=bedbath&qid=1183662972&sr=1-1] Just google for more. [[User:169.230.94.28|169.230.94.28]] 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:It's likely that other residents of this dorm have encountered the same problem, and know of the easy&cheap&student-appropriate solutions. Try talking to them! —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::Is there any reason why you can't just use ordinary sheets?[[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::By "ordinary sheets" do you mean "not fitted sheets"? To some of us, fitted sheets are ordinary sheets! [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I do indeed mean "not-fitted" sheets. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 18:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Squirrels ==
Is there any reason why I shouldn't go outside and capture some of those squirrels that you can find anywhere, and cook them and eat them.
:None that I can think of, provided you catch and kill them humanely, and that it is not illegal in your jurisdiction. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::This site [http://www.backwoodsbound.com/zsquir.html] has a number of interesting recipes. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, rabies. But other than that, probably not much. --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 22:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=squirrel+recipe&meta= Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew]. [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
:::Wikipedia has some information [[Squirrel#Hunting_and_food|here]] [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Squirrel tastes a bit like chicken. Not a whole ton of meat on one, though. In most jurisdictions I know of, harvesting of wild animals is regulated by law. You'll likely need a license of some kind to trap or shoot them legally. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::I was going to put an educated suggestion here, but then I thought, 'What the hell', some politically correct Wikipedian editor will interpret it as an anti-Islamic-squirrel attack and delete it forthwith, so, I shan't bother. pbuh.
: See also [http://www.lileks.com/institute/gallery/othrwhtmeat/index.html this photoessay] by the inimitable [http://www.lileks.com/ James Lileks]. (Don't miss the punch line on page 5.) —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:: I love eating rabbit (my wife bakes them in a plum sauce...mmmmmm!) - but the disturbing thing about that photoessay is how often the company name 'Pel-freez' looks more like 'Pet freez' in the photos...which is particularly unfortunate given the cuddliness of their chosen victims! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:I'm reminded that "Squirrels are Rats with good PR agents." [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::In a city park, where you are not allowed to hunt, the squirrels are ubiquitous. They are pests in every back yard, gnawing their way into plastic trash cans. In the country where (on your own land or with permission) you are allowed to hunt, they are very scarce. You can go to the woods, and watch silently for an hour, and maybe only see the smallest movement up in a tree, and never get a good shot. A shotgun is recommended, since you would have to be an outstanding marksman to hit one with a rifle. A 410 is a good choice, since a 12 gauge would tear it to shreds. You need a hunting license, of course, and a course in gun safety. Kill'em, skin'em and clean em and you have very little meat. But if you stew them with dumplings they are delicious, as they also are fried with gravy made from the drippings. Good with biscuits. Of course they seem way too cute to kill, unless they are gnawing their way through the wooden window sash into your attic, than getting confused and gnawing a second hole to get out. Some groceries have squirrels and other game for sale in the inner city neighborhoods. But there is an old adage that you should make sure it has a paw still on, to make sure it really is a squirrel (or rabbit) and not some other more domestic little quadruped. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 15:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::[[.22 calibre]] is a popular gun for [[squirrel hunting]]. No article. Hunting in general is an underdeveloped subject on Wikipedia. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Seagulls ==
With reference to the question above. Is there any reason why I can't catch, kill, cook and eat those fat, chicken sized gulls I see flying around every day? --[[User:84.68.157.151|84.68.157.151]] 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they taste of rancid fish. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:And you know this because...? --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Why would a gull taste of fish because it sometimes eats fish? --[[User:84.68.157.151|84.68.157.151]] 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well, I suppose if you caught one which feeds on a [[landfill]] site, it would taste of land-fill. I grew up near some small fishing ports. Most sea-birds taste of rancid fish, hence their almost total absence from the cuisine of the world. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::: I saw this recipe suggested
::::'''Poached Seagull'''
::::''Ingredients'': One medium whole bird and one large rock
::::''Method:'' Place both in large uncovered saucepan. Fill saucepan with cold water. Bring to boil over outdoor fire. Bury the seagull. Enjoy the rock.
::::[[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
::Reminiscent of [[Dr Johnson]]'s recipe for cucumbers. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Some (real) gull recipes for you (had to re-find this) - http://web.archive.org/web/20051108185148/http://www.totnes-bsac.co.uk/misc/recipes.htm --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::mm, gulls' eggs ARE nice - haven't had them in years. Kurt - you had to RE-find it? You've looked for gull-recipes before? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Sounds like the joke that British Army hospitals served [[shadow soup]]; take one bird, hang it over a pot a boiling water so that it's shadow falls in the pot. Boil for twenty minutes, and add salt to taste. [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Yup, I once had a look to see if anyone was eating gulls (c'mon, haven't we all wondered that?). That site stuck in my mind. I found the dead link on the first page of Google hits. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::::[[Seagull's eggs]] used to be a delicacy. You could try that. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Kurt Shaped Box has an unhealthy obsession with gulls. :) [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Not gulls, but for seabirds regularly eaten see [[Muttonbird]]. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
= July 6 =
== Small cars in the states? ==
Does anyone know of any microcars that are capable of being bought with some level of reality in the states? Preferably, something that gets more than 70MPG and isn't an antique. Something like [http://www.bajajusa.com/Bajaj%203%20Wheelers.htm Bajaj USA], although I'd prefer with doors and cheaper, I'd really appreciate anything anyone could show me. I know Corbin has the Sparrow and there's the Tango out there, and the Aptera coming up, but I'd really prefer something that runs on gas and is already out. Again, though, I'd love anything you can show me --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 02:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:I've seen a couple of [[smart (automobile)|Smart]] Fortwo's in the U.S. but our article lists them as "greymarket" currently. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::yes, they aren't technically sold by a reliable dealer in the states yet, but anyway they aren't really what I consider small. Basically, I'm talking "Motorcycle that will keep you out of the rain", not "Smaller than your average sedan" --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Smart is officially arriving in the States with the 2008 model year, but I've heard that that model year is already completely subscribed for. Dang! The cabrio looks sweet!
:::[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:Well, [http://www.modernmicrocars.co.uk/ this link], from the [[Microcar]] article, is U.K. based, but ships worldwide. The ad copy indicates they are based on antique designs, but with today's technology. [[User:152.16.59.190|152.16.59.190]] 07:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Even if they were street legal in the states, I don't want to deal with importing things if I can help it. --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think any of those are street-legal in the USA - there was some discussion of this on the MINI2 or NorthAmericanMotoring forums (I forget which) - but the manufacturer can't afford to put them through the emissions and EPA testing or to do the required crash-testing (which they'd fail for sure). Look how long it's taken to get the SmartCar into the USA! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 11:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:You aren't going to find ANYTHING that does 70mpg in the USA - period. Remember we're talking US gallons - not UK gallons (which are larger) and that the small diesel engines that get such great mileage in Europe are not legal in the US because of the kind of diesel they require. Some hybrids claim this kind of MPG number - but it's not remotely achievable in real driving conditions - it's well known that the nature of the hybrid engine is uniquely suited to the EPA test conditions - which leads to wildly unfair comparisons. Honda have said that they'd like to provide a more realistic number to their customers - but they are required by law to quote only the EPA numbers. So - your choices come down to the [[Prius]] (which probably gets 50mpg realistically but which is pretty uninspiring to drive - and due to heavy metals in the batteries is arguably not all that ecologically sound anyway) or something like the car I drive - the '07 [[MINI (BMW)|MINI Cooper]] (42mpg - which is pretty amazing for a conventional gasoline engine on a really sporty car). The SmartCar isn't quite available in the USA - but it's coming soon - I'm not sure what practical MPG it gets (remember - US gasoline - US gallons!) - but I'm pretty sure it beats the MINI. I'm not aware of any other cars that get more than 40mpg - although there probably are a few out there. My 1963 classic [[Mini]] gets 55mpg - but it's an antique - and you explicitly disallow that in your question (with some justification I'd say!). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 11:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Simply put, Steve... you're wrong. I just linked to something that gets well over 70MPG, I'm just looking for more like it, with maybe a bit more protection. --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::You just said it - you ruled out vehicles without doors. Now - is there a car with doors that does 70mpg and is street-legal in the USA? I don't think so. The Bajaj sneaks around the rules and manages to be called a motorbike or some such - the very moment you put doors on it, it legally becomes a "car" and all of those emissions, safety, etc laws drop into play - and now you can't get something that's efficient enough for your needs. Don't get me wrong - I'm a HUGE fan of microcars (I own one - and I wrote TWO featured articles about them) but the US legal situation makes them very tough to sell as new cars. Once they are more than 25 years old (as mine is) or if you can get them classified as something other than a car - then everything gets easy again. But as soon as you put doors on the things - BLAMMO! - laws everywhere - and you're back looking at 40mpg. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I didn't say ruling out things with doors, I just said I'd prefer one with them. Although, again you're wrong, I have seen Meter Maid style cars on ebay that were licensed as Mopeds/Scooters, not cars, because of their three wheeled configuration. --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Three-wheelers are extremely dangerous -- even more so than motorcycles. A motorcycle stays upright when cornering because the rider and the shape of the cycle encourage dynamic stability, while a car stays upright because the wide wheelbase gives it static stability. The single front wheel of a three-wheeler robs it of the static stability of a car, but the two rear wheels prevent the tilting needed for a motorcycle's dynamic stability. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::What the hell is your point? Do you honestly think I didn't realize that? I don't really care, I just want a covered motorcycle/scooter style vehicle, not a full car. I don't need you to point out dangers in my choices --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::You will find even fewer with the new EPA MPG determination method: [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml this site] claims to have the new rating and the MINI only rates 27/36 while the Prius gets 48 city/45 highway. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I believe (without evidence) that they used the '06 MINI - which was indeed ~36mpg. The '07 has had a total engine replacement and a bunch of new efficiency tweaks and [http://www.miniusa.com MINI USA] still claim 40/41/42mpg (it depends somewhat on the options you pick) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:(Slightly side topic, but..) Does anyone know if there's a plausible explanation for laws which say "You can't sell this car in the states; it doesn't pass crash tests" while simultaneously allowing ''motorcycles'' which also don't pass a crash test? I've never been able to figure this one. If we let people choose to take the risk to drive a motorcycle, how can we not allow them their choice of a very small car? I'd love to have a city car but such things just aren't very available where I live. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::Probably because motorcycles are taken as being inherently dangerous, whether they are or not --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Laws are patchy things. There are all sorts of lethally dangerous things that are legal - and all sorts of fairly harmless things that aren't. That's government for you! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
: So is there a simple explanation for why emissions laws end up significantly reducing mileage? It seems counterintuitive (based on the admittedly simpleminded observation that if less emissions come out, either less fuel went in or more power came out). —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::<sup>[citation needed]</sup>? Ho significantly do emissions laws affect mileage?
::Of course, part of it may be that 'emissions' aren't all created equal. For example, in order to extract the maximum amount of energy from the fuel, you want to burn it in the engine as completely as possible. Intuitively, you would achieve this by using a lean mixture (less fuel and more air); this will burn faster, hotter, and more completely. Unfortunately, the hotter combustion is also enough to increase the production of [[nitrogen oxides]]: a key ingredient in [[acid rain]] and petrochemical [[smog]].
::So you run the engine a bit richer, with a supposedly ideal balance of fuel and air. No (well, less) nitrogen oxides now, but now you're not getting complete combustion, which leads to [[carbon monoxide]] (very toxic) and [[soot]] (dirty, toxic, irritating, nasty). So to complete the little bit of combustion that didn't quite finish in the engine, you fit a [[catalytic converter]], which passes the exhaust gases over a [[platinum]] [[catalyst]]. After that process, very little will be left at the tailpipe besides water vapour and carbon dioxide (yes, a greenhouse gas—but much less toxic than the alternatives). Unfortunately, pushing all the exhaust gas through the tiny channels in a catalytic converter takes some energy, which then can't end up as power at the wheels. In other words, one pays a small energy cost to convert tailpipe emissions to less toxic forms. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 01:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:What's that little car that the two Japanese guys drive in the [[Wii]] commercial, and what kind of mileage does it get? - [http://youtube.com/watch?v=p5cPVP_llfo] [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 01:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::I believe it's a [[smart (automobile)|Smart]] - they havn't been available in the USA until very recently, so you don't see many of them around. There is an all-electric version of the Smart - I think the one that's coming to the USA (and the one in the Wii commercial) is a [[Smart Fortwo]]. According to our article ''The Smart averages 4.7 L/100 km (50 mpg or 21.3 km/L) for the gasoline model and 3.4 L/100 km (69 mpg or 29.4 km/L) for the diesel.'' - if this kind of car is what interests you, you should also check out the [[Mitsubishi i]]. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== Advertising watches/clocks ==
I have noticed that virtually all advertisements of watches in magazines show the watches with the time as 10:12 or thereabouts. It is the same for very make of watch. Why is this so?
[[User:221.120.97.99|221.120.97.99]] 06:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:Unfortunately our article on [[10:08]] appears to have been deleted. Check out a copy [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Menphrad/10:08 here]. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 06:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::This is another candidate for our Reference Desk FAQs. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::This is the ''third time'' I have seen this question on the ref desk. That alone should warrant the reinstatement of what appears to me to be a perfectly good article. Thanks for the link.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree. Here's the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/10:08|deletion discussion]]. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] [[User talk:Richardrj|<sup>talk </sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/Richardrj|<sup>email</sup>]] 07:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::The cause of the deletion seems to have been two-fold: Firstly that the article was unverifiable (well - it had some references - but for various reasons they were not approved of) - Secondly that there was strong evidence that whilst certain watch companies did habitually choose the same times for all of their watches, that the time chosen wasn't always 10:08 - and it varied from company to company. I think if one wrote a comprehensively referenced article and named it something like 'watch time settings in advertising' or some-such - then it wouldn't be deleted. There was some evidence presented that Timex always chooses 1:10 - not 10:08. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:Supposedly has to do with making sure that the manufacturer's name/logo is not only visible (i.e., not obscured by the hands) but is also "framed" by the hands so as to call more attention to it. That's just what someone told me; don't know if it's true or not. [[User:Ergot|ergot]] 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
: It is indeed a Frequently Asked Question, and not surprisingly, it has been [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_330.html addressed] by [[Cecil Adams|the master]]. --[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
: I realize why watch/clock advertisers do it. Its quite obvious. But my question is how is it that all advertisers happen to use the same time more or less. Showing the clock faces as 1:50 would accomplish the same result. I was wondering whether there was some convention or agreement that governed this. [[User:221.120.97.99|221.120.97.99]] 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== Feeling left out ==
Since coming home from collage for the summer my little brother has taken the opertunity to reunite with some old friends, and he seems to be enjoying this very much. Unfortunetly, as his older brother, I feel like I am being left out of the reconnecting: nearly all of his time has been spent with his friends, and even the things we used to do togather he shows no interest in. I feel badly hurt by this, but I don't want to intrude on (or in) his personal life. I have hit road block here, and its doing detramental things to my health -- I feel lonely and I know that my depression is relapsing again (albeit mildly). What can I do to get reconnected with him? [[User:70.238.127.244|70.238.127.244]] 07:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:As in most cases, the answer lies in good communication. On some level or another, communicate to your brother what you have communicated (above) to Wikipedia. Good luck, also. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
::He may well feel more secure in his relationship with you than he does with his friends - your are his big brother, and a "constant" in his life. His friends will all have gone off to different colleges, making it harder for him to have kept in touch with them, so now he's making the most of what he knows is likely to be one of their last times all together. After college they will all go on to different careers, some will move far away - but you will always be his brother, and so wherever you are will always have a sense of "home" for him. What Joseph said above is true - you do need to communicate with him (but I do know from experience that this can be very hard for someone with depression). Maybe suggest that you and him have a "brothers" day - just you and him, go over some of your old haunts seeing how they have changed while he's been away, see a film together, something like that. Even something as simple as saying "I missed you" might be enough to help him understand how important he is to you. I do wish you good luck, and hope sincerely that you and your brother both have a good summer, and some good times together. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't know you or your brother, but people change, and relationships change. Your brother may have become more independent. He may want to "reinvent" himself and pursue new interests. If either of these is true, he may no longer want to do the things that he did with you as a kid. If he wants to move in a new direction, you can still have a relationship with him, but you will need to take an interest in his new interests. If he is trying to be more independent, he may go through a period, maybe even a few years, where he wants to spend less time with you. If this is the case, your best course would be to accept and support his wish for independence, and to cultivate relationships with other friends or family members to meet your emotional and social needs. Eventually, if you remain loving and supportive toward your brother, he will probably come to value your relationship as an adult, and you are likely to remain close, even though your relationship will have changed. Remember that change is inevitable in every relationship. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 14:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== hen & egg story ==
what is the answer to question that
what came before? egg or hen?
is this a trick question or does it have any solution?
:Wikipedia has an article for every situation - see [[The chicken or the egg]] for a discussion of this perenially fascinating question. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::Our article on [[the chicken or the egg]] might explain that there's not meant to be an easy answer. (edited to add: that serves me right for not reloading the page!] --[[User:Charlene.fic|<font color="blue" face="Matisse ITC">Charlene</font>]] 09:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I just asked a hen. She said the cock came first.--[[User:Mrs Wibble-Wobble|Mrs Wibble-Wobble]] 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:It's been discussed on the science desk in the past - the conclusion is "The Egg came first". As with so many of these old 'dilemmas' - they are easily solved if you define your terms accurately. If we define:
:* "an egg" as [[Egg]] does: ''an ovum together with its shell or outer layer, internal membranes and nutrients for the embryo''.
:* "a chicken" (per [[Chicken]]) as ''an fully formed bird which is at least 99.9% genetically similar to a modern domesticated animal of the species G. gallus''.
:* "before" (in the context of chickens and eggs) as ''chicken comes '''before''' egg if said chicken '''lays''' said egg - egg comes '''before''' chicken if said chicken '''hatches''' from said egg''.
: ...then there is no dilemma at all. Genetic studies show that the first ever G.Gallus was a mutated Asian Red Junglefowl - so it was hatched (as is the case with all birds) from a shell-encased ovum that (in this case) was laid by a bird of the species 'Asian Red Junglefowl' (which was not - per our previous definition - a "chicken"). That "egg" was clearly "before" the very first "chicken" - '''''QED'''''.
: However, if you choose different (and I would say "unconventional") definitions of 'egg', 'chicken' or 'before' (or take unconventional definitions of any of the other words in the question) - then you can make it come out differently. A commonly used argument with this question is that the question somehow implies that "egg" means a chicken egg - not just any old egg. So if you choose this (rather odd) definition for "egg": "a shell-encased ovum that was laid by a chicken" - then the situation is reversed - the ovum that the first chicken hatched from was not laid by a chicken - so that was not an "egg" according to this rather special definition - hence it becomes clear that the chicken laid the first chicken-egg so the chicken came first. But I don't think that definition is in any way implied by the question. You can also (arguably) redefine "before" by saying that the genetic material for the first chicken must have existed before it was injected into the first egg - so the egg that the first chicken hatched from was technically formed after the chicken itself. Whilst that's scientifically true, I don't think that's the meaning for "before" that we really want here - and it violates the "fully formed" part of the chicken definition to include single-celled chicken embryos. But as I said - pick your definitions for the words that make up the riddle - you can make the answer be whatever you want...but for any clear definition of the terms - there is no ambiguity whatever.
: So - as is almost always the case with these ancient "dilemmas", there is no dilemma whatever - the only possible source of confusion is the choice of meanings you choose to apply to the words the question is phrased in - and that's just because we have a somewhat inexact language. So much of human existance would be so much easier if words were clearly defined. Think about the abortion debate in the USA - it comes about largely because "human being", "life" and "murder" are so poorly defined. One side accuses the other of murder - the other denies this - they both agree that "murder" is defined as the artificial termination of "life" in a "human being" - they both agree that "murder" is wrong and should be illegal - they don't disagree in the slightest about what actually happens in the abortion process - but they have wildly differing definitions of the terms "life" and "human being" that they hurl back and forth. Define your terms - and you are either forced to agree that abortion isn't murder (and therefore we have to agree on what the conditions are for an abortion to be legal) - or that abortion is murder (but then maybe we have to agree that abortion is a bad thing) - either way the rhetoric goes away and we're forced to actually debate the issues.
: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::I've always defined this as a creationist vs evolutionist question. If you're a creationist, the answer is Chicken, because God created birds to populate the land and sky, he didn't create bird eggs to hatch into birds. If you're an evolutionist, the answer is Egg, because dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens evolved. (although I also like the point our article makes about pro-lifer's calling it a tie, since the egg IS a chicken already! ;-) --[[User:Maelwys|Maelwys]] 14:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::As I read it - the creatures of the sea beat out the birds, since many of them lay eggs, the odds seem pretty good that the egg still wins out. But as I said before - it's possible to define your terms to have the answer come out any way you want. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 14:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::(Hehehe! I just realised - the Bible says that God "let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky" - that kinda rules out chickens because they are flightless. There was an entire day full of egg-laying birds before the chickens snuck in under the "livestock" clause! I'm still rooting for 'egg' here!) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 14:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Actually, chickens can fly. They're not all that good at it, but they can fly. I've personally seen a chicken fly up into a tree and perch there. --[[User:Charlene.fic|<font color="blue" face="Matisse ITC">Charlene</font>]] 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== learning persian in pakistan ==
i live in lahore(pakistan)
can any1 tell me where can i (if possible) learn persian (farsi) in pakistan?
and what is the normal time it takes to learn persian.
i know it depends upon a person's ability and etc
but what is a normal average time to learn a language with sufficient fluency
:There are at least two institutions offering Farsi in Lahore. [http://www.gcu.edu.pk/Pers.htm GC University] has a department of Persian, and there is [http://www.berlitz.com/globaldir.aspx Berlitz]. (For Berlitz, you may need to select "Pakistan" in the country menu to find the Lahore ___location.) There may be other, less formal and less expensive schools offering Farsi. It is impossible to say how long it will take you to "learn" Farsi. First, by "learn", do you mean "learn enough to travel smoothly in Iran"? That would take much less time than learning enough to carry on smooth conversations on a variety of subjects or to do business in Farsi. If by "learn" you mean that you want to become fluent in Farsi, then you probably won't be able to do it through formal study alone. You will need to spend a year at least in a Farsi-speaking environment, probably in Iran, though you will probably reach fluency faster if you have done some formal study beforehand. How long it will take you to learn Farsi depends on the ease with which you learn other languages. This, in turn, may be related to your age. If you are younger than 10, you will learn more quickly than someone older than 10. If you are younger than 18, you may still have an advantage over an older person. Finally, the time required to learn Farsi will depend somewhat on the languages you already know. If you speak only English, Farsi will be harder for you to learn than if you speak Urdu, because Urdu uses a script derived from Farsi, contains many Farsi loan words, and is more closely related to Farsi than is English. So, if you know Urdu, some of what you know will help you learn Farsi. You may be able to learn enough to function in Iran as a traveler after only a few months of study or even a few weeks of intensive study. If you want to do business or carry on a range of conversations in Farsi, you will probably need years of study with classes only once or twice a week, or perhaps a full year of daily classes. However, the exact time will depend on your background and aptitude. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== is japan expensive ==
ok i know japan is expensive, but im planning to go on holiday there plus i live in the UK and london was ranked higher than japan as one of the most expensive cities in the world (2007) and look how strong the pound is compared to the dollar at the moment! (£1 = $2) so i want to know are clothes, designer gear, beauty products more expensive compared to prices in the UK (for e.g. would a chanel bag or jimmy choo shoes cost more in japan?) and is the pound stronger than yen?
:I suppose "stronger" here would relate to [[purchasing power parity]]. [[User:80.0.130.158|80.0.130.158]] 12:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::I remember cigarettes being US$2.50 in Japan at a time when they were US$1.20 in the States; soft drinks were also about US$2.50 a can (vs. US$0.50 in the US). Sorry, I don't remember what clothing or beauty products cost; I'm not sure that I bought any. Everything seemed a lot more expensive, though, with the unsuprising exception of Japanese art, which cost about a tenth of what it did at the time in the US. Exchange rate questions can be answered by [http://www.xe.com this excellent site]. [[User:Ergot|ergot]] 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:It will depend a lot on where you are. For example, [[Tokyo]] will be more expensive than [[Osaka]], but if you're out in the 'burbs things will be even cheaper. It will also depend on what you want to buy. If you want to buy levis, you'll be spending more than if you buy other brands. Actually, come to think of it, you might be spending more on clothing anyway if you're larger than most Japanese people would be. I've read a lot of advice saying to take plenty of clothing, since they probably won't have a lot that will fit --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:If [[PPP]] is too difficult to understand, then you could use the [[Big Mac Index]]. This http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8649005 says the Yen is 28% undervalued against the US dollar, and the pound is 21% overvalued compared with the dollar, so that would suggest (I think) that the price things in Japan would be 95% of those in the UK. Given that you would probably be buying at some mainstream city-centre store in Japan, while in the UK you could search out some backstreet discount warehouse, then I still think you would pay more in Japan. So the short answer is "yes". I know it used to be extremely expensive even compared to London years ago - it probably hasnt changed all that much. [[User:80.0.132.127|80.0.132.127]] 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, what this Big Mac index suggests is that prices in Japan are only 59% of those in the UK! [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Eye signals to the brain ==
How many images do eyes send to the brain every day?{{unsigned|Anthony Hodgson}} --[[User:Anthony Hodgson|Anthony Hodgson]] 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:I was always told that your cells refresh every 10 milliseconds. Looking it up I find that [[rod cell]]s respond at 100 ms. [[Cone cell]]s respond faster, but our article doesn't actually quote a figure. Taking it to be an image every 10 ms you could get a good figure for images per day. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|☎]] 13:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, this is a fudge since they don't snap frames, but if you're going to compare apples to oranges, this would be the way I'd do it. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|☎]] 05:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:The eye doesn't work like a TV camera - it doesn't snap a bunch of still images and send them one at a time to the brain. It doesn't have a 'frame rate' in frames per second that you could multiply by 60x60x24 to arrive at your answer. The rods and cones work continuously and asynchronously - so that motion is continuously perceived also. Not only that, but what the eye sends to the brain isn't an 'image' in any meaningful sense of the word. The layer of neurons behind the retina does a lot of preprocessing on the image formed there before sending it on to the brain. So, whilst it's an interesting one to ask, it depends on a false premise and therefore cannot be answered. Sorry! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::See [[Eye movement]]. We can follow a moving object with [[Smooth pursuit]] which last from about 1/10 second to as long as we follow the object, like a thrown baseball. Most of our [[Visual perception|visual perception]] and reading is with a series of fixations, with rapid [[Eye movement|movements]] called [[Saccades]] taking the eye from one fixation point to the next. This is necessary because the area of distinct vision is only about 2 degrees across. So in analyzing a scene, reading, or just looking around, we perform 4 or 5 fixations a second (P. Lindsay and D. Norman, Human Information Processing, Academic Press, 1972, pp 166-167.) The brain centers integrate these images automatically and without attention into a model of the external world. So assuming we are awake 16 hours a day, and ignoring blinks and periods we are "resting our eyes" with the lids closed, or staring fixedly (as through a microscope) and ignoring periods where we are smoothly tracking movement, there would be 57,600 seconds when we are seeing, and 230,000 to 290,000 eye fixations, with each "sending an image to the brain." This also ignores images the eye sends to the brain at night, like lightning flashes or car headlights hitting the ceiling, because the brain might not be tuned in. A video camera (in the US) with 30 frames per second would have sent 1,728,000 images in the same period. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 15:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:(EC) A better measure than signal frequency might be [[saccade]] frequency. A saccade is a fast, more or less involuntary, movement of the eye, each lasting between 1/50th to 1/5th of a second. When you're taking in a scene, you don't smoothly survey it like a TV camera, but instead your eyes jump from place to place to focus on an individual element of what you're looking at. A fun and accessible book that covers some of this material is {{cite book |title = Mind Hacks |id = ISBN 978-0596007799}}. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:Eh? You guys are trying to equate the saccade frequency with the "number of images transmitted" - how does that follow? The eye does indeed jump around like that (and it wobbles to improve resolution too) - but that doesn't mean that the eye "takes just one picture and sends it to the brain" during each saccade. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true then we'd be unable to perceive motion at frequencies higher than the saccade - I can tell you for sure that I can easily tell the difference between 60Hz and 72Hz video out of the corners of my eye (where they are most flicker-sensitive) - and distinguishing 30Hz from 60Hz is something that pretty much everyone can do - so 4Hz or 10Hz is in no way the correct answer - even if we for one moment entertain the idea that the eye works this way (which it most definitely does not).
:We know (and I can prove it) that the eye is more sensitive to flicker ("is taking more photos per second") at the edges of the retina than at the center. This proves that the eye is not a synchronous 'camera' that takes a series of snapshots. You can prove this to yourself by peering at a CRT-based TV set out of the corner of your eye - you can clearly see it flickering. (Well, most people can...some can't...doing it in a darkened room helps...doing it with a British 50Hz TV makes it even easier - it doesn't work well with projection/plasma/LCD TV's though). Now, stare directly at the center of the same TV screen - and there is no more flicker (well, unless you are very sensitive to flicker - which a fraction of a percent of people are). What does that do to your "saccade" theory? If your eyes grabbed a picture every time they saccaded, then firstly you'd be unable to see flicker since I'm sure we agree that 60Hz is a MUCH higher frequency than the saccade - and secondly, the entire eyeball saccades - how could your outer retina be more sensitive to flicker than at the center? So this blows your theory out of the water. Furthermore, we know that the 'recharge' rate of a rod is of the order of 100ms (10Hz) - so one individual rod can't see 60Hz flicker. If all of the rods 'fired' at the same instant - then recharged and 'fired' again 1/10th second later, we'd have no 60Hz flicker response - and we do. What actually happens is that one rod fires - then some short period of time later, a different rod fires - if the first rod sees light and the second one doesn't - then there was flicker at a higher rate than either rod individually could detect. This proves conclusively that they don't all fire at the same time to take a single 'picture'. Each rod or cone grabs data as fast as it can - and they all do so at different times - completely out of sequence. So there is never a time when we are 'between video frames' - vision is a continuous function - not descrete 'frames' of data.
: Worse still - the eye doesn't send "images" to the brain - it sends higher level concepts than that. Maybe something like: "I've spotted a sharp edge subtending 12 degrees slanted at 45 degrees to the horizontal, moving left-to-right at 1.2 degrees per second". That's more the kind of thing that travels along the optic nerve - it's not some kind of a picture made up of little rod/cone sized pixels like a digital camera - it's MUCH higher level than that. The eye is not a simple camera - there are layers of neurons behind the retina that preprocess the data before sending it off down the optic nerve to the brain. Also, [[User:Edison]] should know that whilst NTSC TV cameras work at 30 ''frames'' per second, each frame consist of two distinct images called 'fields'. So it's 60 ''fields'' per second - which is 60 unique pictures - each of which paints only half the scanlines of the TV - but which is none-the-less a completely separate image from the one that follows it. However, that's irrelevent because the camera analogy is utterly inappropriate here. If you were forced to come up with some kind of analogy, the way that MPEG video files are motion-compressed might be nearer the mark (although they still have a fixed frame rate - which the eye does not). What comes down a satellite TV feed is something like "this block of pixels is travelling from left to right at such-and-such pixels per second - and here are some pixels to fill in the gap it left behind".
: No - I'm sticking strongly to my first reply (because I happen to know this with a good degree of certainty): "It's a meaningless question" because visual perception is a continuous process and "images" (as such) are not involved in the eye/brain communication. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::I didn't say that each saccade takes a snapshot, but that the eye jumps from element to element in a scene to focus on it individually. I find this chunked processing -- which most people are unaware that they are performing, but can easily prove to themselves that they are -- to be an interesting entrée into visual processing, and did not mean to imply that we have [[frame grabber]]s running at 5-50 FPS. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::No, you didn't - but [[User:Edison]] did. The 'jumping' effect isn't the wierdest thing (by far) about the eye. I love the constant small vibrations of the eyeball that effectively increase the resolution of your vision. When your eye muscles get tires, that vibration goes away and your eyes seem not to focus properly. It's not too surprising that the 'video signal' from our eyes is shut off when we do a rapid eye movement (presumably to prevent blurry/confusing images going to our brains) - but what is utterly astounding is that you are unaware of the 'gap' in data because your brain fills in the missing 'video' from recent memories and where that's not available - from imagination! Just think about that - when you pan your eyes fairly rapidly from one side of the room to the other - you aren't seeing what's really in the middle of the room during that movement - it's all put there from memory! It's really hard to do an experiment to test that because as soon as you concentrate to much on what you are seeing along the way, your eye motion will immediately either slow right down or jerk across the scene so you can see it properly. Your brain also fills in the 'blind spot' where the optic nerve enters the back of your eye and there are no rods or cones. It does that infilling in amazingly ingeneous ways - and some careful experiments have shown that when you stare at a page full of text, the blind spot is filled in with random-ish letters - in the correct font - but not spelling real words - and just occasionally with malformed characters (eg a hybrid of a 'b' and a 'q' that has both an up and a down 'stalk'. It points to the fact that the level of consciousness that does this knows roughly what a letter is - and how to elaborate on fonts and that text is organised in rows - but it doesn't know about words and spelling! What's even more incredible is that we are generally unaware of this blatent 'cheating'! The brain is a VERY strange thing - but it's about as far from a "camera" as you could imagine! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::No one said the eye or the brain was a camera. The blind spot, constant high frequency nystagmus of the eye and the critical flicker frequency have nothing to do with the number of images sent to the brain from the eye. I stand by my answer, which is referenced, which is more than I can say for yours. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 04:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Nice try! Sadly, I'd already read your "references" and not one of them in any way backs up what you are saying. I present some experiments that you can do yourself - right now - which your theory cannot explain. You are correct in saying that the limit of flicker detectability has nothing to do with the number of images the eye sends to the brain - because the eye doesn't send pictures to the brain - it sends higher level and continual data of an entirely different kind. My argument is that precisely because you '''can''' detect flicker frequency (and at a vastly higher rate than an individual rod or cone could detect) - that shows clearly that neither your saccade frequency nor the rate of rod/cone recovery isn't the limit at which the retina captures data - if there is such a limit, it must be far faster - at least 60Hz. Then consider also that some parts of the retina are sensitive to different flicker frequency than others - another trivial experiment you can do right now. That entirely defeats the idea that a single snapshot image is taken because if it were then our retina's would be uniformly sensitive to flicker - and they most certainly are not. What follows of your argument (which consists of multiplying out the saccade frequency by the number of waking seconds in a day) is therefore a complete fiction. When you say ''290,000 eye fixations, with each "sending an image to the brain."'' you are taking a completely unreferenced and quite utterly fallacious leap from "number of saccades" to "number of images" - just in order to get some kind of an answer to an unanswerable question. If some reliable (and moderately recent) reference clearly says that on every 'fixation' of a saccade (which merely means that the eyeball comes to a temporary halt), exactly one image is sent by the retina to the brain - then I'll happily concede your point. But 22 years of vision research in the military flight simulation business - and one simple experiment that anyone can do at home - says that you don't have a reliable reference because it's simply not true. It only takes a moment's thought to realise that if our eyes only sent 4 or 5 "pictures" to the brain each second (as you have very clearly claimed) then we would be totally unable to distinguish between 5Hz, 10Hz, 30Hz or 60Hz movement - when in fact it's perfectly possible to distinguish 60Hz from 72Hz. So, no - you don't have any references and your answer of 4 or 5 pictures sent to the brain per second is laughable. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== Advertising Stats ==
I am writing a report on Advertising and need to find statistics on how many different Brands people will see in one day? (on average) --[[User:Anthony Hodgson|Anthony Hodgson]] 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== GAndhiji's title ==
Which title did gandhiji return to the British after the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre?
: You can find the answer to your question I believe in [[Gandhiji#Non-cooperation|this section]] of the article. [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
== weight of earth ==
can anyone kindly tell me whether increasing population will result in increase in the weight of earth ?--my eight year old asked me this question to which my reply was that it would not make any difference,but could not explain it correctly enough.§§Δ[[User:Sripati.pp|Sripati.pp]] 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)§–17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[[User:Sripati.pp|Sripati.pp]]
:You were right. No - the mass (we can't strictly talk about 'weight') of the earth didn't change - not in the slightest. Everything that went into making those extra humans came in the form of food and water - the water came (ultimately) from the earth's oceans - the food came from things that ate other things that...that grew in the ground and got their nutrients from the soil, the air and the water. Ultimately, everything that made up the weight of those extra people got subtracted from the weight of the soil, water and air of our planet. So, no - the mass of the earth won't change in the slightest because of that. (Now, probably some pedant will come along and point out that humans move faster than dirt or seawater - so there is a relativistic effect increasing the mass of the planet - or that increasing use of nuclear power is converting more mass into energy per E=Mc<sup>2</sup> and reducing the mass - or that we are increasing the number of things we shoot off into orbit and that's decreasing the mass - or that the continual showering of the earth with meteors and cometary debris is increasing the mass - but we're going to studiously ignore all of those people and tell your 8 year old kid that you were absolutely 100% correct - which you are - to any detectable degree!!).
:P.S. I love these kinds of questions from kids around that age. Just be prepared for "Why does a mirror swap left and right - but not up and down? Why does it still swap left and right when I lie on my side? Why doesn't turning the mirror through 90 degrees fix that? Why doesn't a photo of me have left/right swapped? If you don't know the answer, a good strategy is to have the kid look CAREFULLY at his/her reflection in the bowl of a spoon - and run away fast before they ask the next question! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::Exactly. This sort of question is why it's a good idea to teach kids both critical thinking and research skills, that way when they have a question, they figure it out themselves instead of confusing you. On a serious note, I highly recommend picking up a book on "why things are", or some such like that, a science book that explains how various things work. Why the sky is blue, what causes rainbows, etc. I had a few when I was a kid, and they were very, very helpful. --<sub>[[User Talk:Feba|ʇuǝɯɯoɔ]]</sub>[[User:Feba|ɐqǝɟ]] 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I feel like I'm constantly plugging this book here, but I promise I have no attachment to it other than absolutely *loving* its depth and accessibility: ''[[The Flying Circus of Physics]]'' is as good as it gets for a "how the natural world works" book, although it's above the level of the average eight-year-old; it will be great for you to be able to explain it to him/her, Dad. ''[[The Way Things Work]]'' is a classic, of course, and will have a lot of good stuff a child will be able to grasp (the fun pictures help). --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The trouble is that when kids start coming up with their own questions - there is about a 0.0000001% chance that any book is going to have the answer! You get quite a good mental workout from hanging out here on the reference desks - but that's '''nothing''' compared to an inquisitive 8 year old! Some that I got: "Why is it that when I put my hands like this (palm-to-palm) they are the same - but when I put them like this (both flat on the table) they're different?" (actually - that was maybe a 5 year-old question) - that's hard to answer! "Do the clouds get smaller when it rains?" (be careful!), "How come Sam (our dog) can eat a bone when I can't?" (I'm truly not sure we ever answered that one satisfactorily), "Why doesn't the battery on Aniken's Light Sabre ever run down?", "Where do noises go to after we finish hearing them?" (gotta think about that one!). The classic: "Why is the sky blue?" is something you can be ready with a snappy answer for - but some of these others are TOUGH! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well? DO the clouds get smaller when it rains? --[[User:Charlene.fic|<font color="blue" face="Matisse ITC">Charlene</font>]] 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If I recall correctly, we concluded that to start with they just get more tenuous (but not strictly 'smaller') - but in the end as the last of the rain falls, they get smaller. I think we got that from a book I have about clouds, fog, etc that was written in the early 1900's sometime - I'm not near my book collection right now - I think it's called "Vision through the Atmosphere". [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I really really love the "Where do noises go to after we finish hearing them?" one. It reminds me of certain poems by [[Pablo Neruda]]. [[User:S.dedalus|S.dedalus]] 06:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== Shell-Mex buildin ==
[[User:81.77.228.115|81.77.228.115]] 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Seeing the Shell-Mex building has recently been sold can you please tell me the initial total cost to build it??
:[[Shell Mex House]] was built as the [[Cecil Hotel]] in 1896, then the largest hotel in Europe. It was later restructured (in 1930) into the current building. The cost of either construction doesn't appear to be available, at least not on the internet. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== Company-- 'Agility First Support",Madison,Ala. ==
Info regarding subject.[[User:68.10.222.113|68.10.222.113]] 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) <nowiki>[spam-bait-removed]</nowiki>
== wendy williams article ==
A movie is being made about [[Wendy Williams (radio host)]] called "Queen of Media", and even though they have just started filming it, there should be at least something to mention it in the article. I know because they filmed a scene a couple of blocks from where I live. Can someone please add this. thanx
:You can! Go to the article - click on the 'edit this page' tab. Make your changes and hit 'Save page'. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia [[Wikipedia:Introduction|that anyone can edit]]! We really mean that! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::But when you add it, make sure to mention somewhere that other people can read that this is true, other than Wikipedia. Sadly, it isn't enough just to say "I saw them filming it.". Has your local paper perhaps written about it? Are there reliable websites that confirm this? You really need to include a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] so that people who don't know you will know that it's true. Otherwise, silly people would just add ridiculous things to articles! :-D [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: Have you brought this up at [[Talk:Wendy Williams (radio host)]] ? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== translation ==
The meaning of ciao mi buono amico
:Italian ... hello (or goodbye), good friend. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::It's not grammatical standard Italian. ''Mi'' as a possessive is Spanish, not Italian. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Morality of Investing ==
I would like to invest in Sinopec because its a good stock. however they fund the misgovernments in tibet Sudan Burma Angola Iran Gabon Somalia etc. But a friend of mine told me that I'm not directly investing in Sinopec by buying on the NYSE since someone else has already given Sinopec the $ and I'm just buying the debt. Can someon clarify? --[[User:Gary123|Gary123]] 01:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:Shareholders are owners. Owners are (or should be) responsible. There is, for me, a clear moral issue with such an investment. The "buy the debt" argument is based on a truth - that your purchase of the share does not directly benefit the company - they benefited once only, when they first sold the share. But it consciously avoids dealing with the moral implications of ownership and of the benefit you will receive from the actions of the company you now part own; and so it falls short of being full enough consideration to dismiss the moral question. Your purchase of the shares would indirectly benefit Sinopec, since it positively affects the share price (as demand does, in economic systems). There is one counter-argument to all of this, which is to do with using your share ownership for positive purposes - such as to enable you to ask prickly questions at an Annual General Meeting. (And the complexity of a moral issue such as this cannot be reduced to a ten line response). --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]]
[[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]]
::Your friend is a bit confused. Whe you buy a company's [[bond (finance)]], you are buying debt. As --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] explains above, when you buy stock you are buying [[equity]] (ownership) in a company. I suggest that, before you buy any stock, you talk to a professional who knows more about the [[financial market]]s in general than your friend appears to know, and more about specific equities and thus how to match your money with your morality, if that is an issue for you. [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== Image ==
I want to know if anyone would make an image like [[:Image:The Brazil Portal.PNG|this]] using this images [[:Image:Xelhapark.JPG|1]] [[:Image:View from Pyramide de la luna.jpg|2]]
[[:Image:Gdlvallarta.jpg|3]] [[:Image:DiaDeMuertosXochimilcoDFMexico 009.jpg|4]]
[[:Image:MexicoCityCathedralSter.jpg|5]] with the word Mexico in the middle.I want to use it for [[Portal:Mexico]]. [[User:Bewareofdog|Bewareofdog]] 04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[[User:Bewareofdog|Bewareofdog]] 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: The appropriate place for such requests is [[Wikipedia:Requested_pictures]] - there are a bunch of people there who I'm sure can do a great job for you. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 05:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well I've [[:Image:Mexico portal.png|just made one]], hope it suits what you need. --[[User: Antilived|antilived]]<sup>[[User_talk:Antilived|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Antilived|C]] | [[User:Antilived/Gallery|G]]</sup> 05:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for the image [[User:Bewareofdog|Bewareofdog]] 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== Holes for mobile phone straps ==
What are those little holes on mobile phones called the ones where you can hang straps and charms off them? --[[User:203.214.46.104|203.214.46.104]] 11:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:Strap attachment points?--[[User:Tugjob|Tugjob]] 16:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== Teaching material ==
What is 'phonic wheel' in teaching English for second language speaker ? How is it prepared?
[[Image:Kinesthetic English-IPA Vowel Wheel.PNG|right|thumb|300px|Kinesthetic English-IPA Vowel Wheel]]
: I have no clue what a 'phonic wheel' is - but looking around in our phonics articles turned up this image referenced in the "See Also" section of [[IPA chart for English]] ('''IPA''' is the [[International Phonetic Alphabet]]). Is that what you mean? This image is not directly used in any of our articles - but if you click on the picture and scroll down, the image notes contain a lot more information (someone should fix that so there is a proper article it's not good to have that stuff hidden down in the image notes). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Curious that this wheel puts the "high" vowels at the bottom. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 05:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== What is an "undergraduate master's degree" in the UK? ==
What is an "undergraduate master's degree" in the UK's system of higher education? How does it differ from the traditional (postgraduate) master's degree?
:It can be one of two things. Some undergraduate courses (usually four-years long) are called masters' (e.g. [[Master of Physics]]). Then there's the strange [[Master of Arts (Oxbridge)|Master of Arts]] at Oxford, Cambridge and Trinity, Dublin, that is awarded to holders of the [[Bachelor of Arts]] after a certain amount of time has elapsed. — [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 13:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::Take a look at [[Master's degree in Europe#United Kingdom]]. That article outlines the undergraduate and postgraduate masters'. There is quite a wide variation in level of accomplishment in these masters' degrees: a four-year undergrad degree requires much less experience than a two-year postgrad research degree. — [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 13:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
== Grave subsidence. ==
::Went to a UK funeral today. Newly dug grave about 6 feet deep in heavy clay soil in Central Scotland rural area with typical Scottish wet weather pattern. Coffin made of modern pine veneer construction. Grave filled back to surrounding area level with previously excavated soil. 2 questions: how long before deceased decomposes to a skeleton and, how long before coffin decomposes so as not to retain original supportive shape and form. 3rd question, after 1 and 2 occur will the soil above the coffin subside accordingly? 4th question, why were the graves adjacent to the one I was attending not subsided but instead, perfectly level with the surrounding land table? Thanks.
::: There was a [[Mythbusters]] episode where they planned to bury someone alive to determine how long they could survive in a sealed coffin. They found that the sturdiest, most up-market coffin they could find was already crushing and bending before even the mandatory 6' of soil had been piled onto it - a wooden coffin would presumably break long before that - 6' of dirt is a LOT of weight. Therefore, I suspect that any 'subsidance' that is likely to happen will be happening as the grave is filled in. It's hard to tell though because soil naturally decompresses when you dig it up - so even if you just dug a hole and then filled it in again with nothing at the bottom, you'd still wind up with some excess earth.<nowiki>
</nowiki> Over weeks, the soil in the hole will compress again leaving a hollow. So I presume that when they finally get it filled in, they'd leave a bit of a mound to allow the ground to naturally level out when the soil eventually recompresses. With all of that complication going on, it would be hard to tell whether the coffin had collapsed or not. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 14:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::*They buried someone alive on Mythbusters?!?! Did they use a dummy or what? --[[User:Candy-Panda|Candy-Panda]] 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Nope - it was with a real person - [[Jamie Hyneman]] - our article says it was episode 8.[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::For the second part of your question, the rate of [[decomposition]] (read the article) varies ''hugely'' depending on a very large number of [[decomposition#Factors|factors]], including the diet of the deceased (e.g. whether it included lots of [[preservative]]s).--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Got a source regarding preservatives? It makes sense in a common sense sorta way, which makes me suspicious (and [[decomposition]] doesn't mention it.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Hmm, I can't find much of a source. It's something I heard a few times in recent years. Could be an urban myth. How about [http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=1515.msg13294 this]?--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::The links on the [[Sokushinbutsu]] page describe one method by which a body could be preserved.--[[User:193.195.0.102|193.195.0.102]] 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:Note that in some places it is also common (or even compulsory) to use a [[burial vault (enclosure)|burial vault]] to prevent crushing of the coffin and subsidence of the ground above. I can't speak to practices in the UK, however. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::And in some cemeteries vaults are actually forbidden. It's impossible to say without more details, I think. --[[User:Charlene.fic|<font color="blue" face="Matisse ITC">Charlene</font>]] 17:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::No vault; coffin straight into the ground.
:::::I think the crumpling of the metal casket on Mythbusters was abnormal, and that either it was a substandard casket or their test conditions were not identical to burial in the ground. If a hole six feet deep is dug, and a coffin about 2 feet high is lowered into it, then it would only take 4 feet of dirt above it to make it level with the ground. This dirt would then sink several inches as the disturbed soil subsided. If the coffin later decayed and caved in, the surface would subside additionally.In old country cemetaries people often add dirt to level the surface. If the removed dirt is all placed on top of the coffin, then the grave surface should be raised for several years and eventually, when the coffin and contents have turned "to dust" be back about at the original level. Old burials often have only a few bone fragments when dug up, as when a cemetary is moved. Each "moved" burial may amount to only a few bones or teeth, with the rest left behind. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You think the Mythbusters thing was a flook? Firstly, they did go for the most solid coffin they could find - so it wasn't cheap junk. But let's do the math: [[Soil morphology]] says that the density of a sandy soil can be between 1.5 and 1.7 g/cm<sup>3</sup>. So 4 feet of the stuff (120cm) exerts a pressure between 180 and 210 g/cm<sup>2</sup> - which is close to 3 psi. Over the area of a 6'x3' coffin lid, that's 7780lbs - which is about the same as an unladen [[Ford Explorer]]. Notice that soil can act as a fluid - so you might well have close to 3psi acting in on the sides too (and that's definitely going to be the case if the ground is wet). I don't think you could lower a Ford Explorer onto a coffin lid without it being crushed like a soda can - no matter how well it's constructed. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I worked for a few years as a mechanical testing technician. You'd be amazed at how strong materials can be, especially if they're uniformly loaded (say, 8000 pounds of dirt spread over the entire top surface of a coffin). A pencil-thick piece of steel could easily hold that Ford Explorer of yours. The crushing damage comes from load concentrations because the bottom of the Explorer isn't perfectly flat. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::About the Mythbusters episode... [[MythBusters (season 1)#Buried Alive|It's described briefly here]]. It's been a while since I saw it, but I think what they did was construct a container above ground that would hold the required depth of earth, but also could be opened quickly in case of emergency. Then they really did put someone in a coffin and pile on the earth... with a communications line and quite possibly an emergency air supply. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid. --Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 03:15 (UTC).
== Shower Mirror That Does Not Fog Up ==
Here is question that is not nearly as interesting as those above, yet I would like an answer / advice / input / suggestions. I want to purchase a good mirror that I can use to shave in the shower. One that will not fog up, etc. And, if it matters, I am referring to facial shaving only. Can anyone offer suggestions / advice on what is a good (or great) product ... or, equally important, what ones to avoid? Also, I assume they all cost roughly in the same ball park, so cost is not a factor. Just quality / durability / functionality are the concerns. Thanks. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 18:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
:The only mirrors I have ever found that don't steam up in the shower are the metal travel mirrors one can buy in camping shops. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::Wipe it with RainX (you can get it at car parts stores). Instead of getting a fine mist forming, you get big solid beads of water - most of which run off the mirror. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::OK, I am over 60 so what I am about to say doesn't amount to a heap of shit BUT, if you smear a bar of ANY soap across your mirror, and then polish it in with ANY dry cloth or towel, you can enjoy mist-free shaving thereafter. Thereafter, repeat. And, although I am 60 and overweight, by using the above method, I find that when I look in the mirror, I see a 26 year old stud with a 6 pack. Now that can't be bad !
:::I want one of those mirrors! [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Yeah - the only way I get to see a 26 year old stud in the mirror is to drink the 6 pack! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 02:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input - much appreciated ... ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
== Truth? ==
Is it true you can get anything you want at Alice's Resturant?
:[[Alice's Restaurant|Excepting Alice]]! — [[User:Kieff|Kieff]] | [[User_talk:Kieff|Talk]] 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::It's a song...please don't waste our time. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::: unless with a better joke than that. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== Police & What You Have to Do ==
Lately, I've seen a couple of really good web pages outlining what authority police have over random civilians. (For example, if asked for ID, do I have to show it, if told to leave an area, do I have to do it, etc.) But now I can't find any of these web pages. Can anyone help? --[[User:Tugbug|Tugbug]] 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: A google search for "police rights citizen" and such finds a bunch of pages that ''claim'' to give advice. Whether you should trust some web page to give yoy advice about such matters is left as an exercise for you. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::Of course it varies widely from place to place. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Not only that, but such pages soon go out of date, as anti-terror legislation is constantly being created and eroding your rights. (At least in the UK) if you don't do what they ask you, you can always be arrested for "obstructing a police officer".--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 08:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::In the United States, the Unholy Trinity of offenses is: 1) Disobeying the orders of a police officer; 2) Resisting arrest; and 3) [[Assault|Simple assault]] (even if it's your nose assaulting the officer's closed fist). Pretty much any time the police want to hassle someone, the hasslee will end up charged with those three crimes, no matter what the original cause was for the interaction with the police officer(s). See also "[[Frisking|Terry stop]]". Lately, the American police have also become very creative in applying anti-[[wiretap]]ping laws when their public-but-embarrassing actions have been captured with a video recorder.
::::[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Dead rockstar? ==
Who was the guy that died after playing his electric guitar in the bath and getting electrocuted? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Keith Relf]] is the chap. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::Though I see the article claims he did not die in the bath - but alas no reliable citations![[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Quite a few rock guitarists have died or been seriously injured because of wiring errors in large stage setups - typically the problem comes about when the microphone or microphone stand get shorted out and when the musician grabs the mic with one hand and rests the other on the strings of his guitar - he gets a jolt right across the heart. But for this to happen in the bath is much less likely simply because the wiring setup would be so much simpler. It's clearly not impossible - but I'm a little skeptical. Maybe if he was using one of those small mains-powered practice amps (I have one - it's about 10"x10"x6") - he might have rested it on the edge of the bath and then had it accidentally slip into the water. That kind of accident with small appliances is alarmingly common. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== SHIA LITERATURE ==
shia muslims have 4 major books of ahadith , amongst them 1 is called Bihaar ul anwaar (Oceans of light) a major work by ALLAMA MAJLESI , and is based upon 110 volumes..
is there any URDU TRANSlation of it available? or ever published anywhere in the world..
if not then who can BE contacted to REQUEST a work on A urdu translation..
:Google suggests that at least Vol 1 is available in Urdu; published in Karachi in 1998. [http://makteb-e-raza.com/products/biharulanwar.html Here is an Urdu edition for sale], but I've never heard of or dealt with the merchant before. I definately see evidence that such a translation exists, but, other than the link that I provided, I don't know where you could buy one. Good luck! [[User:Ergot|ergot]] 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== paranormal ==
is there any club or community where THE PEOPLE WIITH SUPERNATURL powers can meet and share their experiences ( i mean if ppl say in community they have powers they shoukd be able to )proove it and where real jerks and showoff and liars should not be a part of community)
:By definition - no. Since there is clearly no such thing as supernatural powers - anyone who claims to have them comes under your category of "real jerks and showoff and liars" - hence there is nobody left to form clubs. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::Which definition would that be, Steve? Our article has quite a lot to say about the [[supernatural]], and doesn't just dismiss it on the basis that you adduce. You've got to tread lightly when it comes to the supernatural, because whether it objectively exists or not, it is - ''by definition'' - beyond the capacity of science to explain. It's almost the spiritual analogue of the square root of -1, which was originally considered logically absurd and therefore couldn't possibly exist - but look at how useful it's proven to be to mathematicians and scientists. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The square root of minus one seems logically absurd to me. [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Is it possible that supernatural powers can somehow be useful even though they don't exist, like the square root of minus one? [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oh, damn it... I just saw that the article on [[imaginary numbers]] says that the said square root is as real as any other number. I guess I'd have to study a lot to understand that. Anyway, I guess anything that exists can be defined as natural, can't it? So, anything supernatural would not exist. [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::That's actually a very good way of thinking about the supernatural, A.Z. Just as "imaginary numbers" have become totally accepted in mainstream mathematics, to the point that "real" numbers are now considered a mere sub-set of them - we could consider the true set of all experiences to contain all "natural" experiences and all "supernatural" experiences. Whether any particular person ''believes'' in the existence of the supernatural ones or not is not the issue, just as whether they believe in the reality of imaginary numbers is not the issue. Another problem with the claimed supernatural is that many outside observers who cannot explain certain events in rational/scientific terms simply dismiss them as never having happened at all in objective reality, and ascribe them to things such as hallucinations, lying, showing off, or whatever. That, to me, is not science. The difficulty is with evidence, because so many people who've had supernatural experiences cannot produce any external evidence of their experiences, which are more often than not essentially internal in nature (but that doesn't make them any less real than external experiences). Absence of evidence is not, in itself, evidence of absence. But neither is it evidence of presence, of course. Demanding rigorous evidential proof of such matters may well be as inappropriate as painting the Mona Lisa by numbers. It just doesn't work that way. With the supernatural, I prefer to keep an open mind and allow both left ''and'' right brains to get a look in. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 05:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Alright, let's stop using imaginary numbers to give credit to supernatural claims. They're not the same thing and the analogy just doesn't make any sense. Complex numbers are actually '''''necessary''''' because otherwise we wouldn't have an [[algebraically closed field]]. — [[User:Kieff|Kieff]] | [[User_talk:Kieff|Talk]] 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::The purpose of my analogy (which I did qualify by "almost") was not to give credit to supernatural claims. It was more as a reminder of what Schopenhauer said, that ''"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident"''. Probably the vast, vast majority of so-called supernatural happenings have, or will ultimately have, a natural explanation. But could there be others that are simply inherently unexplainable? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh Good Grief! Sadly, Schopenhauer didn't happen to mention the phases that ''"All complete and utter nonsense"'' passes though. The odds are good that the first and second phases would be pretty similar - and since supernatural powers have not yet reached the third phase (to be honest, I'm nowhere near done with "ridicule" yet!), we cannot use his witty little aphorism to deduce anything! But in any case, Schopenhauer is another of these people who is chiefly remembered because what he said was clever and amusing - not because he was a particularly deep thinker. He was (of course) quite utterly wrong. There is no recorded ridicule or violent opposition of Pythagoras' theorem, or the Church Turing thesis or...lots of other truths. That's not to say that no truth passes through those stages. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 05:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::You no doubt know better than I, Steve, that the ease with which something can be proven to exist (all you need is one example) is matched by the impossibility of proving something ''doesn't'' exist. So I'm still interested in the definition you referred to in your first post. Without it, what you've said so far is a circular argument: "It couldn't possibly exist (because I, Steve Baker, say so), therefore it doesn't exist". Whatever happened to today’s ''"One thing that is distinctive about good scientists is that they have open minds until they see proof"'' (from [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Political views of Scientists]])? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 06:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I agree with you Jack, Im sure 99% of the supernatural has a natural (i didnt say rational) explanation, but we must stay open minded, otherwise we assume (just as they did in the late 19th Century) that we know everything about the universe and the minds of people. Always remember the words of J.B.S. Haldane "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." And no double-entendre responses boys, we've heard them all before ; ) [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::There you go again with the cute aphorisms! There are plenty of things that I can prove don't exist. I can prove that there are no planar triangles where side A is longer than the sum of the lengths of sides B and C. There are plenty of things we can disprove. The key thing about keeping an open mind was the second clause ''until they see proof''. We now understand the smallest details of the electrochemistry of the brain - with that detail understood, we can clearly see that it does not permit any weird action at a distance - so my mind is now closed to mental levitation, spoon bending by the power of thought and that particular set of bullshit. We can't keep our minds open to everything without ending up as basket cases. If I have to keep my mind open to the fact that I might one day come across a planar triangle where side A is longer than sides B plus side C - then it would be very hard to get any useful work done. There comes a point where you have to say that something is solidly proven - then to take the results and act upon them with conviction. As for Haldane's assertion...well, it's unfalsifiable - so we probably ought simply to ignore it. But some aspects of the universe are certainly stranger than we know - I think the jury is out on whether it's stranger than we '''''can''''' know. However, other parts of the universe are pretty mundane and have been very well understood for quite a long time - and most of the time, those are the parts that bother us in day-to-day life. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 11:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
(resetting indent) I'd be interested in your explanation of [[Lourdes Medical Bureau#Notable cases|these notable cases]], that have withstood the most rigorous medical and scientific examinations. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 12:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Without a double-blind study of statistically reasonable size, we cannot eliminate the placebo effect as a highly likely cause. With 5 million people visiting Lourdes each year in the hope of a cure, I don't really find it surprising that eleven cases of mysterious cures have come up in the 150 years they've been studying this! Really - it's hardly earth-shattering. It's especially notable that not one of those listed in the article has happened in the last 20 years, only one in the last 30 years - and only five in the last 50 years! It starts to look like our ability to figure out why these very few people are getting better is improving. This should come as no surprise - patients are much better documented now than they were in the 1950's. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::It seems ([http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/gb_guerisons.pdf]) that the latest 3 miracles were acknowledged as recently as 1989, 1999, and 21 September 2005. The [http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=1342&id_rubrique=1342 last one] had been under medical and scientific examination since 1952 (!), so it was hardly a hasty decision to call it a miracle, and I think the placebo effect would have been well and truly taken into account over those 53 years. You seem to be setting yourself up in opposition to the best medical technology in the world with your stance that they are somehow overlooking something as basic as this. I grant that all these 67 cures may be explained in the future by as-yet-undeveloped technology. But they may not. This is where we seem to part ways, Steve. I remain open to the possibility that there are some things that science will never be able to explain; whereas for you it's just a matter a of time until the technology is developed. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::There is no way to 'take into account' the placebo effect without a significant double-blind statistical study. It would be hard to do this experiment at Lourdes - I guess you'd have to take half of a set of sick people to Lourdes - but take them there blindfolded so they couldn't tell - then take the other half of the people to some other very similar city and blindfold them too - telling them that they were at Lourdes - then you'd have to follow their medical histories and count how many got better. But the problem is that only 11 people got better out of a few HUNDRED MILLION. That's far too few to measure in a reasonable statistical basis. How do you know that out of a hundred million sick people who didn't go to Lourdes, far fewer than 11 got better? It doesn't really matter how convincing your 11 cases are - they are just utterly, utterly, negligable. The rate of success is vastly lower than the number of cases of mixed up medical records - it's lower than the percentage of spontaneous remissions from otherwise terminal cancer. Actually, I kinda suspect that you could prove that going to Lourdes is actually harmful to your health because the rate of unexplained recovery is likely to be worse than for people who stayed at home! The fact is that people do spontaneously recover from diseases - it happens all the time. If even a million of the 150 million who went to Lourdes got better, that would be too few to matter. Now, if 15 million got better - *NOW* you have a major statistical anomaly that's worthy of investigation - but 11 people in 150 million is a JOKE. Oh - and that the last 'proof' of a miracle took 50 years to investigate, that still leaves the fundamental underlying fact that the person's initial diagnosis was done using incredibly primitive 1950's medicine with hand-written notes stored in a big filing cabinet - we have no solid proof that the person was sick in the first place - it's equally possible that they were misdiagnosed - or that they were suffering some phychosomatic problem - or that their records were mixed up with someone else. Sure, it might be unlikely that this could happen convincingly - but we're talking about an event that's insanely rare. It's 500 times more likely that you'll be struck by lightning (1:35,000) than being miraculously cured by going to Lourdes (1:15,000,000) !! Heck - if you stay at Lourdes for more than a couple of weeks, your odds of being killed by lighting WHILE YOU ARE AT LOURDES is better than you being cured! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 00:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not arguing that the waters at Lourdes contain any magical properties or that a visit there will cure a sick person. I'm saying that there are 67 cases that the best medical and scientific minds in the world have examined as rigorously as humanly possible over a very long time, and have concluded that they are unexplained. Neither you nor I have any but the broadest details of the illnesses, and no details at all of the examinations and investigations that have taken place, so I don't believe it's open to outsiders such as us to make assumptions such as misdiagnosis, the possibility that no sickness ever existed, mix-up of records, or psychosomatic symptoms. I hold absolutely no brief for the Vatican, but I do know that they are incredibly wary of ever acknowledging claimed apparitions, miracle cures or the like. There have been far more claims of these types of things than have ever been accepted by the Vatican. This is because if they do so lightly, they run the risk of later being held open to public ridicule. If it was as simple as "spontaneous remissions and recoveries happen all the time", what has prevented the medical examiners from making just such a finding in these cases? I don't know, but I'd be very surprised if old Lourdes cases were not regularly re-examined in the light of newer technology, but to my knowledge none of the 67 unexplained cases has ever been later explained to anyone's satisfaction. The thing is that I'm discussing actual cases where, one might argue, there appears to have been some sort of supernatural (or at the very least, unexplained) factor at play; whereas you're talking about statistical generalities. No matter how statistically unlikely a phenomenon might be, unless the probability is zero, it can still actually happen; and if it happens, it happens. Then, it has to be explained. And if it can't be explained, what then? I know what your answer will be - they will all eventually be explained when our technology improves sufficiently. And maybe they all will. Or maybe not. This gets back to the basic philosophical question of whether we will ever be able to fully understand the Universe, or whether we will ever be able to know the mind of God. I prefer to believe that the answer to both questions is "No". While the Lourdes cases are interesting in themselves, they will never turn a non-believer in the possibility of the supernatural into a believer (as your answers amply demonstrate). On the other hand, believers were around a lot earlier than Lourdes, so Lourdes is unnecessary. Ultimately, this entire question is one of belief (which is unlimited), not science (which is inherently limited). -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
: Steve, be careful with your trig example! You are quite right at a local level but not at micro and macro ends of physics, particularly the subatomic and the astronomical. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Yeah - I'm aware of that. But if one FULLY qualifies the description, the point of the discussion is buried under a large pile of irrelevent details. The message is that there are plenty things that we can prove can never exist - and every one of us is perfectly capable of coming up with a dozen of them with just a few minutes thought. Just because someone thought up a clever aphorism that's pleasing to the ear - doesn't make it true! It's too easy to pull one of these quaint sayings out of the air and thereby claim to have won the debate...well, it won't work! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
SteveBaker, there was ridicule, and also strong and truly violent opposition to the solution of the [[Monty Hall problem]]. In fact, "Though vos Savant gave the correct answer that switching would win two-thirds of the time, vos Savant estimates 10,000 readers including several hundred mathematics professors wrote in to declare that her solution was wrong." The article doesn't talk about the violence of such opposition, but I did read somewhere that people said vos Savant was stupid and things like that. I bet mathematicians know about a whole bunch of mathematical truths that have been through the Schopenhauer stages. I did also read somwhere that Pythagoreans killed a man, [[Hippasus]], because he pointed out that the square root of 2 was not a whole number. I like Schopenhauer, by the way, and I think he thought deep things. [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Please read what I wrote - I didn't say that truths are '''never''' ridiculed - I said "''That's not to say that no truth passes through those stages''". Truths are '''not always''' ridiculed. That is sufficient to disprove Schopenhauer's outragous claim that '''all''' truths go through these three stages. QED. As for the Monty Hall debacle - 10,000 people and a handful of mistaken mathematicians - that's not a lot compared to Vos Savant's readership. There must be several hundred thousand mathematicians in the world - if just a handful of them were mistaken - that's hardly surprising. The Monty Hall problem is incredibly counter-intuitive and some people don't stop to think before they write. Scientists are only human - on any topic, you'll always find one or two percent of them who don't follow the ideas of the majority...and once in a while, they are right. (Mostly though - they are terribly, terribly wrong!) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 00:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Since this seems a bit of a pile-on, I just thought I'd mention that at least one person reading this thinks Steve is remaining remarkably calm, logical and coherent. It was perhaps ill-advised to launch into an attack on the supernatural, however accurate, when the question-asker requested information on clubs for the supernatural, but it is hard to see how else the question could have been answered. Possibly the question-asker would be interested in the [[Fortean Times]] and associated clubs and media. Jack, you are usually so restrained. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Credit Report history ==
hi all, thank you in advance for any good answers to my question. Thinking about my recent credit history, I think there are 2 minor blotches. One was a magazine subscription (ironically a magazine about managing one's personal finances) which I attempted to cancel after signing up for a free trial issue and then getting a bill after the free trial issue- I was informed that it would be cancelled, I wouldnt have to pay anything, and that I should ignore any further letters/bills from them. So I did until a few months later I got quite a nasty letter from the publisher demanding money. This time I paid the bill first and then made sure I got a refund. Total money involved was about just US$12. the second time, I moved out of my apartment to go abroad. Several months later, while abroad, I received a forwarded letter from a collection agency employed by the insurer I had household insurance with. This was the first notice I'd seen about a penalty fee I owed them for moving and therefore ending my coverage with them early ( i still do not understand the logic of why I should pay a penalty for ending coverage early - but anyway. ). I immediately paid the bill, which amounted to just around US$17. My question - will these items have much of an impact on my credit reports/ credit score? Can I apply to have these items removed if they are on my credit history, with a reasonable chance of success?
(currently outside of US and unable to access online free credit reports...) Thanks for any good comments....
: (1) I very much doubt that a $12 dispute or a $17 dispute would appear on your credit report, especially since both have been paid off. And, even if they did, their impact would be negligible at best on your overall credit score. (2) Rather than ask us at Wikipedia, why not simply order your credit report and see, in fact, whether these items appear or not? Why guess? Go to the source. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 01:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
...Thanks Joseph for the reply. I did try to get my report online from one of the big three agencies but I switched my bank card address to the non-US address I moved to, so the website wouldnt process my access request. I guess I'll have to wait til I move back to the US to check properly.
== help out ==
i m experiencing several strange incidents which do not fall under normal circumstances...i have some strange sights and visions...etc...whom shall i contact , family thinks i m mad , psychiatrists say i m completely normal but they cant understand why i am LYING about this....is anyone out there who knows something about this..
: You have not clearly identified what you mean by "sights and visions." With only this to go on ... how about an eye doctor? ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
:: We absolutely cannot give medical advice here - it is totally forbidden by Wikipedia rules. If you think you have a problem - seek more doctors. We're simply not allowed to help you here. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 01:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Personally, I think you need better shrinks. Even the worst of them should be able to theorize that you're inventing these to get yourself attention. See an optometrist, and if that doesn't explain it, see another shrink --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 01:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:Please [[sign your posts]]. Thanks --[[User:S.dedalus|S.dedalus]] 05:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Don't eat the mushrooms or drink the Kool-aid :)[[User:Perry-mankster|Perry-mankster]] 12:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Church of Scientology building exaggeration? ==
How is the space in Church of Scientology buildings actually used?
Recently I read a statement that the Church of Scientology exaggerates its membership figures. This got me to thinking: maybe this exaggeration extends to deliberately having buildings larger than the space it actually uses. The Toronto Church of Scientology, last I saw it, looked much like a mid-rise apartment building, apart from the ground floor (which, judging by the size of the plate glass windows and the brightness of the lighting, was a converted storefront). I would estimate each floor to be at least a 40-metre square. I am skeptical that the CoS would use this much space, given that there are only about 1525 Scientologists in Canada and that this was only one of their nine Canadian offices. It could be that they rent out some of the space, but how many unrelated people and organizations would willingly associate themselves with the CoS, and how many would the CoS willingly associate itself with? I suspect a fair chunk of the building is empty. [[User:NeonMerlin|<span style="background:#000;color:red;border:#0f0 solid;border-width:1px 0">Neon</span>]][[User talk:NeonMerlin|<span style="background:#0f0;color:#000;border:red solid;border-width:1px 0">Merlin</span>]] 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
= July 8 =
== Plane Keys? ==
Not sure how this is going to go down, but it's been bugging me for ages. Do planes (like aeroplanes) have/need keys (like car keys)? Does it differ between smaller planes (like Cessnas) and larger commercial planes (like 747s) and military planes (like fighter jets) and where do you put the key (is there a keyhole in the console or is it more like bluetooth and the pilot just has to have it)? Thanks [[User:Guycalledryan|Guycalledryan]] 08:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:answered on [http://travel.howstuffworks.com/question311.htm howstuffworks.com]. [[User:Jon513|Jon513]] 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::Although commercial passenger aircraft don't need an ignition key, the door to the cockpit is very secure. And no, we're not going to tell you which switch turns on the engines. For the second part of your question, [http://www.jgruson.demon.co.uk/panel1.jpg this picture] (I Googled images for "cessna cockpit") clearly shows a key in the dashboard.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 11:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::This has been asked before but I can't find the answer right now. Maybe my search terms are too vague. Anyway, yes, smaller aircraft like Cessnas do have ignition keys. I've flown a few Cessnas, the biggest was a [[Cessna 310]], and the key just goes in the control panel in some out of the way, though accessible, sort of place. It's usually close to where it would be found on a car as in the photo shown by Shantavira. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Technically - I don't think the keys in Cessna's and such are truly "Ignition" keys in that they don't control the ignition systems in the way that the keys on cars historically have. I'm pretty sure you don't turn the key on a Cessna to start it running - although it's been a long time since I last flew in one. Of course in many modern cars, the key doesn't control the ignition either...but the name remains. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, the last time I saw the switch in a Cessna it '''was''' the ignition switch: it switched the [[Magneto (electrical)|magneto]] settings between Off, Left, Right, and Both. The starter, on the other hand, was a pushbutton somewhere else on the control panel. I think I still have a [[Cessna 172|'172]] manual laying around; if I can remember '''and''' can find the manual, I'll re-check this alleged fact.
::::[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 17:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== entrance halls ==
hi, i am currently studing Interior design and i ahve been asked to desidn a classical traditional entrance hall. Due to my limited knowledge of the classical era i would appreciate if i could be shown a picture to help my understanding of the materials used for the floor, walls & ceiling.[[User:155.239.178.41|155.239.178.41]] 12:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)mpumalanga
::Marble?--[[User:88.109.59.50|88.109.59.50]] 06:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not visit your college library?[[User:86.219.38.122|86.219.38.122]] 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)DT
== CLIPIOLA PRODUCER HELP HELP HELP==
Hello,
I would like to ask for help. Does anybody know who produces the "Clipiola" round clips ?
They are supposed to be Italian but I have been able to find the factory. I would like to contact them in order to finish a special engineering study.
Thanks.[[User:83.60.94.25|83.60.94.25]] 11:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:Cavallini & Co. at www.clipiola.com seem to be the people. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 12:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Cavallini are certainly distributing the product, but I'm quite certain they do not produce it. if it is an Italian product, I guess it must be some factory in Italy ???[[User:213.27.215.66|213.27.215.66]] 06:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone else help me find this information ?[[User:213.27.215.66|213.27.215.66]] 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Criss Angel ==
How does [[Criss Angel]] make people float? --[[User:58.168.222.252|58.168.222.252]] 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:I'm guessing the same way as [[David Copperfield's flying illusion|David Copperfield]].--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::see [[David Copperfield's flying illusion]]--[[User:Countincr|'''Countincr''' ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Countincr |<small>( T@lk )</small>]]</sup> 18:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Just a comment: If you read an accurate account of how a professional magic trick is done, and how trivial the technique is, it may lessen the enjoyment of watching it. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::In this particular case it's not all that trivial, though! (I did follow the link.) --Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 20:52 (UTC).
:::: For some of us, on the contrary, knowing how it's done makes it ''more'' wonderful. (I imagine that Penn & Teller fans tend to be of this type.) —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 05:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Angel would not use Copperfield's illusion. Angel has done some great work but he's a bit of a cheater, he has used a lot of camera tricks and [[stooge]]s in his videos, which a lot of magicians consider as cheating. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
==Peter Snows and his Sandpit, footage?==
I've heard and read about how Peter Snow depicted the 1991 Gulf War with only a sandpit and toy tanks, this sounds brilliant. Unfortunately I was born in 1990, so don't remember it quite as clearly as I'd like. Does anyone know where I can find some footage of it? I've checked Youtube and Google Video, no joy. A link to the BBC Archives might do the trick, I can't find the damn thing. It's meant to be exaustive.[[User:81.168.46.40|81.168.46.40]] 19:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:This was on BBC's [[Newsnight]] programme. There is a still shot of the "sandpit" in [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/newsnight25/4209789.stm this article] about Newsnight. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:It was done with computer generated graphics - he did not use a real sandpit. [[User:80.2.209.196|80.2.209.196]] 19:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Dan the man and his Pa are currently showing on BBC2 Monday nights at 9pm (baring random acts of tennis) in a programme called 20th century battlefields, last night they 'did' 'the Yom Kippur war' ( yup probably spelt it wrong - in a hurry) next week is the falklands, and the next is to be the Gulf (action, engagement, war whatever)don't know where you are 81.168, but beg, steal and borrow any chance to see/copy it, take it from me, someone whom, until he 'met' the dear clio, had very little interest in history (shame on you perry, shame) the programmes are pretty good, enjoy [[User:Perry-mankster|Perry-mankster]] 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== SAS or special forces ==
Do the SAS or any special forces (mainly from Britain) have some sort of rank system or symbols, i.e. like the star-and-crown symbols? [[User:Lady BlahDeBlah|Lady BlahDeBlah]] 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:The [[Special Air Service]] are soldiers in the [[British Army]] and use the same rank system. I think a [[private (rank)|private]] is called a ''trooper''. I don't imagine they wear rank insignia when on operations. — [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== Fruit Flies ==
I was wondering how long do they live, and if there is something you can do to get rid of them besides getting rid of the fruit around.
According to [[Drosophila_melanogaster#Life_cycle]] they live about 30 days. You could try [[fly paper]]. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:A really good solution is taking some red wine or thick grape juice, and put it in a large glass. Cover the rim of the glass with cellophane, and punch a couple of holes in the top for the flies to get it. They aren't too bright, and will fly in, then drown. Works better than fly paper in my experience. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::According to the same article, it takes about a week from when an egg is laid until an adult fly can take flight. If each fruit stays in your home for less than a week, the flies can't propagate, and will die out. --[[User:mglg|mglg]]<sub>([[User talk:mglg|talk]])</sub> 03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::(Unless of course the fruitfly eggs are already in the fruit when you buy them!)
:::One thing that ought to work well would be to keep your fruit in the refrigerator. Our article says that the life cycle of the fruit fly is dramatically slowed at lower temperatures. Eggs that normally take 7 days to develop and hatch at 25 degC, take 50 days to do the same thing at 12 degC. It doesn't say what happens at (say) 5 degC where your refrigerator might be at - but we can be sure that it must be dramatically slower. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 04:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Black and white pattern ==
What's the name of the sort of black and white pattern [http://vod.ietn.co.kr/week/img/pop19/2004/02/200402191031248237_a_b.jpg here]? I'm not sure if there is one, but I know I've seen that pattern and ones like it elsewhere. [[User:ShadowHalo|ShadowHalo]] 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
: It's mostly [[Houndstooth]], although you may be thinking of some of the works of artist [[M. C. Escher]] (like [http://www.worldofescher.com/store/P7.html "Day and Night"]). -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 00:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::That's it! I kept thinking [[sawtooth]]. Thanks. [[User:ShadowHalo|ShadowHalo]] 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Speedy Deletions ==
This is so getting out of [[control]]. Do you [[Wikipedians]] [[delete]] [[everything]] you [[ever]] [[see]]?
:Nope -- only things which fail the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]]. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Some Wikipedians (called 'Inclusionists') are greatly upset by the propensity for 'Deletionists' to delete things that inclusionists regard as worthy. Speedy deletion is USUALLY reserved for things that are blatently, obviously, in need to being gotten rid of - and because they violate copyright or offend some other very basic principle - the need is to remove them rapidly. However, mistakes are made - I narrowly avoided having an image speedy-deleted today - despite the fact that it does not violate the speedy-delete guidelines and that it is used in a front-page featured article! Moreover, the WP:AfD mechanism allows for deletion of many things that don't meet the 'speedy' delete rules. Personally, I'm somewhere between the two extremes. I think the deletionists are out of hand - and that inclusionists are not helping matters by insisting on keeping stuff that's junk. However, deletionists are definitely winning the battle right now. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 05:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::In my opinion one of Wikipedia's biggest problems are the more trigger-happy deletionists. More over, one of the biggest problems with deletionists is their '''failure to cite and explain rationale in deletion procedure'''. Simply saying "G4" as a reason is going to frustrate and confuse the crud out of newbies who have no idea what on earth is going on. In other words G4 should be a cited wikilink! And in fact anything to do with deletion should have a formal protocol assigned to it. It is totally unacceptable that an article can go up for AfD with a whole bunch of people not knowing what the hell the problem is. <br/>
:::Moving on to the next problem, that of '''Delete instead of Amend'''. Far too many admins or deletionists will nitpick at an article and add the nitpicks as a primary material reason for beign worthy of deletion. I've seen an article deleted because <big>'''ONE SENTENCE'''</big> read like a how-to-guide, so in the AfD they listed that as a problem. Of course it could have taken an idiot 2 minutes to correct the sentence - instead the deletion proceded. Its other material problem was that it wasn't well-referenced <big>meanwhile no tags/templates EVER went up saying that the article needs better referencing</big>. '''In other words in many cases if you add an issue to an AfD discussion you <u>should</u> be adding a tag/template on the article to inform people of this problem'''. Therefore it is totally unacceptable that articles get deleted in cases where they could easily have been '''amended'''.<br />
:::Finally the next big problem: beaurocracy. In the case I spoke of above, once the article went to deletion all-of-a-sudden, I woke up and tried to salvage it by a) fixing the sentence that read like a how-to-guide, and b) adding some references and sources. And get this... It was G4d! WHY? Because it was "too similar" to already deleted content. So this means that once something is deleted, for example if it isn't well referenced, you '''CANNOT''' restore the article by suddenly referencing it. No, instead the ship has sailed and ANY reposted article gets deleted by the deletionist adminss because it "looks" like reposted content. In other words you have to completely and utterly throw away the previous article and start from absolute complete scratch. Rediculous!<br />
:::So in the end I give up. I'm no longer a '''material''' editor on Wikipeida - or I make no effort to be (and don't misquote me on this!). The beaurocracy, bad protocol, and trigger-happy deletionist admins can have their way. I will now sit back and watch. And empathise with some other wikipedians.<br />
:::I tried so many times to ask other admins to EXPLAIN to me why I can't just amend the article instead of deleting it, and I basically got no response.<br />
:::This is not me flogging a dead horse, this my '''<big>contructive</big>''' feedback on the pro-deletionist system.<br />
:::One last problem: There has been a race on for a long time about how many 'articles' you have nominated for deletion. It's like scoring brownie points, or badges. There's even an infobox that said "I nominated X articles for deletion, most of the time they were successful". Admins need to stop competing with eachother on how many articles they can delete. You even get admins that become obsessed with it, where it becomes what they do everyday on Wikipedia - look for something ANYTHING to delete. They need to tone it down.<br />
:::Amen [[User:Rfwoolf|Rfwoolf]] 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::<small>PS, this doesn't make me an outright inclussionist. But on the whole I like to think of my self on the inclussionist 'side' because of these incidents</small>
== Why cant medical advice be given here? ==
Obviously a doctors opinion would be recommended. By is the reason Wiki doesnt allow it because its against the law, or its just a policy, or because someone could get sued? [[User:Willy turner|Willy turner]] 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*It's just a bad idea in general. Anonymous medical advice is a dangerous proposition for the patient. Furthermore, it could open the Foundation up to lawsuits and stuff like that. So, kind of, all of the above. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:: See [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer]], as Haemo says, all three apply. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Also, practicing medicine without a license is illegal in lots of places in the world. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Including the place where the servers are, if I remember rightly from the last time this came up. [[User:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 11:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Last time it came up it was about legal advice - it's illegal to give legal advice in the state of Florida, where the servers are. (IIRC) '''[[User:JoshHolloway|Josh]]<span style="color: red;">Holloway</span>''' 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Legal and safety considerations notwithstanding, all it takes is one case where bad advice is taken (or even good advice with an unlucky outcome) to generate a massive amount of bad publicity for the project. I don't want to wake up in the morning to a '''"Promising young athlete and scholar killed by bad advice from Wikipedia"''' headline. 99.99% of the time, the correct advice to "I have a headache, what should I do?" is going to be "Have a glass of water and maybe a mild analgesic (aspirin, paracetamol/acetaminophen, ibuprofen) and go lie down." 0.01% of the time, it's going to be "You have bacterial meningitis. Seek immediate medical attention, and trace all of the people with whom you've had contact in the last few days.", and it's that last 0.01% with which we play [[Russian roulette]] every time we give medical advice. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 13:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::What if the headline were "Non-promising poor African old ugly illiterate and stupid man killed by bad advice from Wikipedia"? [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::You seriously imagine that would be a headline? You have more faith in the press than me! The question that should keep you awake at nights is that "Non-promising poor African old ugly illiterate and stupid man killed because Wikipedians refused to offer even the most basic medical advice." is a more likely situation - and one that would also go unreported. (Of course we're carefully avoiding how an illiterate person would get advice from us in the first place!) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 12:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Black U.S and U.K sprinters ==
Why is the proportion of these countries 100m and 200m sprinters that are black, (ie. seems like nearly all of them), vastly disproportional to the percentage of the 2 countries populations that are black? [[User:Willy turner|Willy turner]] 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*There's often a selection problem; talented athletes gravitate towards wealthy countries where they can train and compete, so they can excel in their sport. For instance, [[Donovan Bailey]] was born in [[Jamaica]], and [[Bruny Surin]] was born in [[Haiti]]. Another factor you might consider is that many people from minority communities have few other outlets for them to excel in, due to poverty or other pressures -- such as culture, or socialization. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No offense but i feel this is a poor answer. Most of them arent foreign. The fact that poverty may contribute to lower educational attainment doesnt really answer the question. Anyone else? [[User:Willy turner|Willy turner]] 02:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Black people can run faster? I suspect that the previous respondent with his social explanations would think this racist? But the most obvious answer is often true. For some reason related to the evolutionary niche different people filled in the past, people in Africa (probably from specific regions of Africa, although many in the US and UK can't trace their ancestry this far) developed slightly different muscle tones. This seems to mean when you select the worlds best sprinters they are of African origin. Apparently the difference in muscles means Black people find it harder to swim. I think only one, or maybe no, White people have ever run under 10 seconds in the hundred metres. [[User:Cyta|Cyta]] 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::If there is a perception that "black people are athletic", then you may find that black children are steered towards athletic careers at school - just as working class children are steered towards low-skilled careers, and middle class children towards managerial/academic careers. This does not imply deliberate racism from teaching staff, rather an embedded cultural bias affecting perceptions of potential. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 08:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Well Cyta is correct. I asked a question about this on the reference desk a few weeks back, turns out of the 52 runners to do 100-metres in under 10 seconds in timed competition 51 have been black/afro-carribbean, with the remaining 1 being Australian (but if i recall the response, born of an irish and jamaican parents?)...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_June_20#Competition_100m_Records) [[User:Ny156uk|ny156uk]] 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::It is not logical to attempt to draw any general conclusions from a few data points at the far end of a bell curve. It is a big and unfounded leap from "the fastest sprinters in the world are black" to "black people can run faster" - the second statement could be tested by a cross-sectional study, but not by just looking at the extremes. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] 10:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, it could be that Black people have a wider range of speeds, but the same average. An accurate statement would be that the fastest sprinters in the world are much more likely to be black. I doubt that such extreme statistics can be put down to social factors. There are plenty of poor White kids who would also want a way out of poverty, and running is something everyone tries and can see they are good at. Those who are naturally quick will be encouraged into sport I guess, but I think it's easy enough to see in a PE lesson who is quick and not, rather than teachers showing bias, however unconscious. [[User:Cyta|Cyta]] 11:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::It's the ''perception of potential'' that matters, not who's fastest in the PE lesson - the teacher asks themself "Is it worth investing time and effort giving this kid extra training & support?". [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 11:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::A question that will surely be influenced by their actual performance. I find it hard to believe that 51 of the 52 sprinters to achieve under 10 seconds have done so through a teacher's unconscious bias rather than natural ability (and a good dose of hard work of course). I don't deny that stereotypes exagerate differences but also the stereotype must arise in the first place for a reason. Do you really believe the differences in sprint performance are entirely socially constructed? [[User:Cyta|Cyta]] 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::This strongly reminds me of something I was reading (here?) about which groups of people excelled at boxing historically. If I recall, it detailed how at various times, different groups of people (Irish, Black, etc) have dominated the sport, and been held to be 'naturally' better at it. Hmm, I can't find it round here. Where could I have read this? As to "Do you really believe the differences in sprint performance are entirely socially constructed?", I would personally reserve judgement, but would bear in mind that boys used to outperform girls in every academic subject in Britain, and now girls outperform boys. I do not believe either situation shows one group to be naturally more academic than the other. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 14:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Sort of off-point, but I did a nice [[Open University]] segment that looked at the boys Vs girls historical performance. There seems to be strong arguments that the changes in teaching style over the past half-century have heavily favoured girls in many subjects. Some even go as far as to argue that the teaching styles have changed to favour girls at the expense of boys. I'm not sure I would say it quite so strongly, but certainly I believe that differing teaching styles, allied with a sub-culture existing that makes many adolescent boys associate 'uncoolness' with intelligence (and, unfortunately, coolness with indifference to schooling) make it more social than anything else. Of coures all my own opinion with no real data to back it up. [[User:Ny156uk|ny156uk]] 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We had this question before. The world's fastest sprinters are of West African (not just any African) ancestry. This is because of tiny genetic differences that become very exaggerated when you're looking at the fastest 0.000001% of people. The ''average'' West African is only slightly likely to be faster than the average person from elsewhere. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Silent animal ==
Are there any animals in North America that are silent?
*Yes, [[Jellyfish]]. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
** [[Plankton]]. [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 01:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Define silent. I think that both the above species would make ''some'' noise, either through movement or biological processes. (sure, it's almost undetectable and certainly below the human threshold, but I define (as does [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silent the first definition in wiktionary]) silent as the absence of sound). Maybe we should alter the old addage "If a tree falls so quietly in a forest that you can't hear it, does it make a sound?" [[User:Capuchin|Capuchin]] 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean mute? Though even the Mute Swan hisses. Perhaps fish - its said that if fish could scream, less people would eat them. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 09:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Releasing life|Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Even the lowliest insect strives for protection against dangers that threaten its life]]. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 09:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
: I've heard a fish emit a high-pitched squealing as it was being gutted. [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::I've gutted many different kinds of fish and never heard any such sound. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Most fish are pretty quiet, but there are many that make noises. Here is one list of fish that produce sounds deliberately [http://www.marine.usf.edu/bio/fishlab/fish_sound_production.htm]. [[Parrotfish]] are quite noisy eaters as they chew away on coral reefs. One particular ticking noise baffled scientist for a while, until they figured out it was generated by herrings expelling bubbles through their anus [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4343]. The phenomenon was given the appropriate scientific label "Fast Repetitive Tick" (FRT). Anybody want to write an article about [[fish sounds]]? --[[User:mglg|mglg]]<sub>([[User talk:mglg|talk]])</sub> 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Dead animals are pretty quiet. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In South Africa there were these fish called 'grunters' (which obviously have a more formal name), and from what I recall they emitted more of an 'oink' than a grunt, but it was a deep-gullotted grunt, that it would possibly make while being gutted, or when out of water. [[User:Rfwoolf|Rfwoolf]] 12:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
==Why does the U.S seem to be more religious and socially conservative than the U.K and some other developed western nations?==
[[User:Willy turner|Willy turner]] 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*This is a complicated question, and one no one really can answer definitively. However, [[Culture of the United States]] does its best to try and answer it. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Note also that the US has a codified [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], while the UK does not. Codifying tends to ensure a greater rigidity to the culture at the time it was codified. For example [[Article Five of the United States Constitution]] explains how much harder it is to amend the US Constitution than it is for UK parliamentarians to to change the uncodified [[Constitution of the United Kingdom]]. So, when the [[Founding Fathers of the United States]] ratified that document, they set in place a culture of [[conservatism]] that would be the political and cultural bedrock of the US. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 02:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::: See also [[Conservatism in the United States]]. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure the US constitution has a lot to do with it. The constitution has been so badly abused and bent over the centuries, it hardly reflects the original views of the founders at all. We have government working hard to pump tax money into "Faith based initiatives" (in clear contravention of the constitution) - and efforts by nut jobs on the other side of the fence to remove the quaint historical sentiment: "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill because it's unconstitutional. We have people interpreting the right to bear arms when forming a militia as the right for individuals to own heavy machine guns. Free speech (a laudable right when we're talking about an individual standing on a soap box on a street corner) has come to mean the right of large corporations to bribe politicians and use quasi-infinite advertising budgets to brainwash the people. No - I'm pretty sure the constitution isn't it. I believe we simply have different people in different countries. There is a tendancy to think that British and American cultures ought to be pretty similar because the majority of us come from common roots and we speak a fairly similar language. The reality is that our civilisations spent a couple of hundred years separated from each other - with the people on one side of the Atlantic expanding like crazy into new lands - with vast natural resources - with input from people from all around the world - but the people on the other side of the Atlantic coming to grips with a failing empire, sharply diminishing natural resources, a shrinking world - little immigration (until recently) - yet a very stable society with deep roots. Why would you expect two such widely different groups of people ending up being in any way similar? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 04:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::But this answer, while undoubtedly correct, doesn't fully answer the question. What is it about the past 200 years of American civilisation that has led it to be a more religious and socially conservative society than many of those in western Europe? You mention three factors - territorial expansion, natural resources and input from people from all around the world. Are you saying that these factors are in some way responsible for the conservatism, and if so how? --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] [[User talk:Richardrj|<sup>talk </sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/Richardrj|<sup>email</sup>]] 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I don't pretend to know the answer - I merely point out that it would be extremely surprising if the two nations cultures were still anywhere near close to each other after the amount of time and the nature of the pressures that each has seen. Nobody finds it surprising that (say) France and Algeria are so different - why Britain and the USA? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 05:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sure - I was only pressing the point because those are the countries the questioner was asking about. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] [[User talk:Richardrj|<sup>talk </sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/Richardrj|<sup>email</sup>]] 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: America does indeed have examples of all those people at the interpretative extremes, yet they also have 299 million people who largely agree they have an undeniable right to certain things, all because a bunch of dudes <s>with beards</s> in wigs (<small>damn you, Toto! [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)</small>) said so a couple hundred years back. Conservatism is all about maintaining the status quo with a system of checks and balances, and the best way to do that is with a codified constitution and a system of legal precedence. Thats what the Founding Fathers wanted and thats what they got.
:::: An interesting comparison is on gun politics. The English [[Bill of Rights 1689]] was not dissimlar to the codified US [[right to bear arms]], in that it ensured "the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law." The key difference is "as allowed by Law." In this phrasing, it remains a qualified rather than an absolute right. This allows us Brits to change pretty much any of our rights as and when we see fit by, virtue of a simple parliamentary majority. For this reason the concept of an enshrined "constitutional right" is entirely foreign, and the conservative (with a small "c") impulse to protect that is missing. So after the sad events of the [[Dunblane massacre]], there was a [[Snowdrop Campaign|movement]] to essentially ban private gun ownership. There was certainly opposition to this, both political and grass-roots, but there was no significant argument that it should be kept because we have a historical right to do so. Indeed, most of the debate was practical and pragmatic, rather than ideological.
:::: This difference in the socio-political ideology between the US and UK goes way beyond politics and law, it colours (and colors) much of our culture. Americans look upon the Consitution with an almost sacred reverence. A bible, if you will, for the surrogate national religion that is Patriotism. This difference has not gone unnoticed among British Conservatives (with a big "c") [http://joshmanston.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/cameron-praises-americas-sense-of-identity-2/]
:::: However, the geo-political considerations described above should also not be discounted. I don't think its a co-incidence that other Frontier pioneers (as the early American settlers were) share similar conservative and religious values to those in the American heartlands. The [[Voortrekkers]] are a good example. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 05:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States.png|thumb|200px|Smooth-faced Founding Fathers]]
::::: I feel obliged to point out that there were no beards at the [[Philadelphia Convention]]. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:The "quaint historical sentiment" [[In God We Trust]] dates all the way back to 1956. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:: As official national motto yes, as phrase or sentiment, no, if one reads the full article. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 08:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Ignorance]]? Seriously, a lot of people here think that [[Fox News Channel]] isn't [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s propaganda vehicle. It serves the purposes of the corporate and political establishments to keep people ignorant, and one of the side-effects of ignorance is increased [[credulity]] for all sorts of silly beliefs.
[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Whilst all the above responses are interesting, isn't the correct answer to the OP that by distancing the state from organised religions and their groupings, to the extent of not harvesting their not-inconsiderable and freely-donated funds via federal and state tax gathering, those self same religious groupings have been given a state-sponsored and thus, a very strong motivation to persist in their relative intransigent beliefs, aims and mission objectives, so as to grow, and thus grow ever more wealthy and influential? I think that correlates with conservatism.
Indeed, this is an extremely complicated question, and no one knows the answer for sure. Certainly, there are several things to be considered:
*The lack of an indigineous aristocracy: In "old" countries, you had a social heirarchy going back centuries. Families had been either serfs/peseants/workers or lords/landowners forever. It was much easier to divide society into classes. In the U.S., most (non-black, non-Indian) families trace their ancestry to immigrants who started "from scratch." The theory is that everyone had or has a chance to get ahead. There is little "class consciousness" or support for policies aimed to benefit one class at the expense of another.
*Race. What America does have, in place of a traditional social-class heirarchy, is a racial heirarchy. So instead of being in a historically disfavored group, most Americans -- being white -- are in the favored group. They identify as haves rather than have-nots. While relatively few Americans are cross-burning racial extremists anymore, race permeates almost every political discussion in the U.S. It influences the debate on welfare, public education, gun control, even things like public transportation. People in suburban Maryland campaigned against light rail because they thought black folks from Baltimore would hop on the train, rob their houses, then go back to the city, stolen TVs in tow.
*Immigration. Americans get patriotic because America always seems to be under threat from outsiders. The continued existence of a familiar "America" is not taken for granted. In such an environment, criticism of the foundations of the state may be less tolerated than it would be in countries without a good deal of immigration.
*History. The United States can be considered one of the few oldest countries in the world. Some states of Europe may be older in theory, but most went through great upheaval around World War II or the fall of Communism. Australia and New Zealand were colonies until the 1900s. Canada really only came into its own as an independent nation in the 50s and 60s. The U.S. is so old that there is an almost mythic quality to the way its founders are thought of. Messing with their creation to a great degeee is considered sacriledge. The U.S. also has the oldest codified national constitution, which in some ways is better suited to the 18th century than it is to the 21st (although it has survived due to flexible interpretation).
*Lack of a state religion. There is no history of anticlericalism in the U.S. because no church ever had as much power as the Catholic Church did in France or Italy. It's always been an open market in religion, so Americans don't have the skepticism toward religious authority that may exist elsewhere.
*Size and isolation. The U.S. is extremely isolated. If you live in Washington or Atlanta or St. Louis, you're more than a day's journey from any other country. And America is so all-encompassing that Americans don't usually stop to think how the rest of the world does something. On the other hand, British people, for instance, need only cross the Channel to experience the social liberalism of the Netherlands or the universal preschool of France. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
: To correct one point, America is actually the second oldest surviving Constitutional Republic (the oldest is the [[Constitution of San Marino]]). The USA is old if we classify a "country" as continuous form of Government over a land from a codified legislature. But [[Old World]] countries, like for example the UK, have tended to "evolve" rather than be "born", as [[New World]] countries were. The criteria the makes the USA the second oldest country can be slightly misleading. For example, it classes the UK as being only 80 years old. Having been "born" in 1927 when the [[Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927]] changed its official name to the ''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'' from the former ''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. This may come as some surprise to many Non-Brits, who thought the name was, and still is, ''England''. A sterling answer, though, Mwalcoff. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::I knew someone was going to bring up San Marino :). I don't think that microstate counts, because its 400-year-old constitution is six books long. Fair point, though. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Whilst it is ridiculous to use a name change to say that the UK is only 80 years old - it's also wrong to imagine that the British government is in any way similar to a constitutional republic. Most Americans don't understand just how vastly different the British system is.
::: We are a monarchy - we have a king or queen who inherits the title by right of birth who is the only person with any power in the system. Parliament and the Prime Minister are merely advisors to the Queen. The police and armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch - they don't promise to do what the government says.
::: Whilst ''in practice'' we are a democracy - ''in theory'' we are not.
::: The government only rules because the monarch says it's OK. The people vote for a government and whatever ministers the people ask for are elected to the 'House of Commons' (Commons means "commoners" - people who are not royalty). The other house of parliament is composed of a weird mix of people: Some inherited their seats from their parents - some are religious leaders and some people are there by virtue of have been given an honorary seat by the monarch. There is no democracy whatever in selection of people to serve in the House of Lords - but the power of this unelected body has been drastically curtailed over the past 50 years, so that's not as horrifying as you might expect. The ministers of the majority party choose their preferred candidate for prime minister (nobody 'elects' him/her) - but that's not the end of it. But in theory the monarch actually chooses the prime minister - it just so happens that the monarch never picks anyone other than the one whom the the ministers suggested. The government drafts laws - but the monarch has to sign them in order for them to actually become law. In theory, the king or queen could choose to act differently. Of course the monarchy never, '''ever''' do that - but that's the theory. Hence we are (in practice) a fairly standard democracy - but only because the royal family no longer choose to rule.
::: We also don't have a written constitution - although people talk all the time about whether some particular thing would be constitutional or not - and great and learned tomes have been written about "The British Constitution".
::: It's a weird system - but somehow it seems to work very well indeed. When the constitution is written down, lawyers can argue about the minutia of the language to allow or deny things that were never intended. When it's more of an idea of what is right and fair - it's much harder to lawyer the language! I suppose there is some merit to the idea that if all else failed, the monarch could take control of police and military (I suppose) as a theoretical back-stop in the event that government goes off the rails. Whether the military truly would back up the monarch in such a situation is debatable though.
::: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Mirror not swapping up and down ==
I came across this on one of the answers to a previous question posted on the RD, but I thought to address this in a different question. Why is it that when you look into a mirror, the mirror swaps your left and right, but not up and down? Even if you look at the mirror sideways, it still doesn't swap up and down. Thanks. [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:There has to be an article on this, but knowing Wikipedia, it's probably about 10 times as long as it needs to be. The answer is very simple.
:A mirror in the usual position does not swap left and right. If you pick something up in your right hand, the hand that you see holding it in the mirror is ''still on your right''. What it does swap is ''front and back''. When you see your mirror image, you imagine it as yourself facing the opposite way (i.e. behind you). In order to face that way, what you would normally do would be turn around in place thus swapping not only front and back, but also left and right. So when you see front and back swapped, you think of it as "left and right swapped, but facing the other way." It's just easier to imagine that way.
:If you stand sideways to the mirror so it is on your left or right, ''then'' it swaps left and right, and not front and back: your mirror image is facing the same way you are, but if you pick up something in your right hand, the left hand of the mirror image picks it up. And if you put the mirror on the floor or ceiling, then it swaps up and down.
:--Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 03:26 (UTC).
:(ec) The mirror neither swaps up/down nor left/right; it just swaps front/back. The reason that you think it swaps left/right has to do with how you are imagining correcting the obvious front/back swap, so as to be able to superpose yourself with the mirror image and compare it to yourself. The motion you are imagining is the one that is natural for people, namely to turn yourself around a vertical axis. ''That imagined turn'' will swap left/right as a side effect of swapping front/back. If instead you imagine turning yourself around the horizontal axis that goes from your left to your right hand, then your hands would stay put but your head and feet would switch places. If you''then'' compared yourself to the mirror image, you would find that the mirror had swapped up/down but not left/right. --[[User:mglg|mglg]]<sub>([[User talk:mglg|talk]])</sub> 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
: The above answers cover the terratory perfectly - but it never hurts to stretch our mental muscles a little further! In a photograph, front and back are '''not''' swapped because the camera was facing the opposite direction to the subject of the photo - so when you look at a photo of yourself, now left and right seem correct - but are in fact swapped. Take a while to look at your reflection in the bowl of a large spoon. It truly does swap top and bottom AND left and right AND front and back - but it seems to you that it got left and right correct and top and bottom are wrong...argh, this is SO confusing! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Differene between stepping on clutch and shifting in neutral ==
In a car with manual transmission and a syncromesh, what is the difference between engaging (fully depressing) the clutch and shifting into neutral? Both actions will disengage the engine from the wheels. I am asking because I've read on some "Toe-to-Heel" guides that I need to both shift into neutral ''and'' engage the clutch while matching revs. But to me that seems kinda redundant. Thanks. [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 03:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Well, you've gotta engage the clutch to safely shift into neutral - just knocking the shifter out of gear with the clutch engaged risks grinding the gears and causing untold gearbox damage!
:If your car has synchromesh (as all modern cars do) then briefly releasing the clutch while in neutral then depressing it a second time as you slide back into gear (known as '[[Double clutch|double-clutching]]' or 'double-declutching' if you are British) is strictly optional for heel and toe technique. The [[Heel-and-toe]] instructions tell you to release the clutch pedal while going through neutral because this spins up the part of the transmission between the clutch and the gearbox to better match the engine speed - which makes for faster and smoother gear engagement even when you '''do''' have synchromesh. [[Double clutch]] explains this from the perspective of a car with no synchromesh - but it applies to getting the fastest possible shift times with a synchromesh gearbox too.
:In general, you're right in that both operations disconnect the engine from the wheels. There are certainly circumstances when you'd prefer shifting into neutral - for example, if you are going to be stopped for a while - because all the time that you have the clutch pedal depressed, you are wearing out the thrust washer (aka 'thrust bearing') - which is designed to take a lot of that kind of abuse - but still, shifting to neutral would be better for the life of the clutch.
:[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Thanks, but if my car is in neutral, is there a difference whether I do or do not step on the clutch? Does stepping on the clutch while my car is in neutral help slow the engine revs down faster or something? [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:Clutch explosion.jpg|right|thumb|300px|How a clutch works]]
:::There is a difference - but it's a very small difference. There is a small chunk of drive shaft that connects the clutch to the gearbox. If you are in neutral with your foot OFF the clutch then that piece of drive shaft is spinning. If you are in neutral with your foot ON the clutch - or if you are in gear with your foot on the clutch - then that shaft is not spinning. For 'normal' street driving, that makes almost no difference at all. However, if you are a competitive driver, every little helps. The other difference is that when your foot is pressing down on the clutch the 'thrust washer' (aka 'thrust bearing' - see diagram) is being worn out - this is generally not a good thing - so if you plan to have your foot on the clutch for a reasonably long amount of time (eg while waiting at a stop light), you should really be in neutral with your foot off the clutch - just in order to avoid wearing out the thrust washer.
:::The other reason some people offer for preferring to be in neutral rather than ''in gear'' with your foot on the clutch (yeah - I know you aren't asking about that) is that it sometimes happens that someone's foot slips off the clutch and the car shoots forward unintentionally. If you are waiting at a red light - or a STOP sign - then this would be really dangerous - so being in neutral with the parking brake on is safer. The most common occasion when this happens is when you are rear-ended by some idiot behind you - the shock of the impact knocks your foot off the clutch and you are propelled into the path of an 18-wheeler. However, you were asking specifically about being in neutral with your foot on the clutch - and this argument doesn't apply. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 11:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So taking your foot off the clutch wihle in neutral while turning corners is best for performance driving? [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:When you say it like that - I'm mentally screaming "'''NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!'''". Listen: I'm very carefully telling you '''''never''''' to sail around corners with your foot on the clutch and the gearbox in neutral because that would be dangerous as all hell! But if you are hard-core heeling-and-toeing around the corner - there will be a brief moment when your foot would be on the clutch then off the clutch then on the clutch again - while the car is in neutral - while you are giving the car a little more gas and simultaneously braking '''and''' steering. This happens as you go through the complex clutch/break/gas/shift pattern that gets you into a lower gear smoothly without restricting your ability to brake as you do it. But this requires a fairly intense amount of skill and coordination. If you aren't already a pretty awesome driver (which is doubtful given how little you seem to know about how and why all this stuff works) then you shouldn't attempt this. It's a lot to concentrate on - and messing it up will result in you shredding your gears or killing your clutch or failing to concentrate on steering - or most likely, all three at once. It'll initially get you round corners far more slowly than you're currently doing it...it'll be dangerous. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== The element song ==
Does anyone know where I can download an mp3 of [[the element song]]? --[[User:Candy-Panda|Candy-Panda]] 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:There are a dozen different video versions of it on YouTube.com - but I don't know of any MP3's. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 11:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.jesuitnola.org/upload/clark/images/elements.mp3 There maybe. I can't listen right now so I apologies if that isn't it. [[User:Capuchin|Capuchin]] 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:That is what I was looking for. Thank you very much! --[[User:Candy-Panda|Candy-Panda]] 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Elephant Onomatopoeia ==
{{hidden|Moved to the [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Elephant_Onomatopoeia|Language Desk]]|
If a duck goes quack what sound does an elephant make? --[[User:58.168.222.252|58.168.222.252]] 12:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Elephants trumpet. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think we have an onomatopoeic word for an elephant's trumpet, are there any in other languages? This would be best on the languages desk. [[User:Capuchin|Capuchin]] 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)}}
==Evil Overlord==
Here's my version of the [[Evil Overlord list]]s. How can I make it funnier?
<blockquote>Evil Overlord: The Super-Villain
Draft
Being an Evil Overlord is one of my life’s goals. It’s one of the best careers one can possibly think of. I can have unlimited control over my ___domain. Heck, I even control my own salary.
:Slave: My master, here is your paycheck.
:Me: What?! Don’t tell me they only raised my salary by 500%
:Slave: But liege, that would bankrupt the Treasury.
:Me: How many times do I have to remind you that I AM the Treasury.
Anyways, in every case I have seen in the media, the Evil Overlord is some big villain who makes a big, stupid mistake and ends up killing himself by proxy via the hero. So to avoid the unwilling suicide, I will now make sure that my ___domain will be hero-proof, and I will promise myself not to do stupid things while Evil Overlord.
#I will make sure that once my enemies surrender, they will all be summarily decapitated. The heads will be used for scientific research.
#I will make that there are no weirdly composited meteorites or any radioactive spiders in my museums.
#Anyone who shows some hint of a superpower will be taken to the countryside and have 12 atom bombs dropped on top of them. If they (singular theys will be permanently allowed in my ___domain) are atomic energy resistant, they will be kept in a cage in a zoo for the rest of their lives. If they try to escape, 500 rods will be sent through their body instantaneously.
#If the superhero escapes anyways, I will go up to him and apologize to him rather than hunt him down (‘it was a mistake’) so avenge his suffering upon me.
#I will make sure that my super-fortress-supercastle will have extremely narrow ventilation ducts to prevent intrusion. I will also make sure that any person that tries will be submerged in a tub of sulfuric acid.
#If some unarmed hero breaks in and kills all troops, then tells me to fight like a man, I will fight like an Evil Overlord instead and kill him with my blaster. Of course, I would have to rebuild my army. And my PR.
#'''I will not have a self-destruct mechanism and I will NOT have an On/Off switch for my central control system.'''
#My troops will be given weapons with their own power supplies.
#My super weapon will have a power generator attached to it and will not rely on any outside source of electricity. The generator will be out of reach and out of sight to any potential hero.</blockquote>
--<font color="green" face="Berling Antiqua">hello, i'm a [[User:Member|<font color="orange">member</font>]]</font> | [[User talk:Member|<font color="grey">talk to me!</font>]] 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Post on [[Uncyclopedia]] and see what survives? [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::The trouble is that there is already a really, really great Evil Overlord list - it has literally hundreds of entries - and covers pretty much all of the usual errors you find in the movies. You used to be able to add more entries to the official Evil Overlord list - at least a dozen of my contributions are there - but I suspect it got too much for the maintainer and he may now have stopped accepting new entries. I think most of yours are (in essence) already there though. I don't recall the one about not keeping radioactive spiders in your museum - that's really good advice! My #1 rule would be: "My guards will be trained so that when they are chasing the hero through that maze of caves and passageways - they will glance briefly into every side-passage as they pass it." [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::I'd make sure that all security cameras are well hidden, and that decoys are placed at regular intervals for the hero to waste his bullets destroying. [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:One general suggestion is that humor is usually better (except in expert hands) when it is not wordy. Almost of yours are excessively wordy. Compare:
::''If some unarmed hero breaks in and kills all troops, then tells me to fight like a man, I will fight like an Evil Overlord instead and kill him with my blaster. Of course, I would have to rebuild my army. And my PR.''
:with:
::''I will not "fight like a man." I will "fight like an Evil Overlord."''
:Not perfect, but I think you can see the improvement. Another:
::''My super weapon will have a power generator attached to it and will not rely on any outside source of electricity. The generator will be out of reach and out of sight to any potential hero.''
:becomes:
::''Super-weapons will function under their own power source, which will be kept out-of-reach and out-of-sight.''
:Not a whole lot ''funnier'', but more enjoyable to read, anyhow. Just a general suggestion from someone who does not claim to be a good writer. --[[User:24.147.86.187|24.147.86.187]] 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:See [http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html Peter's Evil Overlord list] among others. – [[User:b_jonas|b_jonas]] 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Precarious Pants Problem ==
Does anyone know the design differences between knickers and britches (or breeches...sp) pictures of each respectively would be very helpful. thanks
:Presuming you mean [[knickerbockers]] and not [[knickers]]. Those articles and [[Breeches]] include photos. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== North Carolina residential building codes ==
I WILL SHORTLY BE BUILDING A LOG CABIN IN THE MOUNTAINS OF NORTH CAROLINA, NEAR WAYNESVILLE. IS THERE PUBLIC DOMAIN BUILDING CODE INFORMATION THAT I CAN PRINT OUT PRIOR TO MAKING ANY DUMB MISTAKES IN THE BUILDING PROCESS.
TED SANKO
:Please don't type in all caps. That, combined with being named "Ted" and building a log cabin in "the mountains of North Carolina" will make people nervous. Anyway, your best bet would be to contact the county/town it will be built in. They might have building codes on their site, but you will probably have to mail them or ask a nearby contractor for assistance --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:[http://www.townofwaynesville.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=13&id=108&Itemid=237&PHPSESSID=8377c24714bdcab427c44cbbb5f48c0a This] looks like a good start. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== South-West Ireland - advice on cost of living would be appreciated. ==
::I live in Central Scotland and am visiting the Tralee, Killarney, Ring of Kerry areas in Ireland in late September for a wee holiday, driving myself and family in our own car. We have the accommodation and the ferry crossings paid for already but don't know what to expect to pay for such things as say, unleaded petrol, pub-grub, restaurant meal (not haute-cuisine), a bottle of house wine with dinner, a bottle of decent wine from a local shop/supermarket, and typical entry fees to say, the Races (horse), museums, shinty match, boat trips to Dingle etc. etc. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. ps. have tried online websites but not much info. forthcoming.
:The [[Irish Independent]] gives the price of petrol at 117.3 cents per litre (79 p per litre).[http://www.independent.ie/national-news/families-hit-by-soaring-petrol-prices-701494.html] Mortons, a Dublin supermarket, gives the price of wine at €7-8 upwards (roughly the same as the typical £4.99 in the UK).[http://www.mortons.ie/wine.htm] [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== file linking website question ==
is there a video linking website like Alluc.org for adult content?
== Real or fake Lacoste shirt? ==
I discovered a [[Lacoste]] shirt that I have purchased about 7 or 8 years ago. I have not worn it very frequently and is therefore in quite good shape. I have came across a few online guides that help the reader distinguish between fake Lacostes and real ones. I have compared various parts of my shirt with photos on the websites and I have begun to cast doubt towards the authenticity of my shirt. I would have regarded my shirt as a fake if it wasn't for the fact that I purchased it in a genuine Lacoste retailer in Germany 8 years ago, when Lacoste may have designed their shirts a different way.
Attached are several macro-shots I have made of my shirt:
* [http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r217/jamesino1/DSCN2498.jpg Pocket alligator]
* [http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r217/jamesino1/DSCN2499.jpg Size tag]
* [http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r217/jamesino1/DSCN2500.jpg Devanlay tag]
* [http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r217/jamesino1/DSCN2501.jpg Buttons]
* [http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r217/jamesino1/DSCN2505.jpg Fabric]
* [http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r217/jamesino1/DSCN2506.jpg Entire shirt]
* [http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r217/jamesino1/DSCN2507.jpg Stichwork]
Please keep in mind that this is ''not'' a polo shirt, which is what most online guides are dedicated towards, but rather it's a short-sleeved shirt, that is in need of ironing ;). Also, it was purchased about 8 years ago, so Lacoste may have changed some of their little details. Thanks in advance. [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:<s>So what's your question? Are you asking if your shirt was in fact made by Lacoste?</s> Nevermind, I missed the heading where the question lies. If you bought it from a Lacoste dealer, I would think that would be proof enough. I'm not sure why it matters now though. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 06:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Honestly it is difficult to differentiate between a real shirt and a fake one nowadays since the fakes have taken a huge jump up in quality and are almost exactly the same. I actually wouldn't be suprised if it comes off the same assembly line, just the alligator logo and the tags have to be made elsewhere. But in any case, I think that one may be a fake. If you look closely at the alligator logo, the feet have no claws on them and the gator doesn't seem very detailed. Although the shirt is 8 years old, it could have worn out or perhaps they used a different alligator logo back then. On another note, fakes turn up in real stores all the time, since people who work there really would have no idea if it is real or not (unless the store gives them some sort of "fake detector."--[[User:GTPoompt|GTPoompt]][[User talk:GTPoompt|<small>(talk)</small>]] 12:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::It's also pretty naive to think that the fake shirt makers didn't check the same website that you checked. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Black people swimming ==
This is a question I have on an answer to a question I read earlier on. Please, I do not mean any offensive in this. Is it true that black people cannnot swim as well as non-black people? If so, why? I've read that it is because they have denser bones, is this true? [[User:Acceptable|Acceptable]] 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:This is a myth promoted by, among others, the late [[Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder]], who famously stated black people can't compete in swimming because they "don't have the buyancy." See, for instance, [http://www.blackathlete.net/artman/publish/cat_index_34.shtml this page] for information on black competitive swimmers. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:To the extent that black people don't swim as much as whites, I think you'll find the sign at right to be the historical cause. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[[Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg|thumb|200px|"Thank you for not swimming in our ocean -- The Management"]]
== How much Wood ==
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
:3 [[Gill (unit)|gills]]. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 02:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Wikipedia doesn't have an article, but [[Cecil Adams|somebody]] has [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_083a.html answered this question before]. --[[user:anonymous6494|anonymous6494]] 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Per the previous responder and Cecil Adams, this would be 700 pounds of wood, which at 7000 BTU per pound per [http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/forestry/g05450.htm] would yield 4.9 million BTU of heat when burned. A cord of wood is 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet (not to be confused with the "face cord" which is only 1/3 of this) and contains 128 cubic feet of wood. which weighs 2 to 3 tons. A ton of green wood, with a 50% moisture content, would give you 1000 pounds of wood and 1000 pounds of water, while a ton of cured dry wood would furnish 1670 pounds of wood and only 330 pounds of water [http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/forestry/420-003/420-003.html]. You should keep this in mind, as woodchucks are indifferent to the heat value of the wood they chuck. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:The problem, as I see it, is that all respondents have answered "how much wood '''could''' a woodchuck chuck...." That's all well and good, but the stated question is "how much wood '''would''' a woodchuck chuck...", and I think ''that'' answer is fairly clearly "none" -- unless you allow the woodchuck to unionize and demand overtime. — [[User talk :Lomn|Lomn]] 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Why are iPods so popular? ==
What is their advantage over other digital media players? -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Mob mentality, ease of use, iTunes, market presence (everyone knows about them, but not say, a Zune). There are any number of factors that favor the iPod to other MP3 players --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::It's nothing but an induced epidemic :-) [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Like other Apple products, they offer superior design, innovative technology and an operating system that is very easy to use. ; ) [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:More like nice styling, and ease of use. I don't think Apple has really been that innovative since the Newton. They just take things, and improve them by a lot --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Reading the [[iTunes Store]] article, I see that few non-Apple devices play iTunes downloads. That raises two questions:
*Are there legal alternatives to using iTunes Store and iPod (or actually buying physical CDs, copying them onto my computer and then putting them on an MP3 player)?
*Isn't Apple in jeopardy of violating laws on unfair trade practices?
I ask because I'd like to get a digital music player that also has an AM radio so I can listen to ballgames as well as music. I don't think iPods have radios. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 05:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:1- uh... of course? How would the other 20% of the market fill up their MP3 players? 2-No. They have about a 70-80% market share of mp3 players, and they're still the number 3 retailer of music. If the government wanted to make having a large market share a crime, they'd have to attack [[Microsoft Windows]] long before Apple. As to the radio, not built in, but none of the MP3 players have AM at all. There are however iPod attachments (the biggest advantage of the iPod over other mp3 players imo) that allow it to play FM radio, I'm not sure about AM, but I imagine they exist. You'd be best off going to Best Buy and looking through their accessories shelf --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Recording announcements at JFK Terminal 4 ==
There is a recording announcements at JFK terminal 4 announcing flight arrivals/departures. Who is that person that made those announcements?
[[User:24.90.27.179|24.90.27.179]] 03:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I honestly don't know, but I'm gonna speculate and say a text-to-speech system? [[User:Splintercellguy|Splintercellguy]] 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::I dunno, but "the [[white zone]] is for loading and unloading only, there's no stopping in a [[red zone]]."
::[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 12:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The [[red zone]] is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the [[white zone]]. [[User:199.172.246.196|199.172.246.196]] 16:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Ottawa A-channel ==
HElli
Does Ctv really plan to Sell A-channel Ottawa to City tv so Rogers can rebradn it To City tv
:According to [http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/289107417621814.php this story] from June 12, no - CTV will be keeping the A-Channel network, but Rogers picked up the CityTV network. The [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070613.RACHANNEL13/TPStory/Business Globe and Mail] says CTV may rebrand A-Channel outlets, though. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Tony Fox|review?]]</small> 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== weird laws ==
how do i find old, strange and weird laws that are no longer in effect in Maine?[[User:69.21.24.85|69.21.24.85]] 10:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:[http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/maine/ This website] lists some weird laws, but I have no idea if they are still in effect. In general with these weird laws things, you should always be careful in believing them unless references/citations are given. - [[User:Akamad|Akamad]] 10:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:This is at least the second or third time this question has been asked - I suggest you check the archives (links at the top of this page). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Text on website ==
Please have a look at the home page of [http://www.konfrontationen.at this website] (work safe). If you watch it for awhile, it flashes up small text all over the screen - what are the words? I think the text changes from time to time, but it's so small and flashes for such a short time that I can't read it. Many thanks. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] [[User talk:Richardrj|<sup>talk </sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/Richardrj|<sup>email</sup>]] 13:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
: Animated GIF flashes "let's art" / "no borders" / "no pintcha". Meh. -- [[User:Hyponutremia|Hyponutremia]] 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::The actual background is just a [http://www.konfrontationen.at/bl-nono.gif tiled gif]. That is one of the most incredibly stupid webpages I have ever seen, to be brutally honest. And I used to frequent fark and 4chan --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:The words are set to be there for a mere tenth of a second for each phrase - with 5, 4 and 3 second pauses in the cycle. I can't improve on the immortal sentiments of [[User:Hyponutremia|Hyponutremia]]: "Meh". [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== 911 / 999 ==
1. What would happen if I dialled [[9-1-1]] in the UK? Would I get through to the emergency services?
2. Similarly, if one were to dial [[9-9-9]] (or [[1-1-2]]) in the USA, would you get through to the emergency services?
Please don't just ring them and find out, there's a reason I didn't do that myself (it's illegal to misuse the emergency numbers). [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]] [[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600"><big>╦</big></span>]] 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Technically, if you just press the wrong numbers, they can't get you on anything, as long as you make it short and clear what happened. I live in area code 913- so our 911 centers actually talk about this kinda stuff --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 14:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm very brave. Indeed. Actually, I'm not. On the basis that I was nearly certain that it doesn't work, I just tried dialling 9-1-1 in the UK. I got the usual response for an unallocated number - three horrendous tones, followed by the gruesome [[British Telecom|BT]] 'part-woman-part-computer' voice telling me, "The number you have dialled has not been recognised. Please check and try again." So, the answer to part one is "No." --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:The only two numbers that work in the UK are 999 and 112. This is covered in some detail in our [[Emergency telephone number]] article.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
112 is the EU number[[User:86.197.46.138|86.197.46.138]] 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)petitmichel
::Yeah, 112 works in the UK as in the rest of Europe. What about dialling 999 or 112 in the US? [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]] [[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600"><big>╦</big></span>]] 15:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::My money is on "no" -- in my opinion, dialling these numbers would give you a pause for a few seconds (as it's waiting for the rest of the telephone number, thinking that it's "999-****" or 1-12*-****"), then the evil tones and message. -- [[User:Azumanga1|azumanga]] 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::999 in the US: Pause – tones – ''"We're sorry, your call did not go through. Please try your call again."'' 112 in the US: Immediate ''"Your call could not be completed as dialed. Please check your number and dial again."'' It is pathetic that there isn't a global standard for emergency numbers. [[User:169.230.94.28|169.230.94.28]] 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I was actually going to ask a similar question myself after finding out I could also dial '''08''' without a SIM card in my phone. The article ''[[Emergency telephone number]]'' told me enough. <font face="verdana">[[User:Slumgum|slυмgυм]]<small> [[User talk:Slumgum|[ ←]][[Special:Contributions/Slumgum|→ ]]]</small></font> 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
=July 10=
== Paris train station announcements ==
When I was in Paris last year, train station announcements were always preceded by a few delightful chords. I have been trying for days to remember how they went, but they are ever-so elusive. I don't suppose that anyone has a recording of it? Or, equally good, could someone hum it for me? [[User:199.172.246.196|199.172.246.196]] 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:How could someone hum it to you here? [[User:polarwolf|<font color="black" face="bank gothic">'''Polar'''</font>]][[User talk:Polarwolf|<font color="navy" face="bank gothic">'''Wolf'''</font>]] 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::You can't really hum [[Chord (music)|chords]] anyway. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know about Paris, but a fair few European stations use the first few notes of [[How Much Is That Doggie In The Window?]]. [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== The state with the most classic cars ==
Hello,
I am wondering if anyone may know what state holds the most classic cars. Thank you[[User:204.112.135.218|204.112.135.218]] 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)curious classic car
:It may be difficult to come up with sources, but generally southern and western states are a good bet- the cars don't rust very fast out there. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
i would like to make my holidays useful.for that wat should i do.pls help me create a good timetable
______________hiiiiii help________________
== GB Plates ==
::2 questions: If I take my car from Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK) and drive south into the Republic of Ireland, will I need to attach GB (Great Britain) plates or stickers to my car - front and back? 2nd Question: If so, why? Southern Ireland is part of Great Britain (but not part of the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). So, 3rd Question, why are they called GB plates and not UK plates for use when travelling outside the UK? After all, cars travelling outside the Republic bear plates or stickers marked IRL. Confused? Me too.
:I don't know about the first. As for the whys, the short answer is that the [[British Isles (terminology)|terminology of the British Isles]] is confusing and sometimes contradictory. One thing to be clear on, however, is that Ireland and Great Britain are entirely distinct islands; neither is part of the other. As for the "GB" sticker:
::''While "United Kingdom" is normally abbreviated UK, the official ISO 3166 two-letter country code is GB and the three letter code is GBR (Ukraine has the two letter code UA and the three letter code UKR)'' (from the article above) — [[User talk :Lomn|Lomn]] 22:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:If you have the new-style [[European vehicle registration plates|EU plates]] you do not need a GB sticker to drive anywhere in the EU. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== auto windshield installation instructions ==
I am trying to install a windshield into my 1993 Chevy van and I need instructions.
| |||