Miscellaneous desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 30

Soft boiled eggs for Scotch eggs

Can you use soft boiled eggs to make Scotch eggs instead of hard boiled ones?, Heegoop, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

When you cooked the sausage meat surround, the egg yolk would cook through.hotclaws 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the hardness of the egg yolk/whites depends solely on temperature, and not at all on the time it's heated. In other words, you can cook an egg at 65 degrees Celsius for hours and hours, and you will still only have soft-boiled egg (a very nice soft-boiled egg in fact, a delicacy in modern cooking). Only when the temperature gets high (around 100 degrees C)will the egg become hard boiled. Since cooking meat follows the same rules (it's all proteins), you can cook the sausages at a lower temperature as well (say 70 deg. C), so long as you cook them long enough for the egg to cooks through. Of course, this rules out deep frying, because the crust and sausage meat would just soak up the oil. You'd have to bake it in a good temperature controlled oven, and maybe quickly deep fry it to get a nice crust.

It's a lot of work, but you would be the first person to create a Scotch Egg in the style of molecular gastronomy. risk (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your full of crap! the enzymes will denature at sustained temperatures even if they are not particularly high, which will cause the egg to hard boil nevertheless.Makey melly (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not full of crap. You are too quick to judge, and a little rude. The proteins become denatured, yes. That's what the coagulation of the egg whites is in any boiled egg. The point is that egg whites react differently to different temperatures. Hard boiled egg whites are how they react to high temperatures. At temperatures around 70 degrees, the proteins do denature, but form an entirely different structure, which we know as softboiled eggs. Temperature is the only cause of this alignment, which means that if you make sure the temperature stays low, the egg whites will stay soft.

I have in fact tried this myself, by cooking eggs for an hour in very carefully controlled water, and it works. The eggs are very nice, and quite different from what you'd expect from a boiled egg. Of course, don't take my word for it, here is just one source. A similar thing goes for the meat. Cooking meat is largely about the structure that the proteins form, which is caused by temperature alone. Which is why chefs like Heston Blumenthal will cook a roast duck for days, rather than hours. risk (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why are they cooking them for days then? Whats the point if you could cook for 5 seconds at hight temperature (that is assuming the WHOLE meat is evanly cooked all over) ?Makey melly (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the eggs, you cook them for an hour to make sure the inside of the egg reaches 65 degrees as well. I assume the reasoning with the meat is similar (with the added benefit that the fat doesn't go anywhere, making the meat more succulent). And the reason for doing this at all (instead of just cooking it quickly) is that the end result is much nicer. risk (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do want to cook at a high-enough temperature, though, that the growth of pathogenic bacteria is inhibited. Remember the basic rule of food sanitation: "Keep hot things hot and cold things cold." Keep them at room (or body!) temperature long enough, and you'll die when you eat them

Atlant (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice. I know that salmonella will not survive for more than 2 minutes at 60 degrees Celsius, so you're safe with the eggs, in that respect. But for meat, you should check the minimum safe temperature. risk (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a clarification) I wasn't trying to suggest that 60C is a bad cooking temperature. But even aside from chemical reasons (like what temperature denatures what), one can't keep progressing down to lower and lower temperatures and longer and longer cooking times; one eventually reaches the point where pathogens will just love the medium they're growing in. So, for example, 37C for several weeks would be a truly awful idea ;-).

Atlant (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuni redux

In reference to an archived question by User:BrainyBabe, I'm about finished reading Nuni by John Howard Griffin. It is not an account of his efforts on behalf of the Allies in the Pacific theater, it is a work of fiction wherein he is the sole survivor of a plane crash and is more or less adopted by a primitive tribe on an island. It is clear to me that he draws heavily on real-life experiences and that the island in question is indeed in the Solomons, one of the Nggela group, also known as "Florida". In his book he uses some of the native language, notably beti for "water", which appears in "A Grammar of the Language of Florida, British Solomon Islands" by W. G. Ivens in Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. 8, No. 4, (1937), pp. 1075-1110, published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3488495). You will need access or to pay for that publication. The word nuni does not appear in that Grammar, unfortunately. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that! So we have the general location confirmed, but not the specific island. That seems to exhaust the printed sources; I wonder if the US Army or Air Force would be able to provide details of his posting if someone was interested enough to ask them. (He was in the Air Force when it was part of the Army, so I don't know which one would have the records now.) --Anonymous, 03:23 UTC, April 30, 2008.

This has been an amazing collaboration. Milkbreath has won through. (The islands known as Florida are a small group within the dispersed and scattered Solomons, so I think it is fair to say that the exact one doesn't matter.) I thank everyone who has participated, Milkbreath especially, but the tireless Anonymous and several others too. It is good to have a question which stretches us, which relies on facts and research and reading, and a little imagination and lateral thinking too. Drinks are on me! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Rockwell

Norman Rockwell Boy Scout Set of six prints Set of Six Norman Rockwell Prints - Boyscouts I have a unique set of prints from Norman Rockwell that I found in the attic. It's a set of 6 all of the scenes are BoyScout scenes. They are come in a vanilla envelope with a history of Norman Rockwell on the front and a pic of him. I was wondering what year they came from and how much they are worth. Thank you and all your help is appreciated!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.30.58 (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some information, and pictures of Rockwell's Boy Scout paintings. For general dates: "From 1924 to 1974, in all but two years, he painted calendars for the Boy Scout organization." This site is selling Rockwell Boy Scout prints at between $3.99 and $10.99. SaundersW (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the type of envelope is called manila, not vanilla. Dismas|^(talk) 08:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the envelope is white, of course, Dismas! Then there is the bacon lot next door where a new house is about to be built. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitute vs 'normal' woman

Imagine that you have two choices: go to a prostitute and pay her an amount of $x or invest your time listening to a 'normal' woman and after that do the same that you would do to a prostitute. The amount of money is equivalent to your potential earning in the time for listening to the 'normal' woman.

Does this make these woman equal? 217.168.4.83 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the myopic and offensive way you've defined the women, as vessels that take money as an input and have sex as an output. --69.110.41.71 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they take money. In the second case they take listening as input and sex as output. The point is that time = money. 217.168.4.83 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That speaks of low self esteem if you think you have nothing to offer but money. Interpersonal relationships are complicated, but if no one got more than their money's worth out of them I doubt we'd bother. --Lisa4edit (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think just listening to a woman is enough to make them have sex with you?.You are sadly mistaken.hotclaws 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it helps. Take into account that I said "Imagine that...". 217.168.0.93 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case you are in a Zero-sum game. You pay, she pays back with some sort of sexual favor. In the second case you have the possibility of building something new (a family, a relationship, gathering new experiences). I don't see listening to woman as an unpleasant task to get some sex. Both activities are pleasant for me. Paying - no matter for what - on the other hand is always something negative for me (although a necessary evil). SaltnVinegar (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignoring the awful morality/mindset of the question) You appear to be trying put a valuation on your 'time' and wondering whether your time is better spent being productive (i.e. earning money) and buying sex than it is being 'unproductive' (i.e. being a person) and 'earning' sex. Ignoring the social/moral/dubious parts of this we could say... X = potential hour earnings, Y = hours needed to seduce woman and Z = price of hooker... Therefore if X x Y > Z then a hooker is the best use of your resources. If X x Y < Z then seduction is the best plan. It's a awful awful idea but if I were to try be amoral about it that's how you could do your own little cost-benefit analysis. Define X what money you could earn not seducing, Y how long you estimate it takes to seduce and Z the price of a comparable hooker and apply the formula... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can cut to the chase here and say that all people are created equal. What they do in their lives doesn't alter that. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps all people are born equal, but we are what we do. To the questiones: the problem in your question is that your are starting fromt he assumption that every relationship is an exchange of something: time for money, money for sex, you name it. However healthy relationships are not an act of accounting. We are changing, developing ourselves, and targeting new fields in a healthy relation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative view (proposed during a discussion of why celebrities use prostitutes) is that you pay not for the sex, but so that the person will go away afterwards. SaundersW (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're a football player, of course. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That line was used by, although I do not know if it originated with, pop star George Michael, some time after he was outed by a "pretty police" sting. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now (again ignoring any kind of ethical/moral dilemma) if we factor in the increased probability of contracting an STD from a prostitute, and the probability that she'll nick your money and run, or have her associate knife you for it, or that she is an undercover police officer in areas where the profession is illegal.... --Prestidigitator (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most areas throughout the worlds prostitutes are only illegal if they advertise on the street. if my sexy nextdoor neighbor said to me "I'll fuck you for $10" thats not illegal, cause its consent.Makey melly (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's illegal to have sex for money. The problem with this is that it's hard to define a law wherein it's illegal to buy something that would be legal to get for free. Fex: fucking's legal, selling is legal, but selling fucking is illegal. Thus, it's hard to make a clear boundary between what is and isn't illegal. Ziggy Saw dust 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no it isn't illegal to have sex for money, not in every country. This is not the US-only Wikipedia. The US is not the world. --NellieBly (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's that noise coming from my car?

After driving several miles my car makes all kinds of clicking, or ticking, noises. They seem to be coming from the engine. Even when I open the hood I see nothing moving, nothing obvious that is making the sounds. What is the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.212.100 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without access to the audio (and comparison audios maybe) I'd say that sounds like metal expansion to me. When your engine gets warm it does that. It could be all sort of more worrysome things though. Or something trivial like a bolt shook loose somewhere. Also check when you've last changed the oil or if you are low. --Lisa4edit (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should possibly contact a mechanic. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is per Lisa4edit ... it's thermal expansion / contraction, a relatively normal occurrance and in the vast majority of cases, nothing to be concerned about. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And be aware that Wikipedia cannot give medical advice ;-) SaundersW (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go see a car doctor. Makey melly (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait are you being sarcasm?Makey melly (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean sarcasticMakey melly (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe call 1-888-Car Talk - be ready to answer the weekly puzzler though. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, much "ticking" is the sound of semi-lubricated parts (rockers? rocker arms? something just under the head), and it usually means CHECK OIL NOW, not 30 minutes from now.

-- Danh 63.226.147.160 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car dashboard light?

I am driving a Ford Fusion rental car, pretty new (2007?), and a weird light came on that I couldn't decipher. It basically looks like a bucket with little dots in the bottom of it. I tried to look up the Ford Fusion owner's manual online (there wasn't one in the car that I could find) and it wasn't one of the featured lights—the light I saw fit in the instrument cluster to the right of the battery light and to the left of the airbag light, and in the manuals there is a conspicuous blank spot there (see page 10 of this pdf).

What's this light trying to tell me? It doesn't mean oil, battery, "maintenance needed", or any of the other common ones. Whatever little iconography it is trying to indicate is totally baffling to me. Any ideas? --69.110.41.71 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the "door ajar" icon seen on page 13 of the pdf? I don't see that one on the instrument panel layout, and it sorta has dots in the bottom. — Lomn 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --69.110.41.71 (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the rental company. William Avery (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt they'll have the slightest idea. They aren't exactly auto wizards and I'm not really that interested in talking with a guy from Bangalore for an hour trying to explain it to him before he figures out who to call instead, and inevitably they will tell me in the end to either 1. return it early (huge pain and not feasible) or 2. just ignore it unless it breaks (maybe you haven't tried to call a US car rental company lately, but they're all outsourced up the wazoo. It's not something one does casually!). I'm turning in the car in a day anyway (and not using it for much of anything until then) so I'm not panicking about it or anything like that. I'm just curious—its meaning was so unobvious, unless it was trying to say something like "there are rocks in your bucket." --69.110.41.71 (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it needs a wash?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could the "bucket" be a poorly executed icon for the windshield and the dots indicating the washer fluid? Is the washer fluid low? Dismas|^(talk) 08:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I mean, I guess it could be, though I wouldn't know. I haven't used the washer fluid myself. I'll see if it's still on tomorrow and, if so, get a picture of it. --69.110.41.71 (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does your rental company have lots of different makes? One that I used had the same make and model throughout and mechanics who pounced as soon as you return the car, to check it over. They would likely have someone who knows. I see no prob in talking to them, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't worked with the company I've used (major big company, dozens and dozens and dozens of different cars, call service is totally outsourced, I already had to call once to change a reservation). --69.110.41.71 (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a non-standard variant of "water in fuel"? APL (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask a mechanic, preferably at a Ford dealer. --Anon, 22:29 UTC, April 30, 2008.

In the 2008 manual, there's a warning light in that location for "low tire pressure" (see page 13), with a picture of a wiggly "U" containing "!". I think it's supposed to be a cross-section of the bottom of a tyre with the bottom flattened. Bovlb (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I think I forgot about the "!". Anyway I found the same manual earlier today. Anyway, not a big deal (I kicked the tires, they look like they'll get me to the rental agency tomorrow, which is the last I need of the car). Very unintuitive image! --69.110.41.71 (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels of fire

Hi, I remember a commercial for chewing gum, probably Orbit, most likely from the early 1990s. A young kid skating through town (steep roads, like San Fransico), high-fiving his friends as he goes. At the end, I think the name of the gum is etched in the asphalt as he continiues towards the sea, possibly with a setting sun. The music is something like "run, run, run, wheels of fire, as the king of the city.... etc". Anyone remembering this? The real question is: Anyone have a link to a video clip of this commercial, or the name of the song? I saw it on Norwegian TV but it looked like it was used internationally. Thanks! Jørgen (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linesmens' flags

In the English Football leagues some linesmen (asst refs!) carry yellow flags, others red and yellow checked. What significance, please?86.209.24.107 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

There's no reference to the colour of the flag in the Laws of the Game. William Avery (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of flags in the laws at all, in fact, strangely enough. I'd say they would just have to be brightly coloured and noticable. But I'm just guessing. --Fribbler (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be in the laws, but there almost certainly are in the regulations of various leagues / competitions. I did some searching for an answer to this question and came across flags advertised as being in compliance with FIFA regulations. But my googling brought nothing from the FIFA site (not that I tried very hard). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I tried many sources before turning to Wikipedia. I hope to receive a reply from the Premier League and/or the Referee's Association - but am not holding my breath. Agree (as an ex referee) about the Laws. So I imagine it has to do with seniority. But I'd like to really know.86.197.174.121 (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

The Premier League handbook only seems to mention that they're provided by the league itself, ho hum, anyway - the guardian's "The Knowledge" section does have some interestingly plausible reasons here. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scale models firing shells

Hi. I glue together Shermans and F-15s every now and then, but they remain somewhat static. How would I go about making (or finding a designer and supplier of) an actual firing mechanism, not unsimilar to a cannon? Perhaps to use something akin to a fire cracker to make an explosive shell. Scaller (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about looking at starter pistols and the like? I once saw a very impressive radio-controlled but steam-powered battleship which fired 8mm blanks in its guns. Assuming that you can't cannibalise an actual starting pistol (probably the wrong shape and size for a model) you would need to ensure you build a sufficiently-sturdy breech to contain the explosion. 86.158.97.36 (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out our articles "Carbide Cannon" and "Big-Bang Cannon". They use acetylene gas and a spark to make noise. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will.....

....locking up the environmentalists guarantee LOWER gas and food prices? A Mark Le Vinne, who is a extremely conservative radio talk show host, and others say that,"You Lock up those damn environmentalists, every damn one, incl. Al Gore, you WILL see those gas and food prices GO DOWN!"

HE and others have said that:

Environmentalisim is a scam and encourages terrorism, thus he and others imply that the RICO statute and the USA Patriot Acts should be used against all environmental groups and environmentalists.
You lock them up in prison and mental hospitals, incl. high profile nuts like Al Gore, and you'll see those gas and food prices go DOWN.
Drill in Anwar and if whats left of the environmentalists try anything, SHOOT them, as in a Martial Law situation.

You should write a article about this firebrand Mark Le Vinne. I have heard him myself, Mon-Fri on the radio myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.144.214 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, forgot sig. Must be getting senile. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately proclaiming your extremist views on the radio does not make you notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the article on here about him. It is Mark Levine, conservative radio talk show host. Maybe the anti-environmentalist commentary should be placed there? MY radio announcer had misspelled his name. Thanks for the help. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, are rants like that one above worth placing on his article? Check his website to get a list of radio stations that carry the show, and you'll hear the SAME thing, similar things, worse, tonight. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Will locking up the environmentalists guarantee LOWER gas and food prices?" - No, it won't. Environmentalists have nothing to do with it and Mark Levine is an fool for trying to convince you that they are. Recent rises in food prices are due to higher gas prices. Higher gas prices are due to the supply and demand of oil as dictated by world markets and the whims of OPEC. Astronaut (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He believes that once the environmentalists are gone, there will be NO political opposition to what Business and industry want. No "Striped/Spotted Ass lizards" to hinder economic growth.205.240.144.214 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He and others blame the Spotted Owl crap for destroying the lumber industry in the Washington and the Oregon area. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Mark Levine sounds like a fuckwitted idiot. Rises in petrol prices are due, ultimately, to the increasing inavailability of oil. And increasing food prices are due to the increasing inavailability of viable agriculatural land (due to too much/too little percipitation). Ninebucks (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! :-). It's unfortunate that you can't write that in his article... Ilikefood (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of imprisoning them should make for an interesting tax hike.hotclaws 18:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you use bold text and CAPS LOCK, your apparent IQ goes down by leaps and bounds. Ziggy Saw dust 13:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text and ALL CAPS are used to emphasize what Mark Levine, others of that ilk have said. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, supply and demand. Since oil is more-or-less limited (we cannot increase the supply, in the long term), the only way to lower the cost is to lower demand. As owls do not drink oil, and environmentalists are very keen on not driving if possible, or driving high miles-per-gallon vehicles, may I suggest Mark Levine's research may be less then thorough (he may need to hire a biologist to correct his assumptions about the diet of spotted owls, for example). However, that doesn't answer his question - what is driving up the price of oil? If only we could find someone who drives a low miles-per-gallon vehicle... surely not he; surely not he. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironmandius (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Attacks

What is making the sharks attack people? Its all over the news RIGHT NOW! 205.240.144.214 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are more sharks attacking people than they were before, or are there more reports of sharks attacking people? Sometimes you will find this is a function of news reporting. One shark attack gets lots of press coverage for some reason, and suddenly shark attacks are considered 'newsworthy'. Now any shark attack gets press coverage, even if it wouldn't have before, which makes shark attacks more newsworthy, and so on. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched many shark documentaries. They stated scientifically most claimed shark attacks aren't shark attacks at all. Sharks are tasting us, the problem though is that they have razor sharp teeth and our leg is deli thin to them. Sharks do not like humans they aren't part of their diet, but I am sure if driving by extreme hunger then the shark might eat a human.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

According to some of those documentaries, they sometimes mistake people for seals, especially if they're wearing wetsuits (the people, not the sharks). After a bite, they realize their mistake and go looking for more nutritious food. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What is making the sharks attack people?" - the fact that people are going swimming in shark infested waters? Astronaut (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you see Shark attack? There were evidentally 62 reported unprovoked shark attacks in 2006 in the world. It could be there will be more this year. It could very well there will not be. Unless you've heard of 10 shark attacks in the past 10 days or something like that, I wouldn't presume there's anything unusual Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with human minds is that they are unable to handle coincidences. Shark attacks are rare, yet, sometimes, rare things happen often, the human mind then tries to find a common reason why these things should happen (which is often beneficial, but is not in genuine coincidences). A similar thing happened in my own country, where a number of suicides occured in South Wales, causing many human minds to wonder what the hell was happening, where as, in fact, there was nothing more insidious than a statistical inconsistancy afoot. Ninebucks (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College

Hello, I just wanted to know which colleges, private or public, in the US have the best writing progams? thanxs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.107.166 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you rate that? That would have to be a terribly subjective measurement. Rmhermen (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus (reputation)? The University of Iowa, John Hopkins and others at this site[1] and[2] for rankings. Here[3] for ghits. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at our College and university rankings article. There are a number of different organizations which produce rankings of universities in different areas. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 April 30