This is something that I have happen a lot (no smart comments here! lol): I'm driving home and part way there, I gotta pee. Of course I have to hold it. The closer I get to home, the worse I have to pee. By the time I get inside and up to the toilet, I can barely hold it any longer. However, once I am in position to actually have a pee . . . it takes forever to begin! Any suggestions (physiologically) as to why this might be? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.154.21.46|216.154.21.46]] ([[User talk:216.154.21.46|talk]]) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This is something that I have happen a lot (no smart comments here! lol): I'm driving home and part way there, I gotta pee. Of course I have to hold it. The closer I get to home, the worse I have to pee. By the time I get inside and up to the toilet, I can barely hold it any longer. However, once I am in position to actually have a pee . . . it takes forever to begin! Any suggestions (physiologically) as to why this might be? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.154.21.46|216.154.21.46]] ([[User talk:216.154.21.46|talk]]) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:First off, and it's important to know, are you male or female? Saukkomies 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
== Distribution of books across Dewey or LOC categories ==
== Distribution of books across Dewey or LOC categories ==
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
How does cat litter work? The articles just explain different kind of cat litter without explaining why cats like crapping in it. Would a tiger crap in a litter box? Toko loko (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TV is picking up air traffic control
This is weird. My TV set, when tuned to a certain channel (that broadcasts pictures fine), picks up on what I believe to be the local air traffic control. I have yet to hear them name the airport, but I know ATC-lingo and this is definitely it. It's crystal clear quality, ie what you would hear if you were in the airplane or in the control tower being spoken to. While this is insanely cool (though traffic is low, so only chatter intermittently, about 30-45 minutes between each conversation (made worse by the late hour)), I can't help but think something must be wrong with my TV. This has never happened before today, and no greater changes have happened that I know of that should mean anything to my set. My TV reception is analogue, which you may have gathered already. Any advice or help on this issue? The TV is some 7 years old now, a Grundig of some kind. :) Thanks for all help. This'll be an interesting one. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ATC frequency is just above FM radio, modulated with Single-Side Band AM (IIRC). Our article on Television channel frequencies doesn't have anything in the ATC range (108.00MHz - 12xMHz), especially in Europe (your IP says you're from Norway). Usually there would be a lot more traffic for commercial airports than that, so you might've picked up an unattended GA frequency for an airfield close to you instead. More information, such as some excerpt and your location would be very helpful. --antilivedT | C | G01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am situated near Lakselv Airport, Banak. There should be three relevant control towers 'nearby'; Alta, Tromsø and Bodø Airport (which I think has control over most of northern Norway's airspace). Only minutes ago I heard a plane overhead, not unlikely an air ambulance, and I expect the chatter to continue as he either lands or is dispatched to whatever ATC controls the airspace beyond the local area. The traffic is not at all that heavy, and only rarely are there flights past midnight, especially in this perifery. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is a malfunction at the tower causing spurious emissions (that's one for the "Wash your mouth out" thread), or a stork bent their antenna or the deflector thingie that's supposed to keep them from irradiating their neighbors. A strong enough signal will "swamp" the front end in your tuner. I'd ask around the neighborhood to see whether anybody else's TVs are doing it and then call the tower and complain if they are. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! There must be some clue as to the airport; usually you start air traffic communications by saying who you want to talk to and who you are. FiggyBee (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they likely do, but I forgot to tell there is a slasher movie on right now, and I can't turn down the volume without also lowering tbe volume of the ATC's volume. So I'm left with a lot of screaming and really icky sounds, which admittedly I'd rather not be hearing. For science, eh. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I called the airport, turns out they've had this problem for the last day or two. So, there you go. At least - granted they stay silent on the TV at the right times - I'll be able to listen in on interesting chatter. Still I'd welcome all ideas as to what exactly is going on, since the control tower person said they were clueless too. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are getting it on broadcast TV you can try changing the length of the antenna cord for something either a few feet longer or a few feet shorter - that usually works pretty well. If you are picking it up on DVD/VCR/Satellite/CableTV stuff then take a trip to RadioShack (or your local equivalent) and buy some large "Ferrite Beads" (sometimes they are called "ferrite EMI filters") you thread the wire that goes from your DVD player (or whatever) to the TV through one of those, bring the wire back over the outside and thread it through again - and that does wonders for reducing the amount of junk you pick up. SteveBaker (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure ATC is narrow-band frequency modulation so it would be demodulated by a TV set just fine. (It surely isn'tSSB). And the most common reason a receiver intended for one frequency ends up picking up another frequency is that the offending reciever has lousy image rejection so it picks up frequencies that are shifted by 2x the intermediate frequency away from the intended tuning point. Finally, remember that TVs pick up a different range of frequencies when used on cable television than when used for broadcast television.
What is the tonal difference between a regular Stratocaster and Fat Strat? Also, which is better, for a beginner, a Squier Stratocaster, or a Yamaha PAC012? MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Fat Strat explains it has a humbucker. That article notes, "Stratocasters fitted with one humbucker in the bridge position, resulting in a pickup configuration noted as H-S-S (starting at bridge pickup: H for humbucker, S for single coil) are referred to as "Fat Strats", because of the "fatter", "rounder" tone offered by the humbucker pickup." Can't help with your second question, I'm afraid. Rockpocket03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yamaha. everytime. now days theyre all made in the same factory in Taiwan any ways but seriously though. I have a strat, a good one, and I also have alot of yamaha equipment as well as several other brands. I have played for years and years and everytime, ill take yamaha over all else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.151.98 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm getting a Yamaha Pacifica. I tried it out at a local music store, tried it out plugged into two Line 6 amps, and it sounded great, even with plastic covering the pickups! MalwareSmarts (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please can some one help me find psychological assistance and/or mental therepy in my area watford Herts uk thank you
You're in the UK? You want free psychological help? Your first port of call is your GP, if you have one. Make an appointment, explain the problem, and they should offer you appropriate advice. Psychological help is available on the NHS, although getting it can depend on where you live and how serious the problem is. Certainly your GP will do the best they can. If you don't have a GP, or you feel the problem is urgent, you can go to your local Accident and Emergency centre and seek help there. NHS direct might help you find the most appropriate service. In addition, If you just need someone to talk to, The Samaritans can be helpful. Generally, check out this link if you think you are having a crisis. 79.77.13.195 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you call The Samaritans you might even get to talk to Phil Selway from Radiohead because he is a listening volunteer there sometimes. But seriously do take care. Therapy can really help you get through whatever you are dealing with now. Don't give up hope, it gets better! Saudade716:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could see a psychiatrist. I can't give you specific medical advice, but I can tell you that you're far from alone. While fear of spiders or wasps (things where the fear is more legitimate, if you take my meaning) are more common, there are plenty of folks who get freaked out at completely harmless butterflies and moths. Under the supervision of some kind of counselor (whether an actual shrink or some kind of therapist), one common method of overcoming the sensitivity is to have the patient handle increasingly more lifelike representations of the bugs they fear. It might start out with pictures, then move on to stuffed toys, more realistic rubber toys etc. and so on. Matt Deres (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading once that if you have an (irrational) fear of insects, it could be due to some kind of childhood trauma where you realized that you could lose your limbs. Maybe you saw someone with missing limbs or deformed limbs, or maybe you got into some accident where you thought you might lose your own. Now granted, I read this in Readers Digest when I was in 7th grade but that really struck me and I have always remembered it. Something in Psychoanalysis I assume. Saudade716:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have taken the first step to a more comfortable life. Follow Matt's advice. You need to find a therapist who has experience in treating phobias and then talk to him about how he is going to improve your response to insects. However before you do that you need to be really sure that you want to overcome your reaction to insects. The success of the treatment is dependant to some extent on your personal motivation to change your behaviour. The therapy is usually slightly stressful but not frightening and the therapist will not ask you to do anything you do not want to do. It is necessary to generate a little anxiety to show you how easy it is to overcome it, and believe me it is surprisingly easy to overcome it. I look forward to seeing you renamed arachnophile! Good luck. Richard Avery (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maelstorm
Can a Maelstorm suck in a ship like in Pirates of the Caribean, or was that amped up to make the movie more exciting? How large do malstorms actually get? Maelstorm doesnt have any info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.177 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it's impossible to answer for all levels of play as there are many amateur, school and Sunday League teams that are not part of a formal Football Association. For example, the English football league system contains around 7,000 teams (the number changes yearly) which includes both professional and non-professional sides but doesn't cover all clubs playing in the country (the FA says it may be nearer 37,500 including youth clubs). These figures are for England alone and are all estimates. 62.136.140.178 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your definition of the volume of a plastic bag? I would argue that any useful definition has to include the fact that they stretch. SteveBaker (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Acceptable's definition would be more useful for answering the question - but I'm curious as to why you'd discount the "fill, then weigh" approach on the grounds that the bags might stretch - when the usefulness of knowing the volume is probably in knowing the post-stretched volume. Personally, I think filling the bags with water then measuring the volume of water using a measuring jug would be a good measurement - but filling with water and weighing will obviously work just as well. That's a measurement of the interior volume. The volume of the actual bag itself would be tough to measure - you'd have to somehow squash them up into the smallest possible space without air getting in there...urgh! SteveBaker (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just unsure how I would convince myself that I'd "filled" the bag... I could always just put a bit more in and it would fit. I guess you could fill the bag until it breaks, then measure what falls out. Sancho22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to find the maximum volume that the bag could hold. But the water displacement method worked better than I thought it would. Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Water is probably far denser than the average contents of a plastic shopping bag. So I would advise a researcher to collect a sample of plastic shopping bags as filled by baggers at stores (selecting the type of stores is part of the problem of definition: some baggers put one object in each bag). Then determine the volume and mass of the contents of each bag. Weigh the objects and determine their volume by measurement and geometry, or by water displacement if irregular shaped. This would be a determination of the actual used volume for the bag in practice, as well as of the typical density of the goods placed in the bag. Now select a fill material with that density. Perhaps it would be like Cheerios (no idea in the absence of data). If that were so, then having determined the density of the fill material, pour it into the bag up to some determined fill level and weigh it. This is an Operational definition of the volume of the bag. If you filled it with shredded styrofoam or Ping pong balls, you would get a smaller volume than if you filled it with water (or marbles, sand, or lead shot). Another approach would be to have it opening-down under water and fill it with air. Its lifting power would be a quick index of "volume" but with a different operational definition. Edison (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has been asking what the [insert nationality] version of Appalachia and Gary are. It helps to know that Appalachia is stereotypically poor, rural, and backwards, and Gary is stereotypically a depressed urban hellhole. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been lurking on this one, not having any specific opinions, and can say that I do not find the thread boring in the least. I knew about the reputation of Appalachia; learning about that of Gary will help me pick up on more American pop cultural references. There are others, aren't there, places that stand for a certain ambience or kind of people. Doesn't Missoula, Montana represent being a long way from anywhere else? (A more tame version of Timbuktu?) Or have I got it wrong? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's another term, too, which is more vulgar. Some people prefer not to actually say the naughty words, so they abbreviate it to "BFE"[5]. Saukkomies18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BrainyBabe, it is always a delight to respond to someone who is interested in my country (the US). I'll plug in my own opinions about what you were asking about, but keep in mind they are just my own ideas - others may have completely contradictory thoughts about this. So here goes: There are some places in the US where people are almost as rooted to the immediate place around them as they are in the typical traditional European areas. Many people living on Manhattan Island think that anything west of the Jersey Shore is off the map. I lived in the South Side of Chicago a while (around 111th Street), and personally met people who had never seen the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago. I know of people who have never been more than 20 miles from where they were born - and I'm not talking just about old people, but people who are in their 20s and 30s, too.
So the idea of Missoula representing someplace that is far from anywhere else is relative! If you happen to live in the West, Missoula doesn't seem to be far away. But if you live in Long Island, New York, maybe it does. Keep in mind that the West is the fastest growing area of the United States - and has been for the past 25 years or so. There are some major metropolitan urban areas out West that in no way can be thought of any more as just "cowboy towns". I'm talking about places like Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Phoenix, L.A., San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. With so many people living within a day or two drive away, I doubt that Missoula is really that "far away" as might be imagined...
Missoula itself has a very strong reputation of being a liberal-minded haven for published authors, artists, and free-wheeling hippies. I read somewhere that Missoula has more published authors per capita than any other town in the US - including New York City. There are a handful of such towns in the US that are like Missoula, more or less. They all have one thing in common: they have large universities. So along with Missoula, there is Boulder, Colorado; Eugene, Oregon; Madison, Wisconsin; Santa Cruz, California; Athens, Georgia; Bloomington, Indiana; and probably some others I don't know about. One town that is NOT on that list (in my opinion) is Berkeley, California, which in spite of its reputation for being a very radical school back in the 1960s, is from what my own experience has shown me to be quite conservative. It is rather Santa Cruz (down near Monterey) that is the real hippie college town of California. At any rate, if Missoula represents anything in the broader consciousness of America, I'd say it would fall into this category of very liberal (read: hippie) college towns.
I would say that if anyplace in the Lower 48 States (not including Alaska and Hawaii) represented the "back of beyond", it would probably be somewhere in the middle of Nevada or North Dakota. Nevada has taken on in the popular culture of the US an image of being the place where really weird stuff happens. This comes up a lot in movies that portray Nevada as a scary desolate place where serial killers, sociopathic hermits, and dirt-poor trailer trash wackos live. Of course Nevada is actually a very beautiful place with lots of wide open desert and pine-covered mountain ranges where eagles fly and there's nobody around to hassle you. North Dakota is a flatter, more agricultural version of Nevada, and would (in my opinion) be also a place where people would say is far from anywhere.
Finally, Gary, Indiana is probably what I would consider to be close to the most heavily industrialized parts of the Ruhr Area factory towns (or rather, what my impression of the Ruhr towns is - which may be outdated). It has lots of big mills and factories, including some of the few steel mills that are still in operation in the US. The air always smells in Gary from the pollution. It also is an incredibly congested traffic corridor, as it sits at the very southern bottom of Lake Michigan. A couple of major east-west Interstate Freeways (I-90 and I-80) converge and pass through Gary and its neighbor city of Hammond, Indiana. All traffic that is going from north of a line that stretches from San Fransisco to Chicago that is heading east must pass through this corridor. Likewise, traffic heading west that is coming north of a line stretching from Gary to New York City must also pass through this corridor. This makes it one of the most heavily-traveled sections of road in North America. Every day thousands of big semi trucks drive along that stretch of Interstate, making it a nightmare to drive in, especially in inclement weather. So, Gary is not really one of the prettiest spots in the US... Saukkomies18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For "middle of nowhere" in the 48 states I'd suggest northern Maine and maybe northern Michigan. Also perhaps parts of Wyoming and northwestern Nebraska. Missoula is on I-90! You can't miss it. None of this relates to the Appalachia of France. I couldn't say, but might it be Burgandy? Brittany? Pfly (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone, especially Saukkomies. That list of university towns is interesting; would I be correct in adding Austin, Texas? The Ruhr is largely post-industrial now, as is Sheffield (the English Gary). There is a series of joke maps sold as posters, depicting a geographically truncated view of the world. The one I know best is from the point of view of a New Yorker, where, as is stated above, not much exists west of the river, bar a hazy gimpse of Hollywood a long way away. What is this series called? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Brainybabe. It is good to know about the Ruhr and Sheffield developing into post-industrial towns. They sound like many of the old "Steel Belt" cities in the U.S., such as Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Chicago, Illinois, Cleveland, Ohio, Erie, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Buffalo, New York, to name a few. All of these cities have fairly successfully developed a healthy economy beyond heavy industry. I leave off a couple of cities that quite haven't made it, including Detroit, Michigan and Gary, Indiana, which are still struggling along. As per Austin, Texas - I would say that I'd be inclined to agree with you about it being roughly in the same category as the other very liberal college towns I named. Perhaps it would be most closely akin to Madison, Wisconsin, since both cities are not only very liberal college towns, but are also the capital cities of their respective state. That adds a different influence with all the government employees and legislators present. But, yes, I've never been to Austin, but I have heard it is a wonderful city with lots of culture and which is very liberal. The map you mentioned is very familiar to me, too, but I'm not sure where I've seen it exactly. Saukkomies07:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not to the good folk of North Dakota and South Dakota. They might be a little miffed if you referred to either state as just "Dakota", but that's understandable (despite the publicity provided by Doris Day). I imagine these 2 states are sometimes referred to collectively as "the Dakotas". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain there is nothing offensive about Dakota. It is the autonym (name used for themselves as a people) by the Santee Sioux people. The states took their name from the indigenous people who lived in the eastern Dakotas. (Jack is correct that North and South Dakota are collectively referred to as "the Dakotas".) The closely related Lakota people occupied much of the central and western Dakotas. What some Dakota/Lakota people find offensive is the word Sioux. As the Sioux article explains, the word Sioux was taken from the language of the neighboring Ojibwa people and was long believed to be insulting, though in fact it may originally have meant just "speaker of a foreign language". Still, many Dakota/Lakota people today find the word Sioux offensive. Marco polo (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Native American, but I do have some friends who are, and have been exposed to a degree to Native culture. I had the opportunity to go to a booksigning by the noted Native American author Sherman Alexie back in 1999 when he was in Chicago. He discussed a wide range of topics with the fairly large crowd that came to hear him, and one of the topics he covered was the recent phenomenon of naming children after Indian Tribes, which Dakota is one, of course. He named a bunch of similar names like this: Lakota, Shawnee, Hopi, etc. And then he started to jokingly suggest that they should also name kids after ALL of the tribes, including Ho Chunk (a tribe located near Chicago in Wisconsin). So it seems that at least one Native American author seems to regard this practice as innocuous and good material for humor. --Saukkomies 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC
Several years ago, some element of North Dakota government or civil society proposed to rename itself simply "Dakota", so presumably they don't find it too offensive. --Sean04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the reason someone might find it offensive, or rather insensitive, is because a non-Dakota (people not state) person is using their name for a non-Dakota child, thereby watering down the meaning of 'Dakota' as a way of identifying themselves. If you say 'I'm Dakota', people might not know whether you're talking about your nationality or your given name. It could be considered disrespectful of the culture, because you don't necessarily educate a daughter called Dakota in Dakota ways or name her such as a matter of pride in her heritage, but rather as a part of a fad. I've no doubt that naming a child after an Australian Aboriginal group would be considered in rather poor taste. Steewi (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 9
Gary Owens/Eric Boardman educational videos
These were children's shows hosted by Gary Owens and Eric Boardman, produced by Midwich Entertainment with the first 3 released on video by Twin Tower Enterprises. In 1991, MPI/Videosaurus released the rest as well as reissues of the first 3. Dave Spear's soundtrack to the series was released on LP and Cassette by Cerberus Records, and CD in Germany. It contained music from ALL the episodes.
Dinosaurs (This first show was from 1985, was re-edited as "More Dinosaurs". It was not released on video due to some rights concerning "Fantasia" clips. Ironically it aired on Disney Channel.)
More Dinosaurs (Gary Owens wants Eric Boardman to find him a dinosaur and bring it back, clips from the silent "The Lost World" and "Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend" movies to fill out where "Fantasia" was.)
Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs (Gary Owens is turning into a dinosaur, so Eric must collect water from the Crystal Palace Dinosaur Court to stop the transformation. Clips from "Gorgo".)
Prehistoric World (concerned extinct mammals of the Cenozoic; Eric and Gary visit the La Brea tar pits and meet Dougal Dixon)
The Return of Dinosaurs (Gary and Eric and a bunch of dino-crazed kids at a dinosaur slumber party at the Natural History Museum in Los Angeles. Go on a bone hunt and reconstruct a stegosaurus, then on to Canada to visit the Museum of Paleontology and then explore the dinosaurs of Antarctica.)
Son of Dinosaurs (Gary and Eric must protect a dinosaur egg with a living embryo from some sort of "Evil Russian"-type character.)
The World's Greatest Dinosaur Video (a 1990s repackaging of "More", "Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs" and "Prehistoric World" at a higher price, aimed at home video rentals)
What is the American equivalent of a British newspaper reader?
Following on from the place associations above...
What is the American (and indeed other nationalities') equivalent of the British stereotype embodied in the well-established phrases "a typical Guardian reader" (left-leaning, university educated) and "a typical Daily Mail reader" (right-wing, xenophobic, Little Englander)? Thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "Liberal" and "Redneck" would be the comparable versions of those stereotypes. There are other versions - "NPR listner" and "Nascar Dad" would kinda fit too. But at least Daily Mail readers read...that's something you couldn't accuse that section of the US public of doing! SteveBaker (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a New York Times reader and a Rush Limbaugh listener? Note that there are big differences between the political views of the Guardian and the NYT, but I've heard the phrase "New York Times-reader" to refer to East Coast liberal intellectuals. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of my own perhaps inaccurate perceptions of a couple of stereotype newspaper readers in the US (and I get these perceptions from having worked as a Reference Librarian at a busy urban Serials Desk for a number of years):
People who subscribe to or read the "Wall Street Journal" are considered to be either very much into business, or are thought of as being politically moderate intellectuals.
People who subscribe to or read the "New York Times" (especially people who do not live in New York) are considered to be liberal and highly enducated. Within New York City this distinction does not apply.
People who subscribe to or read "The Washington Post" are considered to be very liberal, but perhaps not quite as sophisticated or intelligent as the New York Times readers.
In Chicago (which is really two separate cities joined together) there are two major daily newspapers, each of which has its own very specific readership and stereotypical reader. The "Chicago Tribune" is more popular among readers on the city's North Side, and its readers are more middle class, traditionally conservative, and educated. The South Side paper is the "Chicago Sun Times", whose readership is more working class, traditionally liberal, and not-so-educated.
To be clear, neither Chicago paper is explicitly marketed as a "North Side" paper or a "South Side" paper; they both cover the entire city. I'm a North Sider, but I've always read the Sun-Times. Zagalejo^^^22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, my reviews of readership of various papers was my own perception, and was not meant to be stated as fact. However, one person's Moderate is another person's Liberal - or Conservative. These terms are quite ambiguous. As far as the Chicago Trib and the Sun Times, I lived for years both on the South Side and the North Side of Chicago. If you live on the North Side it would quite easy to be unaware that the Southsiders consider the Sun Times to be "their paper", and that the Trib is the Northsider's. Northsiders are for the most part pretty oblivious to many of the nuances of Southside culture... Just an observation... -- Saukkomies22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the South Siders may consider the Sun Times to be "their" paper, but I've never gotten the impression that it's specifically meant for them. The Sun-Times' North Side coverage tends to be comprehensive, and the letters to the editor come from all over the city. Zagalejo^^^04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers in the United States are kind of different from the ones in the UK -- they tend to be regional near-monopolies, and there really isn't a "national" newspaper (please no one bring up USA Today). So most people read the newspaper from their city, or from the nearest large city, rather than one that reflects their political biases. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal do have some national readers for political reasons, but it's a very limited effect -- really Journal readers are more likely to take it because of its financial coverage than its politics.
Most large cities also have one or two free weekly newspapers, supported entirely by advertising. These usually (but not always) lean a bit further left than the mainstream papers, but lots of people (like me) who tend not to agree with their politics still enjoy reading them for their information about cultural happenings and alternative film. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the hell of it I have been cruising around the user pages of those who edit here and have noticed that several wikipedians seem to be in school. Some make note of it on their user pages by leaving those little box things to broadcast the fact (couldn't find an example), some leave messages or template on thier names space to advise people of that fact (KiaraFan13 (talk·contribs) and MBK004 (talk·contribs), respectively), and some seem to have vanished to better deal with school (TomStar81 (talk·contribs)), and others seem to have left altogther because they couldn't handle the pressure (Omicronpersei8 (talk·contribs). Out of curisotiy, just how many wikipedians are in school, how many others have taken leave or quit do to school, and how many seem to have trouble dealing with both school and wikipedia? 75.39.197.219 (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't demand any information from editors - you can edit without logging in - and even if you do create an account, you don't have to provide any information whatever in order to do so. So we really don't know the age range of Wikipedians. You have to be careful about simply counting the number of users who self-identify as being in school because you're assuming that these people are as active as older Wikipedians - and that they spend as much time on productive editing as older people. To take your examples:
KiaraFan13 has only made 79 edits in total - of which only 18 have been to actual articles - an amazing 121 edits by this user have been deleted!!
MBK004 has clocked up around 6000 edits - but only 1000 of those were to articles - most of the rest was in talk pages and a negligable percentage which have been deleted.
Those are two very different editors! The first is new here - and evidently (from the number of deletions) having a hard time getting to grips with the way things work. The second appears to be a productive and active editor. Let's look at the two who dropped-out:
TomStar81 has an amazing 14,000 edits more than half of which were to articles and WP pages.
Omicronpersei8 clocked up an incredible 51,000 edits in about ONE YEAR, that's 140 edits per DAY! More amazingly still, this was not mere chit-chat. 31,000 of those edits (close to 100 edits per day!) were in articles.
They were both incredibly active. Sometimes, that level of activity borders on unhealthy obsession. Certainly, it's hard to imagine these people getting much else done. It's not surprising that sooner or later real-life kicks in and these very active people realise that there are other things in life and take a Wikibreak.
I now have 10,000 edits (which puts me into the top 2000 Wiki contributors...by this rather dubious measure) - but I've been here for three years - making for a much more healthy 10 edits per day average. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 14:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the unanswered question is now how many of these users have trouble dealing with wikipedia and school. I think the number is split about evenly, I have seen a number of users that ID as being in school but do not seem to leave for any length of time because of it, and the opposite extreme where people leave becuase the wiki consumes them. In an case, thank you for the answer. 129.108.227.171 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason these sortts of things are difficult to calculate is that young Wikipedians are often strongly encouraged not to reveal their ages (we don't want any "grooming" to go on here...). As such, it's very difficult to tell exactly how many wikipedians are of school age. Grutness...wha?08:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I was very young growing up in the Polish neighborhood around St. Casimir Catholic Church, I was a member of the Parziki.(hnot sure about the spelling) The uniform consisted of a page boy type outfit. I'm looking for information on what the Parziki was all about. Also there was a similar group of girls but don't know what the name was that they used. Any information would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Jim Skrocki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.50.213 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound like the ZHP, the scouting uniform looks different. I did a little bit of quick Googling but can't find anything related to the information you provided, sorry. 'd be happy to help in case you can add something new. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In recycling we generally see four bins for different type of waste for sorting of waste.What are these colours of bins/boxes and in which type of colour which type of solid is put in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.93.140 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody read shorthand?
I posted this at the Language desk a week or so ago and nobody could read it. I thought I would try here, just to get a slightly different audience. Thanks.
I was doing some work in an archive today and among a bunch of regular writing I found this:
The author was an early/mid 20th-century American scientist—I am pretty sure it is shorthand? But I wasn't able to really figure out what the heck it meant, and I've never really done anything with shorthand before. Note that this is my re-copying of the original (as best I could!) so there might be little errors in it that are imperceptible to me, but it should be largely correct. No, I don't have the original scanned, but this is pretty much what it looked like.
I don't have much in way of context. It was in a list of responses from other scientists to a report. For this one it was just "<name> -- Re: Section IX: <shorthand>". I have no idea what it would likely be saying or even what it would be really referring to (I'm not sure which report it is talking about).
If anyone had any suggestions as to what it might say, I'd be very interested. I'm intrigued that it's the only thing in these archival papers that was written like this (everything else is just in English) and I'm pretty curious as to what it says. Thanks a ton. --Panoptik (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely shorthand. My mother is "fluent" in it, and I'm about to leave for her house, so I'll let you know in a few hours (if no one else gets to it first). :) --Masamage♫20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we've been poking at it for a while, and so far our best rough draft looks like "this save for (???) doctors/doors be for another(?) r-oo-g-t-s". Not too amazing; the difficulty is exactly what Stewi points out. "R oo g t s" really has us confused; is there a name that might be imitati
ng? And what general field of science are these reports about?
Since you recopied it, could you maybe clarify a couple things from the original draft? For instance, when you wrote symbol 3, did you start from the top or the bottom? It makes a difference between 'th' and 'f'. Also, after the symbol with the long line and the loop (and the curve hovering over it), there's a very small line. Is that really a line, or is it a dot? And is that the correct angle? And how accurate is that hovering curve? Then, in the second-to-last symbol (the one that looks like 'or' in cursive), is the line coming from the top of the loop really curved, or is it straight? Finally, did you add the quotes around the thing, or are they present in the original?
A thought. If the quote marks are in the original, and it's in a list of responses from other scientists, might the scientist whose archive you're looking through have copied this from something someone else wrote, thus adding an extra layer of potential error? In which case, you'd have to get creative in interpreting it. Skittle (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a photograph of the original would probably help the translators - shorthand is a very subtle thing - tiny variations can make a lot of difference. SteveBaker (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a great start! "This save for" sounds very plausible as a response to a section in a report. Doctors/doors sounds a little odd and out of place. I'll think about what that might be. Could "be for" be "before"? As to your questions:
It's entirely possible the last part might be a name. Any possibility of it spelling GROVES? Just a thought. As for the general field of science, the report is in reference to early nuclear weapons policy. He's a physicist but in this capacity he's acting as an administrator.
Symbol 3: I really can't recall. It's probably a 50/50 toss up how I did it. You're probably better off assuming that it could go either way.
Long-line and loop: it looked pretty much like that. I'd assume it was a line though again since he was just writing this for himself and probably quickly so it might be a dot that he just let get too long or something.
I think the "or" looking thing was curved at the end. Note that the last symbol might have been a little less angular (I had trouble getting its shape exact, I think it might have been a bit more curved).
Quote marks were in the original.
Hope that might clarify a little bit? Anyway thank you and thank your mother for this, any effort at all is GREATLY appreciated and don't feel put out if my transcription of another guy's shorthand is illegible -- the odds are stacked against you, any meaning you can get from it at all is massively impressive! --Panoptik (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long delay in acknowledging this; the internet connection has been funky-tastic today. Mom's gone to bed, but I'll leave this window open tonight so that we can look at it more in the morning regardless of what the network's up to. It's been fun; she got out her old textbook and we've been digging around. And thanks for the extra info! That should help a lot. :) --Masamage♫06:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's kind of the layout of our best guesses so far at what might be. We're calling the straight-line-and-loop along with its attendant dashes "4"; 4a is the floating line, 4c is the small tailing line. 6 a and b are the two curving lines that look like they may or may not be intended to work together. Most of them have multiple possible meanings; the only one we're certain about is the first.
1: this
2: serve, save (written differently than one would ordinarily write these)
3: for, there, their
4a: the, there, their, trans-
4b: mit, meet, mate
4c: -ing, -ship
5: doctors, doors, directions, does
6a: be, by
6b: is, his, for?
7: akak? If the top of the loop is a straight line rather than a curve, this is "another"
8: roogits, rockets, rockguts, something else? Definitely not Groves. The key letters are either r-oo-g-t-s or r-k-g-t-s.
Some combinations of this almost make sense; one possibility is "this serves for transmitting directions be is another rockets", but that has several of the not-very-plausible possibilities, and even as a whole doesn't quite work. X) But based on the other things you've read, there might be some way to work it out? (Maybe it'll give you a clue what Section IX refers to?) --Masamage♫00:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This save for their meeting (something)" sounds extremely plausible, and at the same time quite mundane (making it even more plausible). They had meetings planned for the future to discuss some of the things in this memo so maybe he was saying they should put this section off until they got together to talk about it. I'm thinking about the "name" at the end there. One of the people on this committee was named Ruhoff? Doesn't look like it works but is the only name I can think of that sounds like that. ANYWAY, thank you and your mother for your IMMENSE help, you have given me a lot of insight into something which was previously totally intelligible! --Panoptik (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I think I've got it! I'd say that for 4a/4b/4c, transmitting is just too good to pass up - none of the other combinations make any kind of sense. But 7...not "another" but "akak"...which is phonetically "Ack-ack" - which is anti-aircraft (guns/artillery/missiles). If we can ignore 6a (or maybe merge it with 6b)...then now you have "This serves for transmitting directions for antiaircraft rockets.". In the context of a meeting about nuclear weapons policy in the "early/mid 20th century" (you're talking about immediately post-WWII) - nuclear weapons were still be delivered by aircraft - and the risk of your nuclear-bomb-laden plane getting shot down by antiaircraft fire would have been a serious one. The term "ack-ack" would have been very common back then (nowadays we'd say "triple-A"). So I'd bet he's talking about some way to prevent enemy bombers from reaching their targets? SteveBaker (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow! Good call on the ack-ack--that has got to be what this is. :D Way to go! Unfortunately, transmitting really isn't that likely, because the 'ing' ending is generally represented by a dot, not a line, and apparently short-handers have it hammered into them never to make that kind of mistake. The little line appears to indicate the ending 'ship', which is weird. The thing over it is positioned like 'trans', but it's curved like 'the'. (Unless Panoptik curved it. ^_^) Which makes it tricky. "Transmitship"? (The ending 'sion' is an attached loop.) Also, mom says she really doesn't think 6b can reasonably be read as 'for'. Then there's the mystery of 6a, while 2 isn't plural and the last one really is weird. ?___? Leaves us with something like "This serve/save for transmitship directions be is antiaircraft rockgets." Which almost means something, but not quite. --Masamage♫04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 10
Amp question.
With an amp like a Line 6 amp, would different guitars sound different? My only experience with a Line 6 with test-driving my first electric (boy, that was a fun test drive! Three words: Distortion and tremolo!), and I'm just wondering, would different guitars sound different? MalwareSmarts (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderingaly, could you clarify your question a little? Do I understand that you are looking for one game made at some point between 1990 and 2005 that was called Know or was called Knot, and another game that was called Talisman or was called Talismans? Could you provide a little more detail about what you remember of these games? That would make it much easier. What machine did you play them on? What sort of games were they? Anything else? 79.77.13.195 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1990 to 2005 is a fairly long time in the history of video games. Can you narrow it down a little? Can you describe the gameplay at all? FiggyBee (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talisman (video game) says there is a downloadable game that will be released soon and there was a game called Talisman for the ZX Spectrum released in 1985. No information so far on "Now or Not", "Know or Knot" or "Know or not". SaundersW (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-attachment of genitals
After being exposed to an unpleasant video clip of the "BME Pain Olympics", where the user ties up his genitals and voluntarily cuts it off, aside from a sensation of nausea, I became curious. Should one's testicles and penis be cut off, would it be possible surgically re-attach them (at a hospital of course)? If so, to what degree of success would the result take? As well, would there be a lot of blood loss? Please note the video is completely not-work safe and I recommend not even watching it. Acceptable (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has happened before. Lorena Bobbitt became famous for severing her husband's penis. It was reattached successfully (so I'm told). There are a lot of blood vessels in the human penis, so there would be quite a lot of blood loss, and would require a very careful and long amount of surgery. I don't know how useful it would be, afterwards, for all purposes, but it would at least function for urination. A man can still urinate after such an accident, I think, although he would not be able to do so standing. Another famous case was William Minor, a major contributor to the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, and long-term patient in a mental institution. Steewi (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think more context is needed before any meaningful response can be given. Which profession are the audience in ? Which country are you in ? Which "futures" are you studying - do you mean social futures, economic futures, scientific futures, or something else ? There is a financial instrument called a futures contract - is this what you are studying ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying an alcoholic beverage
I would appreciate your assistance in identifying this alcoholic beverage purchased in Brno yesterday and given to me as a present. Is this a traditional Xmas drink? I was told that it is sold to be drank worm on the street.--Golf Bravo (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
District Directors of the Immigration & Naturalization Service (now defunct)
The Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) was folded into the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS). I'd like to know how many of the District Directors (DDs) active pre-DHS (say, in 2000)had been in the Border Patrol I don't need names. A simple statement telling me that of the 35 or 36 there were X with Border Patrol experience.Adegorf (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Adegorf[reply]
Adegorf, it appears as if there is a lack of people rushing to respond to this question. My personal theory about this is because it is due to the fact that in order to come up with the information you're requesting, the researcher would have to spend a considerable amount of time digging around to find it. There comes a point when you're doing research (such as this question you've asked) when the person who will be doing the legwork to find the data is the person who is asking the question. There are people who will do extensive research - for a fee - they're called Information Brokers, and the going rate right now to hire someone like that starts at $75 per hour, I believe.
The easiest way for you to have your question answered is if someone else has already done exactly what you're looking for. If after Googling it you still can't find it, then things begin to get more complicated.
The second easiest way to have your question answered is to ask it of some group like this or to go to a library and ask the Reference Librarian there. However, even a Reference Librarian cannot spend an inordinate amount of time doing research for you for free - he or she has an obligation to the other patrons of the library, and is also under professional obligation not to turn into one person's private researcher while being paid by the institution he or she works for.
The third easiest way to have your question answered would be to hire an Information Broker. There's a print publication that some libraries (by no means all of them) have which is called "The Burwell Directory of Information Brokers" that lists names and contacts. YOu may also find online services that list Information Brokers by Googling the keywords "directory informaiton brokers".
Finally, the least easiest way to answer your question is to do the research yourself. I would suggest starting with the U.S. Government Publications web page( http://www.firstgov.gov ), which offers a search engine for most of its publications. Keep in mind that the United States Government is the world's largest publisher - the sheer volume of material that has been published by the US is astounding. I'm hazarding a guess that you will be able to locate what you're looking for online. You'll need to chase down two separate lists and compare them - one list will include the name of the District Directors from 2000, and another list of Border Patrol agents from before that time. You'll then need to compare the lists to find which names are on both. This extensive type of research is not something that people are going to want to do for you for free, since it will require a lot of time. Good luck. Saukkomies12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
XM Fund
Hi,
My dream job would be to be a hedge fund manager. I have been able to consistantly outpreform the S&P 500, and have just recently gained investment selection control for a small partnership--I'm already beating the S&P 500 by a about 7-10% so far. I would like to know how I can use this record and perhaps gain a position as hedge fund manager (or to gain angel investors) without having any formal education in the area (I'm an automath with regard to investing) XM (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to get a finance job without a diploma in the field. Demonstrated success in this area, at least, enough success to get someone to hire you, would probably make it a moot point -- you'd have to score a lot of money without minimal losses, at which point you'd probably just want to keep rolling in the cheese until you could retire without needing a job. Your best bet would probably be to try and get at least an MBA and then use your record as resume. That said, call some hedge funds, talk to their human resource managers, and see what they think; their ideas of what would impress them are vastly more important than ours :) Good luck! Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much volume do you transfer to make the 7-10%? This is very significant. Its not that hard to make 100%'s in small volumes and even 10% - 30% for volumes of several million. But when you start going beyond this, your trades do not have negligable effect on the market anyway more, which is why big companies with billions struggle to even get a few percent. The best way is to simple invest your own money.--Dacium (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you go around calling yourself an automath, you'll be laughed out of the room by anyone with a reasonable vocabulary. The word you're looking for is autodidact. And your ability to, in a short time frame beat the S&P by 7-10% with a 20K investment is not that impressive. It's like claiming that you deserve a seat at the world series of poker because you won your basement poker tournament. 68.183.18.54 (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truck engine / radio interference
I have a portable XM satellite radio receiver that I can move between my two vehicles, as well as use in a small "boombox" unit in the house. Both vehicles have the same mounting unit / adapter which has a connector for the antenna, a 12VDC power source that goes into the cigarette lighter, and a minijack output. In my car, I connect a cassette adapter to the output and insert the cassette into the car's stereo and everything is OK. The stereo in my pickup truck has an input jack on the face, so I just have short mini-to-mini cable connecting the XM unit. In the truck, there is contantly a whiny/buzzy sound, which gets higher in frequency as the RPMs of the engine increase. Is there something I can plug in somewhere amongst all the connections to make the noise go away? NB: I can't switch to the cassette adapter, because the truck's in-dash unit has no tape capability. --LarryMac | Talk20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two possibilities:
That the 12 volt supply from the accessory socket in your truck is producing a 'noisy' output (very common) and the XM radio has poor power filtering (which would be most reprehensible in something intended to be mounted in a car). If you can run the XM radio from an internal battery and disconnect the 12v input, then if the noise goes away when you do that, then this is likely to be the reason. If that is so, then you need some filtering on the aux input. I believe you can get a gizmo to do this in your local car parts store...if you are somewhat handy with electronics then sticking an appropriate capacitor across the 12volt outlet ought to fix it.
It might be that the wire from the XM radio into the trucks input jack is picking up noise from the engine's electrical system. In this case, you probably need better shielding on the wire - you could try (just to see) wrapping some kitchen foil around the wires and perhaps touching a corner of the foil to a bare metal part on the truck body (an exposed screw head or something). It's also possible that the ground wire in your cable is broken or making poor contact so that the only ground connection between the XM radio and the truck's sound system is going the long way around through the 12volt outlet, through the body of the truck and thence to the truck's audio system. Doing the 'running the XM radio from a battery' test would make the radio signal disappear entirely if the wire were broken. Either way, buy another cable - ideally, one with a coaxial cable so that the grounded shielding can better shield the audio signal.
All good advice, except an RF choke in the 12V is usual instead of a capacitor at the socket, I'd say. You can get noise filter kits at any auto parts store, but don't be too disappointed if you never solve the problem 100%. Some vehicles are just very noisy that way. Some people even go so far as to replace their spark plug wires with ones designed to suppress RF interference. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about that - but this is a digital satellite box - I don't think it's prone to RF interference. I suspect it's more likely to be audio-frequency interference - and for that, a capacitor might be a better choice. I agree that it may be tough to get a 100% fix though. But I bet you can get it "good enough" with some simple tricks. You'd learn a lot about the problem by running the XM radio on batteries. SteveBaker (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. If the noise is there on batteries, it's RF. The RF is heard as an audio fequency because it's coming from a device (almost certainly the ignition system) that is sending out bursts of RF at an audio rate which are more or less accidentally detected and rectified amplified in the victim device. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just heard on FOX News, CNN that some Iceland national got hold of the SECRET phone No.# to the White House, and Google and Wikipedia is involved. Can this be placed in appropriate articles ? This scandal JUST HAPPENED. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This really doesn't need to be 'placed in appropriate articles' - it's a news story - it's not material for an encyclopedia. Even though it talks about Wikipedia itself, that doesn't give it any special notability - read WP:ASR. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much of a story - it looks like the kid used Wikipedia to get some biographical information on the current President of Iceland. So what? -- Arwel (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This anon is totally obsessed with following "breaking news" that JUST HAPPENED on Fox, no matter how insignificant. He writes like this frequently. He's annoying but harmless, don't worry about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ice Storm nails Oklahoma, other states
Can any of this be placed in appropriate articles ? Seen this on The Weather Channel, FOX News, CNN, some of the local channels. The event is still going on. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone pointed you to WikiNews before? While run-of-the-mill weather isn't really encyclopedic, it is news-worthy, and writing about it would be most suitable there. I've noticed that this distinction is often appropriate for the current events you see on CNN, etc. — Lomn13:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the answers to your previous question? The answer is the same. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not a newspaper. They are not at all the same kind of beast! If we wrote articles about every storm going on everywhere in the world, we'd be adding about 10,000 articles a day just about the weather in various parts of the world! There is no point in looking at the News every day on TV and wondering why every single news story isn't in Wikipedia. Granted some very major events may warrant an article. Hurricanes that hit landfall in inhabited areas are generally going to get an article - and sometimes, the story is written as events unfold - but that's not typically the case. Articles about newsworthy subjects are quite commonly still being researched and written about years after they happened. One article I contribute to (Alexander Litvinenko poisoning) wasn't started until a month after the event happened and is still being edited fairly frequently an entire year later. If these ice storms turn into something very major with hundreds of deaths or major cities being crushed under the weight of ice - then maybe we should consider writing about it - but there is no hurry...quite the opposite in fact. With a space of time between the event and the writing, we can take a more dispassionate view of the events - look at all of the analysis people did as to the causes - treat it as a piece of history - not as something that is uniquely important to us right here and now. An encyclopedia is there for people who want to know about this event in a year, ten years or a hundred years from now. People who want to know whether it's OK to drive to their parents house in Oklahoma tomorrow shouldn't be trying to do that using an encyclopedia for chrissakes - it's about as relevent as trying to find a recipe for chocolate chip cookies by looking up "cookie" in a dictionary! So, please - stop posting these kinds of question every time you see something interesting in the news! SteveBaker (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I perform oral sex and/or finger my girlfriend, she stops me before she achieves an orgasm, saying that she has an intense feeling to urinate. This is particularly true when I stimulate her g-spot. She is afraid she is going to urinate on me, but as far as I can tell that sensation is normal, and is often supposed to happen. But if we continue would it result in her urinating on me? Or is perhaps the sensation due to ejaculatory fluids about to come out of the urethra? I don't know too much about all of this stuff, and I'm not particularly excited about doing a field test if she will end up peeing on me. Thanks for the help. --71.98.23.145 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well she's never had an orgasm before, and doesn't know what it feels like. She tells me she thinks she's going to pee all over me. Will she, or is it most likely female ejaculation? --71.98.23.145 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that urine is normally sterile, right? In any case, the pressure on the bladder may be coming from a different direction, as Rockpocket correctly states. Dan Savage has covered this topic here, as have numerous other sex writers. Any good sex manual will describe and explain the phenomenon. (I suppose that is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.) BrainyBabe (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best way to solve this would be to encourage your girlfriend to ensure she empties her bladder (in the traditional way) before you begin your sexual activity. Then give it a go and see what happens. Ultimately, no-one can tell you what will happen for sure, if it is a concern for you both you could always discuss it with your doctor. Rockpocket19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link BrainyBabe, but I couldn't find which article you were talking about. I enjoyed reading Savage Love anyways (I usually get my fill from The Onion). And Rockpocket, I suppose that is what we are going to try, thanks for the advice. But lol don't worry, this isn't medical advice and we'll go to the doctor if we have any concerns. I suppose my main question was answered though: that it's normal for a woman to feel like she is going to urinate when the g-spot is stimulated. --71.117.35.87 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that the deep link I provided earlier didn't connect you. I've tried copying and pasting but to no avail. Just go to the "Savage Love" homepage and search for "female ejaculation" -- I tested it and it works fine. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do I type a lowercase "s" with a dot over it? I don't have one in my special characters, and I can't figure out how to do it in unicode. 138.192.86.254 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft) could help? I don't know a lot about unicode, but that page displays a large number of odd characters that I am able to simply copy and paste elsewhere. The S and s letters with dots over (and under, and both as well!) are shown in the section "Latin extended additional", and perhaps elsewhere too. Let's see if it works here: Ṡ and ṡ -- yes, no? Looks right to me. That's using Template:Unicode, in case it isn't obvious. Pfly (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is for typing a particular language rather than say, for maths, and if you are using Windows XP (lots of ifs...) then you can set up your keyboard using control panel, regional and language options, language tab, details, add (pick the language you want) and setting up the language bar on your dek top. That way you can switch into the mode that has the s-dot when you need it. This page [7] will then help you to find where the appropriate key is lurking! (well, I looked to see what language it could be, and couldn't identify it from the keyboard, so I checked here Alphabets derived from the Latin and couldn't find it either, so scrub all the above. I've left the post though because it might be interesting to somebody else!) SaundersW (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your first question, it depends how much. Masturbating will not harm you in any way, unless you're doing it too rough and injure yourself. Myths used to suppose that masturbating too much would cause blindness, acne, or baldness, but these have been proven false. In short, you can masturbate as often as you like, and if you're gentle enough there will be no negative physical side effects.
For your second question, different people say different things. Some males who were circumsized in adulthood claim that it feels less pleasurable to have sex, others claim it has had no effect at all. If it does make a difference, it would be negligible--that area is so packed with nerves it's going to be very sensitive and feel very pleasurable no matter what. Basically, it's very subjective and we can't give you a definite answer. --71.98.23.145 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there's a decent chance of condoms giving you a problem if you're uncircumcised, though. The extra layer might prevent the foreskin from pulling back fully. 138.192.86.254 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We evolved that little fold of skin for a reason. Chopping it off is mutilation and I predict that one day, it'll be regarded in the same way as female genital mutilation. SteveBaker (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...though there are genuine cases where it's a good idea. Mine was removed after phimosis became a problem in early childhood. Thankfully my only memories of the period are of a single home visit from a doctor, getting anaesthetised, and of the (quite painful) bruising coming up after bathing for the first time. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I recall hearing a piece of trivia that a certain Antarctic expedition refused to take circumcised men on the grounds that the extra bit of "padding" made all the difference when it came to frostbite. The story may or may not be apocryphal, though :) GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you won't lose the ability to feel sexual sensation or anything? Like, its not necessarily supposed to tingle with excitement every time its touched by the self, right?
And let's say you, to put this lightly, dry hump once a day and use your hand once a day as well. All of this won't damage or kill the nerves?
Actually it's been shown that, in moderation, male masturbation is physically beneficial for you (beyond the obvious pleasure benefits). Men who go for long periods in their life without ejaculating are more prone to prostate problems, including prostate cancer. As regards the circumcision question, well, "less pleasure" is subjective as it's arguable that not all the pleasure of sex is physical. Less sensitive would be more correct. But yes, in the majority of cases there is some degree of loss of sensitivity of the glans in circumcised men. This is primarily due to 2 reasons. The first one being that the constant rubbing of the glans against underwear over a period of time will ultimately reduce the sensitivity of the nerve endings. The other consideration is that the glans is not skin per se, it's a membrane that should be kept moist. This is the purpose of the foreskin, so when the foreskin is removed then so is its natural moisturising function. This results in the glans drying out to various degrees, this in turn also affects the nerve endings. There is also a combination answer to the combining of your questions. Masturbation of a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised one has to involve different techniques whereby the skin on the shaft of the penis has to take the place as a stand-in foreskin. Over-energetic, errr, errr, "downstrokes" can actually result in splitting the frenulum and/or the skin on the dorsal side of the penis where the shaft meets the glans (where there will be scar tissue from the circumcision op). --WebHamster04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Masturbation is in itself perfectly harmless, of course, but it is worth noting that any activity carried out to excess (i.e. to the exclusion of normal life) can have negative side effects. Drinking water is a good thing, for example, but it is possible to die from drinking way waywaytoo much water (as Leah Betts is believed to have done, in a misguided attempt to protect herself from the effects of ecstasy). Likewise with masturbation. Sean Thomas wrote a book called Millions of Women Are Waiting to Meet You, a memoir of internet dating (ISBN 978-0306815485), in which he confesses to having masturbated himself into hospital: he was spending so much time with online porn that he forgot to sleep, and got run-down, and caught a (non-sexual) infection, and ended up as an in-patient. I suppose it is all a question of the wank/life balance.
I read of a study that attempted to answer the subjective question of pleasure and circumcision. In the 1990s many Russian Jews immigrated to Israel; many men decided to have circumcisions as adults, not having been circumcised as infants. The researchers leapt upon this cohort, as you can imagine. And the results? When the men were asked to report their sexual pleasure several months after the operation, a third said it was better, a third said it was worse, and a third said there was no difference.
By the way, the general question about masturbation and self-harm goes equally for girls and women as it does for boys and men: perfectly harmless, and may indeed confer health benefits. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One (recently discovered?) benefit of regular masturbation seems to be that males who ejaculate on a regular basis are more likely to remain fertile longer. Since regular ejaculation isn't always possible without masturbation (say if a male doesn't have a partner), if a man wants to be able to father children later in life, masturbation becomes a good way of "keeping the tadpoles healthy". Grutness...wha?08:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One is appalled to find such things in this establishment. Why is it that you young men feel the need to discuss such matters (and also to add the most revolting images [8] to perfectly respectable articles)? There is nothing mentioned above that a good cold shower, a vigorous rub-down with a coarse terry-towel and a stout pair of boxing gloves worn at night won't sort out. That, and an instructive and improving choice of reading material.
Note that XXX, centred at the bottom of the page, also used to be used to indicate the end of a (typewritten) article draft submitted by a reporter, in the days of a press card in the old fedora hat. This then became, in a twist of humour, --30--. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the old cinema classification system used in the UK, prior to ?1975, the X-rated films were those that were prohibited for viewers under 18 years of age. They invariably contained scenes of a strong sexual nature or extreme violence. The multiplication of the X to XXX is perhaps the result of modern inflation. Richard Avery (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to History of British film certificates the X-certificate lasted till 1982, and before 1970 meant the film was restricted to over-16s. I don't think it's true to say that X-films contained 'invariably contained scenes of a strong sexual nature or extreme violence' - they were just those considered 'unsuitable for children'. For example, several of my contemporaries managed to see The Graduate when they were 15. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the OED, X, XX, and XXX have been used to designate increasingly potent varieties of alcoholic drinks since at least 1827. Pfly (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that both FiggyBee and Pfly are correct. Partly the XXX is due to the use of the X rating in the U.S., and partly it is due to the use of XXX in the distilling of spirits. The reason that XXX came to be used by distillers was primarily due to the making of Moonshine, which is whiskey (or other alcoholic spirits) made without a government license. The best Moonshine was run through a distillation process more than once - three times being considered very good quality. Each time a batch of Moonshine was distilled, the Moonshiners would place an X on the jars containing that batch. So three Xs on the outside of a jar of Moonshine would indicate that it had been distilled three times. This became integrated into popular American culture so that three Xs would be synonymous with Moonshine, which is of course illegal. So, by taking the X movie rating and turning it into a triple X, the porn industry was making a tongue-in-cheek joke about their film - that it was borderline illegal, and that it was very potent stuff. -- Saukkomies 07:54, 11 December, 2007. (UTC)
Do some female bodybuilders have YouTube accounts?
I was recently playing Halo 3 online deathmatch over X-Box live with a buddy and as he kept dying he started getting extremely frustrated and began adamantly claiming that it was completely random whether he died or the other guy did in close fights. It seems to me that whatever game mechanism decides who "wins" in a given situation would at least be internally consistent, and knowing that we have at least one resident video game programmer I was hoping someone could shed some light on whether or not this is true. So, all things being equal, is it as random as he seems to think, or are his lack of skills to blame? Azi Like a Fox (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, random chance is internally consistent. But I would imagine that the battles in Halo go like this. Each part of the body has a max potential damage rating, e.g. with guns that shoot bullets only the head has the max potential damage of death. You factor that in with the max damage of the gun, you will get a value that max damage the gun can cause with one shot. As to his claim that "it was completely random whether he died or the other guy did in close fights", in a small number of trials you will not be able to determine whether this is true or not. But as the number of games goes up (and as the outcomes remain the same), it becomes increasingly unlikely that random chance is involved. He is most likely right that there's an element of chance, but it is no more justified to claim that poker is random chance as it is Halo 3 battles. In each situation, there are probabilities at play, but you can also change the probabilities with skill.--droptone (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Yeah - I'm the resident ref-desk game programmer) I can't claim to know how Halo is programmed and I don't work for Bungee/Microsoft (and if I did, I probably wouldn't be allowed to talk about it) - but on general principles, you don't introduce randomness into something that's human-skill based. You add randomness to introduce variety into an otherwise 'canned' situation, the AI opponents don't always hit when they shoot - so randomness is probably added for them. But there is simply no need to do that when humans are in there aiming and mashing buttons. There is always some 'randomness' introduced by the network 'ping time' of your computer/console and (if you were playing on a PC), your computer's frame rate. If your communication back to the Halo server is slow then the rate and the precision at which your button presses reach the server may be poorer than the person you are playing against. Networking software is really unable to do much about that.
But "he kept dying" is not an indication that any of these things are the case. Perhaps the other player is simply better at aiming than he is? Perhaps your opponent is better at aiming at moving targets? Maybe your friend isn't doing a good job of making use of cover and dodging when necessary? If it was completely random, he would die roughly half the time - but then if he was playing against an evenly matched opponent, he'd die half the time too. How could he possibly tell which it was? If he's dying MORE than half the time then it's really unlikely that it's random because if it was, it would be random for both players and he'd still have a 50/50 chance. So if he's dying MORE than half the time then for sure he's a less good player than his opponent. If we need to sooth his ego, then we could suggest that perhaps his opponents are getting better ping times. I don't know about Halo - but games like Doom and Quake always let you know what your ping time was to each of the available servers - and you'd be well-advised to pick the server with the shortest ping time. If Halo doesn't let you choose - then it's probably picking the best one for you automatically.
"but on general principles, you don't introduce randomness into something that's human-skill based", Steve? Of course you do - at least as far as first person shooters are concerned. Most games will have some sort of randomised inaccuracy built into each weapon - learning how to use each weapon in the most efficent way is part of the skillset that players need. So yes, all other things (the weapons used, the skill and reactions of the players, the evenhandedness of the situation, ping times) being equal, and unless both players in a firefight can kill each other at the same time (which can happen in some games but not others, depending on how the bullet flight is modelled) it is going to be random who wins - how else could it be? FiggyBee (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - actually, you're probably right about weapon inaccuracy. (I should explain that I'm a graphics guy - shooting and multiplayer stuff isn't my speciality). I guess what I really meant was that you don't introduce randomness unnecessarily and arbitarily in the sense that the OP's friend seems to imagine. Simulating a real weapon does indeed require a bit of randomness - but it's not like the game flips a coin to decide who lives and who dies. But in the end, even if there was no randomness in the game at all - it would still SEEM random because of variance of ping times - and because (as you say) someone has to win - even in a closely matched game - because humans are human and our performance is never 100% consistent. SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This necessary low-level randomness, though, should not be construed as saying that Azi's friend is right in that high-level Halo conflicts are determined randomly. From the player level, skill is absolutely a major factor, drastically overriding the game's randomness. As Droptone noted above, both weapon type and hit location are used by Halo to factor damage. For the specific case, Halo's melee combat is particularly effective if you hit someone in the head -- I've got a friend who's quite good at this, so I just don't get into close combat with him any more. This may be part of what Azi's friend is running into. — Lomn16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be on to something Lomn, my friend's frustrations definitely seemed connected to losing melee battles and I was unaware of that fact about hit location. Anyways, thanks everyone who answered, very helpful / interesting. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long shot, but are you referring to "Seventeen" by Machinae Supremacy? If so, the title of that song was a working title (because it was the 17th song they had recorded or were working on at the time), and they ended up keeping the name when they released it. Lead band member Robert Stjärnström explains in a post on the official forum: Re: Why is 17 called 17?. --Bavi H (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
For a longer shot - is it possible you're thinking of 19? If so, that has a strong connection with the Vietnam war following the very, very famous song 19 - which echoed a claim that an average American soldier in Vietnam was nineteen years old. SteveBaker (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Doors
A non English friend asked my what the doors were singing about when they mention :...wallow in the myre... Now I was sutably embarresed that I could not answer this and so have been doing a little research. Dictionary.com describes Myre as a small insect. I doubt the doors did much wallowing in small hard working insects. So what is a Myre(spelling might be a bit off)Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but discussing the meaning of mire - even with reference to other songs - is relevant. In the Doors' case, though, it's fairly self-explanatory from the meanings of wallow and mire:
wallow - move slowly and with difficulty
mire - swamp or mud
So... "The time to hesitate is through/no time to wallow in the mire..." is a simple metaphor: "we've got to act now - no moving as if we were struggling through mud". Grutness...wha?08:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sizes of Wiktionary and Wikipedia in different languages
I am somewhat struck by how much bigger the English Wikipedia is than the other language Wikipedias (which I would expect), while the French Wiktionary (French Wikipedia is 3rd largest) is larger than English Wiktionary. Also, German Wikipedia is 2nd largest, but German Wiktionary is much smaller than the others. Is there a good reason for this?--Filll (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a bit more investigation myself, I see some information on Wiktionary. English and French have traded the lead over time. A lot of the entries on both the English and French versions come from bot entries and public domain dictionaries. What is curious to me is that the German version has not done this as well. Are there no bots in the German version? Is the German language less amenable to the use of these bots? Are there no public domain German dictionaries to steal from?--Filll (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
French is an unusual (perhaps unique) language in that there is a legally sanctioned body who administer it. The Académie française is a government run group of about 40 people who rule on what is legally French and what is the work of evil foreigners. They meet regularly to sanction what French words will be used for things like new terminology for computers and to provide alternatives for (typically) English words that are creeping into common usage. Hence, for example, the commonly used French word "Parking" (meaning exactly what you'd expect it to mean) is not legal French and does not appear on (for example) road signs. Instead there is some much longer phrase that's been deemed acceptable by the "language police". Anyway, that means that there is an "official" dictionary: The Dictionnaire de l'Académie française - and I vaguely recall that it's free of copyright (it's certainly available for free online) - and therefore may have been the basis of the French Wiktionary. There is no equivelent document in English or German and any free input that either of those Wiktionaries may have gotten wouldn't be as comprehensive as the Academie dictionary. However, there are only about 30,000 words in Academie-sanctioned French (although French Wiktionary isn't bound by their rules - so they may well have more). By contrast, the complete Oxford English Dictionary has about a third of a million words. On that basis alone, sooner or later, I'd expect English Wiktionary to trample the French one into the dust! SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great info, SteveBaker! I wanted to add that the English language has by far the largest vocabulary (sheer number of words) of any other language in the world, and probably in the history of the world. Because it depends on what one might consider to be an actual "English" word, it is difficult to come up with a single answer as to precisely how many words there are in the English language, but most people seem to think it is almost 1,000,000 words link. That's a LOT! Compare this with German, which has a vocabulary of about 185,000, and French with fewer than 100,000 link. This is due in part to the fact that English is a Germanic language that acquired a lot of Romantic language words, thus creating an incredibly rich diversity of words that may be used to describe things. An example of this is the following collection of words that describe a similar thing: Regal, Royal, Sovereign, Kingly, Kinglike, Monarchical, Monarchal, Purple, Noble, Majestic, Crowned, Imperial, Aristocratic, Blue-Blooded, Honorable, Lordly, Stately, Highborn, August, Coroneted, and Patrician. Because there are so many ways to describe the same thing, English words typically carry with them a lot more specific and more subtle meanings than is the case in most other languages. This is not to say that other languages do not also have many words with subtle meanings, but English has more of them, and English speakers use them more frequently, due to the fact that we just have so many more words to choose from.
The reason that English is so huge is due to the fact that for a variety of reasons, English speakers have had no qualms against picking up foreign words and phrases and making them their own. There is also a very strong tendency to create new words in order to be more fashionable - be it that one is trying to be more "hip" or "cool", or to be more "brainy" and "sophisticated". Knowing and using the latest and most impressive words imparts great status to the typical English speaker, whileas in other languages such blatant use of new-fangled words is often frowned upon. Although English has lots of problems for the non-English speaking person to try to learn (such as horrid spelling rules and a huge number of colloquialisms), it is by far the most powerful language to have ever existed on the planet, including Greek and Latin, which English has almost subsumed as its own. -- Saukkomies15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It looks like languagemonitor is a bit suspect. The Acadamie Francaise also does not quite have as much clout as many claim, from my investigations (I also speak French). Also, if you include various technical terms, English might easily have more than 10 million words.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with all of these measures is that very few speakers know anything like that number of words. It's been claimed that an average high school graduate can understand a total vocabulary of 25,000 to 35,000 words - but use less than a third of that number in their own speech and writings. It's pointless having many more words than that because most of them will not be understood by the vast proportion of the population - and clearly we can communicate perfectly comfortably with less than 10,000 words. Obviously we all have various subject-specific vocabularies that don't entirely overlap between speakers. SteveBaker (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been answered above (See December 6 "Plate") with specific reference to the external site provided in the last line of the answer. Bielle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ten million times
it happens over ten million times in a year?what is it
1.am not sure but cud it be either a human breathing or blinking(thats what google gave me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.77.226 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 31 million seconds in a year. So this would be something that happens to a person roughly every three seconds? I would imagine blinking would be it. Breathing is more like once a second, heartbeats don't work either. SteveBaker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Blink though. According to the article, "women and men do not differ in their rates of spontaneous blinking, averaging around 10 blinks per minute in a laboratory setting". So suppose the average period awake per day is 18 hours ... 10 * 60 * 18 * 365 = 3,942,000 so either a) maybe not or b) poor question or c) whatever that might be. --Tagishsimon(talk)16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Respiratory rate suggests adult humans breathe from 12 to 20 breaths per minute, not the "once per second" SteveBaker gave above. (I think he must have been on the treadmill at the time. :-)) That's a breath every 3 seconds, at the fast end, and thus about 10 million breaths in a 31 million-second year. Bielle (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - what was I thinking? But as you say, one breath every 3 seconds is at the high end - it would be less on the average - so you'd be unlikely to hit 10 million per year. Blinking doesn't work either since you don't blink when you're asleep and (according to the article blink) two to ten seconds is typical. 10 million per year is too many for blinking too. SteveBaker (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find nothing so silly as the influx of poorly-written riddles the Reference Desk gets. Usually they are poorly worded to begin with and of extremely dubious veracity anyway. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - my first thought was "What happens in the entire universe as few as 10 million times a year?" but since that's unanswerable and unlikely to be what was wanted, I observed that the OP thought it was to do with humans. I was still thinking in terms of perhaps the world-wide birth rate (nope, not even close, it's gotta be ten times that) or the rate of car accidents (better). But since the OP seemed basically happy with blinking and breathing...I thought it best to determine the time interval (about once every 3 seconds) and go from there. But (as usual) if you read the question too closely, it says "OVER 10 million times a year" - so almost any reasonably frequent process would do. Uranium atom fissions? Dung beetle fatalities? Cases of someone hiccuping a prime number of times? Trees falling in the forest - but not making a sound? Stars going supernova? That way lies madness! As I've said before, these "riddles" generally rely on someone who thinks they've come up with an amazing fact attempting to impress everyone else with an answer that the others will never think of. Since the audience is very often stunned into not thinking about it and immediately saying "I have no idea" - the person phrasing the "riddle" can feel superior. If a bunch of people such as those of us who hang out here were replying ("The number of cases of someone hiccuping a prime number of times?"), the riddler would very soon lose interest in trying to tie the question down tightly enough so that only the one single answer he'd thought of would fit it. Oh well, you've gotta go with what you've got. SteveBaker (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
vegan plus meat
Friend have been demi-veggie for many years (lacto-ovo vegetarian plus fish and shellfish). Their first child had severe allergies to shellfish, peanuts, tree nuts, and eggs, but gradually outgrew all but the first two. With the second child they followed the advice "no milk before one, no eggs before two, no nuts before three" (that's years, not o'clock, by the way). The baby has indeed proved to be severely allergic to milk. A vegan diet with no nuts would be a real challenge to this family. There are lots of online resources for people thinking of becoming vegetarian, but not much for those moving the other way. I tried googling "vegan plus meat", a phrase I have heard used before now, but got nowhere. Any ideas? I am NOT asking for dietary advice per se -- just guidance to where I can educate myself on how to change one's digestive habits, taste buds, kitchen systems, etc. to meet current needs. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Broadening what vegetables are eaten may be worth a try. Aside from the usual supermarket fare of carrots, celery, broccoli etc which get old pretty fast, there's some great possibilities with lentils (e.g. veggie samosas), chickpeas (hummus), black bean & quinoa salad, refried beans with red rice to name a few of my favorites. Also, are the seafood items as fresh as possible? The challenge of sticking to fish instead of meat is acquiring it in an acceptably-fresh state, which may not be easy if you live in a small inland community. Vranak (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the nutrition in question is that of a child's, a nutritionist should be consulted before adding/cutting entire categories out of their diets. It's more important if a baby gets all of the nutrition they need than it is for an adult (their brain is still forming and their bodies are quiet vulnerable), and I wouldn't try to institute a vegan diet with a kid unless I really knew what I was doing and had consulted a pediatrician. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world would your friends keep their baby from milk as a newborn? There have been babies, such as this one, who have died because their non-breastfeeding vegan parents tried to keep them from drinking milk. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the contributions so far. Let me reiterate that I am not looking for direct advice, but for resources. Perhaps I should have clarified that the baby in question has been exclusively breastfed till six months, as per WHO guidelines, when simple safe foods were introduced. At one year of age came the test for cow's milk; as per the allergist's advice, the parents rubbed a drop on the baby's skin, which resulted in a bad reaction. These people are good cooks and are well acquainted with the pulses and legume dishes mentioned, but they have been professionally advised to be cautious in using these with the kids. As I said to them the other day, I have no doubt that the baby will be fine, because they will go to any lengths (including bending their vegetarian principles) to ensure the safety of their kids. My concern is how fine the parents are going to be: stressed, I would imagine. Hence my request for ideas, suggestions, resources. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry; a lot of people rush to answer before properly reading the question. It was already quite clear what you were asking for, and some of the earlier comments are nonsensical given what you wrote. You've nothing to be apologetic for. On a more helpful note, have you checked out the BBC's advanced recipe search? Having had a look around the webs, it seems the best for excluding things. Lots and lots of ideas there, for example pages of results for 'dairy free, nut free, shellfish free'. You could add vegetarian to that too and see what it comes up with. I can't work out how to exclude pulses and legumes as well, but there are plenty of options there. Skittle (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattress Replacement
What are the regulations for Massachusetts regarding mattress replacement? I bought my Englander brand mattress in January or February of 2000 and have since lost the receipt. The credit card companies only have records going as far back as 2001. The store I bought it from have computerized records going back to 2001, and claim that paper records are in the basement but would be very difficult to find and therefore won't look. What recourse do I have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.147.177 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do you imagine you have some kind of rights for replacement of an 8 year old mattress? Was there some kind of warranty on it? Failing that, I'd say you were out of luck! I very much doubt the state laws guarantee you more than a really minimal warranty period. SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greek surnames
In ancient Greek history, all of the names mentioned (Socrates, Aristotle, Hippocrates etc) appear to lack surnames. Is there any indication that these were first or last names? Or were the complete names lost to history?
Salisbury9620 (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were "first" names, although really they are just "names" because they don't have last names. As a kind of surname tThey could have used their father's name in the genitive ("[son] of so-and-so")...I don't know who the fathers of these three were but their sons would have used Socratides, Aristotelides, and Hippocratides. In the case of Athens, so for Socrates and Aristotle, they could have used the name of whatever clan they were assigned to. Perhaps Hippocrates' island of Kos had a similar system. The Romans used epithets sometimes, and Greek gods and heroes had epithets as well (there is a whole list of epithets in Homer), so perhaps regular people used them too, but I don't know. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with the "no legal advice" rules? Is it a law or something because I notice it exists on other boards besides just wikipedia? Either way, I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it. It's not like a person would go to court and say "well, somebody told me on wikipedia that you can't do that, Judge." ...and if they do that then the person is an idiot anyway. It seems like this legal advice constraint thing is a lose-lose situation. Is it a crime for two people to talk law and legalities jsut because it's on the internet? Sincerely confused, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is used throughout the world. In many parts of the world it is illegal to practice Law or Medicine without a license. Since Wikipedia doesn't want to be sued, and we have no way to tell who has legal qualifications and who doesn't, we have a policy of not offering individual Legal or Medical advice on the reference desks. In main article space, we clearly aren't talking about advice for the benefit of a particular individual - but the reference desk is something special. What other online systems do is there business - perhaps they have other disclaimers (Have you read them? I doubt it!), others may feel it's not a huge risk - and yet others may simply be naive. Anyway - those are the rules we operate under. SteveBaker (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, it would be rather idiotic to claim that wikipedians told me it was legal in court, but that wouldn't stop people from doing so. By having the policy in place, it acts as a legal disclaimer. If someone claims it, they can be told that wikipedia doesn't give legal advice. The legal processes in many countries mean that you have to assume everyone is very, very, stupid and warn them about things, even if it's common sense. Just when somehting's foolproof, they make a better fool. Steewi (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that whatever we say here is ipso facto in written form. It's on the record, permanently. If a doctor gave someone oral advice that turned out to be bad advice, the doctor could always say he/she never said that, or that the patient had only heard a part of it, or had misunderstood it, or whatever. It's the patient's word against the doctor's as to what was actually said. Here, we have no such defence. And we don't have the benefit of seeing the person face to face and seeing the bigger picture - that's apart from the fact that we have no authority to dispense medical advice in any case, not being medical practitioners. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-worth mentioning that such rules have various applications. For example we do get a few naysayers on the reference desk that consider all medical and legal questions barred because it would constitute legal or medical advice. That's not true. Not all questions are bad. People can ask about laws, medicines, diseases, etc. I think the deciding factor is if a person is asking for medical or legal decisions or counselling, i.e. recommendations on how to act. That is completely different. Consider the questions "I live in Minnesota and carry weed. What is the maximum amount of weed I can carry to avoid the more stringent sentences?" versus the question "Can you help me find laws about prosecution for possession of weed. I'm interested to know at what point the charges go from minor to major. Thanks". In the first question we would be offering legal advice on how much weed to carry. In the second question we would be talking about laws, without any specific application, which would not be advice.Rfwoolf (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, if a person gave out legal advice of the kind that Rfwoolf is talking about, then he or she would be guilty of practicing law without a license, which is not only very illegal, but will probably result in the guilty party having to serve hard cold jail time. If you think this is not a big deal, here's an excerpt from an article that appeared in the newspaper: US States News:
STAMFORD MAN CHARGED WITH PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT LICENSE
May 23, 2006 Tuesday
DATELINE: HARTFORD, Conn.
The Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice's Office of Chief State's Attorney issued the following news release:
Chief State's Attorney Christopher L. Morano announced today the arrest of a Stamford man on charges of practicing law without a license.
(Name Withheld), age 39, of... Stamford, was charged with three counts of Unlicensed Practice of Law, a misdemeanor carrying a maximum prison term of two months and/or a maximum fine of $250.
Suppose if one is driving on a slippery, winter road and is aiming to be as safe as possible. Is it in one's best interest to shift as early as possible and therefore reduce output torque, which in turn will reduce wheel slip? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Steve, as per the previous question, you should probably be a little more diplomatic in the wording of your answer :) Strictly speaking that is. Rfwoolf (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always started from the line in second, when the car could manage it, for just that reason. I can't source it on anything except twelve years of driving stick, but I would say: On ice, always stay at least one gear higher than you ought to be, and when you run out of gears, you're probably going fast enough. I also would recommend that you take your car out to an ice-covered empty parking lot, if one is available, and spin around half out of control for a while where you know you won't hit anything. It will help you get used to the feeling, teach you how to react to gain control, and help you not to panic when panic is clearly in order. (Not advised in SUV's, though, or at least not unless you're really careful not to flip it over.) Good luck. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, anything that helps you give the car gentle inputs should help. Also, if you're willing to spend money, a decent set of winter tires can make a HUGE difference. Friday(talk)16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having many years of experience driving on winter roads, I have learned that what works a lot of time FOR ME (I'm not saying it will work for anyone else, so don't sue me) is when I am going downhill on a road that is slippery, I put the car's transmission into neutral - especially if it has an automatic transmission. This allows me to have a lot more control over the braking, and it also prevents the car's transmission from having any effect on the rotation of the tires. I find also that if I get into a skid on level roads that are covered in ice, that if I slip the car out of gear while braking that I have a lot better result in being able to come to a controlled stop sooner than if the car had remained in gear the whole time. Saukkomies16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Isuzu VehiCROSS (and probably other Isusu SUVs) had a Winter Mode button that, when activated, would cause the automatic transmission to start in 3rd gear instead of 1st. Also, for what it is worth, I generally agree with everything above, EXCEPT for the putting the car into neutral... FWD and AWD cars often need power to recover from skids. Still, don't take my word for it -- take some time in a big open parking lot to learn the capabilities and behaviors of your own vehicle. --Mdwyer (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NTSC -> ATSC
I've been looking into TV accessories recently and thinking about the upcoming switch from NTSC to ATSC (here mainly in North America). Now, my question is essentially what will happen to those devices with only NTSC tuners. Now, I know all about the $40 subsidy program for ATSC tuners, but I'm having trouble understanding what this purpose-specific ATSC tuner will do.
So, for sake of comparison, take the current system. I have a TV and I connect my coax cable from the wall (coming from the cable company) to the TV, turn on the TV and all my channels are there (I switch channels using the TV's channel changer). Now, what happens when I have the ATSC tuner? Will it be like a digital box (coax from wall goes to ATSC tuner, cable runs to old TV, TV is set on channel 3 or on TV/Video, I use the ATSC tuner's remote to change channels) or will it do some type of conversion from ATSC to NTSC (and that's all)? --Colonel Cow (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(You mentioned cable TV in your example above, but just so no one is confused: The US DTV switchover on Feb 17, 2009 will only affect free over-the-air TV. Analog-only TVs will need ATSC tuner boxes -- so called "converter boxes" -- to get free over-the-air TV via an antenna after the switchover.)
To answer your question, the ATSC converter boxes are really separate tuners: antenna plugs in to the box, box outputs audio and video via coax or composite cables to TV, TV remains on channel 3 or video input, and you use the ATSC tuner's remote to change channels.
It's not feasible to convert all the channels at once so your NTSC TV can receive them using its tuner. The equipment required would be similar to installing a mini cable company in your own home. You would need a separate dedicated ATSC tuner set to each input channel, a separate RF modulator set to each output channel, and equipment to properly mix the output signals into one cable you feed to your TV. --Bavi H (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, what exactly will be happening to cable (if anything) when this switchover occurs? I mean, from what I know, cable is an analog service (when it goes straight from the wall to TV -- cable box is digital) so I would think this switchover would impact it as well. Will I continue to be able to watch (cable) TV post-switchover on my NTSC TV directly from the wall with no new hardware? --Colonel Cow (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes. At least, my cable company says that I will be able to. Cable companies tend to be private organizations, so your mileage may vary -- right now, mine offers a dozen or two channels of HD (through digital cable), and the rest of the channels are all ATSC. They will continue to do that through the switchover, so my old relic of an NTSC set will continue to work... Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Must-carry#Digital must-carry, if your cable company uses analog transmission (that is, so you can plug your coax cable directly to your TV and change channels on the TV), then it must continue to send local "must-carry" channels in analog for three years after the DTV switch over date. But that page also mentions that small cable operators can apply for a waiver. And that page also explains the difference between a must-carry channel and a channel that chooses retransmission consent.
I don't have cable, so I haven't learned more details about how the DTV switch affects cable. The official answers on sites like dtv.gov are along the lines of "ask your cable company." The must-carry information above seems to suggest that cable companies will provide analog channels for three years after the DTV switchover, but with some possible exceptions that I'm not quite clear about. --Bavi H (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really love this site to see it fall apart like this. Can this be placed in any articles ? Really do appreciate your assisstance with this one. Someone is raising a hell of a stink. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IF Idid'nt ask this, someone else would have, and may have done so in a most offensive manner.
My investigation reveals that a "!!" is the locus of what I've found. I've found this on my way here concerning another, unrelated matter. MY computer is rigged to go to Google first AFTER I input, for example, Wikipedia in the Icon Box, thus I've seen the mess outlined here. I really do appreciate your assisstance. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE read our responses to your previous two questions. NO!!! Nothing you read in any of these places will "placed in articles" - not now, not ever - this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper.
But since this clearly excites you - this "news" has been known for several days now and aside from a few high-up Wikipedian political types, none of the rest of us really give a damn about fights between admins and news of "secret" mailing lists. Communications between editors frequently happens by email when we don't want our words spread everywhere and recorded here for all time. Hardly a day goes by when I don't get an email from someone or other here. Usually it's just chit-chat that doesn't particularly concern the community at large - but sometimes when there is a vandal or a sockpuppeteer on the loose - and you really need to discuss what to do about that person in a place where you aren't going to inflame the situation by discussing them in the public eye. This is really no news - and it's CERTAINLY not going to cause it to fall apart.
If you want to thank Wikipedia - go to the very top of any page and make a donation to help pay for it.
Note that the line between "private" and "secret" is, of course, largely in the eye of the beholder (or, more specifically, the expectations for transparency—a government organization is held to different standards than a private company, for example). Jimbo replied that the list was "private", not "secret". Really depends how you want to see it. I think it is unreasonable to expect administrators to be 100% transparent (what's wrong with a little private chat amongst equals to figure out a good course of action?), though their reasoning should be legible, if that makes sense. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outsourcing converting VHS to DVD
I have many home videos that I would like to convert from VHS to DVD. I know how to do this on my own but would rather just pay someone else to do it because it would take so much time. I have found a company that will scan all your old pictures/slides but can't find anyone that would convert VHS to DVD. What are my options? 72.8.91.163 (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most simple Google search did not work for me. It just pulled up a lot of how to articles. I know how to do it. I just can't find a company willing to do it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the States, Walgreens offers this service, as does the Ritz/Wolf Camera store chain. I'm sure there are more. This is, of course, only for "home videos", they won't convert your VHS copy of Star Wars. --LarryMac | Talk21:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neumann
Was Neumann very rude and ill mannered?I am very much interested in knowing about his personality.Aren't great intellectuals like him supposed to be humble and well mannered?Did he fail in any of his scientific attempts?Was he so perfect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think that great intellectuals are humble and well-mannered? Have you actually met any? I've met quite a few rude and condescending ones! Was John von Neumann (Johnny to his friends) so perfect? No—he was human! He had a great mathematical mind, but that is only part of what makes someone a person. (As an aside, Ulam said he was a lousy physicist because he had no ability to visualize things whatsoever; he thought only in terms of mathematics and numbers. There are a lot of candid opinions on Von Neumann—of whom Ulam counted a great friend and ally—in Ulam's autobiography.) There is no doubt that Von Neumann was a great genius—he awed even other geniuses, who joked that none of his computers could ever compete with his own brain—but as a person he seems to have been prickly, condescending, cruel, a pure hawk, etc. He was, however, not at all unique among his companions or contemporaries for those qualities (Oppenheimer, Teller, Ulam—the whole lot of them except maybe Fermi and Bethe—were prickly, arrogant, troubled, you name it). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a more measured response might question how we are encouraged these "scientific heros" into "scientific saints". This usually happens by stripping out anything about them that might be objectionable. Einstein was a politically-active socialist, pacifist, and supported Negro rights? Make him a cuddly old man who can't tie his shoes! (Note that neither of these things are at all shameful today, but when Einstein passed away they were extremely controversial). Oppenheimer ratted out his students and friends in an attempt to appease the government? Make him a saintly martyr of modern science, dreaming about peace and morality! Feynman's a hopeless sexist who can't come to terms with his own emotional fragility? Ho ho, look at him cracking all those safes, what a card! (That one's for you, Steve!) Anyway, my point is only that these people are all human beings, and the need to balance their exceptional gifts with the idea that they were also exceptionally perfect people is perfectly natural (viz. hagiography). At the same time, when we find out that, for shame!, they are actually human beings—with flaws, frailties, etc.—it doesn't discount their abilities, nor does it make them figures of fun, nor does it mean we can't admire them for some things more than others; we shouldn't rush to denounce them (viz. iconoclasm). Despite rumors to the contrary, no scientist yet has ever been a brain-in-a-jar, a genius devoid of context, devoid of their own bodies. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hitting the Wall
what is meant by the term "hitting the wall". it is a business term and indicates a particular stage reached in a business entity. what exatly is it? Any examples would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.169.98 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an allusion to hitting the wall in long-distance running. Whether it's an appropriate analogy, or whether like so much business theory it's a load of marsh gas, is another question. Googling "hitting the wall" in business may turn up some useful essays. FiggyBee (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think of those videos of crash test dummies in cars that are smashed into brick walls. I think that if you carry that image into other aspects of life you can get the idea of what "hitting the wall" is supposed to mean. Saukkomies16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internet reference I don't understand
Atypically urbandictonary isn't being very useful, what is meant by
I'm pretty sure it's much older than either Futurama or South Park - but our article on Slashdot (which is severely infected by this meme) claims that it was from South Park. Wasn't it in one of those god-awful inspirational speaker/business method books? The idea is that it's easy enough to have the initial idea for a business - and you know your goal is PROFIT! - but the steps in getting from the first to the last are the problem for aspiring businessmen - and was supposedly the topic of the book...the only problem being, I don't recall the name of the book! SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small enough soap bubble is more or less a perfect sphere, right? And this means that if I photograph it, no matter the angle, it will appear in the photograph as more or less a perfect circle? How useful is a digital photograph of a soap bubble of a sample of a circle? JIP | Talk07:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, and depends on how visually distinct the edges of the bubble are. If it not readily apparent where the edges of the bubble are, it prevents the photo from being useful to clearly illustrate the point. A mathematically generated circle would be more exact, but for quick and dirty "this is a circle", I see no fault in your soap bubble picture idea. EvilCouch (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the anon, gravity will tend to slightly distort the bubble (as will any air currents or other external forces). As well, liquid may tend to settle toward the bottom of the bubble, again depending on its size and composition; this will introduce additional distortion. Smaller bubbles will suffer less from all of these effects than larger bubbles, so the answer to your question depends on how much 'more or less' you can tolerate in your 'perfect'. You can get around this by making sure you photograph the bubble from directly above or below; the horizontal cross-section of the bubble ought to be perfectly circular.
Another strategy is to photograph a half-bubble stuck to a flat surface; the contact ring of the bubble wall with the surface will be a perfect circle. (This requires that the camera be placed directly over the center of the bubble, on a line drawn perpendicular to the surface—otherwise you'll get an ellipse: a projection of a tilted circle.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world, the surface tension of the liquid is combatting the pressure of the air inside the bubble - the 'least energy' surface has the smallest possible surface area (to minimise the surface tension) and the largest possible volume (to keep the air pressure as low as possible). Since the 3D object with the smallest ratio of surface area to volume is a sphere, that's the shape a soap bubble would ideally take in perfectly still air with zero gravity. Since the bubble is falling - it ought not to feel the effects of gravity - but sadly, it's so light that air resistance is not negligable and gravity and slipstream will indeed distort it. Small bubbles have thicker side-walls proportionate to their volume - so they fall more freely and are therefore more spherical than larger ones. Turbulance is also less of a problem for smaller bubbles. SteveBaker (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tap them in the center of their long axis with something hard prior to trying to open them with your hands. Kitchen counters work fairly well, but really anything should be fine as long as it's hard enough to crack the shell slightly, thus defeating the strength of the circular shape. EvilCouch (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm beating eggs in a jug to make my nice spinach-and-egg stuff on Sunday nights, I tap the egg firmly (and not too quickly), in the way EvilCouch mentions, on the rim of the jug. Twice should do it: then you can pull the two pieces of the shell apart quite easily with your hands. If you're frying the eggs, for example, the edge of the frying pan would be good enough. I invariably find that if I don't tap firmly enough and then try to open the egg with my fingers, it gets very messy! Watch out for stray flakes of shell coming off and landing in the jug/pan, though. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I always break eggs into a measuring cup -- I find a 3/4 cup measure good for this, since it's an odd size that is almost never useful for measuring. I'm sure a metric measuring cup set has a similarly odd-sized cup. --Carnildo (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skilled egg breakers (my dad was one) could open an egg with one hand by holding it in the palm of the hand over the bowl, palm down, and pressing inward with the fingers while pulling the egg open, ending with the the egg in the bowl or skillet, and the cracked open egg in the hand. Some could do two eggs at a time in one hand. I expect it took practice. Edison (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, this is because of salmonella paranoia. If you use a sharp point or edge to crack your eggs, you can force 'dirty' pieces of shell into the 'clean' egg. --Mdwyer (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pronunciation
how is meme pronounced? (as in 'internet meme')
is it 'meeem' or 'mee mee'? the latter makes more sense to me because it sounds a bit like someone might be saying 'me, me... look at me - look what I found on the internet..."
Sorry, I meant, "before there was an internet of any note." Anyway it hardly matters; the word meme has nothing originally to do with the internet. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on what you consider to be the start of "the Internet". See History of the Internet. In any case it's clear that "meme" was indeed derived from "gene" and meant to be pronounced similarly. --Anon, 22:43 UTC, December 12.
When did the USPS redesign the eagle logo? How much did it cost? Was there a controversy regarding the similarity with the Seatle Seahawks NFL logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.238.250 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly the current USPS logo, though it is just a head, is clearly just taken from their original "full bird" logo which they had in the 1970s. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced Sat-Nav
I had an idea for how to improve in car sat-nav. Essentially my idea was that the sat-nav would turn on the indicator at the junction/roundabout exit you required to take. Now I understand there may be technological issues with this (mis-indication could be dangerous), and accuracy issues etc. but considering other technologies being developed I can't see how this wouldn't be plausible. The question? Well does anybody know of anything like this being piloted/developed etc.? I expect it must have been considered, seeing as it would be A) an audio/visual indicator to the driver and B) would (if accurate) help other road users. ny156uk (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this would have a computer indicating the driver's behavior with no idea as to whether or not that actually will be the driver's behavior, I'd have to call it a bad idea. There are plenty of ways to signal the driver without falsely signaling other traffic. As for development, though, I'm sure it's part of work on fully-automated highways. — Lomn19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make the rash assumption that the driver intends to do what the nav system says he should do. I quite often ignore the turning my TomTom says I should take and let it route me around to my destination via another path. The things on my wish list for Nav systems are:
Better precision so it can adjust it's upcoming turn notification according to the number of lanes you'll have to cross.
A means to have it add missing roads to it's database as you drive down them. There is one road missing from my machine's database and it ALWAYS wants to take me around the long way rather than using it...however, it could quite easily notice that I drove "cross-country" and offer me the option to create that as a new road (either one-way or two-way) when I finally rejoin a road it knows about.
If there is a diversion around a blocked road, there is no way to tell it "I CAN'T GO THAT WAY YOU STOOPID MACHINE" - so after I don't take the turn, it'll keep trying to direct me back onto that road until I'm far enough away that another route becomes faster. This can be exceedingly annoying.
I can tell my Tomtom when a road is blocked (right in front of me, 250yds, 500yds, 1 mile, 3 miles, 5 miles) and it provides an alternate route. Quite a few of the newer sat navs do that. You might fidn that missing road appears if you update your map, Steve, although that usually costs more than it probably ought to. As far as the original questions goes, auto indicators are a very bad idea. Neıl☎13:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - interesting, which Tomtom version do you have? I don't see anything like that on mine...or my wife's either. They are both over a year old though. When I moved down to Austin, I found that a lot of the new freeways weren't on the map - so I spend the money to upgrade...only to find that the "new" maps had less information than the ones that were on my Tomtom to start with! I was very angry over that - not only because they didn't have the latest maps on their web site - but also that their fancy online upgrade gadget actually allowed me to buy and upload crappier maps on top of good ones. I'm still arguing with them to try to get my money back. SteveBaker (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A videogame series called The Getaway had navigation like this. Instead of a map or a radar as most driving games do, the indicators flash to show you which way to go to get to your destination. Though it was clever, it was poorly implemented - you were never quite sure which way to go. In real life, I could imagine satnav like this would be very bad unless there was also voice directions as well - which would probably make the indicator feature useless anyway. Not all cars tell you which indicator is on, they usually just have a generic light on the dashboard flash and the clicking sound. The point of indicators is to tell other drivers and pedistrians which way you intend to go - if indicators turned themselves on automatically then they are not doing what they're supposed to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new(?) kind of site
Hi. Is anyone familiar with any web-based project with goals reminiscent of those of Wikimedia's projects, but with a crucial difference - instead of giving equal editing power to anyone, differentiating the authority and influence based on peer evaluation of each individual's capability to contribute to the project?
I figured someone would mention it, and I too once thought it might satisfy the above criterion. However, it only has 2 levels of editorial authority, "author" and "editor", and these are based on credentials rather than peer evaluation. Thanks anyway. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it will help if I explain my motivation a bit. I am fascinated by the power the ideas behind Wikipedia have, and impressed by what it has achieved in practice. However, I am concerned that some of its key philosophies are flawed, which will prevent it from ever achieving true greatness. I have given some thought to an alternative model for projects of this kind, and I think I have a few ideas which might work. Now my options are either to start a project on my own the way I envision it (as soon as I have an idea how to do that, which will probably be some 50 years in the future), or to seek an existing project which is close enough to work. This question is an effort toward this last approach.
To clarify what I have in mind, one of the core ideas will be "proposed edits", which means that anyone can propose an edit, with an interface similar to what MediaWiki currently offers for editing, but this will not be incorporated into the page unless it has been approved. Approval takes place by others voting on how good they think the edit is, and the calculation of a weighted average of votes. The edit must pass some threshold in order to be accepted. The weight of each voter will be based on the direct and indirect peer evaluation of his skills.
This sounds more complicated than it really is. A person who know what he is doing should have a weight high enough to pass edits on his own. People who are more prone to error will need a few reinforcing votes. This will make sure that while anyone can pinpoint mistakes and offer new text, only trusted individuals can make actually visible changes to the page.
This isn't the place to explain any other details of my ideas or to convince anyone of their virtue. I only hope I have said enough to describe what it is that I am looking for, and that someone is aware of any existing project which captures at least the spirit of those ideas. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have heard some stuff about the German Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what it is exactly. If anyone knows a source which describes exactly what goes on there, it could be insightful. Of course, I don't speak German so it will be of little utility to me for the time being. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to remember Wikipedia's history. We started out as Nupedia which imposed all sorts of rules about how articles had to be peer reviewed and so on. Wikipedia:Nupedia_and_Wikipedia details the history. Here is the short version: Over three and a half years of activity, Nupedia only ever reached 25 publishable articles with about another 75 in progress...pathetic! Wikipedia was the reaction to the failure of Nupedia - and after a further 3 and a half years, we now have at least 1,700 articles that we would consider "finished" (our featured articles), 3,200 more that we'd say were "Good" and 2.1 million more in various states of editing. If you neglect the 2.1 million articles that may or may not be any good and just look at the ones that have been reviewed, we have still demonstrably produced 160 times more featured/good articles than Nupedia over more or less the same period of time. In reality, the number of articles of this quality is much higher than that - many wonderful articles have never been offered up for good/featured article status because of considerable amount of red-tape involved. (Hint: LESS red tape...not more!) The power of NOT doing what you advocate should be abundantly clear from this! SteveBaker (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern, but Nupedia really has very little to do with what I have in mind. Apparently, its articles "were written by experts" and "not publicly editable". Contrast this to my ideas that articles are written by everyone, with experts only having a greater say in the quality control. Add the idea that real-world credentials would not be a requirement (though they can be a bonus), trustworthiness can be determined by one's track record (sounds unreliable? There are many Wikipedia editors whose edits I would trust with my eyes closed, even if I have never seen a proof for their credentials. I just know they know their stuff. This is the same, but I wouldn't need to personally know each and every one). This simplifies some of the bureaucracy. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about minor edits, such as changing a spelling mistake or grammatical error? That would be a pain the ass to have it peer reviewed especially if you were a noob editor! Just my two cents. The ideal of the system is nice though. --71.186.16.100 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When an anon (no offense) fixes a spelling mistake on Wikipedia, you check your watchlist \ RC for the diff, and see that it was indeed intended to be a spelling correction (not vandalism or anything) and that it is correct (the person didn't accidentally take a correct spelling and make it incorrect). So does everyone else who stumbles upon this edit. We could easily have 10 different contributors all checking that this little edit is legitimate.
With my system, you will still check the diff, but after spending 5 seconds verifying that it is okay, you spend another 2 seconds clicking the "this is okay button" or whatever (the interface needs to make this easy). After 3-4 people do so (or just one if he happens to be a spelling expert), the edit will be accepted and will no longer appear as a priority in watchlists (so nobody else will need to waste his time checking it). Not only does this prevent duplication of work, it makes sure that if indeed this is a bad edit, it will never appear to the public.
Most importantly, this is all transparent to the newb who just wants to fix spelling. He will only make the edit just as he would in MediaWiki. It is up to the more experienced editors to approve it. You might be concerned about the confusion that making an edit and not seeing it immediately might cause; There could be an option to show edits by oneself immediately to prevent it. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of problems with that. Firstly, it's widely believed that the immediacy of the acceptance of your changes is a strong motivator for editors. Delaying "for approval" (it is said) would result in a dramatic reduction in the rate of fixes - I have no clue whether it's true - but it sounds believable. Secondly, it all depends on the ratio of good edits to bad. If edits are overwhelmingly bad - then your approach is worthwhile. But if the vast majority of edits are good - then you are perpetuating incorrect information in the encyclopedia for longer than it needs to be there...which is clearly a bad thing. The sooner a problem is fixed, the sooner the readership are getting good info in stead of rubbish.
What would you do about an article for which no "expert" steps forward to handle it? We have 2.1 million articles - I doubt that many people would want to patrol more than a hundred articles on a regular basis - so you need perhaps 20,000 experts to step forward to do the work. Look at the List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_recent_edits and you'll see that only 1,600 people made over a dozen edits during that month. If you look at Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits, the number of people who have made more than (say) 5,000 edits in their entire time here - that's around than 4,000 people (many of whom have subsequently 'burned out' and left to do other things - and many of whom rack up this edit count in ways other than editing article - ref desk, help desk and admin folk for example). So the number of active long-term Wikipedians is tiny. The vast amount of work here is carried out by the hundreds of thousands of people who each do a tiny amount of work. Hence you won't find 20,000 people who are interested enough to do the regular work of approving edits - let alone 20,000 people who are both interested enough AND who have the necessary qualifications AND who are a good match to the set of articles they are expected to run. With maybe 2,000 such people here, they'd need to look after a THOUSAND articles each!!! With so few willing experts, there is no chance you can afford to have them waste their time checking spelling mistakes - anyone can do that! For this to be worthwhile, they would have to be doing nothing but fact checking. So every day they'd have to check the edits on their watchlist (my watchlist is a few hundred pages - I see at least a dozen changes per day - theirs would be a lot longer) - and there would probably be several dozen of them - and then they'd have to hit the books and start checking everything that was changed - because once they "approve" it, nobody but they can fix it later. This would be a solid day's work - even for someone with a comprehensive library at their fingertips! No - we just don't stand a hope in hell of making that system work.
Wikipedia works ONLY because anyone can edit it and everyone can spot mistakes. The OpenSource software community has a saying "Many eyes make all bugs shallow" - in other words, things get fixed quickly if a lot of people are looking for problems. With Wikipedia, every READER is able to fix problems - since we are the 8th most visited site on the web - we have more readers than you can shake a stick at! Serious, hard-working editors are important - but we're a drop in the bucket compared to the readership. We know the system works - we have better coverage of human knowledge than anything that humanity has ever produced and our error rate is comparable to the best encyclopedia that money can buy (slightly better by some surveys - slightly worse by others). This works. You change the system at your peril!
Look... We could calcualte pros and cons all day (it seems to me from your post that you didn't really understand what I am saying, though this could just as well be a result of my own misunderstanding). I am not prophetic and cannot foresee if "my" ideas will work. I am only saying it is worth trying (or maybe humanity needn't ever try anything new, now that we have the glorious Wikipedia?), and asking if such an attempt has been made. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's 7 feet tall, and 102 inches around the waist ?
Help please. Does anyone out there have a clue as to what this church Christmas Quiz question is all about? The church is Scotland based and it may be a 'local' question such as a statue or the like, but I can't think of one with a greater waist than its height, and I am puzzled why the question uses 2 different measuring units ie. feet and inches. A clue perhaps?? Thanks in anticipation. 81.145.242.130 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of different units is very likely meaningless, just referring to the way people are measured: heights in feet and inches, waist sizes in inches. The first thing that came to my mind was the Big Ben (the bell, not the clock). 7 feet is indeed about 2.2 m, but 102 inches is about 2.6 m -- thus nearer the diameter than the circumference (and of course, being a bell, it's measured at its widest point and doesn't have a "waist"). Still, my guess is that this is the intended answer and the question is badly worded. In other sources I see the diameter given as 2.7 mand as 9 feet 0 inches (108 inches or 2.74 m). --Anonymous, 22:52 UTC, December 12, 2007.
Considering that it's a Christmas question, I'd venture that the answer is a Christmas tree, though the numbers do seem a tad precise for such an answer *shrugs*. Also, bear in mind that a *lot* of objects have a waist greater than their height. I used to use this trick to score free drinks at University by betting against people on just how much greater the circumference of a beer glass was than its height. this video demonstrates the principle fairly well. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shrek it is Gadget - but how on earth did you know that?? Never mind, I think you are wonderful and deserve an extra big helping of our Church Christmas pudding - and maybe a glass of Glenmorangie to take the taste away. Thanks again to Gadget and all other responders. 81.145.240.149 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had both the pudding and the Glenmorangie, and I will heartily raise a glass of the latter (neat please). And Google deserves the credit–I finally searched for 7 feet "102 waist". Don't you folks have enough beasties over there without importing our American knockoffs? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - but - oor beasties are 'Wee coo'erin an' timorous', aka mice as described by the Bard - Rabbie Burns, whereas your beastie in the present scenario is enormous - given the size of his kilt - but is blessed with a 'guid scots accent'. Hence our interest, and interestingly, since reading the article you referred me to, I am impressed that the Kilt Makers involved are based in Loch Carron, which is very near where I live in Scotland. But don't be too impressed - I am an ex-pat Englishman of some 35 years immigrant status here - or so my Scots 'friends' describe me. But then we reputedly have the other 'beastie', the Loch Ness Monster, which has never ever surfaced into view whenever I have driven by. And even if he/she had done, it would have been nigh impossible for poor wee me to see over the shoulders of the zillions of your US countryfolk who seem to permanently line the shores of said loch taking photographs and apparently never failing to get a couple of shots. But me? I will continue to rely on there being 26 shots of malt in a 75cl bottle. So we will welcome your Shrek and adopt him as 'oor ain'. And thanks again.81.145.240.149 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use winter tyres in the summer - or vice-versa. Winter tyres have a very soft compound and they get softer still in warm weather. This means that they wear out amazingly quickly in warm weather. I'm not sure that would be bad for grip - but definitely bad for your pocketbook. Summer tyres have the reverse problem - a hard compound that becomes rock-hard in winter - that will be terrible for grip in snow and ice...dangerously slow I would say. So either go with compromise all-season or switch out your tyres twice a year. SteveBaker (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The more rubber you can put on the road, the more grip you get, so tyres with more cutouts will give you less grip on a dry, clean road. This is why they use Slick tires in drag racing - no cutouts = maximum grip. FiggyBee (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true - but I don't see how it's relevent. Both summer and winter tyres have kinda similar tread patterns - they both have to be able to shed water. Slicks are used for a variety of things - Formula I racecars used to use them - I have friends who use them for track racing. They are absolutely DEADLY in wet weather though - and since it rains in the summer too...you pretty much have to have a tread pattern in any practical kind of a tyre. The tread pattern also gets you more grip in soft sand and dirt - so again, slicks are pretty much a useless kind of a tyre for anything other than dry pavement. The biggest difference between summer and winter tyres is the softness of the rubber. SteveBaker (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
French volley gun mounted on a gun carriage
Volley gun in Les Invalides
I saw a volley gun at the Les Invalides in Paris 2 years ago. Basically several thin barrels mounted horizontally in a single row on a gun carriage. If anyone has been there it's one of the 2 artillery pieces on the second floor balcony behind the large statue of Napoleon that overlooks the courtyard. It was not a mitrailleuse. Any idea what it might be called? --BrokenSphereMsg me23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told about some porno sites (I'll list one of them,but I don't know how Wikipedia reacts to having sites like THAT here. I'm referring to the fact that Bigfoot is featured on something like that, no more, no less.) refer to the creature having sex with people. Can this be placed in the "Cultural section" regarding Bigfoot ?
I can't make head or tail of your question. But if you're asking whether the "fact" that "Bigfoot" is "featured" (shown?) on this or that porn website can be placed in such-and-such an article here, you might ask in the talk page of that article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rule 34. In fact, I'd like to propose an extended version - if you can imagine it, (a) there is porn of it, and (b) it's been referenced on at least one of The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park. And given how many people want to get rid of all the trivial "in pop culture" references to (b), I'd suggest not including (a) unless you have some kind of source talking about the existence of Bigfoot porn (e.g. a magazine article on wacky porn sites, or something). Oh, and as for "how Wikipedia reacts to having sites like THAT", Wikipedia is not censored. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to do my best to describe the song. It starts and ends with a high pitched, fast-tempoed arpeggio. I think the lyrics are something about believing in yourself. I think it was a song from the 80's and it could be considered "arena rock." Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am facing this severe psychological complex in which I find myself preoccupied with research on this question 'WHAT DOES A GIRL DO WHEN SHE SEES A HANDSOME GUY?'.I think the only way out is to find an accurate solution to this query.Please save me,I am becoming mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is clearly, "It depends on the girl." If you have a specific girl that you are wondering about, go ask her. If she is unavailable, ask her closest friends (although there is no guarantee that the answer for the peer group will match the subject's). If you are wondering about the set containing all girls, just randomly ask girls with widely different characteristics (such as age, class, marital status, and sexual orientation) as you encounter them, and build data systematically. You could also interview handsome guys and see if they have observed patterns. Use the scientific method whenever possible; it will never lead you astray. Also, treat the world with a relaxed sense of whimsy; it's a lot more comfortable than obsessing over the ways other people regard you. Good luck. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is outside of my area of expertise, but I think that most girls are less preoccupied with guys' looks than guys are with girls' looks. For a girl, personality is often more important than looks. So, she may think to herself, hmm, he's handsome, I wonder what he's like? Then she is likely to try to observe him without seeming to observe him to see what he is like. If his personality is appealing, she may try to catch his attention. Of course, different personalities appeal to different girls. Some like guys who are funny, some like the strong silent type, others like guys who are hip or stylish, and so on. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with credit cards is that people who are not yet old enough to enter into legally binding contracts cannot have them since using the card constitutes entering into a contract in which you promise to pay for something in the future. There should be no problem with an 18 year old using a debit card since the money is removed from your account when you make the transaction. The question is only whether the Maestro system is acceptable to the online store - and that's going to vary from a place to place. Here in the USA, I have a debit card with a VISA logo on it - so you can use it in places where VISA is accepted (which is to say: everywhere) - and yet it acts like a debit card. If you had one of those - you'd be able to handle anything. SteveBaker (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E-Tool
I've been searching on the internet and I can't find the answer to my question anywhere: What is the length of the modern E-Tool used by the US military (specifically Marine Corps)? I want to know the length of TODAY'S E-tool, not the M1943 E-tool. Thanks in advance. --MKnight998913:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article shovel differentiates a spade and an entrenching tool. An e-tool is a type of shovel, but not all shovels are e-tools, and an e-tool is not a spade. And, to my knowledge, all the U.S. Armed Forces use the M-1967 entrenching tool, but I don't have a reference. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On cleaning cheese graters
What is the best way to clean a cheese grater? Mine is the type very handily pictured at Grater.Apart from ripping my teatowel to shreds,the design means that you can't get a cloth right up to the top bit because it's too narrow and there's a handle in the way.This means that the bits of cheese are stuck there with no way to remove them...
Aye, a dishwasher is able to get the water hot enough to basically melt the cheese off or at least get it hot enough that the spray gets it clean. Dismas|(talk)14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I keep a toothbrush by the sink for this and similar purposes. DuncanHill may have had good results with a sponge scourer, but I find that the cheese grater shreds the scouring material and that scouring fibers get caught on the blades of the grater. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being slow, but why don't you just wipe in the direction it doesn't grate? If you wipe down or scrub, then yes is will grate the scourer, but if you wipe up this isn't a problem surely? Combined with hot soapy water, this works for me. Skittle (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine on the parts of the grater where the blades all face in one direction. I was assuming that the asker was asking about the part of the grater (if it is like my grater) where there are little raised perforations with blades facing in at least four different directions. That's the part that is hard to clean without a fine brush. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For wiping, you can let it drip-dry. Assuming your kitchen doesn't have toxic air, it might even be more hygienic. Shake off most of the drips and leave it on a drying rack, or even on the bench for half an hour. It should be dry then. Washing it is probably best with a brush rather than a scourer or dishcloth. Steewi (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pass from a player who is close to the basket (in the post, usually) to an open player outside. The player close to the basket will generally attract more defensive attention, giving the outside player an open shot. Recury (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof of somebody suddenly disappearing without tr...
There are several stories of people disappearing into thin air-David Lang,Oliver Larch,Benjamin Bathurst but these are all believed to be hoaxes as even though there were allegedly witnesses,there was no actual physical evidence.
If it was caught on camera that for instance a runner in a race or footballer in a match suddenly vanished into thin air,with thousands of witnesses around,what effect would that have?
Would it increase belief in the paranormal?Would it just be dismissed as a stunt or some sort of illusion? Lemon martini (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't really speculate on something that has never happened. The Ref desk is more for factual questions than speculation. Whatever we come up with will most likely just be our opinion. Dismas|(talk)19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the "we don't speculate" response because in fact we do speculate! We speculate, we imagine, we give opinions, we talk about hypotheticals, all the time, every day! In my experience the "we don't speculate" answer almost always means "I don't really know, I don't really care, and I don't think anyone else has an answer either," none of which are great reasons to answer or not answer. (Whenever I feel myself wanting to write down one of those sorts of things as a response, I just stop myself.)
And while one might be eager to say that we'd have no basis to speculate here, we can, of course, appeal to past examples of "paranormal" things being announced (whether we agree with their ultimate paranormality or not). I think the boring answer here is that people inclined to believe in the paranormal are going to see it as a justification for their own beliefs, and people (like me) who are very skeptical of something violating the laws of physics are going to place their bets on a naturalistic explanation even if we don't have a ready one at hand. "Caught on camera" is not actually very good evidence at all—cameras have been known to be easy to fool since they were invented—and just because people wouldn't necessarily know what the good answer was doesn't mean there isn't one (I don't know what all UFOs are reported to be, but I doubt they are extraterrestrials). And we know that there are people who will believe to be supernatural even things which are announced by the performers as flim flam, much less things which appeal to their sense of how the world might be arranged. In any case, the ultimate answer of "what would happen" depends on who you are talking about. It is fairly easy to predict the responses of scientists as a group, for example, and also fairly easy to predict the responses of dedicated paranormalists. Everyone in between, though, would probably go one way or the other. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - in this case I agree with Dismas. This is an impossible question. "If something utterly impossible happens - what will happen next?" - you can't answer that in any meaningful manner. Just about the only thing I would say is that as soon as something is provably real, it tends to move from the realms of the paranormal into the mainstream and everyone accepts it. This doesn't happen much - but one example I could think of would be Giant Sea Monsters...which turned out to be...well, giant, sea monsters! Colossal Squid...fifty feet long and strong enough to take on and kill a whale! We've managed to prove that they actually do exist, but only seriously, convincingly in the last 5 year. But now nobody bothers that the occasional fisherman will come back with "tall tales" of massive tentacled monsters - and not many paranormal people talk about them anymore because they've become "normal". It's become mundane - but 50 years ago, nobody would have believed you.
When this happens, the remainder of things that are paranormal remain in the paranormal and continue to be widely (and reasonably) disbelieved.
One assumes that enough evidence would remain here for science to figure out what happened - maybe it's explainable by the normal laws of science - maybe it needs new laws of science. But you can bet that the paranormal nut-jobs would just move on to something else. But people who have "just vanished" are very likely to be falling foul of deaths that mean their bodies are never found - or they are people who intended to vanish and leave "to start a new life"...who knows? SteveBaker (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that epistemologically you'd never be able to establish for sure that it was "impossible" anyway. To claim you know a priori that they did, indeed, "just vanish" (i.e. violate the laws of conservation of mass/energy), posits a sure knowledge that no individual is going to have. If we instead go with the phenomenological approach—"what did people see? what is the evidence?"—then it's not hard to guess how people would, in a very general sense, interpret it. We don't have to care whether or not it violates the laws of physics for that to be the case. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case of John Darwin, which is one of the biggest and most interesting ongoing news stories in Britain at the moment, has some relevance here. The article I have linked contains some interesting relevant material on this subject. I have to say that even at this early stage in the "story", it looks like it may well become one of those fascinating "once-in-a-generation" cases that will be remembered and talked about for a long time. Hassocks5489 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drug- DMT
I have recently been told about a drug called DMT which can be synthesized, but is found naturally in the human brain and is released just before death to produce a hallucinogenic state. How can such a thing have evolved? Something to ease your passing can not be a trait which is passed on from generation to generation, there is no 'survival of the fittest' reaso for such a mechanism to exist, so why does it? RobertsZ (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion of that theory in the Dimethyltryptamine article. Note that it is in the section titled 'Speculation. Specifically, it mentions first that "Dr. Rick Strassman, [...] advanced the theory that a massive release of DMT from the pineal gland prior to death or near death was the cause of the near death experience (NDE) phenomenon", and then goes on to include "Strassman speculated that DMT is made in the pineal gland,[...] However, no one has looked for DMT in the pineal yet." Without any proof that DMT does indeed act as suggested, it is premature to question how such a mechanism would have evolved. --LarryMac | Talk16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it hasn't been determined that DMT is actually released just before death, it has just been found within the body and its hallucinogenic affect has been noted? RobertsZ (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took some dmt a few years ago, pretty good stuff, you can watch yourself walk into the next room, and then BAMB! your back with yourself, but just as soon as that happens, you are walking away again, or sitting down, one always seems to be a few second behind ones self. Freaky, very Hunter S Thompson. Adrenalin is pretty good too, but doesnt last for long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your getting at Atlant, but your list still made me smile, looks like a list of my typical wikipedia browsing, end up totaly off topic, from DMT you got to shoe polish, amazing. RobertsZ (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to guess, Atlant is pointing out that there are tons of ways our brains react to minute doses of chemicals that produce euphoric effects, and that you don't have to have the brain specifically evolve towards any one of them for the possibility to be there. Our brains did not "evolve" to recognize LSD; LSD happens to be a chemical which plays games with our neurons based just on how they are. (Also note, re: another comment I made earlier, let's not always assume that we are talking about specifically human evolution here—it could be an issue with primates, with mammals in general, etc. Don't assume any given trait a human has was uniquely evolved for human beings.) --23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.86.187 (talk)
The answer to what I was getting at was contained in the last Wikilink I provided ;-). It's the first thing I flash to whenever I hear "DMT".
(squeeze): Toluene (C7H8 (C6H5CH3) is a component of inhalants, such as glue, nail polish remover, paint thinner and shoe cream. It produces a high of sorts for sniffers of normal household chemicals. Sadly, some people have died from inhaling such aerosols. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that there could be an evolutionary basis for this (although I personally doubt it). We are social animals who live in groups with our offspring. Suppose someone who has a gene for an "easy death" - which is passed onto their kids - dies in the presence of all of their children. The fact that their death was "easy" and seemingly painless might reduce the incidence of depression and anxiety in their children and thereby improve their chances of having children of their own and passing on the gene. Someone who thrashes around, yelling and screaming in pain and terror might very well cause their children to be grieving for much longer - and therefore unwilling or unable to procreate for a long time after. SteveBaker (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes sense, a very logical attempt at explaining how DMT may have evolved, although even you say you doubt your theory, it is by far the most sensible answer so far, thanks Steve. Any more answers or ideas are welcome, RobertsZ (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit doubtful to me. The effect on an overall population would be pretty small, I imagine, and concerns with "easy deaths" and "good deaths" are historically contingent, not culturally universal (there is a rich literature on the history of death for those who are interested, though we don't have a Wikipedia article on the subject, amazingly!). Personally if there was such an effect, I would expect it to be related to something else, not a specialized "death drug" but rather a scaled up version of a standard response to shock or something like that, or the inadvertant result of the brain hemorrhaging, etc. It seems unlikely to me that there would be enough selective pressure to evolve a specific death response of this sort. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Underwear in winter
One annoying thing about winter is having to switch underwear at least once every day. Outdoors, it's too cold to wear short underwear. Indoors, it's too hot to wear long underwear. During work, I can manage wearing long underwear the whole time, but when I get back home, I have to immediately switch to short underwear.
Is this any easier for women? Women's stockings cover the whole leg but seem to be made of thinner cloth. My father told me he once met a British man who admitted to wearing women's stockings at winter, to keep warm. Should I also investigate to the issue? JIP | Talk20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could turn the heating down at home so it is comfortable to wear long underwear all the time, and save on fuel bills? I don't recommend ladies stockings: they are likely to be too short for you, and you will either have to negotiate the lumpiness of garter belts or the sweatiness of tights. SaundersW (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about less heating at home, if it's an option. You might also consider wearing easily removable layers for outdoors. A second pair of trousers over the top of your work trousers might keep you warm, but you don't have to change when you get to work, rather just removing a layer like you take off a coat. This is something many motorcycle riders use every day. A long, good quality, ankle length coat might also have a similar effect. Steewi (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived most of my life in very cold places (Alaska, Finland, Michigan, Chicago, etc) I can sympathize with your plight. However, there's a solution! I would suggest investing in some silk underwear! Not only is silk fantastically comfortable, it is also the premier fabric to have next to your skin during the winter. It insulates you when you need to stay warm, and it keeps you cool when you need to stay cool. It does a great job of wicking away perspiration, and it is lightweight so it doesn't weigh you down like thick cotton long johns do. I don't want to push any particular company, but if you google the words "winter", "silk", and "underwear", you'll find some good sources online to select from. Some companies will even send you a catalog with photos of pretty ladies wearing silk underwear, which might also (depending on your inclination) keep you warm in the winter, too. Just kidding! Saukkomies04:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 14
Lucite
How hard would it be to mount something of my own in lucite without having irregularities, bubbles, etc. or killing myself on fumes? I'm thinking about mounting a rock in lucite, but am not seeing any easy or cost-effective way to do that. I should probably note that am a complete klutz in any sort of laboratory situation and couldn't be expected to do anything complicated. (Also, is it just me, or does lucite's chemical composition look a lot like a praying mantis?) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider looking up information on clear casting resins. For instance, there Castin' Craft resins. I tried to cast an old processor chip into their clear poly resin. It didn't work all that well, but I suspect that was more due to the age of the chemicals. No bubbles, but it didn't harden all the way. Fresh chemicals and a little experience might work better. The fumes are pretty potent, and things work better when it is warm, so doing it outside in the winter might not work so well. Their Easy Cast product might be easier to work with, but I have no experience with it. --Mdwyer (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Italian film called, Un Fatto di Sangue Nel Commune di Sculiana Fra Due Uomini per Causa di Una Vedova si Sospetano Moventi Politici. Amore-morte-shimmy. Lugano Belle. Tarantelle. Taralucci è Vino. (1978). Known in English as Revenge. Rockpocket00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Among IMDB titles, Another Demonstration of the Cliff-Guibert Fire Horse Reel, Showing a Young Girl Coming from an Office, Detaching Hose, Running with It 60 Feet, and Playing a Stream, All Inside of 30 Seconds (1900). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆00:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D[12]
Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating Subhumanoid Zombified Living Dead, Part 3[13]
But, these are not original movies. They are classic movies with redubbed audio.
The Fable of the Kid Who Shifted His Ideals to Golf and Finally Became a Baseball Fan and Took the Only Known Cure[14]
Without having any knowledge on the subject, I imagine that the problem with a banana is that it doesn't have enough water in it and/or its internal cell structure is such that it will deform more than it will break and be liquified. Raw potatoes are crispy enough and full of enough water that it isn't too surprising that they could be juiced. (Note that if this were some sort of children's cartoon I'd probably break out into song about all of the fruits that can be juiced... You can juice a blueberry / As long as its washed / But don't juice a cherry / If the pit isn't tossed! / Oh, there are so many wonderful fruits / That taste really lovely / if they are juiced!) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
can't wait to pee . . . then can't pee
This is something that I have happen a lot (no smart comments here! lol): I'm driving home and part way there, I gotta pee. Of course I have to hold it. The closer I get to home, the worse I have to pee. By the time I get inside and up to the toilet, I can barely hold it any longer. However, once I am in position to actually have a pee . . . it takes forever to begin! Any suggestions (physiologically) as to why this might be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.21.46 (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, and it's important to know, are you male or female? Saukkomies 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Distribution of books across Dewey or LOC categories
I recently had an idea that it would be neat to read a statistically reasonable sample of books across all the different subject areas. One basic way would be to read a book in each major Dewey or LOC category. This is far from perfect, however, because these categories have wildly different number of books in them, and so it would make more sense to do a true (or nearly true) statistical sample. But for this I need to know what percentage of the total is in each category. I wasn't able to find any numbers of this sort. Any thoughts? (Please note: I'd really like fine-grained statistics, like for each of the 1000 Dewey categories or even more, and not just for the 10 major groups).
One idea I had was to download a catalog of a small/medium library that has call numbers using one of these systems, and then compute the statistics off of that, but I can't find any catalog that's in a list form rather than a search interface.
--Ornil (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
