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

April 19

Getting a water resistant watch battery replaced in Cambridge, MA

Does anyone know of an inexpensive place to get a water-resistant (200m) watch's battery replaced and then water-sealed? I've called around and couldn't find any place that would do it for less than $35. Thanks. --VectorField (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful to find a place that will guarantee the watch will remain water resistant. The place I went just tore the water proof ring to shreds getting the watch open and tossed it out. So now I have a non-water resistant watch with a new battery. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Such events are depressingly common. One time when I had a battery replaced, I watched the teen-aged counter monkey drop the internal bits out of the watch, and then spend 5 minutes trying repeatedly to put it back together in working order. He then got offended that I was upset at his performance. - Back on topic, your best bet would be a jewelry store with a watch counter. I would probably call the manufacturer and ask for a list of authorized retailers. They would be the ones best certified to ensure the watch is in proper working order. Also, how much is the watch worth to you? It doesn't make sense to quibble over a $35 battery replacement for a $1000 watch, especially when you need it to be properly water-sealed. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Colin/Pollock

According to the Wikipedia article Pollock: On Monday 13th of April 2009 Sainsburys announced it would now refer to Pollock as "Colin" so as to save customers embarrassment. Colin is the English Translation of the French word "Pollack", literally pronounced "Col-an" What's embarrassing about Pollock? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Pollock" pronounced "PAH-luck" is a fish. "Pollock" prounced "POLE-lock" is a durrogatory term for people from Poland. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that when Jay says "PAH-luck" he means "POL-uck". Many American accents don't distinguish the AH vowel from the short O. --Anonymous, 05:52 UTC, April 19, 2009.

Also note that when Jay says "POLE-lock", he means "Polack". Also note that it's "derogatory", not "durrogatory". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be pronounced "Po-lack". DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here in the rebellious colonies, surprisingly, the spelling of Polack has not overridden the (roughly) Polish pronunciation /ˈpoːlɑk/. —Tamfang (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

According to The Sunday Times, people were embarrassed to ask the fishmonger if he’s got any pollocks and could they see them?-gadfium 06:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"We just got a fresh load of pollocks in." Yeah, that could cause an uncomfortable social situation. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't say "a load of pollocks", you would say "a load of pollock" - many fish are like that en masse. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to finally clarify, the possible embarassment factor is because "pollock" sounds similar to "bollock", not because it sounds similar to "Polack", which is not a widely used term in England anyway. Sainsburys appear to assume their customers have the sense of humour and sophistication of an 8 year old. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe they're the first major shopping outlet to realise this. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear that Gandalf61 has the right answer. The stuff about "Polack" would be unintelligible to a Brit. It's an interesting insight into Wikipedia and the reference desk that several people assumed they knew the answer because it's the one that would apply in their culture. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I can believe anyone would see this as anything more than press release from the marketing department of a major retailer to get them some free advertising over an entirely spurious issue. While a large proportion of shoppers probably did not know there was a white fish called a pollock those that did know I doubt would be all that embarrassed and mostly just mildly amused. It does have a serious side as overfishing of cod means people are encouraged to eat other species in their fish and chips that they might be initially reluctant to try. On an almost unrelated note I know someone who caught pollock on cucumber which sounds a lot more embarrassing than it was. meltBanana 14:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct culinary term for the item is prairie oyster. I am not the first to remark that, correctly prepared, it is the piece of cod that passeth understanding. (Not to be confused with a codpiece. I knew there was something fishy going on.) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

surely a prairie oyster is a raw egg with Worcestershire Sauce, while the piece of cod that passeth all understanding is it's skull, which comes in about a hundred bits (I actually have a citation somewhere for the origin of the piece of cod...now if I could only remember where)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[Adding to already-archived discussion:] Rick Stein just attributed that line "the piece of cod that passeth understanding" to Keith Floyd. Floyd may well have said it, but he wasn't the first: a Google search reminds me that it was said by "Nigel Molesworth", the fictional schoolboy in the books (1953-58) by Geoffrey Willans. That must certainly be where I first read it. But somebody else may have said it even before that. Andrew Dalby 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I heard this news story but I never made the connection with bollock, I'd assumed it was because it sounded a bit like pillock, a derogotory name for an idiot. AllanHainey (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a non-derogatory name for an idiot? DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Person with learning difficulties" is the politically correct term, you can decide for yourself if that is derogatory or not. --Tango (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we're using idiot in a different way - when I call someone an idiot it's usually because they think that calling a fish "Colin" will make more people eat it (or some such nonsense, renaming the Post Office "Oblivia" or whatever it was, or buying a house next to a farm and then complaining that it's noisy at 5 in the morning when the farmer starts work), not because of any learning difficulty they may have. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would define "idiot" as "person with (very) low intelligence". Since "intelligence" is very poorly defined, "idiot" is too. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Consignia was what the post office choose.. Oblivia is either someone's bad experience with Parcel Force or the group the UK Govt. uses for burying bad news.. XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We used to catch pollock off West Wales as kids, before most people had heard of it. Yes, we used to make pollock/bollock jokes, but that's because we were kids. Sainsbury's renaming it is absurd. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How odd about Sainsburys.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Colin" nonsense was introduced without a citation by an IP editor who has made no other edits. I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I did hear this information on the BBC World news this week, and Forbes.com has a reference to it here. I don't think the addition was vandalism though it may, indeed, be marketing nonsense. // BL \\ (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I always knew it as coley, which is a redirect to pollock and sounds a bit like colin. My mother always fed this stuff to the cat. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Coley is the coalfish (Pollachius virens), pollack is Pollachius pollachius. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The re-naming may be nonsense, but it is valid nonsense - see this BBC News report. It was mentioned on several UK news channels at the time. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally would rather eat a bollock than a colin. --Sean 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what Colin Pollock thinks of all this? DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying having a fish named after me (my name is Colin), especially when it used to have a name that sounded like 'bollock'.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Under-3 Mortality Rate

During ancient times and the Middle Ages, how many percent of babies born alive died before the age of 3 years?

Bowei Huang (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Have found an interesting essay here that you might like. From own knowledge, I believe it would be quite high even until the 19th century, since among many families in Europe it was almost customary not to reveal the birth of an heir until the baby was over twelve months of age, since chances were pretty high that it wouldn't survive its first year. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the age at which babies were christened, i.e. welcomed into the community, varies considerably. You need to be more precise about where and when. Class and gender affected rates too, and still do in poor countries. See infant mortality for background. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

e-books (pdf format)

Could anybody suggest me a website where i can download heaps of e-books (.pdf format) easily for free?? Because I've been trying to download a couple of books (and some of them aren't that famous), and I've tried googling but all I came up with were sites that required registration and payment. And some of the sites don't seem to work because of geographical difficulties (I live in South Korea). Any type of suggestion or advice will be appreciated. thanks. Johnnyboi7 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out List of digital library projects. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifically this site [1] might be helpful to you. No payment necessary .Richard Avery (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The link above (Gutenberg project) is surely amazing, however, the site do not offer pdf files.--Mr.K. (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is a portal for a large number of online libraries as well as having its own collection of user uploaded books. Every book is available in pdf format and is copyright free. They have a very impressive collection of literature. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia view/edit/revert ratios

Is there anywhere to find out what the edit:view and revert:edit ratios are on wikipedia? Smartse (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You might have better luck on the Help desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis has tons of information on this. Overall, the estimate is that 80% of edits are "normal" edits, 10% of all edits are reverted - and (of course) the remaining 10% of edits are the actual reversions themselves. However, I believe this is an underestimate because there are times when an editor will delete most of the words of a previous edit (and perhaps replace them) without using reversion tools. There are also times when the reversion is partial - or happens after lots of intervening edits - meaning that the reversion tools don't work. It's virtually impossible to know how often that happens - or even to define precisely what "reversion" is. If you write: "Machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics are not possible" - and I change that to "Perpetual motion machines are in widespread use in American Industry" and you change "n widespread use in American Industry" to "mpossible" - was that a revert? Logically/conceptually, it was - but textually - not even close. SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009

Thanks for that. Why hasn't there been any data since then? Smartse (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because most of these statistics are a pain to collect and they simply aren't all that useful. For the reasons I explained, there is no clear, bright line between a reversion - and a removal or changing of meaning of the content of the words without replacing all of them. SteveBaker (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sleeping away from home

How come some people can fall asleep anywhere and other people like me have falling/staying asleep unless we're in our own beds? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because everyone is different. Your question contains the answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people tend to go to bed more fatigued than others; those that go to bed when they're less tired will often do so as part of a routine, and being outside of familiar surroundings will disrupt that routine. Anxiety (conscious or subconscious) may also keep you awake. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have experienced that I have more or less developed the ability to sleep wherever and whenever, having travelled a lot and having slept in cars, lorries, on porches, gas stations and in scores of beds and rooms, trains, buses and so on. If the situation seems safe enough dozing off is no problem. The presence of a familiar person (friend) sleeping by one's side might increase the feeling of safety. On the other hand, I personally know people who are my age (or close to it) that for example would neither take a night train across the country nor allow themselves a short nap while taking a day train somewhere. We are all different, it's true. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can sleep lying down just about anywhere if I'm tired enough but I've never been able to fully doze off when seated (unless passing out drunk on buses and trains counts). I do sleep better in my own bed, however. The me-shaped indentation probably has something to do with it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read that horses will sleep standing when in unsafe surroundings, but sleep laying down in safe surroundings. I don't know if this is true. My hunch is that peace of mind facilitates sleep, though under less than perfect circumstances, sleep is still possible. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found out my fair share about horses, and from what I know, it's normal for them to sleep standing up, safe conditions or not, and that they just need a few (2-3) hours of sleep each day. Random fact: I've driven a few horses from Belgium to Poland, giving a grand total of over 1000 km, and we've found out that the horses were calmest while we were driving, and were getting restless when we used to stop whenever we needed to (regulations require checking on horses often when you do that). --Ouro (blah blah) 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm like that too. When the car is in motion, I'm calm. When it stops, i get restless. 'Guess I'm a horse. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When I'm hoarse I find it difficult to neigh. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some people are not as used to sleeping away from home as others might be? ~AH1^(TCU) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Two White Doves Flew to my balcony

I was standing outside on my balcony with my boyfriend when two white doves flew up to the ledge about 2 feet away from us and states there! What does this mean?71.129.120.246 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Try looking into Eastern European folklore, I am not sure if it's doves or something else

but isn't 2 meant to be positive for the relationship? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say that they were probably waiting for you to feed them. The pigeons and gulls in my local town centre do that regularly. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In Prague, it's illegal to feed pigeons, due to the damage they cause to historic buildings in the old town[2]. Strange but true...! — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They have signs up in town here asking people not to feed the pigeons. I don't know if there's any specific local bylaw backing it up, though - people seem to do it anyway, regardless and I've never seen anyone getting in trouble. Feeding the gulls doesn't seem to be an issue, however (well, feed the pigeons and the gulls end up getting 90% of it anyway). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In St Ives you don't need to feed the gulls - they will steal the food from out of your very hands. DuncanHill (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It means you and your boyfriend will get married and live happily ever after! (This was the answer you were really looking for, wasn't it?) Livewireo (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect so. What unromantic people Misc. ref deskers are! ;) --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You think that's unromantic? I think it means if you continue your relationship you're going to end up poor and destitute and will have to beg random strange couples for food (like the doves) Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussing the damage they do to buildings, as opposed to their symbolism, seems unromantic to me. --Tango (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

More unromantic then suggesting the symbolism is they're going to have a very sad live together? Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Feed us" is probably close to the mark. Most wild doves are colors other than white. The likely source of the white doves (especially since there are a pair of them) is a dove release. There probably was a wedding nearby where a pair of domesticated white doves were released (symbolizing the purity of the bride's and groom's souls as they embark on their journey of marriage, or other such saccharine malarkey). They'll find their way back to their coop eventually, but may have stopped on your balcony to rest for a bit. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what the doves mean isn't particularly interesting. That you're asking this question, however, indicates that you're a very insightful person, and I just might have a great deal on some extremely romantic swampland in Florida for you! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cycling through a red light in the UK

I ride my bike to work most days, and I've been wondering if it's legal to run a red light when I wouldn't cross any lanes of traffic or greenlit pedestrian crossings in doing so. Mostly this would apply to left turns, but also lights on a straight road covering a smaller road merging from my right. I couldn't find it explained in the Highway Code. Anyone know where the rules are written down? — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not allowed to give legal advice, but I can tell you I've been told off by the police for turning left at a red light on a bicycle. However, there have recently been proposals to allow this [3].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Highway code rule 69 is '[Cyclists] MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.' That seems fairly clear. Algebraist 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know the default position would be that I have to obey all signals. Was just looking for an exception, in case one existed. Thanks! — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are junctions (one in Cambridge, where cycling is popular since it's so flat) with a left-turning cycle lane that simply doesn't have a red light on it where cars would - but this is a separate lane and has a = = = give way line on the road. Incomprehensible, 128.232.241.211 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Get off and walk.86.197.44.151 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)DT

In London, some cyclists do regularly ignore red traffic lights on pedpestrian crossings, apparently believing that pedestrians will either get out of their way, or they can manoeuver around them. As Algebraist says above, I have always understood this to be illegal. It is certainly very dangerous. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always understood it to be illegal too. Some cyclists claim it is safer - something to do with avoiding being run over by buses stopping next to you and then turning left into you, I think. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing more guaranteed to make me "see red" (if you'll pardon the pun) than cyclists who think they don't have to obey the same laws that I do as a driver. I've lost count of the number of cyclists I've seen :-

• Running red lights
• Cycling on the pavement
• Not using lights at night
• Cycling the wrong way down one way streets
• Failing to signal turns
• Riding two abreast preventing vehicles from passing them safely.
• Riding on the wrong side of the road against the oncoming traffic
• Riding across pedestrian only crossings

Factor in the fact that you don't need a license, or to have passed a test, or any insurance cover to cycle on public roads and you can see why I tend to lose my temper with these idiots. Exxolon (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy the "very dangerous" thing. Sure there are examples of pedestrians being hurt by bikers, but it must be minuscule compared to how many bikers are hurt by cars. As I see it, bike's differ form cars when it comes to traffic laws because by ignoring them they are far more likely to only hurt themselves. So I don't really stress out when I see a biker run a red light when there's absolutely nothing coming from either way, just as I don't really stress out when I see someone jay walking under similar circumstances. What does annoy me, however, is when bikers ride on busy roads when one block over there is a road with a designated bike lane. They hold up everybody because (usually) they haven't bothered to investigate the city's bike plan. TastyCakes (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer specifically for the UK, but I have cycled extensively in the U.S. and in Germany. The rule in both places for both automobiles and bicycles is "right turn on red after stop, unless there is a sign". I would guess that if it is legal in the UK for cars to turn left on red after stopping, then it should be the same for cyclists. I am probably more scrupulous about this, as I have been teaching cycling to youth for 30 years. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the case in the UK. All vehicles (but not pedestrians, horse riders, or the like) must not pass red lights. Algebraist 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been campaigns to introduce a law allowing turning left at a red light, though. I don't believe any of them have gotten particularly far. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In NZ it's perfectly legal for cyclist to ride two abreast. Courteous behaviour is of course encouraged so riding two abreast on a busy road holding up traffic would not be a good idea on the other hand if it's an empty road and you just come up to them and they get out of the way it seems entirely reasonable to me. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What eye colour am I?

I will post a pic later if necessary, but basically this is most similar to my eye colour out of the pics I could see there.

I live in northern Britain, Scotland to be precise. It says that this sort of eye colour, grey eyes with mixed yellow element is more common in Finland, the Baltic states and Russia, yet I'm relatively far away from that.

It's weird 'cause my eyes are almost exactly like those in that picture, I always think the colour in the middle looks too much like piss.--Voodoo Lounge (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say bluey grey. As far as the colour in the middle (apart from the black pupil) looking like piss goes I think you'e spending far too much time looking at your own eyes. AllanHainey (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If your piss is that colour, you're not drinking enough water and/or you're drinking too much coffee. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My best friend has eyes like that. I tell her they're blue with a golden halo. :) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They look like gray eyes to me, the hazel ring is called central heterochromia. — jwillbur 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow,I just thought my eyes were weird ,thanks for this88.96.226.6 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Railway Enforcement Officers APU Melbourne Victoria Australia

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: I keep hearing about a special unit in the Victoria Railway Enforcement area called the APU. I have found out that APU stands for Asset Protection Unit. However I have found out very little other than they target graffiti vandalism. Does anyone know anything more about this unit?Be4four (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

US Military Water Bottles

What kind of water bottles do frontline, combat US Marines use to carry their water? Do they still use metal canteens? Acceptable (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they're plastic now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They have been plastic for at least 30 years. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't the desert soldiers have water bags built into their packs now, with a tube they can sip from on the front? Camel Bags or something? Gunrun (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hydration packs, and I would expect they use them for any long journeys on foot. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are three types most often used. A 1 liter rigid green plastic canteen, a 2 liter folding plastic green canteen, often carried in the issued fur lined pouch like a purse, and the most modern "Camel Back" re-hydration backpack systems that come with a drinking straw. These are either carried inside a back pack, with the issued hydration back pack. USMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.197.126 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How common is it for people never to have been to an island?

I'm just wondering. I think it's obviously quite common in certain impoverished areas, but this would obviously exclude people on impoverished islands like those in the East Indies, West Indies and Great Britain.

I mean, the World Island... how many Eurofags have been on an island from that?--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You could have Eurofags from Sicily, or Eurofags from Great Britain, or Eurofags from that island that Denmark's capital is on, but what I'm asking is what the ratio of people who have been on a continent and people who have only been on islands is.--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I know this guy on an anthropology forum who is Sicilian-American, and I agree with him on a lot of things, but he's obsessed with island mentology.--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, couldn't *every single piece of land on earth* be considered to be part of an island? :D --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks Kurt, a breath of sanity! 86.4.180.199 (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Better ask if there is any body who has not been to an island differing from the one they were born on. There would be many in land locked countries in that situation. On islands like Nauru, it is too isolated and expensive for most inhabitants to travel anywhere else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

IMPOVERISHED ISLANDS LIKE GREAT BRITAIN???????????????????????? Quick Martha, there's no coal left in the cellar - throw another kid on the fire................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.194.66 (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is poorly written. Indeed, he could have meant that the impoverished islands in Great Britain (some of the islands in Scotland, for example) and not Great Britain as a whole.--Mr.K. (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "Eurofag". We seem to have a page for the term, redirecting to Metrosexual, yet the latter includes no mention of the term. Is it an Americanism? --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is troll-language. Let it starve.--Saddhiyama (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eurofag is the opposite of Americunt.

Eurofag is a man dressed in a supposed European style. It doesn't mean necessarily an European or a homosexual. --Mr.K. (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good meat sausages

Sausages are, from what I've heard, ade from all the meat that's crap and doesn't go anywhere else. Am I right? If so, how much would a sausage cost if it was made from the best meat from a pig, instead of the worst? And weren't stuffed full of filler and everything else that makes it cheaper. Basically, how expensive could you possibly make a sausage using just pig meat? Vimescarrot (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds if not thousands of varieties of sausage made from various parts of different animals. Not all use organ meats and most add herbs, spices and other non-meat ingredients. Also, "best meat" is a matter of opinion and not necessarily the same as most expensive. Some of the tastiest and least expensive cuts of meat are the offal. If you want to use the priciest pork cut in your sausage, you'd probably want organic pork tenderloin. This website lists it at US$20/lb. But you could really jack up the price by mixing your pork with aged, grass-fed filet mignon ($80/lb.), white truffles ($3000/lb.) or gold leaf ($14,000/lb.). —D. Monack ^talk 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Gold leaf and truffle sausage...o_O Vimescarrot (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an over-generalization. Not all pork sausages are made from the ikky bits (although some undoubtedly are). But you can figure out the cost - look at how much a pound of decent pork costs (pick your cut) add that to the cost of a pound of the cheapest sausages you can find (which we would assume to be mostly the cost of manufacturing them) - and that's pretty much your answer. It also depends on the nature of the sausages - in the UK, it is traditional to add bread as a filler to sausage meat (presumably, originally, to save money - but actually, I'm a firm believer that you get a better product that way) - so you wouldn't need even a pound of a good cut of pork to make a pound of sausages. But then some sausages have herbs or beer or who-knows-what spices in them...then the cost of the final product will be whatever the gormet sausage market will bear. SteveBaker (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just get meat you think is not yucky and make your own sausage. It's easy. Google it.--Levalley (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of making my own sausage. I don't like sausages. Thanks, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the purposes of a sausage (I am referring here to the traditional British sausage, not some foreign pretender) is to use up all the bits of the pig that may look slightly disconcerting in their non-minced-and-tubed form. Some of these bits (cheeks, snouts, ears) are actually very tasty and enjoyed by some in their own right - Bath chaps (inexplicably a redlink) for example. Steve's right about the bread - it improves the texture of the sausage. Remember - you can eat every part of a pig except the squeak! DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And then there's scrapple. — Michael J 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And haslet, which is delicious. DuncanHill (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Once I saw a TV program, and part of it listed the pig's body parts that can be used in hot-dogs (a type of sausage). These included the heart, esophagus, and stomach, and a different program mentioned ears and snouts. Also, I've heard that some skins used for the sausage come from sources such as sheep intestinal linings. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The best sausage skins are made from intestines - when you buy expensive sausages this is one of the things that makes them expensive. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cured meat products saltier in the US than elsewhere?

Is it true that cured meat products (e.g. ham, sausages) in the US are saltier than comparable ones from other parts of the world? If so, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.18.189 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about cured meat products specifically, but my anecdotal evidence having eaten in various parts of the world is that the US does use significantly more salt than other countries. They also use more sugar. I don't know why it started, but once you get used to food with lots of added salt and sugar it becomes normal and food without it tastes bland, so it is natural that is continues. --Tango (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding more salt + sugar also means that you can add more water to meat to bulk up the weight and increase profits. Smartse (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A concern about weighted clothing

I dug out a pair of wrist/ankle weights out of the shed a couple of days ago. I believe they're five pounds each (I have no scale). I was thinking of leaving them on for extended periods of time, a la Rock Lee, but I've heard here and there that doing so can actually be bad for you, usually something having to do with ligaments. I also saw on Wikipedia's article that taking that weight off without training to do so can be harmful, overextending a tendon or tearing a muscle. Is that former danger real, and would that latter one apply to cross country running?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give medical advice - it really isn't a good idea to get information which could affect your health from random people on the internet. I suggest speaking to someone with professional expertise in this area, such as a doctor or perhaps a personal trainer. Warofdreams talk 10:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have seen that coming. Well, thanks for the reminder, at least. :-) --The Ninth Bright Shiner 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

April 20

An Unpopular or Discontinued Manga

I was browsing a bookstore one day, and there was a sale rack full of books. The manager said the books hadn't sold well, or were being discontinued, like "Space: Above and Beyond", but that's a different story. So I picked up this one manga, there was this blonde chick on the front with really big breasts, some sort of pistol things, and it was EXTREMELY graphic on the mature level. It was really sexual and violent. I can't recall the name, and I can't find it anywhere. I'm not sure if it was discontinued, it wasn't popular, or I'm not very good at searching the internet for books. It has to be one of those things. Has anyone ever heard of anything like it? <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there's a whole pornographic genre called Hentai, which has lots of particular sub-genres. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And try a Google Image Search, rather than a regular Google, since you don't know what the name is, but seem to remember what it looked like pretty well.--Levalley (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, search for what? Pornographic manga? That's going to turn up a LOT of unrelated hits... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's probably hundreds of mangas that fits that description. Seinen manga lists a few popular ones. If you have a lot of time on your hands, you may also want to sift through these. decltype (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Grenadier comes to mind, but I doubt it's it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Paladium manufacturing companies

Can anyone tell me of any companies that are major paladium refiners/manufacturers? The reason I ask is simple. Given the reports about the nuclear effect, if you believe them, then those companies may become very good investment vehicles indeed. I am not asking for any investment advice. My risk is my own.—70.19.64.161 (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Palladium, the world's largest producer of the element is MMC Norilsk Nickel, a Russian company. They're also large producers of gold and nickel. For more exposure specific to Palladium, you might invest in the Canadian company North American Palladium (AmEX ticker: PAL; Toronto: PDL). Their website says they produce 4% of the world's supply.

You also might consider buying Palladium futures options or bullion. I highly recommend talking to a financial adviser before making any of these investments, especially if you have never invested in commodities before. —D. Monack ^talk 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If by 'nuclear effect' you mean this Cold fusion I suggest you read the article first. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - definitely don't bet the farm on anything relating to cold fusion - even the very few remaining serious scientists who think it might be real will generally agree that we're not expecting it to deliver useful amounts of power generation. If you're looking for something like that - check out Lithium mining in Bolivia. It's looking promising because Lithium is relatively rare and it's an important ingredient in modern battery technologies (think: Electric and Hybrid cars) and something like 50% of the world reserves are in one spot...and almost all of the remaining 50% are in hard-to-extract places like a few parts per million of ocean water. The Bolivian government have just begun to realise what the mud at the bottom of this particular lake is worth and are negotiating contracts to exploit the stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at our article on Palladium - it seems that it might have a valuable future if hydrogen fuel cells take off. It's not clear how much palladium a fuel cell needs though. The stuff is already used in catalytic convertors for cars - but in such minute quantities that it's not a significant fraction of the palladium that's produced. SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Soldiers' helmets

The level of astonishment at this story makes me realise that people don't generally expect soldiers' helmets to stop bullets.

So, what's the point of them? There must be a reason; armies wouldn't spend all that money and encumber their troops if there wasn't some good reason. I'm just too stupid to work out what it is. --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They stop shrapnel and protect the head from falling debris. Also like motorcycle helmets they protect from impact, say a soldier throwing himself to the ground and bumping his head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Shrapnel's a good answer on its own, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on combat helmet mentions this and glancing bullets too, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be rather disappointed if my armour piercing bullets couldn't pierce armour. (I'm not sure if the bullet in question, apparently a 7.62x39mm, is defined as armour piercing, but I think most rifle ammunition is, to at least some extent, these days.) --Tango (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that even a piece of tissue paper is bullet-proof at a sufficiently long range! SteveBaker (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Curious, but i would think that the range of possible distances where the bullet would hit the tissue and not penetrate would be extremely narrow. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You could test that by placing tissue paper across some open space, weighted at each end, and then taking an actual bullet, or object of comparable size and weight, and dropping it onto the tissue paper. Start at one inch, then two, then three and so on, until you get it to break. Then go back to your Physics textbook and figure out what the speeds were for the last one that landed safely and the first one that broke it, and somewhere between those two is the speed a bullet can be traveling and not break through. As regards the helmet, a fully bulletproof helmet might be kind of heavy to wear all the time, unless they've got some lightweight polymers that could resist a bullet fired at relatively close range. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that any kind of helmet (even one made of tissue paper!) would stop some bullets - or at least reduce their energy enough to let your skull do the rest. So the fact that the helmet won't stop a particular kind of bullet at a particular range doesn't make it useless. After all, even an utterly impenetrable helmet would only be fairly limited protection because the bullet might well hit you in the face or neck where there is no helmet. So, you do the best you can in terms of compromise between weight, comfort, cost and protection and realise that you'll prevent some head injuries and not others. Weight matters because a heavier helmet would mean that the soldier could carry less ammunition or less communications gear - and that could save his life more effectively than a better helmet. Comfort matters because if the thing is uncomfortable, the grunts will take them off! Cost is not a negligable factor either: Is it better to spend limited military funding on better helmets or on improved air support? It's not obvious which will produce a better outcome. And always remember:

1. War is inherently unsafe.
2. All design is a compromise.
3. Money is not limitless - even when human lives are at stake.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Some other uses for helmets:

1) Camouflage.

2) Identification. Helmets can bear the name, rank, division, and medic/chaplain symbols.

3) Helmets also work as a bowl/bucket, being used (not during combat, of course), to hold soup, hold water for washing and shaving, and as a chamber pot, hopefully not all at the same time.

4) German WW1 helmets had a spike on the top, so that enemy soldiers jumping into their trench would risk being impaled. This could also turn a head-butt into a deadly attack. I would guess that the number of their own troops accidentally injured by these spikes is what led to them being removed. Being more visible due to the spike (when peaking out of a foxhole) may have been another negative. StuRat (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Pickelhaube, The spikes were only for decoration, not too impale people jumping into the trench. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some British cavalry regiments had the spike as well (and still do for ceremonial reasons), and it would be silly to suggest they were meant for impaling people when you are six foot up on top of a horse with a sword or a lance.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Sir Alan choose who to fire in The Apprentice?

I'll admit this is a somewhat low-brow question, but I'm in an argument with my sister. She claims to see a pattern in the firings this series (UK) that boring candidates are going, presumably to ensure a more interesting second half of the competition. She claims that the BBC must be pressuring him into who to choose, and that I am naive for disagreeing. I insist that he is unpressured and even unpaid in his role, so the BBC must play no part in the decisions (he would leave if they did). The Apprentive site vaguely says they are his choices, but does anyone have any better evidence than that, even if it is just anecdotal or original research? Thanks 217.206.155.146 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the early dismissal this season of Majid disproves this theory, as he was anything but a boring candidate. You've got to remember that Sugar's reputation is also on the line. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Majid not boring? How do you figure that one out then? Sralan was right that he hadn't contributed much, but that wasn't (IMHO) a good enough reason for firing the chap. (James should have gone instead.) And how is it that Sralan's reputation is on the line? At least one previous winner left his employ shortly after the show was over. He can find any number of decent people to work for him – better, by and large, than the muppets on the show. FWIW I kind of agree with the OP's sister, I think the firings are being made with an eye to the ratings. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere useful. I haven't watched the show, but I think it's clear some people may not find Majid boring and some people may think Majid deserved to go more then James. Also, while I don't watch the show, I did come across some discussion a while back and looking again I confirmed that Majid was who I thought. Boring or not, it appears he attracted a fair amount of interest due to his appearance and religion and some allegedly sexist comments (which I personally expect would not have attracted so much attention were it not for the two former things), so from a 'ratings' standpoint it seems likely keeping him on the show would have been a winner. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is one quaestion we can ever answer. Whatever goes on behind the scenes, it's very likely secretive enough we'll never really know. Also I would point out the firing of 'boring candidates' doesn't definatively indicate Sir Alan is being pressued, it's his show so he likely cares bout the ratings and in any case, his inner and internal reasoning is unknown, perhaps he doesn't like boring candidates for reasons unrelated to the ratings Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It may never be conclusively answerable from WP:RD, but I was hoping for 'weight of evidence' to use against my sister. I like the theory about ratings putting Alan under pressure without the BBC saying so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.155.146 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that there is any real evidence, only speculation that could easily be argued in either way as with the above (which the RD isn't really the place for). I don't think Sir Alan or anyone high up in the show is likely to come out anytime soon and comment on this which would be the best evidence from a RD standpoint although perhaps there is some reliably sourced speculation about this which would be suitable to mention, but I doubt it personally Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that often, participants in shows like this are made to seem boring because the producers choose to edit the show in that way. I don't know how long there is between the actual firing and the program airing, but I'd bet it's long enough to choose exactly how they want to portray the guy being fired. If they choose to portray him as boring, less people will stop watching when he's sacked. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The show is filmed in late summer early autumn of the year before transmission. This can be quite precisely dated from a letter the camera saw in the previous series. For anyone as pedantic about this as I am, the letter that the interviewer had from Thames Valley Univeristy that confirmed Lee McQueen had dropped out was dated 11th September as I recall, thus dating that 'challenge' as taking place within a couple of days of that. Since that immidiately preceeded the final task we can reaonsable assume the whole thing was over by Fri 19th Sept 2008. Since the entire process takes about 2 months (challenges performed back to back, not weekly as shown, this causes extreme tiredness due to all the 5:30 wakeup calls and is responsible for many of the mistakes in later weeks) we can assume it started round about the 7th or 14th July (these being mondays).

To get to the point, they have plenty of time, approximately 6 months. 217.206.155.146 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Information lost when only passed down verbally?

At my workplace, and previous ones, there's a lot of information that isn't written down anymore, but instead is just passed on by someone else that's been around longer or in an otherwise higher position. Has there ever been a study done to evaluate the accuracy of information if it is only passed down in this manner, instead of recorded, referenced, etc.? Also, is there a convenient term for this overall concept (information lost/incorrect when passed down verbally/from memory only)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.56.2 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find a nice analogy at Oral law and also at Chinese whispers --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about organizational storytelling? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The concept of institutional or organisational (organizational) memory is what you might be lookign for -- try googling for those terms. It is a notorious weakness, and lots of management studies have been written about it. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My father used to be a training sergeant in the British Royal Air Force in the 1950's - he said that the policy at the RAF at the time was to take the top 1% of students from each training class and to use them to replace teachers who retired from the RAF or returned to active duty or whatever. They soon realised that test scores were declining because the top 1% of the class were only understanding about 90% of what they were taught. Hence, each 'generation' of teachers only understood about 90% of what the generation before them understood - so that the quality of the exam results decreased every year! This is a real problem. The way to prevent that is to have your experts write down everything they know and make sure that each succeeding generation of learners read what was written. That way, you get one generation of decline - but the rot stops there. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that problem is caused by the fact that in order to teach something you need to understand it better than you do just to use it. That greater understanding usually only comes from taking your learning to a higher level (that is why school teachers generally have to have a degree even though they aren't teaching anything near degree level stuff). Teaching something you have only just learned yourself is never going to go well. The RAF should have been taking their teachers from people that had spent most of their career on the front line and now wanted to retire from that and take up something less physically demanding, then they would have developed the greater understanding required by using the skills on a regular basis for years. --Tango (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is related to the sociology of knowledge. See explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. There are some things which we can never write down how to do (e.g. ride a bike) this presents problems to scientists trying to replicate the work of other scientists on the other side of the world. Smartse (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Einstein quote? Else who?

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone could help me with this quote please? The general jist of it is:
"The reasonable man is content with the best evidence that can be obtained when a perfect proof is not available."
I thought it might have been Einstein, but after going through lists of his quotes I can't see anything similar. Googling it hasn't helped either, so I'm hoping someone here might know it. If so, I also need to find a source for it please?
Many thanks! Duke Of Wessex (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Book of Quotations, 3rd edit p314.7 has: We must never assume that which is incapable of proof. G H Lewes 1817-1878. I doubt any scientist would accept your suggestion, since one cannot be content until proof is found. One may accept a partial proof for the time being, but the search for total proof would continue. Such is the nature of science.86.197.44.151 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)DT

To the contrary, there is no such thing as "total proof" in science. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was taught that any scientific theory can be entertained, and even accepted by the scientific community, based on being un-disproveable, instead of being proveable. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "un-disproveable". Do you simply mean that the theory has not been disproved (through contrary evidence)? To me, "un-disprovable" suggests there is no way in which it could be disproved; to the contrary, it is generally accepted that scientific theories must be falsifiable. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cut off the discussion here, but you should consider checking out the Science refdesk, and also Wikiquotes. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I do mean "Has not been disproved, despite rigorous testing", yes. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is believed that there is no such thing as total proof in science then how does any scientist know when all the available proof has been discovered ? Of course there can be total proof, it is just that it may be impossible to attain (at this time).90.0.2.141 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)DT

You don't gather proof, you gather evidence, and from that evidence you create or improve a model of how the world works. As the model makes correct predictions, you may grow more and more confident of its correctness, but at any time, you may discover a counterexample that falsifies the model. As long as there is a future ahead of you, there is no "last bit" of evidence that will prove a theory. See, for example, Karl Popper#Problem of Induction. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant evidence.90.0.2.141 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)DT

That's my understanding too, Coneslayer, which is why I've never understood why some theories get promoted to laws, eg. Newton, but others don't. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Only creationists promote theories to laws. Scientists don't. In science, a law actually comes before a theory. Laws are generally just simple formulae or statements, empirically derived. A theory is a complex model which provides an explanation for the law (and makes further predictions than can then be tested, and could be considered new laws, I suppose). Newton only came up with laws of gravity, never a theory of gravity ("I feign no hypothesis" or whatever the quote is - it was in Latin, I think). Einstein came up with a theory of gravity, explaining it as a curvature of spacetime - that theory explains why Newton's laws hold (approximately, anyway). --Tango (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypotheses non fingo. Algebraist 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a counterintuitive use of language, then. Normally, a theory would be considered less definite and more open to subjective interpretation than a law; but this usage has them with the opposite meanings. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The normal situation also holds here, I think. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a single extremely precise statement, while Einstein's theory of relativity (or Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, or whatever) is a much wider and less well-delineated body of material. Algebraist 00:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that distinction. However, Newton's Laws, Faraday's Law, Boyle's Law etc are often quoted as if they're immutable and incontrovertible set-in-stone ways the universe works. I'm not suggesting otherwise; but if they're really at the same level of "truth" as Darwin, Einstein or anyone else, and potentially subject to counterexample sometime next week, why don't we acknowledge that by referring to them as "Newton's Theories", "Faraday's Theory", "Boyle's Theory" etc.? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But we already know Newton's Laws aren't quite correct we know that from Eistein's theory of relativity and practical experience even if they are close enough for most purposes Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In physical sciences, a "law" is a generalized statement of observations, and nothing more. It is a summary of observations—a description; it does not purport to explain anything.173.49.18.189 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then, as I said above, it's a counterintuitive use of the word "law". I wonder why that word was chosen rather than something that does not necessarily suggest perpetual, universally ubiquitous unchangeability. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It was chosen because it was thought to be unchangeable, a "law of nature." It just turns out that some of those are actually approximations. The problem is that we're trying to go back after the fact and re-do a few hundred years' of terminology. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Methinks I sense some confusion here between technical and vernacular senses of theory. In vernacular usage, theory is a synonym for hypothesis; presumably this is why creationists sniff that "evolution is only a theory." In technical usage theory is closer to paradigm. There's nothing hypothetical about number theory for example. —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

code

Does anyone know how I can solve this code?

202601309024090-5080270120-1017019023080

0024011012017090230-40160210

70180140100330140240-003017060

50230220-4011070260280150

3014021025060270150210

30270140100200-003022070-10702308040170250

80260160-20140190-50340230300270

00190110120150180230180190110290

So far, I know that:

The language is English

words are separated by dashes or a new line

That capitalization makes no difference in the coding

There are no numbers in the encrypted message

The first and fourth words have 5 letters and both start with "t"

Thanks 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the first and fourth words begin with t, it's a complex code, as the first and fourth batches of code do not have front or back ends that replicate each other. Unless, of course, the whole thing is backwards. In which case the last and fourth last both begin (if reading backwards) 09. --Dweller (talk)

Oops. Sorry, that's the last and third last. Back to the drawing board. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about 5 letters in the fourth word. It says 'there are more things in heaven and on [sic] earth horatio then [sic] are dreamt of in your philosophy'. Algebraist 15:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How the devil did you get that?217.206.155.146 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Each word is encoded as a single digit, followed by a string of numbers separated by spaces. For example, word one is (2,26,13,9,24,9). The inital digit is an offset which has to be subtracted from the other numbers, so word one becomes (24,11,7,22,7). Then change the numbers into letters in accordance with the following simple scheme:

3	4	5	6	7	8	9	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	31
a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k	l	m	n	o	p	q	r	s	t	u	v	w	x	y	z

Of course, some of those letters (especially z) are just guesses based on the pattern, since they don't occur in the message. Algebraist 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

<- That's very clever. How did you work it out? --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds good. And it took you under an hour too. I will have to ask the guy who gave me the coded message, but I imagine that the odds of it being different from what Algebraist gave is minuscule. How did you do it so fast? I must have spent an hour on it and had not gotten anywhere. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It was obvious that all the zeros were divider marks, and since the first number in each word was always single digit (single digit numbers being rare elsewhere) it seemed likely to have some special purpose. Then I realized that if the initial digit was a simple offset, that would make words 1 and 4 start with the same letter. Since that guess proved right, the rest was just a monoalphabetic substitution cipher with word divisions, and therefore easy, especially since it's (a slight variant of) a well-known quote. Algebraist 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

<tips hat> --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

heads of state

Consider a single elimination, UFC tournament. Which head of state (king, PM, president etc...) would most likely emerge victorious? I am going to disqualify Putin of Russia. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk is a place for asking factual questions, not engaging in fantastical speculations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase then. Which head of state has the best combination of physical fitness including strength and endurance, combined with experience with unarmed combat or martial arts? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Putin isn't Russia's head of state anymore anyway. Do you mean head of state in the literal sense or just "country leaders"? For example, with Canada would you consider it to be the Queen or Stephen Harper? This List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence gives the candidates if you mean the former. TastyCakes (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Albania's president looks pretty tough, but I base that on appearances and general fear of Albanians alone. Doesn't appear to have any military service/training. TastyCakes (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: Stay away from Albanian president. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 12:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Never quite a head of state but during the early 1990s the 3rd party in the UK were led by Paddy Ashdown who was a former SAS member. I'd back him. 91.85.138.20 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he ever had much chance of being head of state. Head of government perhaps... There have of course been heads of state and heads of governments who were active soldiers, after coups for example. Frank Bainimarama is the current head of government of Fiji for example. Most of these of course were very high level commanders by the time so may have been out of touch with any training they had Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Paddy Ashdown was also the International Community's High Representative in Bosnia for several years, which is substantially closer to being a head of state than leading the Liberal Democrats. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still fantastical speculation. How do you combine all the features to give a meaningful result? Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the original poster would be satisfied with names of heads of state which have had military training, especially those with hand-to-hand combat training - perhaps any who were in their country's special forces. I browsed a bit on List of current heads of state and government, but didn't find anything really applicable. The best I did was that Ueli Maurer of Switzerland was a Major in the Swiss bicycle infantry. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There must be plenty of heads of state with military experience. In terms of hand-to-hand combat training, Amadou Toumani Touré of Mali, Denis Sassou Nguesso of the Republic of the Congo and Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso all spent time as paratroopers, and presumably had hand-to-hand combat training. I'm sure there are more - I've just looked at some African presidents who I thought had a military background. Giving an arbitrary answer to the original question, I wouldn't mess with Joseph Kabila - at only 37, he's been President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for eight years, but before that he spent several years as leader of a guerilla group and has had extensive military training in Tanzania and China. Warofdreams talk 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Dropping an in-text citation of Wikipedia

Not sure how to do this...

When i am using a direct quote/paraphrase from a wikipedia article, would i say, "The Wikipedia article on x says that..."

Would that be an acceptable thing to say to avoid a dropped quotation?

 Buffered Input Output 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you're asking about a Wikipedia article (and not answering a question on the reference desk). If so: No, I don't think that we're supposed to quote a Wikipedia article by saying "The Wikipedia article on x says that...". Instead, find the source of the Wikipedia quote and just repeat/paraphrase the quote and attribute the source. For example, instead of saying "According to the Wikipedia article on The Beatles, the band sold over one billion records", say "The Beatles sold over one billion records." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia itself (or any other wiki, for that matter) to be a reliable source. If someone insists on citing a source in article A that's already cited in article B, go to article B and copy-and-paste that citation in. It seems tedious, but it satisfies the guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unless you are copying the EXACT same cited text between the two articles, unless you read the text yourself, you should probably not cite it. Its bad form for many reasons to cite a text you are not currently using. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32, I'm sorry but I read your reply several times now, I still don't understand what you're saying. Can you please rephrase? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of Jayron32's comment is that if you find referenced text in the Wikipedia article on X which you want to re-use in the Wikipedia article on Y, but do not have access to the document which is being referenced, you should stick to the exact same text used in the article on X, to avoid accidentally changing the meaning to state something which the reference doesn't support. Warofdreams talk 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are formal guidelines on this, and an explanation of the principles. See WP:Academic use, WP:Citing Wikipedia, and WP:Researching with Wikipedia. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One more: WP:REUSE. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's not JUST direct quotations, guys. There's also the matter of the PARAPHRASED citation. For example, i want to tell people that there are two types of wind turbines by citing wikipedia. HOWEVER! i must introduce this fact as its-not-my-stuff before i put the in-text citation into the paper. How would i do that? Or alternately, should i use the references on the wikipedia article instead of the article itself?  Buffered Input Output 12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to use the following format: "There are two different types of wind turbine: X (give reference for X here) and Y (give reference for Y here)". How do they know it's not your stuff? You could have come to that conclusion following your own independent research! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit confused here. If our OP is talking about writing FOR Wikipedia then quoting one Wikipedia article inside the other is strictly forbidden. You can copy the text verbatim - and the references that back it up - or you can use a link to do that - but you can't use one article as a reference for the other. On the other hand, if you are talking about writing outside of Wikipedia - then the only thing Wikipedia requires is that if you quote us then you acknowledge the source of the quote under GFDL or the newer CreativeCommons licensing. Of course the advisability of quoting Wikipedia in other contexts depends on the context. My wife asked me whether there were any American armed forces in Liberia yesterday - and I had no compunctions in quoting Wikipedia at her...but if I were writing a policy paper for the President about US armed forces in Liberia, I'm 100% certain that Wikipedia would not be quoted! In that case I'd follow the references from the Wikipedia article and track back to the ultimate sources of the information. In that situation, Wikipedia is useful only as an intermediary - as a "collection of links" (one of the things that many people claim Wikipedia is not!). Somewhere between those two extremes lies your position...we can't tell you what's right for you. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BufferedIO, I think we need to clarify what kind of article you're writing. Is this article a Wikipedia article or is it something else (such as a term paper)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

April 21

Dragon Blood Tree

Hello, can anyone tell me if the picture to the right is a Dracaena cinnabari? The picture is from the Socotra page, and if it is the same tree I'll put it in the Dracaena cinnabari article. A search on google brings up various pictures, some of which look like the same tree and some that don't, and I'm no botanist. TastyCakes (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a Dragon's Blood tree (cf this example from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh website [4], and it doesn't particularly look like any of the other Dracaena I've seen, so probably - but I am not a botanist! DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that does look just like this one... Is it just me or does this picture on commons (which claims to be of Dracaena cinnabari) look like a different tree? Maybe they just look different because they're further away? TastyCakes (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well spotted - the leaves look different to me (more leafy, less daggery) in the commons pic. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your article on Steinbach Department Stores

Information in the article on Steinbach Department stores is incorrect. Your article states that in 1978, The Asbury Park Store was the only Steinbach Department to have a restaurant. This is wrong. I have tried to correct this information 3 times, but it has been deleted. I left a message on the talk page. The bottomline, in 1980, I was the General Manager with Marriott, that managed 3 Steinbach Department store restaurants, Seaview Square, Shore Mall, and Manalapan Mall, and I referenced it as such. How much more verification is needed? Asbury Park store was already closed in 1980 and yet I managed 3 other store restaurants. Marriott was contracted to manage their in-store restaurants in 1977. I also managed the Manalapan Store restaurant from April 1978 unitl April, 1979. Obviously, the article that references the "fact" that the Asbury Park store was the only store with a restaurant in 1978, is not accurate. If you can't add that there were other stores with restaurants, then this other quotation should be removed. How much more accuracy can you get then from the person that managed the restaurants?

Mark A. Rusin Cary, NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncfoodman (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't really referenced your additions to the article. The references need to come from a neutral, independent, reliable and verifiable source such as a newspaper or an official publication. Without some kind of independent corroboration such as this, I am afraid that your edits will continue to be reverted. And you haven't left a note on the article's talk page, by the way. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is incorrect information there that isn't verified similarly, however, you can probably safely delete it by the same criteria that's being used to delete your additions. TastyCakes (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark, this might seem counter-intuitive at first but no person is considered considered a reliable source. Only published works are considered reliable sources. If you can find a newspaper article (which are usually considered reliable sources) that says this, then you can add it to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, that's correct. Wikipedia can't take the word of any one person because (aside from anything else) we have no clue whether you are who you claim to be. That is called Original Research and it's not allowed. In this case of an article like this - which is hardly of earth-shattering importance, that would seem to hardly matter - but we have rules - and in the case of highly contentious articles, it's very likely that some idiot will claim to have personal knowledge just to get their personal opinion into the article. Hence we rely on references - outside sources that everyone can go and look at (at least in principle) to verify the truth of each fact. Now - on the other hand - if the information that's in the article right now is incorrect AND if it doesn't have solid references - then you should feel free to delete it. That way neither the truth (according to you) or the falsehood are in the article. However, if the information that's in the article already IS backed up by solid references - then you're going to have to either convincingly explain why those references are in fact incorrect - or suck it up and admit that perhaps your memory is faulty. Either way - this is a matter that should be discussed on the discussion page of the article itself - and not here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitler, Einstein and The Fonze

What do Adolph Hitler, Albert Einstein, The Fonze from "Happy Days", Leon Trotsky, Mark Twain, James Watt, Benito Mussilini, Paul McCartney, Evita Peron, Claude Monet, Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, Bill Gates, Issac Newton, and Robin Williams have in common?

Their pictures are all on my history teacher's wall and he says it's because they all have something in common, but he won't tell us what. This isn't for any sort of credit, just curiosity. I think it might be the most influential people, or they achieved their dreams or something like that, but he says they are up there to remind him of something everyday, and that is what they have in common. This is absolutely the most frustrating question I have encountered in his class, please help.

Mmm were they all on covers of Time magazine or something? TastyCakes (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the older names have never been on there I'm pretty sure. Are you sure it's not something fluffy and deeply unsatisfying like "they all changed the world"? TastyCakes (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I reckon he's lying. Teachers always have some bullshit story they won't tell you, to try to "make you think" and figure it out yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would guess something fluffy and unsatisfying. Although the Fonze seems like an odd candidate for "They all changed the world/achieved their dreams/became the best at what they do/etc."Popcorn II (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's probably fluffy and unsatisfying and impossible to work out except by dumb luck. Without some kind of context there are just too many things they all have in common (they are all human, for example, also, more notably, they are all European (or of European descent) as far as I can see). --Tango (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

All of their Wikipedia articles have a neutrality disputed tag on them? Just kidding. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They all wore socks. Except Einstein. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean Claude Monet? Or Charles Trenet, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They were all interviewed by Larry King. Actually, the Time guess is probably a good one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Isaac Newton? --Anonymous, 23:51 UTC, April 21, 2009.

If someone has a lot of time and patience, all the time magazine covers are here. I only got to about 1929, although Trotsky was on two covers by then :O TastyCakes (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if Newton, Watt, Monet and Darwin had lived in recent times, I somehow doubt that the Time magazine connection has anything to do with it. That would hardly seem to be something that a history teacher would want to be reminded of every day, and have pictures on his walls about. And even if it were, why not all the thousands of other people who were on the front cover of Time? Why just this group of people? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You know, there is this thing called a "search function"... makes it a lot easier than wading through all of them ;-) I don't think Newton or the Fonze were ever on the covers of Time, in any case. Darwin has one tiny cameo in 1981. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They're actually all left-handed, IIRC (like me!). Steewi (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So, ironically, Hitler was a lefty? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why would Hitler being left handed be ironic? Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a pun on the first and thirteenth meanings listed at lefty. Algebraist 01:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe they all dropped out of school at some point. BTW, that's Claude Monet, not Charles. —D. Monack ^talk 01:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested above. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with left-handed too (Steewi beat me to it!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of those people do not appear on popular lists of left handed celebrities. I can't vouch for the accuracy of such lists, but I'm not sure that a history teacher would have anything better.

Almost half of them (Hitler, Einstein, Twain, McCartney, Darwin, Newton ) appear on the List of vegetarians, which is much higher than you would expect from a random sampling. APL (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is someone a "vegetarian" on such a list if they were ever a vegetarian, or if they were always a vegetarian? The accuracy of classifying people by habits, rather than physical or inborn traits, is suspect. --Scray (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitler a vegetarian? That's probably the most extreme case of irony I've ever heard of. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it ironic because Hitler was openly a cannibal? Livewireo (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not really that ironic if you know much about Hitler. His philosophy was much concerned with bodily health, and he considered not eating meat to be part of that. He also cared much more for animals than humans (he rated dogs and wolves much higher than Jews), but that doesn't actually put him at odds with a number of ethicists (humans have free will, can make decisions for themselves; dogs and wolves cannot, must be cared for, etc.). This does not in any way imply that vegetarians and dog-lovers are "like Hitler" in anything but a superficial way (that is, those things do not in any way necessarily intersect with being genocidal, warlike). --140.247.252.236 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they're all left-handed vegetarians. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say if Hitler was a vegetarian, it all depends on who you believe and what you define vegetarian as. Most sources agree (and no, I'm not going to reference them, suffice to say I've read books on the period and researched the topic personally) that he ate foods with meat elements in such as some stock or animal suet for example. His personal chef stated after the war that Hitler's favourite dish was pidgeon, but many other observers state he used to enjoy tormenting meat-eating guests with rants about how animals were slaughtered in great detail and then calling them hypocrits if they stopped eating. So did he eat meat, and if so how much? 217.206.155.146 (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE ... see Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism ---Sluzzelin talk 11:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your teacher is a history teacher. One definition of the study of history is that it is the analysis of primary and secondary sources. The photos are one source, but ask him what other documents or secondary sources you can usefully look at, in order to work it out for yourself. --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They all have Wikipedia articles? (Adolph Hitler, Albert Einstein, The Fonze from "Happy Days", Leon Trotsky, Mark Twain, James Watt, Benito Mussilini, Paul McCartney, Evita Peron, Claude Monet, Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, Bill Gates, Issac Newton, and Robin Williams.)-Arch dude (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the left-handed theory is the right one. I think you should print out the picture of (say) Jimi Hendrix (who is famously left-handed - stick it up next to the other photos and see if your teacher takes it down again. Subtle - but effective. SteveBaker (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the OP's history teacher indeed picked these people from a list of left-handed celebrities, but that doesn't mean much. Pick a celebrity at random, chances are they're on one of those lists. Einstein wasn't left handed ([5] [6] [7] [8]), nor was Hitler ([9] [10] [11]), nor is Henry "Fonz" Winkler ([12]). I stopped checking at that point. I'm sure a few of them are left handed, probably around ten percent. -- BenRG (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There's doubts about Twain's Handedness too, [13]. Supposedly rumor's of Twain's left-handedness come from a flipped photo on the cover of one of his books.

Usually, though. People take the supposed characteristics of "lefties" (Creativeness, non-linear thinking, etc) and try to find famous people that fit the description. Once these people are added to lists of lefties, the stereotype is strengthened.

It's hard to find a brilliant person born more than 150 years ago who isn't claimed as a lefty.

If the teacher does intend this as a list of lefties, he's sadly mistaken. And besides, he's missed out Leonardo da Vinci who was famously left handed.

APL (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I spend a few moments thinking about it, simply writing righty isn't enough to disqualify you from being lefty. Until recently lefties were strongly encouraged as children to write righty and punished for writing lefty. But, I would still say that these people's leftyness is unverified at best. APL (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, the 5 I have checked have been born in an odd numbered year, though it gets a little sticky with Issac Newton, what with the calendar change. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My bet is that it's something limp like "They all worked hard and achieved success." Except for The Fonz (it's spelled "Fonz", by the way), for whom it was a requirement to succeed without working at it. Tempshill (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Working hard and achieving success is a good thing for any teacher to teach, but is not something that history teachers especially focus on, to this degree. But if he did want some shining examples of hard-working successful people, I somehow doubt he'd include Hitler, Mussolini or Trotsky, all of whom came to very grim and sticky ends and most of their "work" was undone (except for the millions of people who died needlessly as a result of their policies). Stalin is often mentioned alongside Hitler and Mussolini. What characteristic did they have that Stalin didn't? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They all jumped the shark? Hitler when he invaded the Soviet Union, Einstein when he rejected quantum mechanics, McCartney when he made Give My Regards to Broadstreet, etc. I'm pretty sure you could probably come up with arguments for everyone if you tried hard enough. In all seriousness, if there is a real answer, you might want to focus on the Fonze. He's the only fictional character in that list so that might be a clue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And Monet was the only painter. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Except for Hitler. --Tango (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the Fonz, but Hitler, Newton, Gates and Darwin about all seem to have written a book. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As did Twain... a few, actually! ;) Well, I was going to say they all have the letter T in their name, but it breaks down when you get to Darwin (although his middle name, Robert, has one) and falls apart completely when you reach Robin Williams. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the feeling that this is a history teacher's version of a koan. Its real purpose is simply to inspire students to research these people's lives as a first step in the lifelong path of intellectual and academic enquiry. They may never find a common link, but they'll discover all sorts of interesting things about them along the way, and be inspired to become historians, or at least readers of things other than the sides of Coke cans. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Jack, and would like to add that I imagine the best final answer would be "all of them have their picture on your wall, sir/miss". 86.8.176.85 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your teacher has given you a clue - they are there to remind HIM of something, not to remind YOU of something (like the important of studying hard or something like that). Therefore, my guess is that all of these people had difficulty at some point in their schooling. That would remind him not to write off a student is not doing well according to the bureaucracy of the educational system. Often very bright students have a hard time focusing because they are not being challenged. Off the top of my head, I know this was the case with Einstein, Edison and Gates. http://www.kindofcurious.com/

April 22

Why isn't there a help desk section where sociology and anthropology would actually fit?

I have moved this question to the reference desk talk page, which is the best place for such discussions. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

US schools and allegiance/flag ceremony?

I have a vague idea that (some? all?) US schools have ceremonies where the kids are made to swear allegiance or vow on the flag or something. As you can tell, I'm rather hazy. I presume we have an article about it, but I don't know how to search for it because I don't know what it's called. Or if I just made the whole thing up. Someone? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegiance. Many schools do this every morning. APL (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would think most schools do. Private schools can do whatever they want to, but I expect most of them do. And in public schools, they can be legally compelled to do so. Technically, the students can't be compelled to participate, but the teachers can be compelled by law or policy to lead the pledge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There's not a lot in the article about what's done in school, and the history and extent of it seems very blurry. Do kids stand? Do they hold their hands on their hearts like I've seen American athletes do during the national anthem? What ages does this apply to? Does it need a separate article Pledge of allegiance in American schools or similar? --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, the students are required to stand, face the flag, place their right hand over their heart, and solemnly recite the pledge together.

In recent years some schools have gotten a bit lax., such as simply playing the pledge over the school's Intercom system and letting students join in or not as they please. (Almost nobody bothers if they're not required encouraged to participate.)

Even in schools that follow a more strict tradition, students are usually theoretically allowed to not participate, but this can be very strongly discouraged.

As B. Buggs says, the large majority of schools have a daily pledge of allegiance ritual. Usually grades 1-12. But it wouldn't surprise me if some kindergartens also did it. APL (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Any self-respecting British schoolchild would fart or giggle throughout. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they would. Why would a British kid want to pledge allegiance to the American flag? The very idea. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course! The goal is to say something that sounds close enough to the real pledge that the teacher can't tell the difference, but is funny enough that all the students nearby get a giggle out of it.

The danger is that the teacher will be the sort of person who goes in for this kind of ultra-patriotism, and will give you a detention for the slightest offense during The Pledge.

It's a fine line. Such is the drama and adventure of being a class clown. APL (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How tragic that DH has so low a regard for his (I presume) country's children and teachers.86.219.37.254 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)DT

I have a very high regard for our children and teachers - that is why I believe that they would never take such daftness seriously. Jelly-bellied flag-flapping has never really caught on here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

With a few exceptions ;) TastyCakes (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On football I make no comment - it is a closed book to me. As to the Falklands - I think we did the right thing. Fortunately, fascistic military regimes have never really caught on here either. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not for a while anyway. TastyCakes (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We learnt from our mistake there! DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but what a glorious mistake it was ;) TastyCakes (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I spent 2nd to 4th grade in a California public school. I didn't have a problem with the pledge of allegiance (I was 6-9, after all) but I think my (English) parents thought it was a little strange - more something a totalitarian state would force its citizens to do than the leader of the free world ;) TastyCakes (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Children cannot legally be compelled to participate, but group pressure will usually do so. Teachers can be compelled to lead it because it's a condition of their employment. And if you're living in the USA, you should support the USA, which is our home. Nothing totalitarian about that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Would Americans be happy with American children overseas being compelled to pledge allegiance to a foreign power? There is a difference between respecting the country in which one lives and giving your allegiance to it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

When living in a foreign country, one should obey the laws and customs of that country. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Up to a point - but a pledge of allegiance is much more than that - it is placing that country above all others. In Scouting in the UK we have an alternate form of the Promise for children from countries which do not have the Queen as head of state, precisely because it is wrong to ask a child to deny his allegiance to his own country. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And you assume taking the pledge of allegiance should be construed as "supporting America" rather than a daily chore that many kids seem to ignore anyway. TastyCakes (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. You go along with it, because it's not worth making a big deal over. Unless you come in looking for a fight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

True, like that damn atheist! TastyCakes (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So patriotism is keeping your head down and never questioning authority? APL (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean not questioning authority? No, it's picking your battles. And Newdow, if that's the one I'm thinking of, is a publicity-seeking egotist who used his daughter as a pawn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "not". Corrected. You're essentially arguing that this issue can never be contested or debated. It's obviously pretty important to you, why are the other side's feelings on the issue irrelevant?

I would bet money that if the wording of the pledge supported atheism, or socialism, many of the people now arguing that it's no big deal, and that it doesn't matter, would suddenly feel that it matters a lot. APL (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd put myself with Baseball Bugs on the Newdow thing, and probably the pledge in general. I think the pledge has become a tradition, and that people derive comfort out of tradition, as with Christmas trees or the easter bunny. And I think nationalism is (usually) a good thing for a country's citizens, especially when in the more or less non-divisive spirit of the pledge of allegiance. It (in theory) looks to remind everyone that whatever their beliefs, they are all Americans and are all looking to improve their country. Whether or not it's ineffective at this goal and a big waste of time is another matter. Incidentally, do you guys say the pledge all through high school? TastyCakes (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In my highschool (In the late 90s) the pledge was played over the intercom in the morning. It was pretty low-key, no one saluted, no one joined in, and sometimes they forgot. In lower grades we had the more traditional, strict, stand and salute ritual.

This was in Massachusetts, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more strict in other regions. APL (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, To a large (but minority) portion of Americans "Under God" is every bit as strange as "Under Allah" or "Under Zeus", or even "Under Communism". It's a pledge to something we don't believe in and don't want to pledge to.

And many people (mostly on the left side of the spectrum) find it vaguely unsettling that we're required to pledge our allegiance every single day. It's a subtle insult, really. APL (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is that the mindless repitition takes away the meaning. There was a time when the Cubs did not play the anthem at Wrigley except on special occasions. P.K. changed it in the late 60s when he thought patriotism was on the wane. It is ironic you mentioned betting money, though, since the money says "In God We Trust", while at the same time the 1 dollar bill also carries Masonic symbols. To those who get bent out of shape about the IGWT part, I simply say that refers to the old saying, "In God we trust - all others pay cash!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's PK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

P.K. Wrigley, the owner of the Cubs at the time. He was kind of an eccentric character. He's probably best known for never installing lights at Wrigley Field. Anyway, he thought the anthem should only be played on special occasions, such as Memorial Day and July 4th. So after WWII until the late 60s, the players would take the field, public address guy Pat Peiper would announce, "Play ball!" and the game would start. During the Vietnam era, P.K. decided to start playing the anthem for every game, as was presumably the norm at other parks. It's worth pointing out that he also installed security cameras, one of the pioneers of such, after a few too many incidents of drunken rowdiness at the ballpark. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(After E/C)Many (myself included) would argue that mindlessly, and ritualistically reciting a rather long sentence every day doesn't "support" anything at all. Worse, fact that the sentence is deliberately theist is divisive.

To go one step further, some (myself included) would argue that the idea that recitations and bumper stickers count as "support" is a major problem in this country. Actually contributing anything to the betterment of the nation or even being a good person in general, takes a backseat to browbeating our neighbors about having the right bumper stickers. APL (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather like the difference between people who think that the point of Wikipedia is deploying an impressive set of userboxes and those who think it's creating encyclopedia articles. Deor (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As a child I had no idea what it meant. "allegiance" is not in most kids' vocabularies, much less "indivisible" or "to the republic for which it stands," which are not-the-clearest ways to express not-the-clearest political principles. It is not really about the kids—it is something adults make kids do to make the adults feel better, and if you take it away it is the adults who will complain. The kids just go through it numbly. Once you've said the same thing every morning for years and years you do not pay much attention to it. It doesn't make one love one's country or God or anything in particular. --140.247.251.231 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In elementary school, I didn't know what a "round young virgin" was either, but I still sang "Silent Night" when everyone else did. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It must be 20 years ago now that a friend of mine (British) was working in Carolina (S or N?). Anyway his kids went to the local non-private school (for UK reasons, I am trying not to write "public"). It took several weeks to get the pledge sorted out with the school who wanted his children to join in. He stated that they weren't US citizens and so weren't going to pledge allegance to this foreign (USA) country. He suggested that they should stand quietly and respectfully whilst the US children pledged - eventually agreed. The biggest problem appeared to be incomprehension by the school authorities that someone might NOT WANT to pledge allegance to the US flag if they had the opportunity!

Since they were enjoying the benefits of living in the USA, it was only fair that they give something back. There was no anchor keeping them here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

carrots 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's to say there were any benefits? Why do you assume it was all take on their part, or that they moved to the US for what they could get? And it's quite clear they were contributing: the father was working, contributing his skills, experience and taxes. Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's rare that children have much choice about where they live. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I misreading you, or are you actually suggesting that it's appropriate for people to pledge allegiance to foreign countries in which they happen to be residing? Algebraist 21:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec : reply to Baseball Bugs) I don't think you are understanding the point here. They were UK citizens living as a family working in the US. They do NOT pledge allegiance to the US. Yes, they obey all the US laws. Yes, they are respectful to the conventions and mores of the place that they live (USA). But if you follow your suggestion then a US family living and working in, say, Libya should pledge allegiance to Libya. I suggest that there might even be grounds on the part of the US government for prosecuting said family for treason (Yes I know this is an extreme and is pushing it, but I'm trying to make a point)! The British family were not Americans. There is no way that they should or could make such a pledge validly.

I had a fellow student in my grade school class who belonged to a Christian denomination that didn't allow him to say the pledge (7th Day Adventist, perhaps.) Every day we stood up for the pledge and he walked out. It was never an issue. Rmhermen (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: Under plans drawn up by the Home Secretary in 2005,with followup efforts in 2008, British teenagers were to be asked to swear their loyalty to Queen and country on their 18th birthday, a one-off "British pledge of allegiance." The proposal was criticised as "half baked," an "empty gesture,""puerile,"and "synthetic patriotism. Some in the U.S. have similarly criticized the every-day recitation in our schools, especially with the "under God," theocratically added in 1954. During the McCarthyism madness, "loyalty oaths" for adults were sometimes required, as if a spy or saboteur would refuse, rather than merely persons of principle. Before F.D. Roosevelt made the gesture "hand over heart," a salute similar to the Nazi salute was required. Edison (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to get picky but the loyalty oaths weren't just about spies refusing them. They usually contained clauses that implied the person saying them was not a member of any party which advocating overthrowing of the government—e.g. Communist Party. If at a later date it turned out that said person was lying when they took the oath it could be grounds for a perjury charge. So it's not just about the honor system; it was a way of trying to catch people in a legal bind, a way to effectively ban the Communist Party (even though the US doesn't like to talk about banning political parties, because that's something only other, less-civilized nations do). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Apparently young British men don't have to troop down to the post office on their 18th birthday to register for selective service? (a much stronger pledge than the other) I particularly like the part where illegal aliens have to register to possibly serve a country that would deport them if it found them. Rmhermen (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No such registration here, I'm glad to say. I remember seeing the posters about it in American post offices and wondering what on earth that was all about. DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did they have it during World War II? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Conscription in the United Kingdom occurred between 1916 and 1919 and between 1939 and 1960, and at no other times. (but see Impressment) Algebraist 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no fun, being the cops of the world. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would refer to the US as the cops of the world when they tend not to support international law (they haven't signed up to the International Criminal Court, for example)... --Tango (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you know that cops are above the law. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just sit back and let terrorists and pirates do what they will, and carp about what the cops are doing in their efforts to limit the damage. Edison (talk)

complete tangent - while i enjoy the idea of a 'round young vigin' as much as the next man, baseball, I was taught the version 'around yon virgin mother and child' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the age of 5, I wasn't real sure what the term "virgin" meant, and the song sounded like a trio: (1) round young virgin; (2) mother; and (3) child. Or maybe I should say a "trinity". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was "Round John Virgin." Edison (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Other daily ceremonies in school

When I was growing up in Canada, every day in all four of the schools I attended (before university) started with the Lord's Prayer (I was in high school before I figured out that I could just stand there silently instead of repeating words I did not believe in) and one or the other national anthem. Do US schools play/sing the national anthem or is the pledge considered sufficient proof :-) of patriotism? What about British schools, or the experience of anyone from another country who's reading this? --Anonymous, 23:35 UTC, April 22, 2009.

British schools are required to have a "daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature" or something like that, but it's very vague about what that actually means and there many/most schools don't do anything particularly religious on a regular basis. --Tango (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In Britain we do have assemblies, which will usually include a mumbled prayer or hymn (by law there must be some sort of "mainly Christian" observance in state schools - and parents have the right to withdraw their children from any form of religious observance in any state school), but I doubt there are many schools which have Union Jacks hanging around the place. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

U.S. schools play "The Star-Spangled Banner" before most any large public event, not usually in the individual classroom. Unlike the British anthem, the first verse has no theological references as such. The fourth verse, though - get ready, and keep in mind this was written in 1814 - contains the line, "...and this be our motto, 'In God Is Our Trust'." However, very few people know more than the first verse, and even fewer can sing it. An anthem best appreciated from a distance, i.e. hearing someone else sing or play it. The American anthem has been criticized for being too war-oriented. Those critics apparently never read the English translation of "La Marseillaise", where it speaks of bloodied banners and slitting throats and tainted blood drenching the furrows... and that's just the first verse. My favorite verse in the U.S. anthem is the third, which reminds you of the Marseillaise a bit, where they sing about how the enemy's own blood "has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution." I'd like to hear some American schoolkids sing that one... especially with some innocent young Brits in the audience, since that's who Key was writing about. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as long as they aren't doing any knavish tricks! --Tango (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, American kids sing that song, too. Only we call it, "My Country 'Tis of Thee". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When will the Americans come up with tunes of their own for their patriotic songs? Must they always use British airs? DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be ironic if the lyricist for "My Country Tis of Thee" was forced to pay a royalty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The irony of the original salute has been lost on some. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As with the swastika, the Nazis took a perfectly good thing and ruined it. I could say that about Germany itself, too, only the U.S. helped rebuild Germany. But they didn't put any funding into rehabilitating the swastika or the salute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In grade school we did the Pledge of Allegiance daily, and we also sang patriotic songs, such as My Country 'Tis of Thee. The neighbor's cousin from the city came to visit one weekend and taught me some "alternative" lyrics. They went like this: "My country sick of thee, send me to Germany, over the sea.... Let Communism ring!" I thought that was funny and cool, so I decided to sing those lyrics the next day at school. I did, the teacher heard me, and I was sent to the principal's (headmaster's) office. He paddled my behind with a wooden paddle until it was sore. This would have been about 1970. Marco polo (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall that one too, or variations thereof. And your day was filled with learning, as you found out all about the "board of education". I wonder, though, what they would have done if you had sung "God Save the Queen"? I also wonder if they still do corporal punishment anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In Texas, which is the only state I can speak to, they do still practice corporal punishment in public schools. However, the parents are asked to sign a permission form at the start of the year and they can decline to allow corporal punishment for their child. Dragons flight (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Beating children is illegal in schools in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, Texas is unlike the UK in more ways than you can imagine! SteveBaker (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegal for everyone, or just for the teachers? Tempshill (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What about really shitty ones?

My mum is a teacher in Canada and she had a colleague who survived an investigation in which he punched a kid a couple times by reasoning at his injunction that the first was to prevent him from hurting other kids, and the second was to stop him from hurting himself. TastyCakes (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hum. I am trained and experienced in safe methods of physically controlling and restraining violent children, and punching never came into it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible some exaggeration entered my mum's description of the event ;) TastyCakes (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Violence is unnecessary. Just remember Red Green's axiom: "Duct tape - the handyman's secret weapon!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know about the Red Green Show? I thought that was one of Canada's horible, dorky secrets it would never allow outside of its borders. TastyCakes (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Red/Green show has been shown here in Texas (on PBS stations, mostly) for many, many years. The early episodes were pretty good - but it went downhill fast when they ran out of ideas. Still - it could be worse. We Brits have to cringe every time they rerun "The Benny Hill Show" AND "Are you being served?"...you Canadians have it easy! SteveBaker (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some advantages to living in Britain - no Benny Hill or Are You Being Served :) DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully there seem to be many Canadian shows even PBS won't touch... I look at it as a kind of plausible deniability. There seems to have been some kind of breakdown when Degrassi made it out of the country. TastyCakes (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There are only so many ways you can milk the same formula. "I'm freeee!" probably gets tiresome after awhile. Key question: Do you cringe at, "Hello, Polly!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Way back in first grade, I heard the alternate lyrics "My country's tired of me, I'll go to Germany, to see the King. His name is Donald Duck, he drives a garbage truck, from every mountainside, let garbage fly." We 6 year olds were cautioned by the 7 year olds that it was against the law to sing those lyrics (not so many years since WW2).Edison (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone's penis been bitten off during oral sex?

This may seem like a stupid question, but when you watch porn, you forget that women have teeth when you watch them giving a blowjob. When you get a girl IRL to give you a blowjob, the fact that she has teeth and could potentially bite your penis off becomes much more apparent. What's with that?--LeninAwaken (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's happened: [14], [15], [16], but it sure aint common. What you really need to be scared of is teeth in another place. That's a joke. Don't worry too much about it and try not to date women named Bobbit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It happened in Parma, and East Anglia. It has even [happened to Bonobos in Stuttgart.Edison (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From a scientific viewpoint I think it would be extremely difficult to bite off the penis. Mutilation is more common, but severing completely with the teeth would be impeded by the gristly nature of the penis. 86.4.190.83 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you've tried it before. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's the only way anyone could know that. (Also, the only way to know that punching a brick wall as hard as you can will hurt your hand is to try it! Curse our feeble brains for having no capacity for the hypothetical.) -- Captain Disdain (talk)

The inflexible nature of a brick wall would be fairly obvious to the layman. Not being a physician, and not having studied the matter in minute detail otherwise, I would need to see a reliable source confirming the reported penile gristliness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

John Irving seems to think it can be done. Karenjc 18:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's been a long time since I read it, but I think that was when the couple were in a parked car and were hit by another car at high speed, so there was an extra momentum factor there that might figure into it. The momentum factor, vaguely related to a straw being driven into wood by tornadic winds. (I'll let your imagination fill in any apparent jokes here.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As does, if memory serves, Stephen King. ("The reflex is to BITE DOWN." – Shawshank Redemption) 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.228.210 (talk)

Well, in that instance, the chances of Andy just bluffing were pretty high... I haven't read the story, though; perhaps that has a different take on it, but in the movie, I think even Bogs suspects that Andy is bullshitting him. It's just that he'd rather not take the chance. (Also, at least in the film, I think the implication of the "I hear the bite reflex is so strong they have to pry the victim's jaws open with a crowbar" line is that Bogs'd be stuck with a dead guy's jaws locked around his terribly mutilated penis.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Drinking Cold Coffee

Suppose I was to make a pot of coffee at night and leave it overnight in the pot, will it be safe for drinking the next morning? Palatability aside, will the coffee still contain the same amount of caffeine content as a fresh pot of coffee and hence provide me with the same amount of stimulation? Acceptable (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the pot is covered overnight so no flies can land in it, or anything else contaminate it, I don't see any problem with drinking it. I also can't think of any way the coffee going cold would affect the caffeine - the human body can certainly absorb caffeine from cold drinks (coke, energy drinks, etc.). --Tango (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall health warnings about reheating coffee - but Google search results are split about 50/50 between "It's OK" and "It's suicidal"...who knows? This seems somewhat scientific: http://www.ciboj.org/cib_new/certification/ENRD/WebReadyPowerPointshowsfromENRD/FoodSafety.pps (annoying bloody powerpoint). But this refers to re-heating - not to drinking it cold the following morning. SteveBaker (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If the coffee was flavored with almond when you brewed it, you might wish to test for cyanide before drinking it in the morning. I have microwaved left-over coffee hours later and enjoyed it. Coffee left in a cup for a few days sometimes has mold on the surface, and I would strongly caution against drinking moldy coffee.Edison (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There goes my plan to count moldy coffee as my daily vegetable. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

y = mx + b

Is there a reason that 'm' was chosen to represent the slope in this commonly used equation for a line? Nadando (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This page discusses that question - the conclusion is basically that nobody knows! --Tango (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Another, more involved discussion. Same conclusion. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was always taught "y = mx + c"...not "b"...but also, no reason was ever given. SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"y = mx + c" was taught in my school too and teacher did not even discuss why m and c are used. I assumed it to be multiplication factor and constant. manya (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was "b" for me. At some point I was also taught, or perhaps came across, the version of the question where you use the X-intercept instead of the Y-intercept: x = y/m + a. Using a and b for the two intercepts seems natural enough, but of course this gives no insight into m. --Anonymous, 05:41 UTC, April 23,2009.

This reminds me. Professor: "Let us denote the surface area by S ...". Student, with indignation: "No, S is entropy!!!". Sad but true... At least half of the undergrads never realize that you can denote any quantity by any letter, and the physics will remain the same. --Dr Dima (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember learning that some scientific field has an equation that has been promoted as E = m²c, just to be ornery. Of course the variables have totally different meaning than what goes into Einstein's version. Dragons flight (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Einstein's original version wasn't E = mc² anyway. There are conflicting versions out there of exactly what he did first write: this forum posting quotes a book as saying it was L = MV² (which I've seen in print somewhere myself), while this magazine article says he said the change in mass was equal to L/c². Both versions have L for energy, not E. And no, I don't know why; "energy" starts with E in German too. --Anonymous, 06:13 UTC, April 23, 2009.

Odd. These days L usually denotes angular momentum in that context. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The original paper is in the public domain and can be found online, here for example. What he wrote is "Gibt ein Körper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so verkleinert sich seine Masse um L/V²". i.e. "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/V²" (translation courtesy fourmilab). He also uses E and H for energies elsewhere in the paper, so my best guess is that L stands for Licht. It's the energy of the light (but the mass is not the mass of the light, it's the mass of the body that emitted it). -- BenRG (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that the area of a black hole's event horizon is a measure of entropy, so Student should chill. —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of its event horizon, yes. --Tango (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That exchange reminds me of this one (from Littlewood's Miscellany):

Schoolmaster: "Suppose x is the number of sheep in the problem."

Pupil: "But, Sir, suppose x is not the number of sheep."

-- BenRG (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That pupil, in a very polite way, is actually saying, "Baa? Humbug!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

April 23

U.S. Geography, locating a city

I know that there are 3 cities with the name of Spokane in the USA. One in in the state of Washington, one is in the state of South Dakota. I believe the 3rd Spokane is somewhere on the US east coast but I can't locate it. Can anyone direct me to the state I'm looking for? Thank you very much for any help you can provide; it's appreciated!CharlieChanFan (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)CharlieChanFan

We have a Spokane, Washington and a Spokane, Missouri, but I don't know about Spokane, South Dakota. Dragons flight (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Spokane (disambiguation) page just lists two places, the big one in Washington and Spokane, Missouri, population 133.

The USGS's Geographic Names Information System is more helpful. An exact-match search on "populated places" with the name Spokane finds five: Washington, Missouri, and South Dakota are three, and the other two are in Ohio and Louisiana.

None of the last three has a Wikipedia article. I looked up the last four in the four different brands of road atlas I have at home and only my old AAA road atlas shows any of them. It shows Spokane, LA, which is about 20 miles north of Vidalia, and Spokane, MO, about 30 miles south of Springfield. It does not give populations for these two, nor does it mention the other two places.

If you meant "city" in the strict sense of the word as distinct from things like villages, towns, and hamlets (the official terms for things like this vary from state to state), it seems very unlikely that any of the four is a city, so the answer is probably that there is only the one. But if you meant it in the vague sense where it includes any populated place... now you know. --Anonymous, 06:02 UTC, April 23, 2009.

Looking at Spokane, Ohio in Google Maps reveals 10 houses and maybe two businesses...one of which is a farm. Spokane Missouri is a little bigger - but there aren't 100 houses there. Spokane Louisiana is also just a scattering of river-side homes with no really well defined boundary. Spokane South Dakota appears to be a deserted road running though some woodland with no sign of buildings or anything else. Calling any of them a "City" is definitely pushing it - even by American standards! By any reasonable standards, Spokane Washington is the only city with that name. SteveBaker (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be affected by state law. I read a while back that any incorporated community in Georgia, for example, is legally considered a "city"... even if it's barely a wide spot in the road. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

non ox furnace

hot dip galvanizing process having non oxidizing furnace in detail also told me the function of skin pass mill in galvanizing line.

You might want to start with the articles Hot-dip galvanizing and Rolling (metalworking). The processes for hot dip galvanizing are similar but slightly different depending on what it is that you're working with. You can find several in-depth explanations by Googling patent hot dip galvanizing process non-oxidizing furnace. A Skin pass mill see here improves surface finish, flatness and yield stress. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

defects in hot dip galvanizing

pls. tell me about the defect soft mark in colled roll coil what is the effect of this after galvanizing ( gp coil with skin pass) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshknit (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

please help me find this ebook!!

Okay. I'm going to be fairly straightforward about this. Could anybody please help me find a site where I can download the e-books (pdf files) for "the Seventh Tower" series by Garth Nix, that doesn't require registration or payment?? I tried googling, but almost all of the entries required some sort of payment or signing up. If anyone has any tips on how to search for such files more efficiently, or if anyone can find me a direct link to a download for the series, that would be great. Or if anyone already has the pdf files for the entire series, could you please send it to me through this email address? [Removed] (this is only a temporary email address, created only for this occasion. it doesn't have anything that could possibly lead to my personal info, so no worries there.) Thanks everyone in advance.

P.S. Could you help me find pdf files for "the Old Kingdom Trilogy (or Abhorsen Trilogy)" by Garth Nix as well?? Thanks a million!!

Despite your disclaimer I've removed your email address. Refdesk policy is to only answer questions here. However, you're not likely to get an answer here, because linking to bootlegged material is against WP rules. Sorry. APL (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How about if you lke the writer so much you show your appreciation for the time, cost and effort it took for them to write the book...and pay for a copy of it? I appreciate the idea that electronic-copies cost virtually nothing to make 1-more-copy (forget the economic term) but ultimately if you enjoy the work so much that you want to read their books why not cough up and pay the 10 or whatever dollars for it on Amazon? Sorry - rant over, APL gave a much more reasoned response. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Marginal cost, probably. Recury (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Securing income as employee

What is the best way of always having some form of income? Is there some kind of portfolio theory or perhaps an insurance for employees? --83.57.67.37 (talk)

Some of the lowest-risk income options would be risk-free bonds, certificates of deposit, or insured interest-bearing bank accounts. However, these are coupled with some of the lowest available returns, so it takes quite a large principal sum to guarantee repeatable income. Consequently, most investment strategies call for a balance of risk across a portfolio so as to improve expected returns. The prerequisite large principal remains, though, even if it's lowered by taking on risk. Unemployment insurance is probably available in various forms; certainly, unemployment benefits can be viewed as a form of such. Finally, there are the practical details of one's place in the economy: is your job sector healthy? How often does your employer use layoffs? How marketable are your personal skills? How far are you willing to bend to accommodate a job opportunity? And so forth. — Lomn 19:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only way to make sure you will always have some income is to become very wealthy first, and invest that money in some mix of stocks, bonds, and cash, and then leave the money invested, never touch it again, and live off the interest. If you require US$50,000 per year to live pretty well, then all you need is US$1 million invested at 5% to receive US$50,000 forever. Isn't that comforting? If you can't amass the million dollars right away, you'll have to get a job, and for when you can't work, you'll have to depend upon social safety nets like government unemployment insurance. Until you get that US$1 million. Tempshill (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking purely pedantically, the above scheme over time will assure you money forever, but it won't allow you to live well forever. What you need to do is amass enough so that you can live well off the interest and have a bit left each month to reinvest so that the compounding of the interest offsets inflation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of completeness, I'll add that you need sufficient return that you can cover the capital gains tax, as well. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want security, it is important that you an insurance plan against common risks - disability, health, unemployment, accidents, fire, etc. Second, save a share of your income. Calculate the share according to the time that you could be unemployed. Unemployment insurance won't last forever. --Mr.K. (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Victory by resignation of one's opponent

It has occurred to me that it is not necessary to explicitly specify a win condition in giving rules for checkers, if one uses the principle common to many (all?) board games that it is always permissible to resign on one's turn to move: if you have no legal move, either because all your men are blocked or because you have no men with which to make a move, you must resign.

Is there a list of games or sports in which the only way to win is by surrender of one's opponent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.249.103 (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The only way that concept makes sense is for endurance contests, where you win by doing something longer than anyone else. Obviously "something" could be anything you like.

In any other sort of game, the only reason to resign is if you think your opponent is sure to win, and that's only possible if your opponent has some other way to win.

--Anonymous, 23:48 UTC, April 23, 2009.

Well, not exactly. In checkers there is the concept that if you can't find a legal move then you must resign...although another way to state that is that if you can't make a legal move then your opponent has won...whether you decide to 'resign' or not. That's not quite the same thing as "you think your opponent is going to win"...although that is another reason to resign. But not all games are like that. In chess, for example, if you find yourself in a position where you can't make a legal move, it's "stalemate" and the game ends in a draw. That's a very different rule! In yet other games (Go for example), you're allowed to simply not make a move if you cannot or do not wish to do so. Those are quite distinct setups from chess and checkers. But even that isn't quite what the OP is asking. We're being asked for a list of activities in which having your opponent resign is the ONLY way to win...but if the rules state a winning condition (such as 'checkmate' in chess) isn't it rather irrelevent whether the person "loses" or "is forced to resign" when that condition is met? If I changed the rules for the Olympic 100meter sprint to say that everyone except the first person across the line must "resign", it wouldn't change the race in any way whatever...yet it would move that even from the "No" to "Yes" column in our OP's hypothetical list. I don't think there can be such a list. The only exceptions might be if there were some kind of game (and checkers ain't it) where the game doesn't end until the player chooses to resign of his own free will - but that seems a bit far-fetched. I suppose "Go" is some kind of example of that - the precise termination condition for that game is very ill-specified - it's mostly one of those "you know it when you see it" things. In a sense, the loser could choose to continue to play if he wanted to...although no further benefit could be had by doing so. SteveBaker (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there some form of wrestling or martial art like this, where the only way of winning is through a submission (as opposed to by a pin or fall, a system of points, or by pushing your opponent out of the ring)? Probably there would also be the possibility of losing by disqualification, or time running out. As a child we used to play a game called Peanuts, where you linked hands with the opponent and tried to apply force to make them submit (and say peanuts), generally by trying to bend their wrists back or bend their arms in unnatural ways. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We always called that one Mercy. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of another one: Chicken (game) in which two complete, raving idiots drive their cars head-on towards each other at high speed - the loser (the "chicken") is the one who loses his nerve and swerves out of the way. In a sense, the loser chooses to "resign" (by swerving) rather than force a "draw" (by crashing). There can't be many games where losing is considered a better outcome than a draw...but this is definitely one of them! SteveBaker (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)The only contest I can think of (and this is more a reply to Steve's question), is pankration. The rules changed through time and place, but at least some of these contests were typically only winnable by submission. There were no "points" awarded or anything and almost no rules; when the loser's options are submission versus possibly being beaten to death, it tends to make for a lot of submissions! Matt Deres (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - yeah - it's close. The article says that the umpire could declare the game a draw - and for sure there is a way to win without your opponent 'resigning' because you can kill him...or (more reasonably) render him unconscious. Certainly the objective of the contest is to have your opponent submit - so I guess in spirit, this counts. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

April 24

Deprivation = Naïveté?

Somebody told me that because I was deprived of something as a child, that would make me naïve. He assures me that this equation is true in any circumstance. Do you find this to be the case? - Vikramkr (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is ridiculous. Though your thinking this makes any sense may indicate you are naive, or at least gullible ;-) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Deprivation of knowledge, maybe. Deprivation of basic needs? Probably just the opposite. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - it doesn't make sense. Look at all of the people in the world who started off in the worst deprivation who "made it" to become really important in all kinds of ways. If anything, the term "street smarts" applies! Don't worry about it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Few people have absolutely everything as a child, so that would make almost everyone naive. That seems dubious to me. (In fact, I would think it was those few who do have everything that are more likely to be naive.) --Tango (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A good example is JFK, who according to conventional wisdom, truly did not realize how bad things could be for some people in the USA until he visited Appalachia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Value of poker glassware set

We have a set of 8 glasses (each of which has a different poker hand etched in it and each glass rests in a small ashtray. However, neither the glasses nor the ashtray have any names on them. We are trying to find out the value of the set. We have googled, searched poker glassware sets, etc. Cany anyone tell us where to look? Jlastocy (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is art glass, which can be quite valuable, but generally speaking, glass of the kind you are describing is worthless. It's yard sale material. Oh, maybe it's worth $50 dollars--what the market will bear--but it's not valuable. There has been so much glass production in this country over the years the mind reels; it's basically sand with a small heat and craft investment. That's why every thriftstore has a wall of glasses all going for 25-50¢ per. You're just going to have to trust me on this: Glass with etched or pressed poker hands on it, is not art glass. I'll give you one tip though, if the edges of the impression are sharply defined, it is better quality than if they're rounded. Rounded means its pressed glass, ergo, really, really cheap. But we're only talking about a difference of $5 verses $50. Sorry but it's not treasure.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree: This: [17] is a set of novelty poker-related "vintage" glasses for $65 - that's an auction site, so this is an asking price not what it actually sold for (if it sells). There are etched "crystal" poker-themed glasses [18] at $56. Amazon.com have these [19] for $24 and these [20] are only $11. With all of that competition, it's really unlikely that this stuff is worth anything much. The only way to find out is to try to sell it - stick it on eBay with a reserve price you can live with and you'll find out. SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is valuable and you just don't know it, though, eBay probably won't know it either unless you can tell them precisely what it is. If you suspect it might be more valuable than your average poker-themed glassware (incidentally, where did it come from?) then it might be worth trying to identify it. It probably isn't worth paying to get it valued, though - the chances of it being worth anything are slim. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Statistics on Age of Loss of Virginity

I'm looking for a breakdown of age of loss of virginity – the larger the sample size, the better. Ideally, American (or at least Western world) data, and differentiated by gender. Is this data online anywhere, or on Wikipedia itself (I didn't see it in the virginity article)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.228.210 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I lost my virginity at 18 and I'm a good statistical sample because I'm many, many different people depending on the situation, or so my wife tells me.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, 70.19.69.27. :-) I'm hoping, however, that someone can point me towards a breakdown (preferably of a large sample) by age or age range, either with numbers or percentages ... as opposed to Wikipedians recounting their individual experiences. ;-) 207.181.228.210 (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality in the United States has some sourced statistics that would seem to be relevant to your question. Deor (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's equally appreciated. However, data on adolescents was fairly easily found on the Web -- the reason I phrased the request as I did above is because I'm hoping to find data that covers the statistical frequency of later-in-life virgins as well (as well as adolescents). 207.181.228.210 (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is one set of data from the Kinsey Institute, but they do not report much later in life. Page 6 on this pdf file has some information. According to their data, here are the percent virgins at various ages for females: 20yo-25.3, 21yo-22.4, 22yo-20.8, 23yo-9.7, 24yo-5, 25yo-7.9, 26yo-3.4. Here is another report by the CDC which is used by the Kinsey Institute.--droptone (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And page 51 of that last CDC report may be of interest to you.--droptone (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Bingo. That page is exactly what I was looking for, and it's from the CDC to boot, nicely professional source. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Salute in propaganda poster

Recently, I was playing the game Democracy and in the game, there was a poster that looked like this poster in the background. The young girl on the left appears to be offering a salute of some sort and I have seen this before in a documentary footage of a military parade in Red Square in front of Nikita Khrushchev. What is this salute? Could her arm be a reference to sickle in the hammer and sickle? --Blue387 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a "pioneer salute". See Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Several variations of the Roman salute have been used throughout history. See also Bellamy salute and Hitler salute. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Utah street names, or lack thereof

So here's one that been bugging me for a long time...Why are streets in Utah given numbers like 200 West or 1300 North rather than names? This seems to be the norm in cities big and small across the state. I guess it makes sense from a logical point of view, but if you're not used to it, being presented with an address along the lines of 1345 N 300 East is beyond confusing. Any insights on this??? --199.89.175.226 (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Google found me this site: [21] that explains it in some more detail. Though as to why the system exists, maybe "just cuz" is the reason. To be fair, numbers are easier to index than names are. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You might as well ask why other places use names. Growing up in Edmonton, which also has numbered streets almost exclusively, it always puzzled me why there were places that didn't. But of course there are two answers: "We've always done it that way" and "Numbered streets don't make so much sense when the street plan isn't gridlike." --Anonymous, 03:12 UTC, April 25, 2009.

According to this page: When the streets were initially laid out in Salt Lake, the Latter-Day Saints temple was the center of the community. Roads in each direction from the temple were assigned a numeric name indicating how far it was from the temple as well as directional value, indicating the direction from the temple that the street was located. The Salt Lake City page says the numbers have to do with latitude and longitude, but there is a "citation needed" tag on that claim. I'm skeptical myself. I was under the impression that the distance between street had something more to do with acres. Still, it is a kind of coordinate system based on the LDS temple. I'm guessing other cities in Utah copied the Salt Lake City system. Pfly (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Movie poster on airplane

Would a rolled-up movie poster (30" x 40") be acceptable as hand luggage on an airplane? 3DES / decltype (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the airline and the class one is flying.86.209.24.42 (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)DT

Well, I was hoping it would somehow be exempt from the luggage restrictions because it is basically just a piece of paper. For example, it is no problem to bring a newspaper or magazine along with your regular luggage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triple-DES (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, get a poster tube to put it in, to help protect it in case they insist on gate-checking it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

They may also insist that you shove it in the overhead bin. You will need a tube. (Word of warning. If you get a FedEX or USPS tube, (or similar) make sure you cover over all the FedEx or USPS logos. If you have to let it out of your sight, you don't want anyone thinking it's a misplaced piece of mail.) APL (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Best bet is to go to an office supply store and get a plain one. Nowadays they might insist on it being checked simply due to paranoia - there could be a weapon in it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we're playing guessing games here, and the first respondent was onto it: Call the airline and ask about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have carried this sort of thing (maps) as hand luggage several times in planes. It does fit in the overhead locker! You may have more trouble with the discount airlines that may enforce the rules strictly and charge you extra for a fragile baggage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still best to call first and not make any assumptions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The catch is that the rules as enforced in practice may not be as strict as the written ones, and if you ask, they'll read you the written rules. The only way to know what they will enforce in practice is to talk to people who have attempted the same thing. Of course, your other option is to send the thing by mail (or UPS, etc.). --Anonymous, 03:16 UTC, April 25, 2009.

I find budget airlines enforce such rules much stricter than regular airlines. You may well struggle to take a poster on a budget airline, but I would expect a full service airline to accommodate you as long as it will fit in the overhead locker, which I expect it would. --Tango (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you may want to try the science desk (or maybe humanities) if not satisfied with answers here. I expect a number of scientists would have had to carry posters for conferences. This site does mention the option of having your poster printed locally to avoid problems [22] but this site mentions airlines generally allow posters [23]. I would agree with Baseball Bugs here. Don't presume airlines are not going to have established rules for this sort of thing which do allow posters. If you get a response in the affirmative, you might want to take down the details of what the person said and maybe ask for a contact. That way if you do have problems you can ask them to check with the people who told you it's okay. It's quite common that even if something is allowed the people at the front line don't know the rules very well either so getting to know the official line is never a bad thing. If you get a response in the negative, you can still choose to risk it if you wish, it's not as if the airline is going to know you asked... Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this?

What is the name in English of the product which appears on this photograph? It appears to be a tool which is used to burn the sugar on desserts. Thanks to anyone who can help. --Leptictidium (mt) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a rectangular electric carameliser (most of them are round). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The photo looks like a charcoal lighter, used to ignite charcoal for grilling. It has a Calrad resistance heating unit. "Burning the sugar on desserts" sounds like Creme brulee. A propane torch is normally used for the latter. Edison (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Romantic acronyms

I have to make a humourous speech at a 60th wedding. It would be fun to show that even before texts there were lovers' acronyms. e.g SWALK (sealed with a loving kiss). Many quite explicit! Contributions requested.86.209.24.42 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)DT

You can find some examples in our article on WWII Postal Acronyms. Warofdreams talk 10:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a place with a list of them from WWII (apparently) http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1837480 Examples include:

• CHINA: Come Home I Need Affection
• HOLLAND: Hope Our Love Lasts And Never Dies
• ITALY: I Trust And Love You
• WALES: With A Love Eternal Sweetheart
• MALAYA: My Ardent Lips Await Your Arrival
• MEXICO CITY: May Every X I Can Offer Carry Itself To You
• BURMA: Be Undressed Ready My Angel
• NORWICH: Nickers Off Ready When I Come Home

194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I know 'knickers' is spelt with a 'k', I was at Oxford, it was one of the first things they taught us. meltBanana 12:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So what was the first thing....? Thanks for the contribution86.209.24.42 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)DT

This reminds me of a bit from Are You Being Served?:

"I once had a Romance Calendar with different instructions for each day of the week:"

"Monday is for Meeting."

"Tuesday for Talking."

"Wednesday for Wooing."

"Thursday for Touching."

"Friday ... for some reason had been torn out." StuRat (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But...but...what about Saturday and Sunday? Sounds like some kind of a wild party! SteveBaker (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's one for where I live : WIDNES : 'When In Doubt Nail 'Em Shitless'. Sorry, not very romantic, but Widnes is not a very romantic place.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Reversion

If you are trying to revert vandalism, are you supposed to inform the vandal and how? Simeon24601 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to inform them but if you want, you can use a warning template. That way, if they made a mistake in good faith, they can learn or if they intentionally vandalised, an admin can use the warning as fuel for a block. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ThanksSimeon24601 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Next time you might like to ask on WP:HD for wikipedia specific questions

It also helps escalate toward someone blocking them from editing, so they can't plead that "They had no idea they were doing something wrong." It is annoying when one is on vandalism patrol to see someone reverting vandalism without warning the vandal. Edison (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wild chickens.

Silly question I know but curious to know the answer - is there anywhere on earth that chickens run wild - or are they all bred and killed in captivity for egg and meat production? 92.20.105.175 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on chickens, there are relatives to the chicken (the Red Junglefowl and Grey Junglefowl that are wild. Other wild relatives include the Sri Lanka Junglefowl.--droptone (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Feral chickens also exist. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Key West, Florida is famous for its feral chickens. Our article contains a picture of such feral chickens. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Feral chickens I have known were very much like normal chickens, except that when day was done, instead of going into the chicken house from the fenced chicken yard, they would fly over the fence and roost in tall trees. In other words, they were stronger and better able to fly. Edison (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kauai is another place known for having many feral chickens. Pfly (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone fancy working on a Feral chickens article? It sounds like something that WP should have... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I went and created a (very) basic stub. Feel free to make it better. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair Oaks, California is famous for the feral chickens which run around throughout the town. There is an annual Chicken Festival where fried chicken is served (probably not the feral ones).[24] Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to have free roaming chickens in Malaysian villages (kampung). The term 'kampung chicken' has probably tradionally referred to these chickens but nowadays it commonly refers to birds either breed im a semi free range environment or birds that may be grown fairly intensively but are similar in breed to the tradional kampung chicken. Since Red Junglefowl are native to Malaysia, it's likely some of these are the result of further crossing with non domesticated varieties. See Malaysian cuisine, [25], [26] for some details Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia Question

Can anyone please find the first concert that Oakland A's player Travis Buck attended, I really need the answer. Thanks 169.229.207.10 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Define "first concert". Like, maybe his parents took him to a Barney show when he was 2 years old or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

IDK, it's like a trivia question at my school right now, idk what they mean.169.229.75.140 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with his entrance music being a Motorhead song? Otherwise this is the kind of question that the question-writer probably saw randomly in a random interview that no one else will ever find. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ease of Manufacturing Meth from Scratch

It is often said that converting pseudoephedrine or ephedrine into methamphetamine is an easy process and can be done by anyone with a basic command in chemistry. Indeed, recipes for this process do exist online.

However, suppose one does not have a recipe. How difficult would it be for someone to convert pseudoephedrine or ephedrine into methamphetamine supposing that they only have access to the chemical structure of the compounds and must derive the recipe from scratch if a) they have a BS in Chemistry b) a MS in Chemistry and finally c) a PhD in Organic Chemistry?

Hustle (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not aid and abet illegal activity. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The question is "in the hypothetical situation where a recipe for meth was unavailable, how hard would it be to come up with one for various people?". Unless the questioner is a criminal who likes a challenge, this hardly looks like a request for help with a crime. --Sean 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the answer is: www.google.com Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer his question either! APL (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already said recipes are available online. He wants to know how easy it is to come up with a recipe from first principles. Unfortunately, I do not have a BS in Chemistry, so I can't help... --Tango (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He's asking how to make an illegal drug. Sorry, this ain't the place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the question? He's not asking how to make the drugs, he asking how easy it would be to make the drugs. Tango (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)He/she is clearly not asking for a recipe or a "how to" guide, but "how easy would it be". It's entirely different. I can't ask how to make a nuclear weapon, but it seems reasonable to ask how easy it is to create one if you have a working nuclear power plant. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Or more specifically, could someone with a PhD in physics figure out a nuclear weapons design without looking at any classified information. But anyway, yeah, Baseball Bugs, way to strike out on getting the question three times in a row. You're out! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Where can I buy a kilo of "scratch?" Edison (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My cat scratches the furniture all the time - you can borrow her! --Tango (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The process of taking a proposed chemical structure and figuring out how to make it from available precursors is called retrosynthesis. Proposing a retrosynthetic scheme for compounds is a normal and significant part of any decent degree in organic synthesis. The trick is to be familiar enough with potential reactions to be able to "see" how one would go about putting the molecule together. However, for a very complex molecule, designing, testing, and completing such a scheme can take a long time. For example, the total synthesis of taxol took over twelve years. A simpler molecule like meth would likely take less time, although being limited to household materials (an illegal drug lab can't really order from a scientific supply house) would likely make it take longer. -- 75.42.235.205 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

April 25

Poker without cards.

A bazillion years ago, I read about a group of science/math types (I think it may have been during the Manhattan Project) who devised a way to play poker without a deck of cards. As I recall, the idea was that you could pick any imaginary hand you liked (you wrote down what it was) - then you bet, bluffed, etc on the basis of your imaginary hand. Sadly, I don't recall the details - and now I'm trying to dig up the actual rules. Presumably, the rules would have to reduce the amount you won if you picked a high hand - or else everyone would go with four aces and a king (or whatever the highest hand is in Poker). So I kinda imagine your winnings with that kind of hand would be very low indeed - but winning with a pair of two's would bring in the big bucks. Something like that must have been involved.

Does anyone have the faintest clue about this? I may be extremely hazy on the details here - this is something I probably read about in the 1970's!

SteveBaker (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What if everyone goes with a royal flush? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume the rules result in nobody earning any money...but that's why I'm trying to find the original rules. SteveBaker (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that rather than the Manhattan project it was probably created by a bunch of game-theory types, but who knows. Searching I found a pdf explaining a one-card version of poker [27] but everything else I found for cardless poker was about electronic systems that don't use physical cards. Searching further, my guess is that it was John von Neumann, who worked on the Manhattan project and later did seminal work in game theory. This NY Times article mentions that he played a lot of poker while with the project. Here We go! After much searching (while typing this reply, as you can tell), I have found This, which is a complete schematic for the game, which was mentioned in this obituary of Robert Floyd. apparently he deserves original credit, not von Neumann. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well - circumstantially - that sounds like the right thing - but this is nothing like I recall having read. The Floyd paper is a complicated, theoretical way to literally play a completely standard game of poker without cards. (We actually have an article about it Mental poker). From what I understood, this was actually a playable game and it wasn't so much that the cards didn't exist as that you could pick your own hand. But I read this an awful long time ago - and it's perfectly possible that my memory is completely screwed! SteveBaker (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What would lead anyone to choose a weak hand? Sounds like a bizarre game. Choose the highest possible hand every time, unless it is something like 7 card stud hi-lo, where a weak hand could win. Edison (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that the pot is rigged to pay more depending on the strength of your hand, to encourage and reward bluffing. So someone who decides on a royal flush will win if it comes to a show of cards, but the system will mean actually all that happens is (say) they don't lose any money, and the pot carries over to the next hand. I'm just guessing, but that's what I'd do, with the pot "buying" hands and with lower hands worth far more. Sounds like it could be fun. No idea how he game would finish, though. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the maths types over at that desk if they could have a whack at figuring out what any of the rules might have been. Hopefully that'll start you (and I) on your way to playing, Steve. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Edison, if all players did what what you suggest, it would degenerate into a waste of time after 2 rounds, and nobody would ever win. There's an inbuilt incentive to choose a hand lower than the highest possible hand. The trick is guessing what other players may do, and choosing a hand that's higher than that; but it only needs to be marginally higher to win. It would take quite a few rounds before players would start cottoning on to any sort of workable strategy - which would be immediately undermined by the strategies of others because they're free to choose any cards they think will work. And again, and again ... Fascinating concept. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely related off-topic anecdote: My Dad and Step-Mum have been known to play "Desperate Desperate Desperate Bridge", which is Bridge played with 2 players (instead of the usual 4) and no cards. A key feature of the game is remember what cards have already been played, since you can't play a card twice. Since all 52 cards are used in a game of bridge, you can't just choose to only use the best cards (you don't decide on your hand before your start, you just make up cards as you go along). It started out as Desperate Bridge, which is bridge with a pack of cards and 3 players. This works well because in regular bridge one person is always the "dummy" in each hand and doesn't do anything, so most of it is a 3 player game anyway (I'm not sure of the origins of this game, but I don't think it was their original creation). They then extended that to Desperate Desperate Bridge, 2 players, with cards, and then finally they started playing it when they didn't have any cards. The same principles can't really be extended to poker, but the idea of playing card games without cards is a very general proposition. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming there are four players, write on four pieces of paper, 1, 2, 3, 4. These stand for highest, second highest, third highest and fourth highest hand. Then after each person has picked their hand, one of the four pieces of paper is picked. Obviously, the four numbers must not be visible. After one is picked then that's the hand that wins the round and betting can be made based on what poker hand you have chosen. Of course there are other poker games that can be played without cards. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That essentially has card, though - those pieces of paper are just taking the play of regular playing cards. The game also wouldn't work since the hand you are basing your bets on has no relation to whether or not you win. --Tango (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that one could avoid the "everyone picking the highest possible hand" problem by saying that the winning hand is disqualified if it is the highest hand chosen by any of the players. Having to pick the second highest makes it impossible to win with the highest possible poker hand - and by implication (a variation of the Unexpected hanging paradox) any high-valued hand is unlikely to win. That would make it possible to pick any hand in the middle of the range and still win. Once you've de-fanged the "picking a high hand is good" strategy - you leave people picking more reasonable hands. Multiplying the size of the pot by some number that's zero for the best possible poker hand down to (say) ten for the weakest possible hand would add incentive to go for lower-scoring hands. Bluffing and betting should handle the rest.

I really wish I could remember the original place I read about this! SteveBaker (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In Michael Frayn's Copenhagen Bohr mentions, if I recall, that Heisenberg and Weiszaecker played chess without a chessboard (mental chess, I guess, though they weren't blindfolded). Not sure if that is what you had in mind but thought I'd put it out there as it sounds similar. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Casio watch

I want to buy a new casio G-9000 MC watch . i wanted to know ; what are the specialities of this watch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.251.46 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.casio.com/products/Timepiece/G-Shock/G9000_Series/product/G9000MC-3/content/Technical_Specs

What's so special about it? Seems like a pretty typical $15 digital watch...except they are charging $100 for it. It's shock-resistant, mud resistant, has stopwatch and world timer. Meh. SteveBaker (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to buy one if you don't know what is special about it? --Tango (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things that make it different from the $15 model are: Their marketing department has determined there is a market willing to pay $100. They have (hopefully) done quality testing on the components. (One reason why your Dollar store has watches is that they don't.) You might get lucky and they honor their spare parts obligation and be actually able to supply a replacement part for a broken one in a couple of years. Same goes for their warranty. So, you are buying the bragging rights of owning a $100 watch and the comfort given you by the belief that it might also offer the quality as advertised. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that they claim "shock resistance" and "mud resistance" - I don't see anything that makes it particularly robust. I'm pretty sure the electronics are the usual stuff that every watch has - and it's well-neigh impossible to break the electronics of a $15 watch - all digital watches are pretty shock resistant - that term relates to clockwork watches - where a hard knock can indeed damage them and shock-resistance actually means something rather than just being words they stamp on the case. They carefully don't say it's waterproof - or even "water resistant" - so it's pretty certain that it's not. For $100 you could buy maybe half a dozen cheaper watches with the same features (and probably identical electronics). Is it really likely that this watch will last six times longer than a cheaper model? That's REALLY unlikely IMHO. Bragging rights are highly overrated - you MIGHT impress your friends the first time you show it to them - but after a week - they'll either be sick of you going on about it - or they'll have forgotten all about it - but your $100 is gone and your watch isn't special anymore.

If you want a watch that makes an impression - this is another sub-$100 watch. It has a gold plated case and a leather strap - it's both analog (classy!) and digital (practical) - and it keeps perfect time because it monitors a radio signal from an atomic clock so it stays PERFECTLY accurate and you never have to set it. You can SEE that it's not a $15 watch - it actually looks like a $100 watch. Or if you want a watch for it's features, consider this: this one for under $50 which has a compass and a thermometer (and stopwatch and such) and is water resistant to 660 feet. If you really want a quality $100 DIGITAL watch for the sheer style of it, go to a company like Fossil - for $80 they have a watch that works as a Wrist PDA with calendar and address book and who-knows-what - it has a USB port so you can connect it to your computer. Because they make fewer watches than Casio/Sony/etc - you'll have something that's a lot more unique.

So if you're going to spend $100 on a watch - I think you need to do your homework - you can do a lot better than this Casio gizmo. SteveBaker (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Video of nuclear tests

Hint: I'm watching Atomic Cafe right now. I've seen it before, but it's prompting me to ask for some information, since I've spent hours in the past looking for a source I can purchase:

I've always been fascinated by the visual effects of atomic explosions (seen on TV, not the actual blindness thing). The fireball and mushroom cloud are so incredible and in a way sensuous. What I'm looking for is a compilation of A- and H-test results on video. Not pictures of setting up the bomb, not descriptions of the political milieu - just the explosions, from start to stratosphere.

Sort of like the very end of Dr. Strangelove, but showing the full evolution of the explosions. I've found that there's a record of (I think) the Castle Bravo test series, but when I last checked, it was only on VHS. So is there such a thing - buyable video of nuclear-test explosions? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of "nuclear explosion test" DVDs on eBay but most of them are crap—poor transfers of government videos. Avoid them. Instead, if you want nuke porn, check out the film Trinity and Beyond, which is pretty easily available (e.g. it is on Netflix), and maybe its sequel, Nukes in Space. (The other films by Kuran in the series are less about the explosions than other things.) Trinity and Beyond does have some "political" milieau and test setups but it is almost entirely images of explosions (wonderfully retouched to get rid of scratches on the original films). It's probably the closest thing to what you are looking for. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am addicted to porn, it's stopping me from doing anything else

Seriously, there's so much good content on Xtube that I'm not even leaving the house. I'm an idiot for doing this, of course, I realise, but so much sex and naked women, I just can't stop watching it.--Biowar9 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Granted, there are some kinds of porn that I would never, ever, ever want to see, like violent porn, child porn, bestiality, and gay porn (not that I'm making a judgement about homosexuality that it is on the same moral level as those activities, it's just that my desire for gay porn is equivalent to my desire for the deviant kinds of porn: zero).--Biowar9 (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the question? - DSachan (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I stop watching porn?--Biowar9 (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are so many freaks on Xtube though. Some normal folk, but hell even the Goatse guy is on Xtube.--Biowar9 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

One possibility might be to start having more real life sex. The other one might be to take part in activities which you like (sports, dancing whatever) but make sure it is a group activity and try to make yourself an integral part of it so that you feel compelled to attend it. Talk to more people (especially girls, I presume you are a guy) and try to become social. Although I must say, I am a porn addict as well but I have a fair share of other good stuff as well (I go out, I do lots of sports and some work also), so I am not trying to stop myself from watching lots of porn. - DSachan (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am doing that this afternoon but there won't be girls there. I used to get sex before I royally fucked up my life.--Biowar9 (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving sex aside, what do you enjoy doing? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for online dating. It's also addictive, but much more fun and it has some ramifications into reality. Your energy will not be wasted! --83.57.67.37 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Go and talk to a professional. Depending on where you are and your circumstances, this may involve visiting your doctor/GP or a counselling service or (for example, at university) Occupational Health. You should tell them the extent to which this is interfering with your life and your ability to do anything else. They see this sort of thing all the time, and can help far better than we can. 80.41.1.247 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Addiction (and if it is getting in the way of your life, that's what it is) is a medical condition, which we can't help you with. Go to see your GP/family doctor and they will be able to refer you to the proper help. It's a pretty common condition, they'll know what to do to help you. --Tango (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Tying both themes together, I recommend Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You: A Story of Life, Love and Internet Dating by Sean Thomas here. He became so addicted to internet porn he put himself in hospital -- and then cut it out, got dating again, and eventually got married. He tells a very funny story. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to stop and you can stop - then just stop. If you want to stop and you can't stop then this is some kind of an addiction and we're not allowed to help you because that's a medical matter. So either "just stop" or go see a doctor. SteveBaker (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For off-topic discussion, see talk page. 80.41.9.84 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Morning doves

2 Morning doves landed on the wipers, on the windshield, of my car while I was seated in the driver's seat. They both stayed there for about 1 minute on the driver's side. The car was on but I had just parked. I'm wondering if anyone knows what this may mean? I have never seen them that close before, and they are just absolutely soft and beautiful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.121.99 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a cosmic warning...throughout time, people have known of the impending events following the arrival of a pair of morning doves...take it VERY seriously...it means that two birds just landed on your windshield. SteveBaker (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, if they had been mourning doves, well, the meaning would be just the opposite. // BL \\ (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Two mourning doves landing on ones windshield means that two birds didn't just land on ones windshield? I never did understand portents... --Tango (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's springtime, isn't it? I'd say that two birds are thinking a lot more about getting laid than anything else just now... Franamax (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

KSB: we need you on this one. -hydnjo (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You guy are giving terrible advice here. How could you possibly advise this person in the manner you have if you haven't first measured the strength of his kirlian aura, and without knowing the gender and exact birthdate in order to do a start chart? These need to be cross-referenced against the incident before you couuld possibly have a clue as to what it meant. You guys are way off base.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me - I'm a serious ref desk researcher - I did all of those things, and the four cards at the bottom of the tarot's celtic cross still turned up The Hierophant, The Lovers (inverted), The Queen of Cups and The Chariot - which (as I'm sure you're aware) unambiguously divines: "You've got two birds on your windshield" Sheesh! SteveBaker (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve (may I call you Steve?), your problem is that you do not have a really good grasp on phrenology. If you had measured as many skulls as I have—really got to know their crooks and crannies—then you'd know that "doves on your windshield" is not literal; for thousands of years the mention of doves landing on any vehicle (the earliest know references being to a stone ox cart) referred to a numerology code of the Rosicrucians, clearly being invoked here, that means the person beleives they are on the right track to find the tetragrammaton. You're way out of your depth, but then again, I can divine from your style of writing that you are an endomorph with out of synch biorhythms.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you post a similar question in another forum about 'morning' doves landing on your window sill and all the other stuff. You seem to be seriously plagued by these critters. I wonder what your postings mean. Richard Avery (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

April 26

Pancakes

Suppose a recipe for blueberry pancakes (or waffles) calls for fresh blueberries, but you've only got the frozen variety on hand, will it ruin the recipe? Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Most pancakes are made not with the blueberries as a folded in ingredient but as an add on to the top as you're cooking them so it's not as if you're really changing the recipe. It would be like a recipe for waffles advising you to place a scoop of home made vanilla bean ice cream on them. If you use Breyers it's not going to be quite as good, but ruin it? Not at all. By the way, even if the recipe calls for them to be blended in, it would be good. Flash frozen blueberries stand up very well (now if they've been sitting in the freezer for a year that's a different matter). Of course, the cell walls are ruptured a bit by water crystals, but they really do well.--70.19.69.27 (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought using frozen blueberries as opposed to fresh ones might cause them to become watery in taste when they're cooked into the pancakes. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To second the above, it may taste a bit different, but it won't taste bad. Some people may actually prefer to use frozen blueberries, as the freezing process slightly softens and macerates the blueberries, which for incorporation into a batter will tend to spread the flavor throughout the batter. Using fresh blueberries will tend to give distinct unbroken blueberries, kinda like chocolate chips, in the batter. It sort of depends on what effect you are going for, but neither would be bad, just a bit different, and they could be used interchangably if the other is not availible. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CAPITAL CITIES

Has anybody officialy visted all the capital cities for every country? I mean for 24 hours not flying over or at the airport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.113.138 (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Which US prof promises math students the NYT front page if they solve famous uncracked code?

Which US math professor promises his students that if they crack a famous encrypted message, he will ensure their achievement gets covered on the front page of the New York Times? From my recollection, this was mentioned in a magazine article published online in .pdf form. I can't remember which encrypted message it was, although it was one of the famous ones. I've tried searching on several mentioned here without success. Thanks! D