Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• 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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 23

Rubik's cube:: V-cubes 6&7

I am a rubiks cube enthusiast and I really want to buy the new Vcubes 6 and 7: but the problem is that they are way too much expensive. they are currently priced at 39Euros ($51.87) for V6, and 48 Euros ($63.84) for V7. I'd really like to buy both of them, but they are way too much expensive for a 14 yr old like me. My parents aren't as much understanding as i'd like them to be: they don't understand why I need to spend so much money on such nonessentials ("children's toys" they call them) so asking my parents for money is pretty much out of the question. so my question is: Is there any chance that the prices will go down in the future? How long do you think it will take, and how much will the price go down? And (I know this is probably stupid to ask, but still) is there a place where i can get them at a cheaper price?? Thankyou everyone!!Johnnyboi7 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can wait a few years you will be able to pick them up second hand for much lower prices. If they turn out to be popular they will be cloned when the patent expires in under 20 years and there will be many cheap imitations around. And the second hand market will be full of cubes that people don't want anymore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't answer your question directly but you could try a Google search on "teenager earn money". hydnjo talk 02:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More on the earning money thing, you could buy one with your own earned money to show your parents how much you really want them. The Reader who Writes (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys again for your thoughtful advices...all of you..

Additional question: For those of you who have purchased the vcube(s) already, is it actually worth all that money?? I mean, i already own a professor's cube(555) and a rubik's revenge(444) (they're both eastsheen products). is it any more exciting or challenging? with professor's and revenge it was really fun for me , since I could only solve the normal 333 at first, and i had no idea how to even begin solving a 444 or 555 so it was a big challenge for me. now i have overcome that challenge and after a few months they have lost their magic -- it doesn't attract me as it used to: it feels no different from the ordinary 333. I guess i could just try doing it on computer softwares (like gabbasoft) but mouse clicking can be quite irritable and rotating the cube to see the opposite side can be rather difficult. It just isn't the same as actually having it in the palm of your hand and physically rotating it. It has a subtle satisfaction that only cubists can appreciate.

So, is it much different from professors and revenge?? Is it actually worth the absurdly ridiculous price??? or would it be better off to be contempt with having professors and revenge, and trying the new ones out on the computer?? And how good are v-cube products compared to "Rubiks original" or Eastsheen? Apparently they have improved its mechanisms, but are they any smoother??Johnnyboi7 (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Europe, but in Canada at least, you can get a job at some fast-food restauraunts or Tim Hortons when you turn 14, and newspaper delivery jobs (but with much lower pay) are availible at a younger age still, as are other "jobs" such as snow shovelling. Or, another possibility is to win a contest (one that doesn't require you to be at age of majority, which is rare!) and save up the money. Or you could save up allowance over a long period. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Priapus Garden Gnomes descended from Greek fertility god?

I was recently doing some research for a paper I'm doing, and I saw that some scholars think that the traditional garden gnome is somehow related to the Greek god Priapus, most famous for his tremendous phallus. I'm just wondering why anyone would ever compare the expedia spokesman with a tremendously well hung mythological character. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

Any answers are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmopper25 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not Expedia - it's Travelocity. SteveBaker (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a page for Priapus, and it gives a little bit of info on the garden gnome thing, and it has a number of sources listed at the bottom that you may find potentially useful. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the ExpediaTravelocity mascot is to do with the Travelling gnome prank (jeez - we have an article about that?!!!).

It was common (at least as far back as the mid 1970's when I did this) to steal garden gnomes and to terrible things to them - principally because their owners are exhibiting a kind of canonical bad taste. In the 1976 University of Kent "Rag week" (a traditional British university charitable fundraising event) we spent most of one night with several hundred students scouring the gardens of the City of Canterbury for gnomes - which were kidnapped and brought to the hill on which the university sits - where each had a small ransom attached - with the money going to some worthy cause. Sadly, even though the ransom was a tiny amount of money (like 20p to 50p depending on the ugliness of the gnome and the presence or otherwise of fishing rod) we were actually happy to give back the gnomes for free - and the local police were carefully turning a blind eye to our activities, only a fraction of the several hundred gnomes we kidnapped were ever claimed. The owners who claimed them were happy to do so and most gave us much more than we asked. The pile of unclaimed gnomes we ended up tossing into the trash was one of the more bizarre sights I can recall in my life. Still, we did manage to raise the tone of that historic city by the large-scale elimination of the red-hatted vermin.

Anyway - one particularly popular form of Gnome prank is to steal one - then send it on a long trip, taking photos at every stop and sending them back (anonymously) to the original owner as postcards. This became known as a "Travelling Gnome" (yes, we have an article about THAT too!) - and that's where ExpediaTravelocity got the idea from. (And we even have an article about that! Where is my Gnome?).

Somewhere in this answer there should be the words "Garden Gnome Liberationists"...but that's just an excuse for ANOTHER silly link!

Weird - but true. SteveBaker (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Aging and Alcohol

Are there any alcohol beverages (ie rum, whiskey, beer, etc) that do NOT require aging? If so, what are they? Thanks, Aiuw 04:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Beaujolais nouveau - famously! This would be a longer reply - but it turns out that this is my 15,000th Wikipedia edit and my hands hurt. SteveBaker (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, depends on what you mean by aging. If you mean ingredients that do not include ethanol, that you can just mix together, and which instantly turn into an alcoholic beverage, nope. But you can get alcohol pretty quickly, in just a few days, although chances are that it'll taste really awful and give you explosive diarrhea: behold the Finnish wonder, kilju. I recommend it like I recommend a punch to the kidneys. (It was also discussed on the Ref Desk last year, though in a somewhat different context.) There are also other alcoholic beverages that go through a very quick fermentation process, such as Beaujolais nouveau.

And here's to the next 15,000, Steve. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ageing" refers to any of several unrelated processes:

• Letting the material get old so that, as the flavor compounds break down, new flavor compounds emerge.
• Letting the material get exposed to "cultures" (molds, funguses, bacterias, yeasts, etc.) so that the action on the material by the cultures adds new flavors.
• Storing the material in a medium which itself adds flavor (such as wooden barrels).

Most varieties of alcohol are aged by the first and third methods. In terms of alcohol which is "unaged" the two best that I can think of are moonshine (aka White Lightning, corn whiskey, hooch, etc.) and Vodka. Most aged "whiskeys" are essentially Vodka and/or corn whiskey which is left to sit in wooden barrels; the brown color comes from the way that the neutral spirit extracts compounds from the wood. There are also unaged rums, such as white rum; unaged tequilas, such as white, blanco, silver, or platinum tequilas. If you want an unaged spirit, you are usually looking for a clear, colorless spirit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some beers don't require much time to make. IIRC ale fermentation is done in a small number of days; it will then need two or three more days once the cask is tapped before it's ready to drink. The time between racking (filling the cask) and tapping can be a little while, but that's typically just for the practicalities of transport - I don't believe there's any minimum time required for that part of the process. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just to give it a chance to settle down after being shaken up by the transportation (the quickest way to get something into a cellar is to drop it, after all). If you tap it too soon, it will fizz up and make a terrible mess (just like opening a can of coke just after it's been dropped). I think the reason you leave it for a bit after tapping it is because you need to let all the bits settle back down to the bottom so they don't end up beer when you serve it. --Tango (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Those mechanical aspects are part of it, yes, but they're not the whole story. I used to be involved in organising a medium-sized beer festival (70-100 beers), including being part of the team deciding whether a particular beer was ready to be served yet. (The vast majority would be by opening night, but typically a few needed a little more time.) It's by no means uncommon to have a beer that has dropped bright ("bits settle[d] back down") but still tastes "green" or not-ready. Keeping the room too cold is a good way of causing this problem. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I remember recently reading where they are fairly successfully artificially aging wines in less than 10 minutes. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there was an article in New Scientist about using high voltage. It's briefly mentioned in Aging of wine. Perhaps not surprisingly, it's the Chinese who seem most interested in it in recent times Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe pruno has a relatively quick turnaround time. Tomdobb (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am among those who think that champagne should be drunk young, likewise ice wine. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The new wines of Vienna's heurigen are meant to be drunk very young.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fruit wine is best when consumed young, especially if it's home made. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

US Tax deduction

Hello, I was wondering, do you HAVE to file deductions? I filed my taxes early and I forgot that I had paid interest on a student load. I received a form today that would allow me to deduct the interest if I were to refile my taxes. I paid so little interest that I dont really care about deducting it, I'd much rather not refile it. Can I just leave it like that? 24.7.33.175 (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you are allowed to pay more than the required amount of taxes in the U.S. But this is only discussion, and does not constitute legal or financial/tax advice, for which you should consult an attorney or credentialed financial advisor. Edison (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From personal experience, overpaying federal income taxes may result in you getting a nastygram detailing your red tape inferiority and threatening an audit... along with a refund check for the amount you screwed up. It's a comical combination. — Lomn 13:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have received the refund check without the nastygram or audit threat after miscalculation of my tax liability in the government's favor. I'm not sure whether the government monitors student loan interest payments such that it would even discover your error, and it is certainly no crime to overpay the government. Note that none of us are qualified to offer legal or financial advice. Marco polo (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's possible your deductions add up to less than the standard deduction, in which case, it wouldn't matter anyway. Tomdobb (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The deduction for student loan interest is a separate line item; it's not part of your itemized deductions, and can be claimed even if you don't itemize. Of course it's more complicated than that, as it always is — in particular there's a maximum amount that can be claimed, an income cap for being allowed to claim the full amount, and a phase-out past that, and maybe other complications that I don't recall at the moment. But I wouldn't want readers who know they're not going to itemize to simply forget about deducting student loan interest if they're eligible to do so. --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A problem may arise if you claim the deduction in a following year or if you claim other items related to that loan. That is because there's a smudge in the paper trail for them. If you happen to get audited they might see fit to claim that you didn't have a student loan from that year on or some such. Authorities tent to be highly suspicious of honest citizens. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Random articles

When you click on the random article link in the navigation box, is there a chance you might get a sex-related article? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Edison (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RANDOM means RANDOM, there's no telling what article will pop up. FYI: Don't click it at school/work/other place where looking at that means trouble.  Buffered Input Output 14:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the vaguest possible recollection that Random article isn't actually random, but rather picked from a very small rapidly-shifting pool of articles. I've clicked Random a few times in rapid succession and actually gotten the same article again. 64.26.68.82 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In my very considerable experience - it's very hard to get ANYTHING except articles about Japanese railway stations. But the question about randomness has been asked before - there are some exceedingly subtle non-random things involved because (from memory) it actually does something like picking a random hash-table key rather than a strictly random article. That exerts a very subtle bias to not pick articles that happen to share a hash key with greater or fewer other articles...but because the hash function is rather good - that doesn't bias the results in any systemic way. It's a VERY subtle effect though. SteveBaker (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The random article question, or a variant thereof, surely must be among the most often asked on the Ref Desks (along with questions about sex; this one gets bonus points for including both!) I personally recall it being asked three or four times. Anyway, for those of a technical bent, the way it works is described at Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#Is the "random article" feature really random? Rockpocket 04:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey - any question I can answer without having to use the word 'coprophagia' is a win. SteveBaker (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if you don't get to mention aardvarks? Algebraist 16:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Aardvarqs have very little mouths and much, much, bigger pooh - I don't think they can be coprophagic.SteveBaker (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

When I click random article, I find that I get either a geographical stub or a biographical stub half the time. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But that doesn't imply any lack of randomness. Perhaps half of our articles are about people or places? It wouldn't surprise me. Our average article length is something like 300 words - so the fact that so many of them are stubs is also unsurprising. SteveBaker (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here. 80% of what I find are geographical stubs that don't take up enough room on the page to have a scroll bar, and 15% are start-quality biographical articles. One time I found an article on a dock in New Zealand, no joke. ^Tezkag₇₂ 03:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese railway stations? You're lucky. All the gods of randomness ever give me are cricket teams! :-)

Seriously, there's a FAQ entry on this, and a discussion on the village pump. APL (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How does one go from Roswell, New Mexico, into Mexico?

A friend (an author) is writing a book and he wants to know the following:

If one were in Roswell, New Mexico and one wanted to travel South and illegally cross the border, what would be the quickest way to do it (assuming one was happy to shoot border patrol agents)? Geographically it looks like going down into one of the small border towns like Ojinaga might be an idea, but having never been there, I've no idea how busy these parts of the border are or what the security's like?

Thanks in advance.--Rixxin (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If he wants "quickest" and is willing to blast through security, then why does he care what the security is like? Google Maps suggests that Alamogordo to El Paso is the quickest way. Otherwise, I think he needs to redevelop his criteria. — Lomn 14:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that an American citizen would have little difficulty crossing the border into Mexico at one of the legitimate border crossings (assuming of course they have a valid passport, no illegal weapons/drugs and are not wanted by the authorities).

If it really must be done illegally, I read somewhere that it is possible to wade across the Rio Bravo in many places along the Texas border. However, I suspect that the US border patrol is aware of this and have a long fence primarily designed to keep illegal imigrants out of the USA. Perhaps you could seek the help of illegal imigrants in Roswell and ask them how they came to the USA; and then reverse their route. Astronaut (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true that an American citizen can typically get into Mexico legally just by showing a driver's license, so there is no need for heroic measures. (Crossing the border in the opposite direction is definitely harder.) If the Mexican authorities were on the lookout to stop someone from crossing, though, the border fence along the Rio Grande extends no further east than Fort Hancock, Texas, according to this blog. If someone needed to cross into Mexico illegally, he or she could drive east on I-10 to the next exit east of Fort Hancock, near Mc Nary, Texas, then drive a short ways to the river, get out of the car, and wade across the river into Mexico. To stay mostly dry, that person could bring an inflatable dinghy in the car and row across at night (to avoid being conspicuous), since the river is sluggish at that point. Marco polo (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the quickest way be to take a flying saucer ? :-) StuRat (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Or a black helicopter? --Rixxin (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My friend thanks you all for your replies.--Rixxin (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lomn, here's a reply for you:

I probably should've clarified that my dude IS wanted by the police. Yes, he's willing to shoot a few guys but there's a difference between shooting two half asleep security guards in a hut and trying to shoot fifty dudes with machine guns, high tech cameras and a fence the size of Paris.

--Rixxin (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured on the wanted thing. Unfortunately, I don't have any practical experience with evading law enforcement, etc, etc. However, I'll toss out an alternate idea:

• Major roads, of which few exist around Roswell, are easily checkpointed (I'm assuming that we're going with some sort of steal-the-UFO-secrets thing, given Roswell). If it is a steal-UFOs thing, then I think it's reasonable that the gov't decides the checkpoints are acceptable.
• Quickly reaching Mexico is perhaps not the real objective (rather, safely reaching Mexico is) -- in other words, speed doesn't really matter provided it's the sort of thing that can be done in three days or so.
• As a result, the real plot point looks to me to be "how do I ditch Roswell?" rather than "how do I cross the border?" Once that's solved, any sleepy crossing into Mexico (or for that matter, Canada) should do. — Lomn 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the Reference Desk really be advising people how to illegally enter a country? Tomdobb (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The tradition seems to be that giving legal advice is prohibited, but giving illegal advice is OK.  :) --Sean 17:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not. (Should Wikipedia contain information on how to commit suicide? Or how to inject intravenous drugs? Sure. Wikipedia is not censored.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was primarily curious if it fell within the scope of "no legal advice." Tomdobb (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it comes anywhere near it, particularly as we're talking about fiction here. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way. I was just curious. Tomdobb (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Title please

This is bugging me. Please help. US Airforce officer in Iceland takes command of US Marine and (later) British Special Forces troops. Maintains observation on invading forces. Is awarded the Navy Cross.86.194.250.77 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)DT

Are you perhaps thinking of Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising in which the Russian military invades Iceland and a met officer at Keflavik evades and goes to ground. Nanonic (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's almost certainly it. I really enjoyed that book. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, this is a prime example of a confusing Ref Desk question: Once "Red Storm Rising" was mentioned, I recognized it, but before that I had no clue. My first thought was that he was asking about the title the officer in question held or perhaps received as a result, and I thought this must be some kind of an obscure WW2 thing. It would've been helpful if there had been just a little more information provided -- like a note that the question was about a book, not real life. Still, Nanonic figured it out, so what the hell. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And I thought they were looking for the name of the officer, not his title/rank. It would have helped if the question had been on the Entertainment desk since the question was about a book. Dismas|^(talk) 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Literature is the Humanities desk, and I assume that's intended to include popular fiction. If there had been a movie version, that would be Entertainment. --Anonymous, 06:12 UTC, January 24, 2009.

Oh dear ! I seem to have upset an ant's nest. Sorry, I'll try to do better next time. (I had thought 'title' was sufficient to distinguish a book but underestimated the analytical ability of the Wikipedians and their desire to be precise.) But, yes, thank you. You have provided what I was so bugged about. Now I shall locate a copy and re-read it. a bientôt.86.197.150.220 (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)DT

Hey, no harm done -- after all, one of us figured it out with ease and you got the answer you were looking for, so it's all good. I was really making more of a generic observation here. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the things to recognise is people often ignore the title of questions if they're just reading the question. A good title is useful to help people know what the question is about before reading and to find the question again but unless it's obvious from the question not everyone is going to read or notice the title. The other thing is even though in theory a movie or TV series should go into the entertainment desk there's no guarantee it always happens. If you just say title please as opposed to saying "Does anyone know the title of the book which had this" or something people are not going to know you're talking about a book, they may think you're referring to a movie, TV series, even an opera or song. Since you knew it was a book, it's helpful to specify that as it's not generally much use someone thinking of the TV series they've watched if you're asking about a book Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama Inauguration Transcripts

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

MR. The question we ask today is"

What does "MR" mean in that last sentence, it's in every single transcript I've found.169.229.75.128 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not in this version on the ABC News site. And it's not in this version on the White House site. Likely the MR is a stray typo that got repeated as different outlets pasted the copy in. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are boogers yellowish green?

Kind of a stupid question, until I started thinking about it. They're pretty much all the same color. What is in the air or bloodstream that assigns every booger this range of the electro-magnetic spectrum?--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably Mucus is the main cause of the colour, but not 100% sure. ny156uk (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the color seems to vary from whitish to yellow to green, according to the German Wikipedia article on snot and other sources. The reason for the yellow or green color has to do with cells called neutrophyls. This article gives a fair explanation for why snot is sometimes green when there is an infection. I think that air pollution can also lead to a greyish discoloration of yellow snot so that it looks green. Marco polo (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, air pollution turns your snot grey or even black! Spend a fortnight in London and see for yourself!--TammyMoet (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not all "boogers" are mucus. Some are solid and dry (and if there's any blood on it, then it's red). ~AH1^(TCU) 16:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Renaissance Festival joke, depends on knowing that a "Festie" is a person who travels to many such festivals during the season: You Might Be a Festie if ... you can tell which fest you're at by the color of your boogers!

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you get arrested if you travel to restricted countries?

At least when you return? I've always wondered how they enforced this. I dont plan to travel to these hellholes, but I wonder about people with families down there. Sorry if this is legal advice.--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What country are you in, and what country are you asking about travel to? Algebraist 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In recent history, US Government has effectively restricted its citizens (in some way) from setting foot in just four countries: Cuba from 1961, North Korea from 1950, Iraq from 1990 and Libya from 1981. Recently Iraq, Libya and North Korea have all had their restrictions lifted, leaving only Cuba. But its worth noting that, contrary to popular belief, US citizens are actually not banned from going to Cuba. US passports are accepted, and there is no legal barrier from visiting from the US side, but there are other restrictions that make it practically challenging.

The major issue is the Trading with the Enemy Act, which means it is illegal for US citizens to spend any money in Cuba. Ist difficult to visit without spending a single cent. There are special licenses available from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, that excludes certain people from the regulations (journalists, scientists, students and people with specific family situations). In theory, if you visit without one of these licenses then your risk being prosecuted and/or fined when you return to US soil. The penalties are not trivial either: up to 10 years in prison, $1,000,000 and $250,000 in individual fines per violation. Civil penalties up to $55,000 per violation may also be imposed.

In practice, however, when Americans travel via a third country and plan their trip carefully, then it is highly unlikely that they have any problems. Indeed, many thousands of Americans visit illegally, without licenses, each year. The Cuban authorities take great delight in having US citizens visit Cuba against their Government's wishes, so they don't usually stamp US passports on arrival or departure. So there isn't really any evidence that they have been, so long as they are careful. That said, the US Government claim to have observers in third countries that will document US citizens visiting Cuba. They probably do too, but really don't care that much unless you are already a person of interest to them. If you are thinking of visiting Cuba personally, then you should seek professional advice before doing anything. Notwithstanding you risk breaking a federal law, there are also real dangers in visiting a state that lacks diplomatic/consular representation from your own country. Rockpocket 05:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Um...but don't a lot of North Americans visit Cuba while on vacation? ~AH1^(TCU) 16:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a lot of Americans, no. Tourism in Cuba gives the numbers as 600,000 Canadians and 30,000 Americans. This compares to 450,000 Canadians and 928,000 Americans who visited the top Caribbean destination for "North Americans", the Dominican Republic in 2004. The Bahamas and Jamaica both also claim that title with the Bahamas receiving huge numbers of cruise ship passenger (3.6 million visitors to an island group with a population of 300,000, wow) Rmhermen (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Canadians go to Cuba simply because they do not expect to find Americans there; not because they don't like Americans, but because it is funny to do something Americans can't. But Canadians don't travel to Havana or anywhere like that, they go to the resorts just like everyone else. Also, I can't find any numbers, but it's possible that more Canadians go to Turks and Caicos than Cuba or the Dominican; there was some semi-serious talk about having the islands officially join Canada a few years ago. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

January 24

Chaos Theory. Is this a croc, or what?

I moved this question over to the Science desk, where it's more at home and the answers are more likely to be thoroughly awesome. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - over here, we just have to say "No"! (I've replied on the science desk). SteveBaker (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

forwarding articles

Dear sirs;

Please explain how I can forward your articles or pages. I have "hotmail" as a server and they do not deal with "outlook express" which pops up with a right click.

Thank you...The novice, Mont Monaco

P.S. I searched but couldn't find an area where this question was presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mont monaco (talk • contribs) 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be VASTLY better to email the URL of the page rather than the entire page itself. Aside from anything else, many pages use 'fair use' photographs that it might be illegal for you to copy. SteveBaker (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'd recommend emailing entire Wikipedia pages, and not that I am giving or capable of giving legal advice, but it would seem that any photographs (etc.) that were deemed "fair use" on Wikipedia would be similarly deemed "fair use" in personal communications (perhaps not as part of a business newsletter, though). From Fair use: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." [emphasis added] -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Private Email to my friend Adam Arkin

I was in contact with Adam Arkin whilst still with his own Adam Arkin site, but have since closed down, and I havent been able to find him since. Please let me know how I can email him again. I am in Australia, and would dearly love to chat to him again. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.149.166 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You might try finding his old site at http://www.archive.org/index.php - type his OLD url into the search box and it if you've lead a clean and honest life, up will pop his old web site - and hopefully his email address will still be there. Good luck! SteveBaker (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, if the address you used to contact him was an account associated with the site then the address might be gone as well. Dismas|^(talk) 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The usual advice about contacting someone in showbiz or publishing is to write c/o his agent. —Tamfang (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

orlando, florida

how long does it take to travel by car from Orlando to Plant City, Florida? (or vice versa) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.133.92 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Maps [2], it's 66.5 miles and will take about one hour and 14 minutes. --Thomprod (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

US War Deficit of $1trillion.

I have read that ex-President Bush's legacy will be remembered as a $1trillion deficit in the US economy caused by his involvement in Iraq and Afghanisatn. Be that as it may, and without aspiring to begin a chain of justification or denouncement responses, is it pragmatically reasonable of me to assume that such expenditure, however effectual or otherwise it may ultimately be judged to have been in pursuit of Bush's political ambitions, has at the very least created a source of jobs, materiels acquisition, production, distribution, research and development, wealth creation, and other fiscal and economic stimulus benefits - not just for and in the USA, but also for and in those other countries that have manufactured, supplied and consumed said materiel, in and by the opposing factions, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, not to mention, Iran and Russia (and any other nation that I am not aware of as having been involved)? 92.23.31.56 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is really a matter of speculation - and we don't like to speculate here on the RD. It's not really reasonable to assume that the only way Bush could think of to create jobs (advance technology, etc) was to spend a terabuck on fighting two wars. The consequence of fighting two wars might be those benefits - but that's never going to be the reason. For once we'll have a way to prove that because the nation is about to spend another terabuck on doing economic stimulus the OTHER way. SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

War certainly creates jobs and helps the economy, but it usually does so at the expense of other things. The money that was spent on the war could have been spent on other things or saved (either by the government, or by the public through lower taxes). War encourages spending, rather than saving, which is usually a good thing in the short term and a bad thing in the long term. It's all a matter of balancing pros and cons, as with anything else. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, spending money on any activity will have the type of benefits you listed, war included. However, that doesn't mean that all such spending is equally beneficial. Spending a trillion on free college for any American who can meet admission requirements, for example, would be far more beneficial to the US than the war in Iraq, due to the primary benefit of providing a more skilled workforce, and would also have similar secondary benefits of reducing unemployment and crime, increasing R&D, etc. This is phrased by economists as the opportunity cost, what was given up to fund the war, in this case. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Increasing the skill level of your workforce is only beneficial if you have skilled jobs for them at the end of it - there's no point giving someone a college education if the only job they can get afterwards is sweeping roads, and somebody has to sweep the roads, so that puts an upper bound of the proportion of the workforce it is worth educating to that level. --Tango (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that more educated workforce also increases the likelyhood of someone creating a robotic road sweeper! There are not simply a fixed number of jobs availible at each education level; increasing education also increased the demand for higher education because the number of entrepreneurs would increase as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's relatively rare to have an over-educated workforce. I believe that this may be the case is some parts of India, but not in the US, which currently needs to import highly skilled workers such as doctors, scientists, and engineers. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd be better off just giving the money away. The problem with spending it on war is that it employs the fit as soldiers and the intelligent as weapons makers. Neither are very productive and if the money was given to the weak and stupid instead they would still spend the money and the strong and intelligent might actually do something useful instead of wasting their lives. Dmcq (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But many inventions developed for warfare can later be used by civilians, such as jet airplanes from WW2 and a petroleum-free fuel source worked on more recently for and by the US military. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Relaxing things that would lend themselves to being an online game.

My sister is putting together a web site for her business [3] - which is one of those "Life coaching" things. She's trying to attract more visitors to her site and we're thinking that we'd get more incoming links and boost her Google page rank if she had some fun things there that people would link to and spread around. What she wants is some games (perhaps 'activities') of a relaxational or de-stressing kind. A classic example - she saw a site that has 'virtual bubble-wrap' for you to pop [4] - and she would like other things like that. As the family's resident game programmer - I get to implement whatever it turns out to be.

I'm thinking of things like stroking a virtual cat - or maybe games like SameGame or something that people might find non-stressful. Personally, there are times when a "machine gunning down my coworkers" game would be de-stressing but apparently that's more distressing than destressing!

What games or activities do people find relaxing and/or de-stressing? SteveBaker (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Word games? I saw one site that had famous quotations where the words were scrambled. The author of the quote wasn't displayed, so that added a level of difficulty but they weren't timed or anything like that which would add anxiety and stress. Many people also find Sudoku to be relaxing. Dismas|^(talk) 20:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS You might want to reduce the size of those images. Even on DSL the page took at least 30 seconds to load. Dismas|^(talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I know. Job number one (which I just started this afternoon) is to fix up the site so it works smoothely...it's crap for several other reasons too: Everyone looks at it and sees three menu options - not noticing the little scroll arrows either side of the menu that reveal half a dozen other menu options. I looked at the web page stats - the main page got over 1000 hits so far - the two other pages you can get to immediately got ~800 hits - and the pages that you have to click the arrows to get to got 5 hits each! My sister didn't get the 'geek' genes that I inherited and she used some kind of freebie automatic web site generator...well, you get what you pay for.)...anyway - I don't want to derail this question into one about web site design. Think relaxing, calming thoughts...deep breath...let it out S-L-O-W-L-Y. Try not to think about how horrible CSS and JavaScript are. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's some:

• A while ago I wrote a little python/pygame program (but it should be just as easy in javascript) which a) generated a random colour, b) generated its compliment (just 180 degree rotation of hue in HSV space) c) generated several "buddy colours" for each, by jittering each h,s,v value by a random amount up to about 10% d) draw squares in each colour e) wait a few seconds then goto a. This, it turns out, is all rather mesmeric - you just sit and watch the pretty colour combinations (which the algorithm guarantees all work quite nicely together). With a nice black or charcoal background that should be rather zen. Warning - you can do this without reading the color difference article, which will only make you sad.
• A while ago I designed a website. The customer insisted on a splash screen (no, I couldn't talk them out of it). For it I had four square images, each that cycled through a few pretty photos (viva istockphoto) with nice javascript+css fading. The clever bit was that I set the animation speed (just the delay on the fader timeout) differently (they're not quite relatively coprime, but the net time-until-identical is still very long) - so the images are shown in different combinations an (apparently) random fashion. Again, it's quite calming to watch. Get some nice calming stock photos, and add in to one cycle her company's logo.
• (this all the way back to my beloved C=64) Draw a range of images that have small circles on them (tiny, small, medium, big, huge), then write javascript that cycles a given div through them in a pulsing order (tsmbhbmst...) on a timer. Then arrange several hundred on the page (I'm really thinking of even "huge" being 20px in diameter, so not really huge at all), but have their initial condition be like smooth natural-looking contours (like a map of the cotswolds). Then set all of them off cycling together - you'll see rippling patterns moving in and out - all a bit TOTP.1977.

Let us know how it works out. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was watching a programme about a Victorian Farm and one of the participants remarked that sawing a log was "remarkably Zen", by which I take it he means a repetitive, boring activity that somehow switches your mind off from thinking. So along those lines, sawing wood, raking leaves, raking pebbles (well that must be Zen!), kneading dough... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about some sort of 'colouring-in' activity. Set up some pretty repeating geometric patterns (like you certainly used to be able to get books of) made just from black lines on a white background. Have virtual 'paintpots' in a few colours and effectively give them a fill tool only. So you can quickly and easily fill each little shape with the colour of your choice and create any design you want. The books used to keep me quiet for a while when I was little; I bet they'd have worked for longer if I didn't have to try to be neat :) 79.66.105.133 (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Herding sheep maybe. Draw a fence and have sheep hop over it at random intervals. The user can click to the left of, the right of or behind the sheep to move a sheepdog into position the dog will then issue a "woof" the sheep will either hop across the fence or evade the dog. Put in a limit that no more than 2 sheep at a time get out, otherwise it won't be relaxing. After a couple of successful herdings you can let the herd snooze for a couple of seconds. (With happy zzz in clouds floating off. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I find 3D Logic to be rather relaxing. In general, I'd say anything without a timer/timed actions can be relaxing. I should probably add that any frustration should be kept to a minimum as well. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - that's an interesting game - it's a bit easy and way too short though. Just 30 levels and most of them you can do in 30 seconds. I got stuck on a couple...but once you get into the swing of it, most levels were easy. SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - I like the idea of the Zen garden - but it might be a bit lacking in activity...which is perhaps the reason it's relaxing. Maybe I should think in terms of gardening in general. SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One of my favourite pass-the-time websites is this falling sand game. I (and my six-year-old) find it quite distracting, but there's a quite a lot of room for improvement if someone wanted to invest the time in it. Being able to mix things, make compounds, have stuff burn at different temperatures/colours, etc. are all possibilities. The neat thing about something like this (where people just play with stuff by making them interact) is that you can make it as complicated as you wish and add more when you feel the need. Matt Deres (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

January 25

Opposite of a Smile

Is there a real term for: "a sad face" (ie: smile, frown, scowl etc)? the closest I can think of is a frown, but that always strikes me as a slightly angry face, I'm want a term for a sad face please. Thankyou everyone 92.236.88.188 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never thought of a frown as angry. Only sad. Although, the second definition at dictionary.com disagrees with me. Dismas|^(talk) 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Acording to "our" article on it can either be sad or angry (intresting that we both think of it so diffrently though), but is there a term that can only refer to a sad face? 92.236.88.188 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Frown is often used as the opposite of smile, and I can't think of anything else that is. I, too, would normally consider a frown to be an angry expression (or a confused one), rather than sad, though. Sadness is usually expressed with the eyes, rather than the mouth (although a quivering lip is quite distinctive). The mouth being curved downwards like in a stylised "sad face" doesn't seem to actually happen in reality. I think the key part of a frown is the furrowed brow. --Tango (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tango, thats a nice answer. ;) 92.236.88.188 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The messy part is that while I think we all agree that a 'frown' refers to a depression of the eyebrows - everyone sees the :-( emoticon as a sad face. So that's clearly just a mouth thing. But if you push eyebrows UP and turn mouth DOWN - you get puzzlement - so a mere downturned mouth doesn't make 'sadness' by itself. Weird. SteveBaker (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying <:-( means puzzlement to you? (The font may not accurately show the face I mean). To me, it looks worried in an upset way, while <:-) (this would all be so much clearer if the eyebrows were separate). These emoticons really aren't showing what I mean, hang on. This image shows a bit more what I mean. Are you saying the far-right top image looks puzzled to you? 79.66.105.133 (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah - so I'm the guy with Aspergers...so I should probably quit while I'm ahead! But my interpersonal interaction trainer told me that one way to figure out what someone's expression means is to make the same face yourself - you actually feel a diluted version of the emotion yourself...which is really quite a useful trick if you're a hopeless Aspie. So - force the corners of your mouth down and raise your eyebrows - how do you feel? Kinda surprised, kinda quizzical...puzzled. Yeah - puzzled. SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

^{They both look like smileys with party hats to me... --124.254.77.148 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)}

Hence the second half of the post. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Down in the mouth.--GreenSpigot (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeaaaaaa! Given GreenSpigot the prize! Excellent answer! SteveBaker (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be old-fashioned but I'd say "looking blue". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A frown is usually made by creasing the eyebrows. Without the eyebrow action, I would call the face a pout. If the mouth is turned downward and the eyebrows upward, I might percieve that as a "hmm, that's interesting/surprising!" or a "*shrug*, I don't know". ~AH1^(TCU) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - that's what I thought...interesting/surprised which is "puzzled". SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think we are describing two different eyebrow movements. Eyebrows fairly straight up - surprised/interested. Eyebrows raised only in the middle, sort of pushed to form an acute angle between the outer end of the eyebrow and a horizontal line below it - worried/sad. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Henohenomoheji? --Milkbreath (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Friend -finding/-matching site?

Everyday I am very lonely at my university. On weekdays I see people during classes, but I don't know any of them, so I can't hang out or do homework with them. At night and on weekends there is no place I can go to be around people, and my life kind of just falls apart without company. Does anyone know of a website where I can find individual people, who are students from my university, to hang out with? Failing that, a dating site specifically for students at my university would also be acceptable, as long as it can find people for me to hang out with. Something like Facebook won't work because it would require me to contact random strangers who are probably not specifically looking to hang out and it would be awkward.

P.S. if it helps my university is Ucla. --71.106.183.17 (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

UCLA offers services that might help you build confidence and learn skills to help your socialize better. [5] A great way to meet new people us to join a student group. Find one that you have some interest in, and you should find that the people there will likely be very welcoming. There are also campus specific personal ad sites [6] and Match.com has a UCLA specific section. [7] Rockpocket 06:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's why there are activities to join at universities so people with common interests can hang out. Maybe contact the Student Union. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend joining one of the many clubs and societies that ALL universities have. Finding a bunch of people with common interests will help. As for facebook requiring you to contact 'random strangers' - that is utterly inevitable. Whoever you end up being good friends with must right now be a random stranger! So to get yourself out of this malaise you WILL have to kick things off by talking to one or more random strangers. The best you can do is to narrow your search to random strangers who you at least have something in common with to spark that first conversation...hence clubs and such. You really only have to make one friend - because one friend leads to more friends. SteveBaker (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, UCLA has a remarkably diverse range of student groups. The full list is here. If there isn't a religious/interest/ethnic based group that you feel you would fit in to, then there are plenty of chartable and voluntary groups. I notice a few that aim to mentor young people from the LA area, that would be a good way to meet people and give back to the community. Rockpocket 07:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"A stranger's just a friend you haven't met." (Oh! Streetcar) —Tamfang (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You could always buy some brand new friends by joining a frat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.233.59 (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you live in student housing? Do you have a roommate? If so, ask your roommate to go with you to the cafeteria for dinner or drop by one of your neighbors to see if they're heading down for some food. Chances are, they'll see someone they know and introduce you to them. Or just drop by your neighbor's dorm room and ask them to go toss a frisbee around with you. It's probably warm enough in LA to do this. If they say no, you've at least broken the ice for later attempts. Also, you take classes, right? Do you walk from those classes to your next class/home/etc? Well, strike up a conversation with someone who is walking the same direction. Something like "What did you think of that test?" or "Did you get the homework assignment? I forgot to write it down." Dismas|^(talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of you are recommending that the OP join real-life clubs and basically get off the Internet. However, I believe the anon is a person after my own heart and finds it much more comfortable/non-threatening to break the ice online and start a correspondence before befriending someone in person. Here are the websites I recommend to lonely souls....

I've met people who turned out to be very close friends on Meetup.com, where you can find others who share your interests (you're very lucky, in some ways, you're in a big city!). You could also find a large assortment of cool people your age on meetme.hotornot.com, which is one of the cheapest/funnest (albeit largely braindead) dating sites in existence (unless you count utterly filthy free-for-all venues such as craigslist, which I would not recommend in good conscience). I would not discount Facebook either--I understand your reservations/shyness about approaching random strangers, but the few times I've tried it, I've had surprising success and have made at least one good friend that way; just search for someone who likes the same movies/music as you--that usually works well. The real-life Fat Man is one of the shyest, most misanthropic characters you will ever meet and understands your loneliness; that being said, he believes it's not particularly difficult to make friends online. Just try to find a few flattering pictures of yourself and write to others in a way that sounds genuine/kind. Let me know how it goes.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Do these sites cost money? Or are they free? --71.106.183.17 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your life sounds a lot like mine. I'm going to university a long way from home, and I have acquaintances that I see in class but nobody I really hang out with, so I generally end up going to meals alone and spending my evenings and weekends alone in my room doing homework. So, speaking as someone who knows exactly where you're coming from... Don't shun Facebook. You don't have to add "random strangers," you can start by adding the people you mentioned you see in class, and if you're shy like me, it's a lot easier to say, as Dismas suggested above, something like, "What did you think of that test?" over the internet than in person. One time, I asked someone over Facebook if she wanted to trade notes to help study for an upcoming test, and I ended up getting invited to a real-life study group with her.

As some people have suggested, joining clubs can be a way to meet people, but again, if you're shy like me, that can be kind of intimidating, especially if everyone in the club already knows each other and you're the "new kid." So join a club that's likely to have people you already kind of know. For instance, I'm a political science student and I know a lot of other political science students, so I joined the Model UN club. Way less intimidating than joining, say, the Frisbee team, where I wouldn't know anyone at all. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a very similar situation - I'm in the 4th year of my degree and most of my friends were doing 3 year degrees, so they've all graduated leaving me behind. I certainly second the suggestion of joining societies - I'm a member of the poker society, which is great for new people because you don't need to know anyone, just turn up and join in the game, you're automatically included and you can gradually get to know people. If you don't like poker, any society built around a game will work just as well. --Tango (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Join the Ballroom Dance Club, if it's still around. Tell James and Cynthia I said hi. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the taste of unadulterated, unsalted umami?

I love the taste of umami/glutamate but have noticed the most "savory" foods are also the most salty. In my mind, the purest, most umami-heavy foods are condiments like soy sauce and Marmite--both of which are some of the saltiest substances known to man. So my question, is there a way to experience "pure" umami taste without the salt? Or are the two tastes intrinsically linked such that you need the saltiness to bring out the perception of umami? This might even be a chemistry question. Please advise. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• What does a pinch of MSG taste like? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done that for many years, but I think it was very salty. Explanations?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to be glib, but I really do think this is addressed in the article. Umami is the taste of meatiness; mushrooms and steak, for example, are quite capable of tasting meaty without tasting salty. However, the article does point out that umami is intensified by various aromas, such as garlic. This may have some relevance. Overall, I think you're just finding that people like the combination. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but mushrooms and steak are complex foods with a number of other earthy/cow-y/fungal flavors in addition to their umami. Many foods taste savory, but I'm trying to understand what pure savoriness tastes like; the trouble is I can't seem to separate this sensation from salt itself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't find much/any sweet, sour, bitter or salty taste in boiled mushrooms, so the only flavour other than umami (as far as I can tell) is aromatic. Eat mushrooms while holding your nose :P 79.66.105.133 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Umami receptors are keyed to detecting amino acids; which are present in proteins. That is why protein heavy foods, like meats, tend to activate your umami receptors. Other tastes are sweet, which is keyed to detecting simple carbohydrates, salty, which is keyed to detecting ionic substances, especially sodium and potassium, sour, which is keyed to detecting acids, and bitter, which is keyed to detecting bases. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Betting/probability over infinite trials proof

A game exists where you start with one coin and then a certain number of trials take place. A trial consists of a coin being flipped, and if heads, you get one additional coin, and if tails, you lose one coin. E.g. after the first trial you have either 0 or 2 coins. When you have 0 coins, you can no longer play. Prove that if the number of trials is infinite, the probability of you having 0 coins is equal to 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.241.6.195 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this a HW question? The blurb at the top of this page says that "if your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you." - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't homework.

Why on Earth are you asking an artificial probability question requiring the construction of a proof if this isn't homework? Seriously, if you don't know how to start or are stuck just explain your situation and we'll help, but nobody is going to write you out a proof to copy. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This stuff is interesting to me, that's why.

OP's comments refactored. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So is anyone actually going to answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.241.6.195 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe no. "It may take several days", according to the rubric at the top of the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your "game" is a variation of the Drunkard's Walk problem. (And watch the potty-mouth.) B00P (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to answer, except to say that abusing people is a poor way to secure their help. Algebraist 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted for newcomers that the 'refactoring' involved removing unpleasant and abusive language used by the OP - hence the above comments. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the refactoring should have left the majority of the OP's words, and simply (but unambiguously) hidden the objectionable ones. After reading the OP's (uncensored) responses, I have absolutely no interest in providing an answer. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to answer?

"No were mad lolz"

kthnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.241.6.195 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just work it out for n trials and take the limit as n tends to infinity. --Tango (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, in graphical form, plot the chance of having zero coins after 1-9 flips, then draw two curves, one through the even number of flips, and one through the odd numbers of flips. You can add more data points, if needed, to determine that the odd number curve is asymptotic to 1. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but there is no way to avoid the conclusion that this is homework. I won't answer except to use our standard disclaimer:

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

lol @ stevebaker. lololol. it's not homework.

This question belongs on the Math Desk. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

. . . only if it accompanies proof that it was attempted first. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

lol @ Zain Ebrahim111111. lololol. it's not homework.

But even if it is homework, I'd still like to see it on the proper desk. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it can be proven by the theory that, even though you may keep on getting heads and the number of coins repeatedly increasing, it must eventually start going down because it goes on forever. I don't know, though. My brain is tired. ^Tezkag₇₂ 03:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Drunkard's Walk article linked above explains it. If you keep flipping, you will almost surely reach every score an infinite number of times. But if you ever reach zero (a possible score therefore one you will reach.), then you lose. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

drivers licencing and laws

Hi, I would like to know if there are any countries in the world that have passed a law that all drivers with existing drivers licences have to be re tested every 5 years, and is it the law in New Zealand that you must indicate before turning or is it just common curtesey ? and if it is the law when was this law passed in New Zealand ? Thank you so much for your help with this matter. Yours Sincerely Elizabeth Plowman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellacam (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Elizabeth, but we don't answer legal questions here. I don't know whether this policy is the law or whether it is common curtesey, and if it is the law, when this law was passed on the Wikipedia. Not being an international lawyer specializing in drivers license renewal, I'm afraid the answer to the first part of your query is also beyond me. However the range of knowledge here is incredible so I will leave this up. Phil_burnstein (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd classify this as a legal question. It's a question about laws, but not the sort you'd need a lawyer for - it's not "can I sue New Zealand for this" but "I heard about this thing in New Zealand - is it true?" -mattbuck (Talk) 13:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We can, however, direct you to resources where you may find the answers to factual questions. For example, the New Zealand Road Code says "You must signal for at least three seconds before you... turn left or right" [8] The current legislation that proscribes this is Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Pursuant to the Land Transport Act 1998. See Section 3.10 Rockpocket 07:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

January 26

college baseball lines?

Hi, does anyone know of any sports books that offer college baseball lines? For example.

Run Line-Ohio State(-2 1/2) versus Ohio(+2 1/2) Moneyline-Ohio State(-250) versus Ohio(+210) Total- Over 9 versus Under 9

What about college hockey lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.16.237 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The run line is a spread bet line. If you see "Ohio +2 1/2", and you bet that, it means that you add 2 1/2 runs to Ohio's score and if they still win, and you bet on them, you win 2x your bet (like, if you bet $100, you'd get your stake and an extra $100). If you bet on Ohio Stare -2 1/2, it means you SUBTRACT 2 1/2 runs from the score for Ohio State, and if they win still, you win your bet. The Moneyline is an "odds" style bet, put in terms of cash. In this case, if you put $250 down on Ohio State, you stand to win $210 extra if they win the game (straight up win, no spread). On the flip side, if you put $210 down on Ohio to win, you stand to win $250 if they do actually win. The actual payout is adjusted accordingly if you bet a different amount. Both bets tell you that Ohio State is favored to win, since in the first case, you are counting on them winning by MORE than the 2 1/2 runs; and in the second case you stand to win more money by betting on Ohio than on Ohio State... The third line is the Over/Under; in this case what you are betting on is the total runs scored by BOTH teams. If you take the over, you are betting that the sum total of runs scored in the game will be greater than 9 (regardless of who wins). The under, of course, is a bet that the score will add up to less than this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Uuh...that's not what 76 is asking. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Then could you or someone explain it. I, for one, have no idea what the answer meant, much less, the question itself! Dismas|^(talk) 08:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is essentially asking if it is possible to bet on college baseball and hockey; I'm sure it must be, since if something can be gambled upon, someone is gambling upon it somewhere. Jayron just explained what all the numbers mean, which is not what the question asked, but helpful for the rest of us I suppose. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He's asking for sportsbooks, i.e. places to place sports bets (I'm guessing websites like Ladbrokes since he presumably can't get to Las Vegas). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, he may just be after the actual numbers for various games (an amateur bookie perhaps?). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AH! I'm sorry. I thought the OP was asking WHAT the lines meant on a college baseball book. I didn't know he was LOOKING for a sports book. I imagine there's several websites that would be helpful in that regard. See this DMOZ link which is cited in our article on sports betting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoking Alternative?????????

Many of my friends have been explaining to me the joys of these 'electric cigerettes'. im sure you've seen them . i just want to know are they legal, but most importantly are they safe?? Compared to normal cigs that is? Cheers JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.65.40 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the Electronic cigarette answers those questions. They are typically legal or unregulated in most places (with the exception of Australia). Last year, the World Health Organization said: "no rigorous, peer-reviewed studies have been conducted showing that the electronic cigarette is a safe and effective nicotine replacement therapy." They may be safer than regular cigarettes, but that doesn't make them safe. Rockpocket 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help me with my dilema

I got so drunk on New Year’s Eve I ended up sleeping with my boyfriend’s brother, i’ve been with my boyfriend, who’s 20 (i'm 19) for just over a year but things have been a bit strained between us recently and we had a huge argument during the day on New Year’s Eve. I told him I was going back to my ex and he said he didn’t love me anyway and had stopped fancying me ages ago. I was really hurt.

It was awkward because I was spending the day round his house and staying the night. In the evening his brother, who’s 25, suggested we all go down the pub - I jumped at the chance because I just wanted to get out of the house. No one else knew about the argument with my boyfriend but the atmosphere between us was terrible.

We all went down the pub, my boyfriend as well. I had drink after drink. Just before 10.30 my boyfriend suggested we all go to a club -his sister was keen but i wasn’t so he and his sister went off leaving me with his brother. We stayed in the pub until chucking out time. We walked home and there was a note from his parents saying they’d gone round to friends so not to expect them home till very late.

We sat and chatted. He was as drunk as I was and we carried on drinking. He got a bit amorous and I was so drunk I just went with the flow. We got completely carried away and ended up naked on the sofa making love - I can’t say it was mad or passionate, I just don’t remember much about it or how careful we were –I don’t think we used any protection. What I do remember is stumbling upstairs half-naked and falling into bed.

New Year’s Day was hell - my boyfriend knew something was wrong but just thought I was hung-over(which I was) That night he told me he regretted what he’d said and that he still loves and fancies me - What can I do?

There’s a chance I could be pregnant with his brother’s baby – or have caught something from him, since he’s a real ladies man. How can I ever tell my boyfriend what happened and expect him still to care for me?

Please help - I'm going out my mind Grebcheck (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On your second-to-last paragraph, you should get a home pregnancy test from Boots and go to the doctor to get yourself checked out for STDs. As for the rest, unfortunately we're not an advice forum and you probably shouldn't be taking the advice of a bunch of random strangers on the internet. You should talk to your friends about this. Good luck. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to try the Samaritans (charity) - you can email or phone them, and they will listen unendingly, and refer you to practical help if you want it. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried about pregnancy or a sexually transmitted infection, see a doctor. That'd be the responsible thing to do.

Apart from that, you either tell him or you don't, and he'll either find out on his own or he won't. We don't know your boyfriend or the particulars; we have no way of knowing how he'd react. Is there anything to be gained from telling him? Would he be better off knowing that you had sex with his brother? It's easy to start assigning blame here: you shouldn't have slept with your boyfriend's brother, his brother shouldn't have slept with you, your boyfriend shouldn't expect that you're going to stick around if he tells you he doesn't love you, and he shouldn't be so stupid as to say something like that if he doesn't mean it. That's just for starters. Frankly, there was a lot of stupidity to go around between the three of you that evening, but maybe you're smart enough to keep your mouth shut, and so is his brother, and you two make a concentrated effort to not let your own stupidity mess him up as well, and your boyfriend is worth the effort this will require and the guilt it will cause, and you learn to live with it. Or maybe you'll make a tearful confession and convince him that this was just an aberration, a weird one-time thing that will never happen again, and because he's basically a smart guy with a healthy sense of self-esteem, who understands that in this life, shit happens and it's not the end of the world, he forgives you. I don't know, I can't see the future.

In the end, though, it's a relationship, not a deposition: you're not obliged to provide full disclosure, and he's not entitled to it; it's all right to feel guilt, but frankly, if he told you that he doesn't love you and want you, he can't expect you to stay committed to you. (Which is not to say that he doesn't do so anyway, of course; he'd be wrong, but that may not be much of a comfort.) In any case, if you don't want something like this to happen again, you need to control your impulses, and you and your boyfriend need to improve your communication. Otherwise you'll just end up in the same position all over again. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you've likely permanently poisoned your relationship and you should break up with your b/f. If not, say you keep quiet, get married, have kids, then some day he finds out about all this. Somebody could end up dead or you could end up a single Mom. Walking away now is the best way to prevent this type of thing, and use more sense with your next b/f. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

These statistics might inform your decision Men are better at detecting infidelities Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask yourself how this could have happened. Were you so drunk you had absolutely no idea what you were doing (in which case, your boyfriend's brother has some explaining to do, because if he was that drunk as well he probably wouldn't have been up to much)? If not, why did you let it happen? I notice you talk repeatedly about whether or not your boyfriend loves you, you never once mentioned whether or not you love your boyfriend. I think you need to give some careful thought about whether you actually want to be with your boyfriend. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is always the option of becoming a nun.--Artjo (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is, but unless you seriously want to devote your life to religion in that way, it probably won't work out very well. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Although others have fictionally done this before you, apparently. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Prime Mortgages and other disappearing tricks?

Every day we are bombarded with stories of collapsing banks and financial institutions. We are told of rapidly increasing unemployment and store-closures. Here in Britain we are now "officially" in recession with incessant talk of it getting worse, possibly until 2012 or so. But all of that leaves me totally confused when trying to discover the root cause. So the US Banks loaned money to people without evidence being required that the borrowers could pay their loans back; and those risky mortgages were bundled up with good mortgage risks and sold on to banks all around the world and now we are told those bundles are "toxic" and no-one can say how big the debt mountain really is. And public confidence in Banks has now disappeared. But surely, merely blaming sub-prime mortgages for economies around the globe collapsing is a bit exaggerated? I mean, do I have to believe that so many people in the USA have actually defaulted on their mortgage repayments? If so, they would have to be in their tens of millions. Is that really the case, or is this just a cover-up for some major international fraud on a gargantuan scale?Can some clever Wikipedian please explain in simple terms how we all got into this mess in the first place before I take to drink? Thanks in anticipation. But I think i'll have a drink anyway. 92.22.161.201 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the term sub-prime is probably overused, what really this crises boils down to is the banks lent out to much money compared to the money they actually had in assets - they started to lend against the money they expected to come back from the other loans. That stated the downward spiral; the rest was simply history repeating itself. Also, it's not really possible to overstate the effect of a lack of confidence in banks. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You yourself exaggerated when you refer to "economies around the globe collapsing". No economies are collapsing, they are merely undergoing an adjustment/recession. We've had them before, and it's not the end of the world. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Iceland's economy isn't far off total collapse, as I understand it. The rest of the world is just looking at a run-of-the-mill recession, though, you're right. --Tango (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sub-prime mortgages was the trigger, but as with any major event it takes a lot of things to be just right for that trigger to start a domino effect with massive consequences. In this case, it's mostly to do with far too many people and companies around the world being far too dependant on borrowed money. If we weren't so dependant on debt, the banks stopping lending wouldn't have been such a bit problem. --Tango (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I have my own pet theory having looked back over last year's news headlines and I think it was Oil speculators wot did it. Sure, people and banks were playing a crazy wealth creation game by seeing homes as investments instead of as homes. Everyone wanted to buy to let. Everyone wanted to borrow 125% of the "value" of the home they were going to buy, and others wanted to cash in part of their so-called "equity". And then oil goes up to $145 a barrel - not because the Oil sheiks put their prices up - oh no - it was Wall Street and London Stock Brokers who were driving up oil prices. And that caused gas and electricity prices to rise. And that pushed up commodity consumer prices. And the camel's back broke and the home mortgagees just gave up on their homes and loans - and the chickens came home to roost. Yes, it was greedy oil speculators and short-sellers on zillion dollar and sterling bonuses methinks. Without them, things would have carried on as before.

Bastards!!! 92.10.84.247 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's some interesting discussion about this subject in the newsgroup uk.diy. Google has a cache of a particularly relevant thread here. If you're just skimming (it's quite big) start with posts by "M Holmes", who in my opinion knows what he's talking about. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Short version: During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration put heavy pressure on banks to lend to minorities who would not otherwise have qualified for loans, with the "politically correct" goal of closing gaps in home ownership and claiming increased minority ownership, a claim continued by the Bush administration. Surely there have been historical inequities and other genuine reasons why minorities on the whole have lesser incomes and credit histories than majorities, but those gaps should have been rectified by additional educational, job training, and financial management training opportunities, not by banks making unsound loans. So the sub-prime market was invented. This incremental demand started to push up prices (see "law of supply and demand"), which became a self-propelled spiral upward -- investors and homeowners began to jump on the bandwagon of rising prices, pushing the spiral up further, until you saw cases where families were devoting 75% of their take-home pay to housing, or buying homes they couldn't afford with "teaser" introductory-rate mortgages, certain that they could resell at a profit and/or refinance when the introductory period ran out. Eventually, you run out of people to sell to (known as the "greater fool" or "last fool" theory -- the last fools in lose), and the bubble bursts. See the Dutch Tulip Bulb craze of around the late 1600s (from memory, without looking). All speculative bubbles follow the same pattern. But the igniter was the creation of sub-prime loans for political means and vote-grabbing. As usual, when decisions are made for political reasons rather than sound economic reasons, we all pay a high price. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not homeowners have actually defaulted on their sub-prime mortgage is irrelevant. The financial institutions have been passing the risk around for many years. Unfortunately, when more than one institution turns round and says they don't like this level of risk, the other institutions soon get nervous and start refusing to buy the debts. The stockmarket gets wind of this, particularly if banks post gloomier than expected figures with the SEC, and the stock price drops. Soon all the other stockbrokers get nervous and sell their bank stock while they can, the stock price plummets and soon everyone is selling everything. The only ones rubbing their hands with glee are those with extensive short positions. It is unfortunate that the stockmarket can plunge so rapidly on little more than a rumour, but a large part of the business is about managing risk. Astronaut (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The best source I've seen on why everything went so spectacularly to the crapper explained in a way normal people understand are two This American Life episodes called The Giant Pool of Money and Another Frightening Show on the Economy. There are many reasons besides sub-prime that the economy collapsed and faith in the banks vanished (the biggest culprit seems to be something called credit-default swaps). They explain it extremely well in those episodes, in a way which is both very informative and easy to understand. They're also riveting to listen to. Both of them are now slightly out of date (the first being made in May and the second in October), but they explain the origin of the crisis in an admirable fashion. Belisarius (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as INSTANT web surfing?

I'm not satisfied with DSL and thier ilk. Some pages still take time! I'm looking for a service with not one millisecond of delay. A no bullshit you punch in a web page with kazillion megabyte clip/song streaming/downloads, and it loads now!Zorba'sChosenOne (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Some pages will always be slow. APL (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More clearly, the speed of the "last mile" from your ISP to your house is only one part of the equation. You also need to consider the speed of all the links in the chain from your house, to the server. (It may be in Hong Kong, for all you know!) There may be congestion issues at any step in this process. Furthermore the web server itself may simply be running slowly. Many modern web-sites require a lot of database work to generate a web-site. If the site becomes popular the server may simply not have the power needed to generate the pages in a timely fashion.

In short, With enough money, you can control the speed of your connection, but you can't control the speed of what it connects to. APL (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AKA all computers wait at the same speed. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

While, theoretically, you could get a connection with infinite bandwidth, zero latency is impossible due to the speed of light being finite, so instant loading is impossible. --Tango (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This Q belongs on the Computer Desk. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it's not a computer problem. It's basic physics. SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The two things that screw you are (a) the speed of light and (b) you can't improve the rest of the Internet. Even science fiction technology in your PC and from your ISP won't affect either of those things. A millisecond is about 300 kilometers. The Internet protocols require at least one round-trip - even with NOTHING taking time if the web site you want is 150 kilometers away (not "as the crow flies") - then you're doomed. But for a computer to turn around an internet request in under a millisecond is quite a challenge - and you have ZERO chance if the page you happen to want is not in RAM cache...and the performance of that server is out of your control. Then, if you are contacting the web site for the first time, you have to fight your way through a cascade of DNS boxes - which will add lots more inside-computer time and lots LOTS more speed-of-light distance. If someone else happens to want to access the same server at the same time, you'll probably get 'NAK' packets (Negative acknowledgement) - the Ethernet standard REQUIRES a multi-millisecond backoff-retry under those circumstances. Also - even if that page could conceivably refreshes in 1ms - your CPU will take many milliseconds to send the pixels at the graphics card - and the graphics card will take around 16ms to fling them at the display. So, "No"...as in "Hell No". SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I destroy my short term memory?

I'm talkin the last 20 years or so. I want to live in the past! How do I destroy all incoming memories? I'm prepared to buy my childhood home then proceed with your advice.THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"The last 20 years or so" isn't "short term". But just the same, appropriate brain damage will do the trick. Alternatively, they do say that when you're dying, your life flashes before your eyes. Both of these approaches would require you to knowingly do something pretty foolish, but it's starting to look more and more like it wouldn't be all that out of the ordinary for you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you might want to get dementia. An alternative way can be done by going to the hospital and asking the doctor to do something with your brain. If you die, I guess that's just bad luck but it is all worth it with the (rather low) chance of a successful result. --PST 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about your memories you would still live in the present. And that present might not be very nice if you are unable to look after yourself. Dmcq (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Short-term memory is minutes - not hours, days, years or decades. So you're talking about selectively erasing long term memory - and I seriously doubt that's remotely possible. We don't remember discrete time-lines - we associate one memory with another to form chains and webs of data. Old memories fade to make room for new ones. There is literally no concievable way to disentangle them. It would be like taking the milk out of your coffee. SteveBaker (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrograde amnesia does tend to affect recent memories more than older memories, as I understand it (although maybe only on the scale of hours, rather than decades - outside of TV anyway). This is apparently called "Ribot's Law". So, perhaps if you hit yourself on the head just hard enough, you could wipe out just the last 20 years! (Probably not, though...) --Tango (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For an excellent fictional take, see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. A really wonderful film. Of course this is aesthetic advice; I have never heard of anyone seeing the film and as a consequence forgetting the last twenty years. --Trovatore (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe long-term recreational drug use would work, though which drugs I don't know. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Amnesia isn't an erasure of memory though - that's CLEARLY the case because the memories gradually "come back". So they weren't erased, it was just the access mechanisms temporarily shutting down - older memories have more 'access paths' to them so they hang around better. This wouldn't work for our OP because memory would gradually return. There is no conceivable way for a drug to selectively target recent (on the scale of 20 year) memories either. The bottom line is that memory simply isn't stored that way...so selective erasure is quite utterly impossible...like I said - it's like unmixing the milk from your coffee. The laws of thermodynamics don't allow it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

@ poster, I've got a feeling, you've managed this already. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Er...my learned friends, may I draw your attention to the 'giving medical advice' rule. It is an interesting (if preposterous) question but... (and there came a voice crying in the wilderness) Richard Avery (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And if it pleases the court, I submit that sous-pont feeding times require an adjournment?... making two voices crying in the wilderness Julia Rossi (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, what was the question again? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It started with "Um..." Julia Rossi (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we're clearly dealing with fiction here, I'm not too worried. The feeding part is another story. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The OP is talking about erasing memories that develop anytime between the present moment and the future, and causing oneself not to remember what just happened, all the way into the future. This is not a question about erasing past memories. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To the OP, there is certainly the possibility you can convince yourself of it; the movie (and book, though in the book the man had a tumor)) Somewhere in Time is a great example of this. I believe the best way is to handle this psychologically, and not medically, as there is no way to get the exact range.

So, surround yourself with nostalgia-related items. WIll you live in the past literally? No, but you can go so far toward it that, for all intents and purposes, you will *feel* like it. And, that's what you're looking for.

Just remember, the imagination is a great playground. I suspect some of the most obsessed of fans at Star Trek conventions actually imagine themselves as Klingons and other species, for instance. As adults, we just forget about it.

Indeed, you can have an imaginary friend and even an imaginary family if you want.Somebody or his brother (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cyd Charisse

Can anyone recommend websites that have an unlimited amount of high-quality high resolution color Cyd Charisse pictures? Please avoid recommending The Official Cyd Charisse site or Legs - A tribute to Cyd Charisse, I've been there TONS of times. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why limit yourself to just one site ? Here's the result of a Google search showing many such pics on multiple sites: [9]. Even a Cydophile like you should be satisfied. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks! --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But it was Lucille Ball who cracks the whip! Julia Rossi (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

January 27

Computer

Question moved to the Computing desk. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Handgun error on Battlestar Galactica

(Spoiler!)

On the recent episode of Battlestar Galactica, a character who shall not be named committed suicide with a handgun. The character in question put the gun to her head and pulled the trigger. Watching the scene again online, it appears she did not pull back the slide to load a round into the chamber. Can someone just pick up a pistol and pull the trigger? (I doubt it.) --Blue387 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they want to kill their own actors, especially since blanks fired at point blank range can still be fatal. bibliomaniac15 04:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To better answer your question, it depends on the type of pistol. If it's a revolver, yes, you can just put the bullets in and start shooting. For the type of pistol that you're referring to though, you're correct. You can't just slide in a magazine and start shooting. The first round must be "chambered" by pulling back the slide. Dismas|^(talk) 04:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

However, nothing prevents firing a pre-chambered round, even if the clip has been removed (as many accidental gunshot victims will attest). Guns should generally not be stored in this state because it *is* possible to "just pick up a pistol and pull the trigger". I haven't seen the video, so I have no idea if this is a possible explanation, but one should never assume that a gun cannot be fired. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Quibble: you can load a double-action revolver, pull the trigger and fire; but with an older single-action revolver you need to cock the hammer manually for each shot. (Even with double action it may be easier to cock the hammer with a thumb.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) It's been shown several times that at least some Galactica officers make a habit of keeping a bullet in the chamber of their sidearms.(When loaded.) In any case, the act in question was almost certainly pre-meditated, so even if she didn't normally keep her gun like that, she could have specially prepared it at some earlier time. (We don't see her load it. That would have ruined the impact of the scene.)

Finally, these are fictional weapons, not of Earth manufacture, so really, they work any way the directors and actors want them to work. APL (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the producers use real Earth weapons in the show. The weapon used by the person who committed suicide resembled a FN Five-seven. --Blue387 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The gun in my bedroom is loaded and chambered; if I ever need it (fate forbid), I'll want to be able to fire it now! —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, so if Tamfang wanted to kill himself in a dramatic and heart-wrenching scene, he could do so in the most cinematic way possible without having to fiddle with his gun beforehand. APL (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...what I was wondering (from the previous episode) is would a planet still be uninhabitable 2,000 years after a nuclear holocaust? People are living in Hiroshima. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a Hiroshima-scale event. We're talking, probably within the space of a day, more nukes being detonated than have been in the earth's entire history, even including actions by Xenu. More to the point, Hiroshima was a very small bomb by comparison with what we have today, and thus presumably compared to what the 13th tribe was using. I read somewhere that it would take in the region of 30-40 nukes detonating to cause nuclear winter, and I believe that the US alone has something like 200x that number. I'd certainly think it possible - nuclear material has annoyingly long half-lives. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the nature of the attack, particularly dirty bombs could have been used as a radioactive area-denial mechanism. — Lomn 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue in that episode, as the scientist fellow makes clear, is that there is low level radiation throughout the soil and water. That is pretty reflective of the consequences of a large scale nuclear attack, with lots of long-lived fallout products ending up all over the place. The consequence is that the radiation levels would be low enough to walk around for a bit, but too high to eat any food that was grown there, or to spend too much time there without developing birth defects and other genetic anomalies. It's less comparable with Hiroshima — which had a relatively low-yield nuke detonated at a high altitude — than with, say, Castle Bravo (high yield, high fallout) and its long-term effects on the Marshall Islands. Low-level fission products would pose a problem on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years for living creatures; unlike high-level radiation, they won't kill you from simple proximity, but the long-term effects of ingesting alpha emitters and the like would create serious physiological problems. --140.247.241.150 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

climatic classification by stamp

give me a view of stamp classification of climate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purnima chowdhury (talk • contribs) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we to infer that "Stamp" is/was a person? Google returns a few hits for someone named "L. D. Stamp" in relation to climate classification. Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also a Dudley Stamp who classified land usage in the UK and generated detailed maps on the various crops planted. I suspect this information may be relevant in analysing the microclimate in agricultural areas. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The very one who teamed up with S. W. Wooldridge in publications on climate classification. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Purnima Chowdhury, are you looking for something which might have belonged on the list in the article "Topical stamp collecting", or for a classification scheme of climates? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the Discovery Channel guys nuts?

I was browsing throught the referenced desk as I like to do in my spare time and came across this question and this question. Reading the answers to those questions reminded me of our attitudes to those kinds of questions, so I decided to finally ask. It seems to me that we at Wikipedia are convinced that any "paranormal" phenomena like psychic phonomena, ghosts, UFOs, astrology, out of body experiences have failed scientific verification and are hence false. However I have seen several programs or snippets on the Discovery channel which present these as open questions which are yet to be settled either way. There are programs on UFOs in which sightings are reported to lack explanation, ghost sightings which are presented as "established". Recently I saw a snippet in which an out of body experience of an accident victim was presented as a fact. My question is, if we are right in disbelieving this mumbo jumbo, which according to us has no scientific backing, are the guys at Discovery Channel nuts? Or do they have a vested interest in presenting such misleading programs (increasing viewership)? Please not that my question is based partly on the answers to questions on this refdesk. Thank you -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about knowledge, the Discovery Channel is about entertainment, therein lies the difference. They are open questions in that they aren't absolutely proven (since that's only possible in mathematics, not science), but there is no significant evidence to support the paranormal. Plenty of things remain unexplained, but the explanation is most likely something mundane that we just haven't worked out yet. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a television program is to try to ensure that you will be watching when the commercial comes on. That's it. Each kind of show has its demographic, and you can sell more Bass-O-Matics to UFO believers than you can to scientists, and there are more of them. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How does your theory fit with shows on TV channels that don't show commercials? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, and it's not a theory. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's call it a point then. It still doesn't fit, so what you should have put is "The purpose of a television program shown on a commercial channel..." That doesn't answer the question in respect of something like the BBC, which does not have the same incentive to increase viewer numbers, yet still shows programmes about the paranormal. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

True, an elitist propaganda organ has other incentives: The purpose of a television program is to try to ensure that you're watching when they conjure the mirage of virtual empire and world ombudsmanship. (Pardon me if I don't genuflect before Auntie Beeb.) And we were talking about the Discovery Channel. Don't get me started, or is it too late? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your user page says you are American, so how much time have you actually spent watching the BBC? (And I mean the real BBC, BBC America is part of BBC Worldwide, the commercial offshoot of the BBC and operates in the same way as any other commercial channel.) --Tango (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it back. I apologise unreservedly. It was only my deep envy of the British that made me lash out at the only truly unbiased, unfailingly entertaining and spiritually uplifting television network in the world. Graham Norton is my guru. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell!? Richard was talking about there being other reasons than simply viewers for commercials, based on the BBC also showing programmes on the paranormal despite not having the same need, and you go off into a random bizarre attack on the BBC is such a way that you were also attacking Richardrj. Elitist? Empire? Genuflect? The hell? 79.66.105.133 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. Touchy. I guess there's no coming back from slapping Auntie. (I do play a little rough. Sorry for any bad blood. All in fun, eh wot?) --Milkbreath (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak for anyone else who posts at the reference desk, and I don't deputize anyone else to speak for me. If someone asks a question about what I believe to be claptrap (be it the young earth theory or the Myers-Briggs profile), I'll either keep quiet or address the claptrappy side of things. I'm not interested in swaying others to my points of view, unassailable as they are. Similarly, if someone believes the pyramids were dropped into place by extraterrestrials, or that King Arthur's due to return to Britain soon, the scales aren't likely to fall from his eyes even with my invaluable aid. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct. Many of the programs on the Discovery Channel, Science Channel and even the History channel are BS and I just learn to avoid them. I do feel bad for the unsuspecting public, however. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And if I can say, having only a little experience with such things, that the quality of, say, "research" on some of these "history" shows, irrespective of network, is often quite low. Even public television (PBS, BBC, what have you) feels the need to keep people from changing the channel, and that usually results in quite a bit of "dumbing down" (though it need not necessarily—the real issue is clarity, not intelligence, but clarity is hard, dumbing down is easy). --140.247.241.150 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw another question on a reference desk recently on whether anybody actually believed wrestling matches weren't rigged. Personally I view wrestling matches as more deserving of credibility than these programs. They're entertainment. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RD/H#do some people not know wrestling is fake? Algebraist 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, skepticism is "the lifeblood of science". If something paranormal defies scientific explaination, then science will dogmatically reject it. Mention even the slightest possibility that something such as bigfoot might be real, and science will give you the academic cold shoulder. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you say so without providing any evidence, then yes. --Tango (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is a science. Maybe. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Which can be a real problem, because as Tango pointed out, the answer is *most likely* something that will be explainable outside of the paranormal. Even as a devout Christian, I think most paranormal stuff is bunk. (Miracles I accept wholeheartedly, along with spiritual warfare, astrology, Bigfoot, and the like I don't.) But, I also think it's sad that science doesn't embrace the idea of any paranormal stuff, because the idea of a level of existence beyond this one can at least explain some things.

Turning this, then, back to the OP, I think of places like the Discovery Channel as being willing to go just a little further than hard science. They have a different view of the paranormal than I do; they wish to include much more because they have a different world view than I do. Instead of "turning an academic cold shoulder," as someone else said, they intend to look into the possibility that that something isn't explainalbe outside of the paranormal. They don't go nearly as far as The X-Files, but they not only go further than science becuase of entertainment value, but because their world view is, "It might be something easily explainable - but, it might not be, so let's take a look."Somebody or his brother (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Once something paranormal is explained scientifically, it stops being paranormal and just becomes normal, whatever the explanation happens to be. If science discovers that the souls of our ancestors really do walk the halls at night making cold draughts then ghosts would just be part of normal science like evolution or gravity. For that reason, science can never "embrace the paranormal", since that's a contradiction in terms. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Science is fairly conservative (so said Thomas Kuhn, anyway), but that is part of why it is useful. The entire point of it is not to build a list of all of the possible facts in the world, but to narrow it down to the ones that can be relied upon to work again and again. Sometimes it gets it radically wrong, but the vast majority of the time it finds it can continue to build on from previous work, which proves to be a pretty strong foundation. If we lived in a world with infinite resources and infinite time, we wouldn't need methodology at all. But we don't, and never will. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much any TV station wants as many viewers as possible. Some want them so they can sell more advertisement time to their sponsors, some want them so they will have a larger pool of viewers come pledge decade, some want them so they can justify government funding come budget time, some want them so they have more people to expose to their propaganda. I suppose one could come up with a scenario where they don't care how many watch, say a wealthy eccentric with a foot fetish who decides to broadcast images of women's feet 24 hours a day. But, failing that, TV stations will show whatever sells. Obviously, if they all show the same thing, then anyone with something different will do well. This leads to many different shows appealing to different niches. The Discovery Channel has apparently decided to aim for the tin-foil hat crowd, figuring that PBS and such already have cornered the market on hard science. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is legally obliged to broadcast things for minority groups even if it results in lower ratings, so it's not always so simple. --Tango (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But within the legal restrictions, they will still try to maximize the number of viewers. If that means minority-aimed shows which appeal to the broadest possible audience, then that's what they'll do. StuRat (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The scientific establishment, as embodied by academies and refereed journals, rejects silly claptrap, but it has a history of also rejecting what later came to be accepted and taught in science classes. We don't even have to go back to scholars like Lavoisier and the Académie Française des Sciences in the 1790'sdoubting that stones could fall from the sky. The work of Einstein comes to mind: his work on relativity was widely denounced and derided by many leading physicists. Work that has been denounced or derided by some in the scientific establishment, but which I think has a good chance of becoming accepted mainstream science down the road is the work on use of language by animals (such as Washoe (chimpanzee) and Alex (parrot)). Edison (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful with all of the examples you've given:

• 1790 is really before the 'scientific method' became widely accepted. So that's not really fair.
• Einstein certainly was doubted - and rightly so - right up to the point when eclipse measurements proved him right. At that moment - the scientific community turned on a dime and accepted his views. This is precisely as it should be.
• Washoe, Alex and others are tricky. There is genuine doubt - and the experimental evidence is essentially anecdotal - so that's a fair thing...the scientific rigor isn't there. Personally - I'm inclined to agree with you that there is an amazing result there - especially with Alex the parrot (who sadly, died recently). It's astounding that that TINY brain could do so much.
• But the evidence for ghosts and UFO's and loch ness monster simply isn't there. It's gone past the 'doubt' stage now. These ideas have zero reliable evidence - ZERO. A decent scientist could tear the contents of any one of those shows into teeny-tiny pieces.

The idea that scientists should exhibit doubt is a good one - right up to the point when the evidence is in. At that point, 'doubt' turns to 'stupidity'. When Einstein's proposed eclipse experiment was performed and turned out as he predicted - the scientific community stamped the magic word "Theory" onto his "Hypothesis" and proceeded on the presumption that he was correct. Serious doubt of relativity is almost completely gone these days as evidence piles upon evidence that it's true. Ghosts are the opposite - we had doubt - then hypotheses fell - no proper experiments were done by the claimants. With an unfalsifiable hypothesis - we follow standard procedure and turn 'doubt' into the presumption that this is about as likely as the pink piano-playing aardvarqs on the far side of the moon...which essentially means we treat is as false...until or unless some reliable evidence turns up. You truly can't have doubt about all of those things because if you do, you end up with "Did the LHC produce a Higgs Boson - or was it maybe ghosts?" SteveBaker (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

College sports

I don't understand why college sports in the USA are so popular with fans? I can understand that a particular college's students, staff, and alumni might be fans of their college football team, but how on earth does that become something with major TV coverage and played in a packed 100,000 seat stadium? By contrast, here in the UK, Oxford and Cambridge universities football clubs play pretty much in obscurity in tiny stadiums. Astronaut (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite true of all UK university sport: The Boat Race is a major national event. Algebraist 15:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Oxford and Cambridge boat race is pretty popular, though. Still not on the scale of US college football, though, from what I can tell. (I've never understood its popularity, either.) --Tango (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The boat race is a bit of an oddity, but it is just once a year. I think the NCAA has entire leagues with months long playing seasons, nationwide TV coverage, and huge stadiums. An American friend told me it was more popular than NFL/MLB/NHL games with their professional players. Astronaut (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a good short answer is "years and years of tradition". Consider the NFL: the Super Bowl has existed for just over 40 years. The 1958 NFL Championship game, the "Greatest Game Ever Played", is a scant 50 years past and more-or-less marks the spot where pro football began to compete with college for national attention and status. Prior to that, for well over 50 years, top-notch football was synonymous with college football. Additionally, the NFL has long maintained drafting and scheduling standards that support, rather than compete with, the college game: currently no player can be drafted until he's at least three years removed from high school, and pro games are not played on Saturdays (until the college season has ended). For that matter, the NFL even avoids Friday games to protect the high school tradition.

On the other hand, contrast with baseball. With a hundred and change years of established professional leagues and no significant protection of the college game, NCAA baseball is your Oxford/Cambridge equivalent -- enjoyed by students and faculty but few others, and frequently bereft of the star players who have already turned pro. — Lomn 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is cause and what effect here, but the fact that American universities (unlike British ones) admit some students based on sporting prowess rather than academic merit must be relevant. Algebraist 15:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine the popularity is the cause and the scholarships are the effect (why else would they issue scholarships?), although it is probably a self-reinforcing relationship. --Tango (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Years and years of tradition? Your country is barely more than 200 years old, you don't know the meaning of the word "tradition"! ;) --Tango (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"In Europe, 100 miles is a long way. In America, 100 years is a long time." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jpgordon is more elegant than I am, but I'll point out that the US predates the UK :) — Lomn 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, in their present forms. If you go by how far back the respective cultures and histories go (which is more relevant to this discussion), what is now the UK is far far older than what is now the US (although by that measure, the US is a fair bit more than 200 years old, so perhaps I was being a little unfair!). Looking out of my windows I can (barely - it's foggy!) see Durham Cathedral, which is over 900 years old - yes, the name and borders of the country in which it stands have changed many times over that period, but it's the same cathedral. North America doesn't have anything even remotely comparable. --Tango (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I fully agree. I spent a semester in England (near Grantham, to be specific) and had the point driven home when I visited one of the local churches. Glancing at the plaques on the walls, I saw one that looked substantially newer, so I figured I'd look at it so as to have a chance at knowing the historical context. Said newer plaque dated to the 18th century -- positively ancient by our national standards. — Lomn 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of your point was, Tango, other than some sort of schoolyard bragging about how terribly old your country is. Australia has been around as a unified nation for only 108 years, and has been settled by non-indigenous people for only 221 years, but we certainly have well-established traditions. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A few points to consider. The caliber of play in the top schools of the NCAA, in both American football and Basketball, is excellent. Every year, a large number of players step straight from the universities into the NFL and NBA and more than hold their own. When was the last time a soccer player went from playing for Oxford to starting for a Premier League team ? People like to see the future stars, and in fact top college players are mega stars in their own right.

Second, the college and pro games are slightly different. In pro basketball, the athletes are so good that there is less emphasis on strategy and more on simply letting offensive talent express itself. In the NCAA, there is more variety of talent and more scope for teams using different strategies, making for a more diversified (and many would say more interesting) style of play. Same for football, where the variety of offensive schemes is much wider in the NCAA, with some teams hardly ever passing the ball, and others who barely ever run, and everything in between. Diversity creates interest.

Finally, universities develop followings wider than their base of alumni, be it regional or state-wide (for example, if you live in Nebraska and like football, you will be a fan of the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers, just like a football-mad yougster in the UK will support his local side). Traditionally powerful teams develop even wider fan bases that translate into large television audiences. --Xuxl (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The best football players in the UK will join Premier League first teams while still in their teens, so perhaps it's the age restrictions on US pro football that are significant (as was suggested by Lomn). Also, up and coming UK football players usually join the academy of a professional team rather than playing through their school or university. International under-21 (and other age categories) games (played by the young players signed to a pro club) get a decent amount of attention, but domestic ones are rarely noticed by anyone not directly involved. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is an important parallel between UK football and American baseball where most of the top players don't go to college/university and attendance at the college games is minor. But something must also differ in the sports culture of the countries where for U.S. football and UK football (soccer), the sizes of the stadia differ so much. Professional football in the UK has 4 stadia with over 50,000 capacity while the U.S. has almost 100 pro and college stadia that large (which doesn't scale for the 5x population difference). Average attendance of U.S. college football is very high: "SEC lives up to its reputation as the home of passionate college football fans with a conference-record average of 75,706 fans per game. Big 10 schools averaged just under 70,000 fans per game."[10] Rmhermen (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think (I cba to research it) that a good reason why the stadia in the UK are smaller is because of the tight rules regarding health and safety - professional football (read soccer) teams in the premiership must have all-seater stadia within a set (short) period after joining the league. That reduces the capacity dramatically. I have no idea if similar rules exist in the US. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Americans would find not having an assigned seat in any stadium very odd. Rmhermen (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm... interesting responses. Comparing the NFL to the English leagues, I noticed the NFL is played between 32 professional teams, with each team playing 16 games in a regular season, plus some playoff games and superbowl if they're lucky; the English leagues are contested between 92 professional teams in 4 divisions, with each team playing at least 38 league games, plus games in other competitions. Perhaps there is a greater opportunity to watch professional sports in England (your local team is quite likely to be a professional team). I also think Xux1 is on to something with the differing development programs, with US college sports being aimed at bringing talented players into professional sports, while English football tends to develop their own promising talent from an early age. It is also interesting that Xux1 mentioned the University of Nebraska - I have a Nebraska Cornhuskers football shirt :-)) It was also interesting coming across this image - not even English Premiership games are that well attended. Astronaut (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it's even more than 92 pro teams - several Conference National teams are full-time professional. The rest are semi-professional, you have to go a long way down the leagues to get to completely amateur teams. --Tango (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also the hype that has been created around various programs, to gbo along with the concept of regional rivalries, as in the Nebraska comments. University of Michigan has in its fight song "champions of the West" for a reason - newspapers used to enjoy drawing readers a century ago by proclaiming their school the best of a regional. The conferences themselves deveoped out of this, and eventually there became great pride in saying you were the best of a region.

There was also the notion of the local hero. I know very little about British sports, so I'm not sure if any person in Britain has ever attained national superstardom for his play on the field (Olympics and World Cup aside, of course), let alone whether groups gain regional acclaim. However, from the Four Horsemen of Notre Dame (and probably before), the idea of a "golden boy" being a hero to many has been a major part of American sports. Where there was no Babe Ruth or Christy Mathewson to watch, people natrually turned to their local college stars. So, people years later could remember their great quarterback or star runner, even if that person just wound up staying in the community and working in the local mill. Whether it's The Ohio State University or my alma mater, College of Wooster, everyone has those stories where our region could point with pride to times when some hero achieved something we saw as special. And, whereas the British may have a dozen such people, every region has probably a dozen of those people at each school; part of the way America is still - and certainly was still back then - a nation of numerous distinct regions.Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reasonably big team in the UK will have its heros, current and past (smaller ones will too, I guess, but they are likely to be known to far fewer people). Many become household names throughout the country, some even throughout the world (David Beckham, say). --Tango (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It has a LOT to do with history. Both football (by Walter Camp at Yale, though influenced by several other colleges and games) and basketball (by James Naismith at Springfield College) were both invented at colleges and originally primarily played by college students. It wasn't until the 1920's for football and 1940's for basketball that serious "professional" level leagues got started; at that point the college game for both had a decades-long following. In contrast, baseball has NEVER been primarily a college-level sport, and had been a professional-level game since the 1870s. So what you have is that when the NFL and NBA were founded, people didn't just up and give up being fans of the college game. There has been a continuity of popularity that extends back to the 1890's when the college game got started in earnest for both of those sports.

Indeed, the NFLs popularity really didn't get going until the 1960's (1958's NFL Championship Game being the watershed moment for the league), and it could be argued that the NBA only began to approach the popularity of college basketball in the 1980's.

Additionally, with fewer teams to root for at the professional level (32 in the NFL, 30 in the NBA), and many areas without any coverage at ALL, or only recently, by professional teams (the American South, for example, has been historically devoid of major league professional teams), the popularity of the college game lives on. Look at the example of where I live (North Carolina). We are host to our second NBA franchise in 20 years (the first bolted for New Orleans after 12 years) and they don't even come CLOSE to drawing the the crowds that the local Tobacco Road-based basketball teams do. Heck, the largest indoor arena in the state of North Carolina, the Greensboro Coliseum, exists almost SOLELY to host the ACC Basketball Tournament. Its just that professional teams have a hard time making inroads in areas where local loyalties go back decades and decades. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

FIT

Ok i had heard about florida institute of technology(FIT),melbourne,florida,USA from some of my friends(I'm in international applicant) and applied for it with my SAT-1 marks and today got an email informing me of my admission to the computer engineering course that the university offers.But when i checked up international university ranking,FIT was nowhere on the list ,(US News and World Report and other lists) .So i was wondering whether i should go ahead and accept the admission or not because i can't seem to find any information on whether this institute is any good or not - and i would like to hear from anyone who currently resides in the US or has knowledge regarding the universities there.Vineeth h (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You may find Florida Institute of Technology#Rankings (and the rest of that article) useful. --Tango (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Florida Tech is somewhere in the middle of the rankings. It has neither an excellent nor a terrible reputation. Certainly its degrees are recognized and accepted in the United States, but they are not especially prestigious. If you have been offered admission at a better institution, then you might want to decline admission to Florida Tech, but if Florida Tech is your best option, it's not a bad one. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The driest area of Britain

My wife suffers from terrible arthritis that is made much worse in the damp atmosphere where we live in Scotland. Does anyone here know whereabouts in the UK - probably England -that enjoys the driest and warmest climate? Thanks. 92.20.24.147 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how dry it is, but Cornwall is probably the warmest. --Tango (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For driest, "The Top Ten of Everything 2007' reports St Osyth, Essex as the driest place in the UK, with only 506.9 mm of rain on average per year recorded over the last 40 years." (from WikiAnswers) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also for warmest, WikiAnswers says "of course in the Scilly Isles" but does not provide sources. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The driest part of the UK is the southeast of England. For dry and warm, London might be best (it's much hotter than the surrounding area). That's driest in terms of total annual rainfall, though, which may not be the best measure. If dampness and light drizzle is just as bad for the arthritis as serious rain, then you want the area with the most totally dry days, not the lowest rainfall. I don't know where that is. Algebraist 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Even the drier parts of England are relatively damp by global standards. You might consider a move to Spain, particularly the region around Valencia, which is warm and dry most of the year. Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that East Anglia is a semi-arid region, so I'd think around there. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-arid? Unless they're some scientific facet I'm unaware of, that's not correct. No, it's one of the most fertile arable areas of the country, and it certainly rains enough. We aren't used to the torrents found in Scotland, but certainly the south-coast's drier. The further south, as with Clacton/St. Oysth, the sunnier. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also Gibraltar, but that's a little further out of the way. Steewi (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar is much wetter than England, though, except in summer. It's also not in the UK. Algebraist 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You won't find anywhere in the UK that is dry, everywhere will be damp to some extent most years. AllanHainey (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you locate a sheltered area. e.g. the area around Portsmouth (Gosport, Fareham, Cosham, etc.) is protected by a range of hills. It enjoys much warmer weather than just a few miles along the coast. I believe Torquay has a similar beneficial climate. My wife has had chronic arthritis for 26 years, you have my sympathy (and it is not easy to live with her pain).86.197.42.35 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)JD

For what it's worth I lived in southern Spain for a few years and there is a very high incidence of people with arthritis there. The climatic warmth and dryness did not seem to appreciably diminish their discomfort. I would respectfully suggest more research before you assume the drier climate will diminish the pain. Here is a reputable journal with an article [[11]] Of course the warmer south will probably make life generally more bearable. I do hope you find a more comfortable area. Richard Avery (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

People get it in dry Australia too, with the additional charms of asthma. In a recent SBS UK documentary, How to Live to 101 Without Trying, scientists suggest it's rife due to inherited active immune defences selected out through living conditions in Scotland mid-last century. -- Julia Rossi (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

January 28

Smallest viable population

I have been watching the new season of Battlestar Galactica and the overall story got me thinking: If a similar scale of disaster were to befall the human population of Earth, would ~40,000 people be sufficient to rebuild civilization over several generations? And what would be the smallest population that could still maintain sufficient genetic diversity over 10 generations or more? Astronaut (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Define "sufficient genetic diversity". Our article on minimum viable population sets a value of 1000 for terrestrial vertebrates with inbreeding and loss of genetic variability. However, the article also specifically notes that "human intervention" is a factor that can modify the odds. Given that humans would presumably be most interested in intervening for their own species, I'd guess the actual minimum viable population for humans would be in the low hundreds. We'd lose significant genetic diversity, but humans are one of few species that rely on intelligence over genetics for adaptation: if the world is too cold light a fire, make a coat; don't just wait for your progeny to develop insulating fat deposits. That difference makes "sufficient genetic diversity" for the continuation of the human species less of a concern than it would be for many other species. As an example, consider the number of genetic diseases that are either treatable or managable today--as long as we retain the knowledge and technology to treat these diseases it doesn't matter whether they afflict a small portion or the entirety of the population. Rebuilding our civilization from such a point would, however, require more than "several generations". -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See also space colonization for a discussion on a minimum viable human population, which supplies the estimate 150-180. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) See founder effect for some discussion of the effects of very small population sizes—there are some notable examples of populations getting reduced very heavily and not always suffering for it much, genetically speaking. Genetically there is some luck involved. But anyway, this shouldn't surprise us too much that small population sizes can indeed prosper without severe problems with inbreeding—for most of their existence as a species humans existed in pretty small groups. Obviously there was some genetic interchange with these groups but you don't need to have civilization and cities for sufficient genetic diversity. I suspect 40,000 would be well more than enough to "rebuild civilization" as long as certain resources were in place (as on the show, the biggest issue is not population, but food and water supplies, etc.). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Some academics have calculated that all humans from outside Africa derived from just "a single group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps a couple of hundred strong". [12] These were likely to be rather inbred too, but seemed to do just fine for themselves. So one would expect that a couple of hundred would be plenty. If the survivors were purposefully sampled from different ethnicities (say a human Noah's Ark was selected for survival) rather than members of an extended family, and post-disaster reproduction was regulated to minimize consanguinity, then much less would be sufficient to avoid serious founder effects. As few as 50 monogamous couples could generate 5 generations without the need for any consanguinity. Once you get past the 3rd generation apart (second cousins) it wouldn't make too much difference. Rockpocket 09:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Some genetic evidence suggests that the total human population was at one time cut down to 2,000 - 20,000 individuals, one possibility for the reduction being a major volcanic eruption. 88.112.34.160 (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the size of the population has less of a bearing on genetic diversity & long-term survival than the number of women of child bearing age, fertility rates and the nature and extent of disease in that population (eg if only 1 small area in East Africa survived with 20,000 people in it that wouldn't necessarily mean a surviving genetically diverse population in the long-term if 90% of the population had AIDS, and only 40% were fertile women). Other factors will have a bearing too but these seemed the most obvious. AllanHainey (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can basically ignore anyone that can't reliably reproduce (eg. too old), then you need to calculate the effective population size to account for uneven gender distributions. --Tango (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the above assuming that the citizens of this mini population are willingly going to pro-create together? I guess that given the situation normal social boundaries might change, do such theories account for this sort of thing? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there were two groups that refused to interbreed, then they are effectively separate populations. I don't think it takes much mixing to keep the groups viable, though - even a very small group can manage just fine for a few generations, so one or two mixed couples each generation may well be enough. --Tango (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly sure one could rely on biology/hormones/etc. to take care of that. People are really not all that picky when it comes to mates unless they think there are going to be a lot of options. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Heavy metal a victim of reverse discrimination?

I have moved this question to the more appropriate Entertainment desk. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Coconut Shy

In the song I've Got A Lovely Bunch of Coconuts, how do you play the game he's describing? In the article on coconut shy it says you throw a baseball at a row of coconuts on posts, but that doesn't really fit with "roll a bowler ball". Black Carrot (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for sure if I've got the correct 'spin' here, but could it be a reference to cricket (the game, not the insect)? In cricket, the bowler is roughly analogous to the pitcher in baseball. I could in that case read "roll a bowler ball" as a colourful way of saying "pitch a cricket ball". Totally conjecture, mind. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While lyrics sites are notoriously unreliable, and I think linking to them is frowned upon, I am pretty sure, and my searches confirm, that the line is "Roll a bowl, a ball, a penny a pitch". --LarryMac | Talk 15:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot on LarryMac. Btw,I don't think we ever used baseballs to knock off the coconuts, I seem to remember they were wooden balls - but about the size of a baseball ball. Richard Avery (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found several sets of lyrics that disagree with each other, and I trust none of them. Is your source authoritative? Anyway, the part that confused me was "roll". If you're rolling a ball, it's on the ground, and whatever it's rolling towards must be on the ground too, right? Black Carrot (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As I noted, such sites are unreliable. You do realize you're trying to make sense of a music hall song, right? Chances are that the words were chosen for sound as much as for technical description of the activity. Similarly, there is no digging nor actual canines nor any bombs involved in Hot Diggity (Dog Ziggity Boom).  :-) --LarryMac | Talk 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My memory of this song is "Roll or bowl a ball, a penny a pitch". Which means roll (underarm) or bowl (overarm) a ball (which RichardAvery identified correctly as a wooden ball, maybe the same size as one used nowadays in bowls), for a penny per go. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's plausible, but I've never heard of throwing underarm being called "rolling" unless the ball is actually going to roll along the ground. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Two traditional games at British fairs are the Coconut Shy where wooden balls a little smaller than a baseball are thrown at coconuts that are set up in acorn-shaped holders on poles, and about 20 feet away. Not so difficult to hit the nut - far more difficult to get it out of the holder! Knock the nut out and it is yours as a prize. The other game is a version of skittles. No explanation needed. Both could be side-by-side with one barker. Thus roll or bowl a ball. ('Bowl' of course substitutes for throw, otherwise the lyric wouldn't work.) A penny a pitch simply refers to the price. A penny being, then, one 240th of a pound.86.197.18.122 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)DT

The words for these old songs do get horribly mangled over the years precisely because they often weren't written down - so their meaning can change multiple times before reaching the present day. The degree of this mangling is truly impressive sometimes. Check out Ring a Ring o' Roses for example. Coconut shy's were notoriously 'rigged' with a short length of string threaded up through the center of the 'cup' and tied onto the hollowed out bottom of the coconut shell. The string would be loose enough to allow the coconut to come ALMOST out of the cup and then fall back - thereby encouraging the loser to want to try again. One or two non-rigged cups would be there in order that the barker could demonstrate the fairness of the shy - and to allay suspicion by ensuring that people would OCCASIONALLY win. That's why the nut is easy to hit but quite impossible to get out of the cup! Because the rigged coconuts don't get replaced very often, they tend to lose the 'hair' on the outside - so when possible, aim for the hairiest coconut! I don't think people throw the ball underarm at those events - it's definitely an overarm pitch...which would be required in order to get the power to knock one of the coconuts off. In any case, an overarm throw would be the more familiar for the English due to the popularity of cricket as an amateur/adult sport that most men would have participated in many times in the past. SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a source. According to Danny Kaye [13], it's "roll or bowl a ball." It looks like 86.197's explanation is the most likely so far. Black Carrot (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the "version of skittles" you mention involve coconuts as well, maybe as the pins, or is it just the ordinary game? Black Carrot (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How do deaf people communicate with normal people?

Deaf people communicate with each other in sign language, but how do they communicate with normal people who don't know they're deaf? Does it happen that someone tries to talk to a deaf person for several minutes, then suddenly realises he/she's deaf? How do they then proceed if the other person doesn't know sign language? With blind people it's easier, as a blind person can simply say "I'm blind." But how does it work with deaf people? JIP | Talk 18:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It varies. Some deaf people have learned to vocalize words (understandably often a bit awkwardly). Others would use gestures. Deaf people tend to be very good at making themselves understood through gestures even to people who don't understand sign language. It is unlikely that someone would spend several minutes talking to a deaf person before realizing that he/she's deaf. Deaf people know visually when a speaker is speaking and would generally respond in some way to let the speaker know that they are deaf. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deaf people are often very good at lip reading, so the deaf person understanding the hearing person is often not a problem. If someone wasn't born deaf, but went deaf later in life, then they can usually speak with no difficulty. People who were born deaf do often learn to speak well enough to be understood, those that don't have to rely on gestures or an interpreter (or writing things down, I guess). --Tango (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to be careful with that word normal. I don't think you meant anything bad, but you can tread on people's sensitivities if you're not careful. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realised it myself, but only after I had written my message. I thought it was obvious enough that I only meant "non-deaf" and not implied there was anything bad about being deaf, so I let it be. JIP | Talk 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Too true - I had a friend who was profoundly deaf from birth and he married a similarly profoundly deaf person he met at the school for the deaf. In those days it was called The School for the Deaf and Dumb, which nowadays would be an appalling expression, as it was even then. But he was quite content to be referred to as Hearing Impaired when talking or communicating with a Hearing Person. 92.22.201.203 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"The School for the Deaf and Dumb" sounds reasonable to me - you can be dumb (ie. unable to speak) without being deaf, and attending such a school would probably make sense for you. Of course, "dumb" is used to mean "stupid" these days, but personally I think the best way to deal with such inappropriate changes of meaning is the use the word for its original meaning as often as possible. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In Finnish we say "mykkä" meaning physically unable to speak. I once read a GI Joe comic where some Cobra guy says about Snake-Eyes: "How could I have forgot? This madman is mute!" I understood that the English word "mute" means the same thing. But as I'm not a native English speaker, I would want to confirm this with a native speaker. JIP | Talk 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mute is synonymous with this usage of dumb in English and is the more politically correct term. Tomdobb (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the matter with "Deaf & Dumb", it is simply a statement of fact understood by all. I am deaf and quite happy to be referred to as such. --Artjo (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me and I'm glad it doesn't bother you, but generally speaking, I understand mute to be the preferred term. Tomdobb (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In America, influenced by the German "dumm", 'dumb' came to mean 'stupid'. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Watching movies like "Untraceable"

I watched this movie for the first time last night and found myself both appalled that people could log on to a live streaming website to watch the live "death" of the perpetrator's victim; and yet fascinated to see what would transpire as the storyline unfolded. We were informed that the sicko who set up these murders was a psychopath who was paying back in kind those he believed to have broadcast (admittedly repetitiously)images of the suicide of his bereaved and depressed father - or those in the FBI who were getting close to arresting him. We were also shown graphically how he set up his equipment so that the more people who logged on to watch the action in real time, the more quickly the effects of his chosen modus operandii would work on his victim - with a digital counter recording viewers in excess of 20 million at times. 2 questions - would the authorities really have no way to switch off such websites as these should any nutter attempt to copy the storyline in this film, thus denying him his audience - and equally worrying - to me at least - was there any moral difference between my watching a fictional portrayal of such a set-piece, and potentially watching the real thing itself? In short - should I have demonstrated my horror by turning off the TV? And believe me - I was and am truly horrified that such things can exist via the Internet. 92.22.201.203 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Most governments do *not* have sweeping powers to control content on the internet (which is much more a good thing than a bad thing--think censorship in China). They can presumably create local blocks (like the great firewall of China), but as is commonly stated, the internet detects censorship as damage and routes around it. On the other hand, in a case similar to the movie I doubt law enforcement would have much trouble convincing the ISP/host of the site to remove it immediately.

It is quite normal to explore unthinkable situations in fiction. As long as you are capable of understanding the difference between a fictional portrayal and real life, then there is indeed a moral difference (i.e. one is real; one isn't). Lastly, although the internet may be the most recent medium for public execution, it is hardly the first, nor even the first with spectator participation: see trial by combat, stoning, and gibbet. – 74 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue isn't new with the Internet, snuff films were around a long time ago. I do consider it a sin to watch, if the people making the film/committing the murder get any benefit from it. If you watch a website, they could count the number of hits and get money from advertisers for your visit. This came up with the murder of Daniel Pearl, which was available on the Internet, but I decided not to watch it for this reason. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing with a simple video is that the Internet is only the means of transmission. It's VERY tough for a government to prevent the spread of a video if it's copied from one user to another or spread via some peer-to-peer protocol. The data only travels any particular route once or twice and then it's off being spread via some other route. In the case of the scenario in 'Untraceable' though, the perpetrator had to count the number of hits at his web site. That requires the video (which in any case was supposed to be live streaming video) to come from a single source and to monitor visitors arriving at that single site. That makes it trivial to find - and no harder to shut down than any criminal activity for which you have a street address. Furthermore - the amount of site bandwidth required to single-source stream live video to 2 million visitors would require infrastructure comparable to Google or YouTube! Multiple large buildings with a staff of hundreds of IT guys. This isn't something you can do with your PC and a DSL line! The movie is junk...it's ridiculous. Calling it 'untraceable' is pretty much the worst part! In reality, the perpetrator would be EASY to trace! SteveBaker (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I ever want to see something like this take place, but the premise isn't as "unpossible" as you seem to think. A practically "untraceable" solution: decentralized distributed p2p malware automatically installed onto a large botnet. Add in a few details like auto-emailing URLs of compromised computers, browser hijacking, botnet activity tracking, and a few foreign-hosted domains and you've got a serious mess. Since the (many) URLs are available in IP address form (pointing to many different zombie computers), there is no reasonable block that can be applied quickly short of shutting down the internet. Since the load is distributed on zombie computers no massive datacenter is necessary. And since all the software is running on compromised machines there is no easy link to the perpetrator. (To be fair, I'm sure the writers used some hand-waving to explain the "untraceability" in the movie, and probably got the technology all wrong.) – 74 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole premise is that there is a REAL TIME video stream with REAL TIME feedback to that point counting the number of viewers. People go to a specified HTTP address to see the video - how the heck could you POSSIBLY distribute that without being able to simply track the path back from machine to machine to the ultimate source? Particularly because the data is bidirectional in nature and can't have more than a few seconds of latency? If you think you can do that through a botnet you don't understand the Internet! SteveBaker (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

P2PTV – 74  01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that governments have relatively little power to patrol the internet - they would have no problem whatever in tracking down the perpetrator's web site and shutting it down - or even of simply blocking access to it by removing the site's DNS entries. The movie is quite simply ridiculous. So such things really CAN'T exist - the very need for the perpetrator to count the number of visitors means that some traffic has to travel from the visitor's computer to the perpetrator's computer - and following that data isn't difficult. Heck - the software you need comes with every UNIX/Linux computer! It's called 'traceroute'. Even if the site were overseas - it would be simple to have the DNS entries pulled or the site's IP address blocked on US servers. So: IT'S JUST FICTION. Can't happen, won't happen, don't worry about it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like there is a trivial way of bypassing DNS lookups or a way to bypass IP address blocks. For reference, these are some of the techniques used by the great firewall of China, and we all know how well that works. – 74 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK folks - thanks for your responses to both parts of my OP - much appreciated and much relieved. But sorry Steve - I seem to have gotten you a bit animated with my technical incompetence. 92.22.246.240 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

StuRat, you realize that Snuff Films are an urban legend, right? It says so right in the intro to the article you just linked. APL (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps people committing murders on film with the intent of making a profit is, but you do get one person who films a murder and another who sells it. Than there's those sick bastards who sold the Faces of Death videos showing children getting killed (accidentally). StuRat (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm couldn't a tor network be used to hide a server, just as a botnet could? I agree a way of counting views under such a system while remaining anonymous would be very difficult if not impossible. TastyCakes (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The protection afforded by a tor network would provide secure access, but

• throughput is often limited
• tor node operators are much more computer savvy
• the tor network *might* be taken down with sufficient motivation

As for counting page "views", note that botnets often track their activity with anonymous reports to their creator--it is no stretch to add a "page views" field. Similarly, the number of views could be propagated "in channel" with the p2p data. I suspect an accuracy rate near that of an actual centralized server could be obtained. – 74 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• You folks do realize you are dedicating an inordinate ammount of time debating the viobility of a plot element from a work of fiction, right? The whole idea behind fiction is that its all made up. Sure, people who create fiction will sometimes add pseudorealistic jargon or terms into their works to make them appear more "realistic" so audiences can identify with them, but given the choice between scrupulous adherance to reality and fudging reallity to tell a good story, every writer worth his salt will forgo realism for storytelling. Otherwise, you wouldn't have found the movie interesting enough to watch anyways. Seriously, you shouldn't overanalyze these sorts of things because they're just made up anyways!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cryptography

I've always had a nagging thought about asymmetric cryptography. For relatively short messages like passwords, what is to stop some nefarious intermediary from running the public key on a huge dictionary of possible passwords and keeping the generated encryption for each and then comparing the encrypted password from the sender with this huge list? Does this not reduce the encryption of such files to a relatively trivial brute force attack, albeit a brute force attack with the extra steps of creating a dictionary and looking for matches? TastyCakes (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A simple counter is to include a nonce in the message--this increases the length of the message and makes any brute-force dictionary attack prohibitively expensive. – 74 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you know a lot about the message in question (such as it being likely to be a common English word or something like that) and the length is small then the possibilities for brute-forcing it are very high. This is comparable to how rainbow tables work. As with those, adding a salt can make such an operation computationally prohibitive. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For convenience: salt (cryptography). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

January 29

'track basher'

What is a 'track basher' is in reference to Antonín Dvořák? I think I may have misheard it on the radio- something similar maybe. I see the reference to 'mac basher' in the article on John C. Dvorak, but I'm pretty sure it's in reference to the composer. Nadando (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The only meaning of "track basher" that I know is a railway fan who tries to travel over separate every piece of track on a railway (see Railfan#Basher). I mention this in case the term was not being used in reference to the composer or if it was some sort of pun on the railfan sense. --Anonymous, 07:32 UTC, January 29, 2009.

I have no idea if this helps, but: On a few websites, Antonín Dvořák is desribed as having been a train enthusiast and gricer (where gricer seems to be a term for trainspotter). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for "gricer". It's a relatively new word, with its first quotation from 1969. The etymology is uncertain, but it may be related to "grouse" "on the basis of the supposed resemblance of train-spotting to grouse-shooting". Also "grice", and verb "to grice". --Milkbreath (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

the only british female marine

Is it true that only one woman ever made it into the royal marines? i remember hearing this ages ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.20.139 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is true, the woman was called Hannah Snell, and entered in the 1700s however apparently she pretended to be male to get in the marines. But still got a military pension, try here for further reading Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Or here Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Women are currently trying to earn the green beret which means having to pass the endurance course designed for men. I believe one has recently made it, if not she only just failed.86.200.130.201 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)DT