Miscellaneous desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

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

September 18[edit]

dailymotion account deletion[edit]

How to delete your Dailymotion.com account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.43 (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have an FAQ and the fourth question down is how to delete your profile. Is that what you mean? If not, it might be best to ask the people at DailyMotion.com rather than us. They'd be more familiar with their own policies. Dismas|^(talk) 04:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do deaf people talk with an accent?[edit]

I have a friend who is deaf in both ears presumeably all his life, and wears hearing aids. He still has some hearing so he is able to talk clearly, but his voice sounds like he is yawning all the time, why is this? How much of the way our voices sound comes from being able to hear ourselves and others speak? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it. Infants can hear all of the phonemes, but after a certain age (early on) we can only hear the ones we heard in the first few months. Chomsky hypothesized something like this... the language acquisition system. It should be noted that a number of people have tried to draw a connection between Chomksy's politics and his linguistic scholarship (in the latter of which he is unquestionably revolutionary). He's, to my knowledge, mostly dismissed those analogs. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I knpow the only way a person born deaf can be taught to speak is by viewing lips and feeling vibration, for example by holding an inflated rubber balloon. That must influence the style of speech that the OP observes. (The question is unclear about the deaf person: a lifelong deaf person cannot hear at all and so has no use for hearing aid, and can learn to speak intelligibly.) It is necessary to hear oneself to speak comfortably and this is why telephones are equipped with Sidetone. However people are usually surprised when they first hear a recording of their own voice. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a lifelong deaf person cannot hear at all and so has no use for hearing aid - that is simply untrue, Cuddlyable3. Except in some extreme cases, "deaf" does NOT mean "unable to hear any sounds at all". Even people classified as profoundly deaf can hear something, and very often hearing aids can help. A former partner of mine is in exactly this situation. He went deaf in the first week of life, after a blood transfusion went wrong. Without aids, his hearing is extremely limited (but not totally zero); but with aids, he gets by very well. He'll call me on the phone and keep me chatting for hours at a time; he plays Beethoven and Brahms magnificently on the piano; and his speaking voice has very few indications he has any hearing problem at all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed note that cochlear implants can often benefit people who have "severe to profound sensorineural hearing impairment in both ears" but have a functioning auditory nerve. While cochlear implants stimulate the auditory nerve, so can be considered a bionic ear and arguably not a hearing aide, they are something it pays to be aware of if you're considering deafness. Our article goes in to some details, but notably they are of greatest benefit if implanted at a very young age, our article suggests under 2 years old. It also says for those who have passed a critical stage of adolescence, they may not be able to learn to understand speech. You've probably heard of them because of the controversy they've caused in the deaf community as discussed to some extent at Cochlear implant#Controversy in Deaf culture which may be dying down. Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pope[edit]

When the popmobile visits the uk, does it need a license? Or his he driving around with no tax and no insurance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.38.32 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pay tax for my car in Austria, have an Austrian insurance, and I can drive around without paying anything and without needing a special license in lots of countries. I guess the same goes for the Pope. Of course, some insurances don't cover stuff that happens outside the country - in my case, it doesn't cover countries outside of the EU. Rimush (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Popemobile, there are a number of such vehicles, designed for use in different situations. Whenever one is in use on the road it displays the Papal licence plate number, which is registered in the Vatican City. It is thus reasonable to assume that the vehicle complies with its own home laws on road tax and registration. Ensuring that cover extends to use in other countries will be a matter for the Holy See and its insurers. Ka renjc 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One suspects that the church and/or the Vatican are big enough to self insure. HiLo48 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the rules of the country they are visiting, I suppose. In the UK you are required to have, and show to the authorities on demand, a valid insurance policy if you drive on the road. This also applies to drivers of vehicles visiting from other countries. Saying "I'm rich enough to be able to settle any claim out of my own resources" isn't an allowable substitute. It's possible the Vatican has its own insurance company with itself as the customer, but if not, I would suspect (OR alert) that it has insurance like any other organization that owns and operates motor vehicles. Ka renjc 19:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears two Mercedes Popemobiles were flown into the UK, both using the "SCV1" papal numberplate. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311980/POPE-VISIT-Holy-Merc-transport-Benedict-XVI-UK.html MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have insurance can they confiscate your car or stop you from driving? Or just fine you? If they can only fine you then wouldn't the Pope have diplomatic immunity so could just ignore the fine if he wanted to? [1] Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, if the police stop you and find you have no insurance, they will confiscate your car and make you walk home. Some traffic police cars are fitted with a gizmo that reads number plates and alerts the operator if there is no tax or insurance[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the ANPR insurance and tax system works for foreign cars, because their records aren't on the UK's databases. However, uninsured cars certainly may be seized on the spot, leaving the driver to walk home, and the police are increasingly using their powers to crush such vehicles, particularly those belonging to repeat offenders (see here). Ka renjc 11:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can drive a car from a EU state in the any other EU for short periods (six months a time, IIRC), before having to register the car in the new state, assuming that the Vatican City counts as EU state. However, the Pope's driver will probably have diplomatic immunity, thus Britain can't prosecute him. The best that the British Government could do is to revoke the recognition of the driver's diplomatic passport and expel him, but this is would cause a major incident. There are tales of diplomats racking up thousands of pounds of parking fees and unpaid congestion charges. CS Miller (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of the articles referenced above said that a British police officer will probably be driving, not one of the pope's own guys. Buddy431 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's sorta what I said above but it sounds like they could theoretically confiscate and crush the popemobile. Unless the popemobile (well a diplomat's vehicle) has the same pseudo extraterritorial status (well there doesn't seem to be another name for it) as a diplomatic mission. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Actually extraterritoriality suggests the popemobile may have full extraterritoriality. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the Pope has diplomatic immunity anyways. Googlemeister (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the following piece of furniture called?[edit]

does anyone know? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A welsh dresser? Possibly also a hutch. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sideboard "A sideboard is an item of furniture traditionally used in the dining room for serving food, for displaying serving dishes such as silver, and for storage" - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For visual comparison, see google image searches for welsh dresser, hutch, sideboard, and buffet + furniture. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture names vary from country to country, and from region to region within a country, of course. I can report that in the American South, "sideboard" has traditionally meant a rather formal cabinet on legs with a countertop, typically set against a wall of the dining room where serving dishes might be placed for convenience during a meal, or decorative items at other times. See the illustration here. A more modern equivalent term would be "buffet." But as to the piece the questioner asked about, that's also a fairly common piece of less-formal furniture down here, though I would tend to call it a hutch, not a sideboard, because of the shelves on top. "Welsh dresser" seems like a good term, maybe that's what it was originally called, I'm not sure. Textorus (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Welsh dresser. A hutch is for keeping dinner in before it is killed. DuncanHill (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, wabbit fwicassee, my favowite. Textorus (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) see you saying that!

- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 05:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This must be regional; I learned to talk in the American midwest, and that's a picture of a hutch. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, grew up in the Midwest and I'd call it a hutch as well. Dismas|^(talk) 02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I grew up in the northeast, and I'd have called this a credenza. Credenzas are more for kitchen and pantry use, while hutches seemed to be used more for storage and display in living areas. --Ludwigs2 02:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call that a "serving table", although maybe this is different because of the shelves. (If the shelves has glass doors I'd call it a china cabinet.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a china cabinet if it has glass doors. And down south here, a credenza is a long, low piece of formal living room furniture: a sideboard as I described above, without legs, or very short ones. Which just goes to show that the names of common furnishings can vary widely by region. Textorus (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in northern England, I've never heard of "hutches" or "credenzas". It's just a sideboard here (or sometimes just a "dresser") (Who are the Welsh?). Dbfirs 08:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UK resident) - I'd endorse "Welsh dresser" in this case, as being a specific type (or possibly forerunner) of sideboard. More useful information here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Welsh dresser" is the UK term. A sideboard does not have the display shelves, which are called the "dresser top". If you took away the dresser top and left the lower cupboards/drawers unit with a flat top, then that would be a sideboard. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Concensus' seem to be it's whatever term is currently used in your locality! At least we all seem to understend what each other are talking about, even if we can't agree on one common term. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 08:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are two nations divided by a common language. -- Winston Churchill (attributed). CS Miller (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing actually. But I thought Patton said it, or was he just quoting Churchill? Or was that just in the movie? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 16:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we all spell conSensus with an S.... Pedant = Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody quite seems to know where it came from, in its current form, but I've never seen it attributed to Churchill in such a way that you could check for yourself. So I think it's just one of those quotes that gets attributed to Churchill, Wilde or Milligan, regardless of fact. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube video as wikipedia article reference[edit]

I'm editing article about Audi V8 and I found couple of videos (two from YouTube), one from other video service with footage on which it was going 280km/h on the autobahn. Links to those films were to back up fact that this model haven't got an electronic speed limiter as opposed to its successor, Audi A8. Those links were deleted and now I don't know how else can I prove that, I know that some official test would be better but I have access only to those movies, aren't they sufficiently legitimate (considering that there are 3 films on which the same situation is documented)? Shaman (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the belief that YouTube videos uploaded by anonymous users cannot be used as reliable sources in articles because of the possibility that the person who uploads it may doctor it. I read that argument on Talk:Lil_Wayne#UNRELIABLE_SOURCE.21, and I have to say, they're kinda right. Perhaps if Audi themselves had an official YouTube channel and uploaded the videos that you speak of on it, then you could get away with using those videos as sources for the article. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may also fall under wp:original research. There should be a more reliable way to show whether a car has a particular feature? Company website, published car specifications, vehicle handbook or technical manual for example? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 05:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the wrong venue, actually. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems the right place to enquire. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 06:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cortisone shots[edit]

I take cortisone shots in my knees and hip. they help for awhile. If I exercise or play golf will the effect of the shots wear out faster than if I don't do these things? I don't need an opinion on a sedentary life style. Any opinion will be appreciated. Thanks Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.129.89 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the Reference desks are not permitted to give medical advice. Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]