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

October 9

coffee-making scheme

Is the following a reasonably conventional or sane way to make 1 cup of coffee?

1. stir coffee grounds directly into a cup of hot water;
2. strain out the grounds by pouring resulting mix into a second cup, through a paper cone filter / funnel. Then rinse out the first cup.

The result is supposed to be like using a plunger (french press) without needing the fancy equipment or resulting messy clean-up, and also to get the grounds out more completely than plungers usually do.

Right now I just use the cone filter, but it's a pain to get consistent results by pouring water through it manually. I'd rather not mess with fancy equipment including either plungers or automatic drip pots. I haven't tried the above method yet. I thought I would first ask if it has obvious drawbacks that I'm missing. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have at hand a paper cone filter / funnel, why not just make coffee in the usual manner? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2

Tread lightly here, lest you wake up the serious coffee fans who believe that coffee isn't drinkable unless it's freshly roasted from beans dug out of llama dung and brewed at exactly 192F. I don't believe it ever makes sense to brew one cup of coffee, so I grind pretty good beans (Peet's are fine; Trader Joe's will do) just before bedtime and set the timer. The gurgle and aroma make a much nicer wakeup than a buzz. The French Press is an evil device and should be disposed of by any means necessary. PhGustaf (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I do now, but as mentioned, it's a pain to get consistent results, and it needs a lot of attention to keep pouring water over the grounds uniformly etc. Zillions of people do it and it's certainly tolerable-- I'm just wondering whether this other method I've thought of might be better. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've evolved the laziest way to drink (non instant) coffee. I used to use a plunger, then i used the OP's method. Now i just use a big mug, put a big spoon of coffee grounds in, pour over with water and stir. A minute or two later i just drink it until I'm almost at the sediment grounds at the bottom. I still get the plunger out when guests are over. Vespine (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can offer three possible solutions:

1. In the UK, you used to be able to buy coffee bags (analogous to tea-bags) which had one cupful of ground coffee in a bag that acted as the filter. Dump the bag into your cup - pour on hot water, jiggle it about for a while, pull the bag back out and you're ready to go. The result was indistinguishable from filter coffee - no mess, no cleanup, one cup at a time. I they are kinda expensive compared to buying beans and grinding them yourself. I don't recall seeing them in the US yet - but I could be wrong about that.
2. Personally, at home I use a french press - it's not that tough to clean - I give it a very quick rinse - and an odd, stray bit of coffee grounds from the last time around isn't going to kill me. I have a "one-cup" press and a larger one with a capacity for about five cups or so. I like that there is zero waste of materials or energy in the process. We have a fairly fancy coffee machine that grinds the beans and makes the coffee using a filter process - but without needing paper filters - we almost never use it precisely because you can't reasonably use it to make just one cupful.
3. For the ultimate in efficiency, here at work, we have a fancy Italian coffee machine that has the coffee grounds inside little plastic cups about an inch across - you stick the plastic cup into the machine, put your coffee mug under the spout and press the "GO" button. Since it's plumbed into the water supply, cleans itself automatically once a day and compacts the waste (plastic cups, used grounds, etc) into a little bag that you remove whenever it gets full - it's utterly minimal maintenance. It makes tea and chocolate drinks too and there are a bazillion types of tea, coffee and chocolate available for it. I like the coffee it makes and the wide choice available - it's about as convenient as it's possible to be. But I dislike the waste of materials (the plastic cups) and energy (the thing keeps water heated 24/7 so you get coffee the instant you press the button).

SteveBaker (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're pretty much describing Cowboy coffee, except for that gol-durn fancy city-slicker filterin' part. --LarryMac | Talk 12:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As an ignorant non-coffee-drinker who occasionally serves coffee to guests I ask what's so bad about Nescafé instant coffee? Following the OP's step 2 makes the drink get colder going into the second cup and since cups are not designed for pouring I'd probably spill some.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's analagous to instant mashed potato compared to real mashed potato; or computer-generated music, compared to real music written by a human, that has some heart and soul, and guts, to it. Or balls, if you like. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

SteveBaker's #3 is pretty much this, except the version I linked to doesn't heat all the water - only that which leaves the gadgetmotron. Oh, and I don't know what's actually inside the plastic cups, since I don't use it. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They're just coffee grounds, and I think a filter. I opened one up once. Not very exciting. These things are on sale at Costco all the time, incidentally. Very popular with offices and places where you don't want to have to make sure someone tries to keep the coffee pot clean and operating. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Or try a home expresso machine. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever tried "backpackers' coffee"? Take your metal cup and boil water in it on your camp stove. Pour in coffee grounds. Wait until it cools enough to be drinkable. Strain out the grounds with your teeth.

It won't be the best coffee you've ever tried, but you may like it better than instant, and it'll keep you from getting a caffeine-withdrawal headache on the trail to add to the altitude headache you have anyway. --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Best way to get forgiveness

Say you ssid something incredibly mean to someone (but I said it out of sheer frustration). That person in return says they never want to speak to you again. They don't return your phone calls and don't want to see your face. Then, later you send a long letter of apology of how you were wrong and feel horrible for your actions and ask if they was anything to rectify the pain you caused them. Apparently, the words are not going to make them feel better. What extra steps can I do to convince this person how utterly horrible I feel for my actions? I am at a loss and mys stomach is in knots. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you ask this question elsewhere? Give it time. Time heals all wounds, and wounds all heels. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear about all the things going on in your life, but the Reference Desk (and Wikipedia in general) is not the place to get relationship advice or counsel for life. You should talk to your friends and family, and move on - nobody is worth being with if they don't want to be with you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The only way to get over something is to give into it. The shame, the heartache, the agony. Vranak (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You have to go through a "grief cycle". Let the cycle "have its way", go through it, and you'll get past it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You are asking how you can change somebody else's feelings/perception/view. The answer is, You can't. Period. It is not in our power, any of us, to do this. The only part of the relationship you do have control of is yourself: you can choose how you are going to be and act, including how you are towards that other person. You may decide to continue to offer your goodwill again and again, and hope that something will change for them; or you may decide to stop doing so; or many other choices. But as long as you make your own happiness conditional on how they are, you are giving away your power, and probably your happiness.

This is much easier to say than to live, I know. But I believe it is the truth.

"The open hand may be taken or rejected / but it holds all possibilities open." (K. Bradford Brown)

Best wishes. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is in nobody's power to change the feelings of another person?!? Interesting opinion.Popcorn II (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But one that I agree with. We often hear "s/he made me feel <something>", or get asked "How did that make you feel?". Sorry, but no. We all have total control over our own feelings. Eleanor Roosevelt agrees with me: "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So nobody has ever made you feel anything and you have never affected anybody elses emotions? Of course we have an element of control over our own emotions, but to say that "we all have total control over our own emotions" is a massive exaggeration. Lots of people have very little control over how they feel. This is why we don't just sit in a room on our own feeling all the emotions we need, we are social creatures and the interaction we have with others is paramount to our emotional security.91.109.245.193 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You've misquoted me. I wrote "We all have total control over our own feelings". I never used the word "emotions". They're different things. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with with that. And I'm not the only one, for example [1] [2] [3]. Obviously this depends by what you mean by 'feelings' but I would argue it's not supported by scientific fact either. We know that drugs can influence feelings (make you happier, sadder, more angry, more depressed, more scared etc). Are you saying a P (methamphetamine) addict is in total control over their feelings and should just put their mind to it and won't be angry? If they aren't being forced to take the drug, they obviously could not take it, but this doesn't mean they have total control over their feelings. For that matter I'd like to see you try and tell a couple going thorough a difficult breakup they just aren't trying hard enough, if they did they'd feel love for each other. No sorry but our feelings are influenced by our emotions and our upbringing and a whole load of external issues. We have indirect control over them and we can develop ways to to better control them but we don't have total control. I would agree people should be encouraged to better control their feelings and not let others have too great an influence over their feelings but that isn't really a topic for the RD. Note that the Eleanor Roosevelt quote seems a good general sentiment. I don't know if she was supporting your POV. I don't know if you're understanding the stuff about "made me feel" either. Perhaps you think people are saying "they forced me to feel this way". Most probably aren't. Rather they're saying "these feelings arose in me when the person did this action" or "what feelings arose in you when the person did whatever action". Perhaps they should phrase what they say differently but I think most people understand the idea and have no problem with it. Whether or not people feel it's reasonable that they felt that way will vary depending on many factors and could be of relevance. For example if someone punched you in the face or calls you a typical racist Australian for no good reason I think many would agree it's entirely reasonable if you say that made you feel anger even if these actions didn't force you to feel angry. Then again if someone says seeing an Aboriginal man kiss a white woman makes them feel angry, people may ask them to seek help I doubt they'd try to explain that make is the wrong word since they aren't being forced to feel that way Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you messed up by saying something objectionable or unforgivable, the best outcome is to school yourself to avoid saying faux pauws in the future. People hear what you say, and they react forevermore to it, so engage the filter and avoid saying every objectionable thing that you think. Edison (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent to previous) The thing is, each person has a unique worldview, the way they look at the world. It's based on all their experiences. Some peoples' feelings about things, or people, are more easily changed than others. For example, I might dislike a certain thing. A good friend tells me they like it, and explains why it's so good. If my respect for that friend outweighs my distaste for the thing, I might choose to change my feelings toward it. They will likely change slowly, but feelings can change mroe quickly at times, for things like heroic acts by someone.

So, your only hope might be to approach a mutual friend. Explainyour true remose, and perhaps discuss how difficult it is to find the right words, and that you know that's not an excuse for what you said. Inform that friend that in the future, you will not speak like that. You may not get anywhere, but at present, the thing this person can't stand is you. They need someone they respect more than they loathe you to help them to realize you might be sincere.

Even then, it could take a long while, and if their worldview is that they don't forgive a certain thing, well, it takes a *lot* to change a world view. That's really what I think of as being almost unchangeable, not feelings. Because there are things which influence us to change. (Then again, some peoples' world views are that they dont' change, ever.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input. He has not returned my calls. However, he sister has contacted me offering friendship but I would feel wrong "usuing" her totry to repair my relationship with this person. Im just so scared and I really want to be friends with him again.--Reticuli88 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'v learned from expeariance that the best way to get someones forgivness is to just give them some time, till you get the chance to show them your truly sorry for what you've done. if you can at least talk to him, let him know what was going through your mind at the time and how you feel about it now. if hes still mad, all you can do is give it time. --Talk Shugoːː 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Send them a gift. 92.29.57.166 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Kings head on a stick

I have a memory that King Charles' head was put on a spike and displayed somewhere like the Houses of Parliament. But apparently I'm wrong, they sewed it back on after his beheading. So where have I got this from? What king did they do this to? Or was it not the king but someone else like Cromwell? Popcorn II (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably Oliver Cromwell's head. Which I found by clicking your link up there. Part of one of my favorite Wikipedia categories, Category:Famous body parts, which has a few other heads. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

or James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth--80.176.225.249 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for signposting me to Category:Famous body parts. Wikipedia is indeed a source of great joy. Karenjc 22:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Dick, a befuddled but benign character in Charles Dickens' David Copperfield is perpetually looking at the head of a penny (I think from King Charles' day) and gets upset thinking about what happened to King Charles' head. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which... what, no entry for Napoleon? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, in case you don't know, is referring to Napoleon's famous Bonaparte. PhGustaf (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It must not have a standalone article. It was, apparently, not all that notable. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have good evidence for that? I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny :) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the Cromwell article is weird. It apparently took eight blows to separate his head from his body -- after he had been dead for two years!!!!.

It's hard to figure out, at this remove, which side of that conflict was more vicious. Of course as an American, my small-r republican instincts have to be on Cromwell's side for the long haul, and against the Stuart restoration. What would have come of the republican experiment, had it been allowed to continue? But the absence of a monarch is certainly no guarantee of individual rights or liberal government, and there was little indication that the Protectorate was headed in the direction of either. --Trovatore (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Speak to the Irish about Cromwell and see whether you think he's so great then. Bear in mind that the Puritans banned theatre, alehouses, gambling and the celebration of Christmas, so what you call "the republican experiment" was probably rather closer to a theocracy. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe so, but I just find it really strange that the English still have a queen. It doesn't really matter much; it's just annoying. I wonder how things might have evolved if the restoration had never happened. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're "annoyed" that monarchies still exist? I've never heard anyone say anything quite like that before, Trovatore. But to each his own. Btw, she's queen to 132 million people in 16 countries, not just these "English" you speak of. Some people are annoyed that certain countries still haven't decimalised their weights and measures ...  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Cromwell got what was comin' to him. I note it was 300 years before they re-buried the head. Even the British make mistakes now and then. But they always correct them. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell wasn't a republican, he just wanted to be the King. --Tango (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he didn't. If he had wanted to be King he could easily have become so, but he did not. Don't confuse republicanism with democracy. Algebraist 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

But then his son Richard succeeded him as Lord Protector, merely on Oliver's say so; this is hardly a hallmark of democracy, more of an inherited dictatorship like North Korea. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I made no claim that Cromwell's England was a democracy, or was not an inheritable dictatorship. Algebraist 22:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting stuff into Afghanistan

I was wondering, is US and NATO military equipment all brought in by air? Are there any road routes that are used, and if not is heavy equipment (like Abrams tanks) unavailable in the theatre? TastyCakes (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean how they get stuff to Afghanistan in the first place, the US gave Pakistan (which has a long border with Afghanistan) an awful lot of money, materials, and winking non-awareness of Pakistan's nuke program and other issues. They must have gotten something for it. Within Afghanistan itself, yes of course there are roads, though not everywhere. They fly stuff around on helicopters a lot. 67.119.3.190 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably brought in by a combination of air and through Pakistan. The C-17A_Globemaster_III article indicates they are used to bring in heavy military equipment to Afghanistan. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you aren't aware, an Abrams tank and other heavy equipment can certainly be delivered by air. See here. --Zerozal (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but my understanding is that the vast majority of them in Iraq were shipped there, since you can only get one on a C17 without going overweight (which agrees with the C-17 article, which gives a maximum payload of 85 tons and the Abrams weighs 70). Is that incorrect? I guess Abrams aren't particularly suited to a lot of the Afghan war anyway... Do the militaries there rely largely on smaller vehicles? So Mr 98, you think the various militaries do have agreements with Pakistan to supply the missions by road, but that weapons probably wouldn't be included? I have a hard time imagining tractor trailers pulling American tanks across Pakistan in any great numbers... TastyCakes (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

US and allied forces use air transport when necessary, but as TastyCakes points out, air transport capacity is very limited. During the first few years of the war, most heavy equipment was shipped by sea to Karachi and then in convoys overland to Afghanistan, but during 2008, that route became too perilous due to frequent attacks (per this article). A new agreement with Russia (see this article) allows NATO's heavy materiel to transit Russia by rail on a route from Europe through Uzbekistan to Afghanistan's (for now) more secure northern border via the Afghanistan-Uzbekistan Friendship Bridge. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks a lot. TastyCakes (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If relations between the U.S. and Iran weren't so unbelievably awful, there would be another route. The irony is that for a long time, and regardless of who was leading either country, both the U.S. and Iran had broadly-common interests in Afghanistan. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the point that has to be made here is that heavy equipment is just not suitable for the terrain in Afghanistan. This is the mistake the Russians made when they invaded - they started off with heavy equipment, then gradually realized (in the most horrific way) that it just wasn't the right stuff to be using when fighting an enemy that uses mountainous terrain and caves and valleys to stage its attacks from. This is why the US and British armies don't have huge numbers of heavily armoured vehicles out there (by which I mean MBTs) - they are just pointless. For this reason, airdrops are fine. They get the gear that we need in (when it's available, that is, but I digress). I cannot imagine much (if anything) coming in from Pakistan, for a lot of reasons, including the fact that the Afghan-Pakistan border is reputedly where most of the Taliban hang out. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That we need? Are you in-theater? Would love to hear more.... --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The border is indeed an important supply route as is often mentioned when it's closed [4] (see the middle) [5] [6] [7] Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

auto rentals in ventimiglia, italy

Does anyone know of a car rental agency at Rome's international airport that rents cars so they can be returned at ventimiglia, italy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.56.39 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The only auto rental company I could find that has an office in Ventimiglia is this one. (It also has offices at Fiumcino Airport in Rome.) It might be possible to arrange rentals with other companies only if you are willing to return the car in a larger town such as San Remo and then proceed by taxi, train, or bus to Ventimiglia. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I imagine (no sure knowledge) that all the large chains will do this - at extra cost. Hertz, Avis, Sixt etc. Just check that the chain has an office at both ends. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have rented a car "one way" (though not in Europe), and have been stung with a $500 "one way fee". You might find it considerably cheaper to consider a different means of transport.

Nice airport is much closer, so how about flying into Nice? It would be a lot easier to return the car to a much closer airport. Astronaut (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The train from Rome to Ventimiglia (yes it has a train station) will take about ten hours and can cost you less that $100. Half of the ten hours is the connecting train from Genova - from Rome to Genova the time is about five hours. [8] DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Current Certificate of Deposit rates

Hi all,

I'm considering putting money into a CD, but the rates look very low. Even for a 3-year CD will only fetch me 2.30% with Ally, which claims to have the highest rates.

1. Am I right in thinking that these rates are very low, historically speaking?
2. Am I right in thinking that if I buy a CD, I'm locking in those rates, even if the rates were to go higher? (I know it may vary with banks, bit I'm asking in the general case.)
3. Since I'm already getting 1.8% on my savings, the 3- and 6-month CDs are no good. I'm thinking I should wait until there are better rates before buying a long-term CD. In your opinion, which I won't hold you accountable for, is this the right choice?

Thanks! — Sam 76.24.222.22 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not supposed to give financial advice on the Refdesks. For the factual parts of your question, yes, the current rates of money market return are at or near historical lows; and when you buy a CD, yes, you are locking in those rates. If the market interest rates rise, your returns will not rise. (On the other hand, if the prevailing rate falls, your rate won't fall.) You can cancel a CD before its term is up, and get most of your money back, but there are "significant penalties" — you must check what those penalties are before buying the CD. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to adjust your return for inflation: +2.3% (annualized) was actually +3.8% in real terms over the past 90 days, if you're in the US. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 10

Proper Address of TA's

What is the proper way to address an a) undergraduate and b) graduate Teaching Assistant in University? Can one refer to him/her by their first name?

Also, what is the proper form of address for an instructor that is a Ph.D candidate/student?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Since none of those people have attained any sort of position that would require a title (such as Dr., or Prof.) it would be appropriate to address them by their given names. However, you didn't tell us if you were older or younger. If younger, Mr/Mrs. Smith would be fine, if you're roughly the same age or older just call them by their first names. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for Ms. rather than Mrs. in the case of a female unless she prefers otherwise. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The traditional form is Dude. But you can also try Your Holiness. Whatever works for you. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Trovatore, unless you are talking about a dandy or a temporary cowboy, slang use of dude as an address cannot be sourced earlier than 1970. Since traditional means pertaining to time-honored orthodox doctrines, and considering the average age of universities and hence the duration required for such a useage to attain such a status, your advice that Dude is a traditional form may be premature. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we'll go for "Your Holiness" then! (I've indented your comment a couple more steps to make it the structure of the conversation clearer - hope you don't mind!) --Tango (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am indented to you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It has always been first name, when I had them, and when I have been one. (A lot of my profs actually want to be called by their first names too, but I can never do that...) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It will also depend on the conventions that exist where you are. For example, tenured university teaching staff in the US are often addressed as "Professor" and referred to collectively as "professors", whereas in the UK the professor is specifically the person who holds, or who has held, a university departmental chair, and his/her staff are "Mr, Mrs, Miss ... " etc, unless their academic qualifications (and inclination) permit them to be addressed as "Dr". In terms of first name v. surname, why not just ask the person how they would prefer you addressed them, or ask other students how they address them? Karenjc 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) This surely depends where you live. The OP apparently is from Canada so these answers are mostly appropriate. Here in New Zealand you'd call tutors (basically equivalent to teaching assistants I believe) by their given name and mostly all lecturers too including professors. If you did call them Professor/Dr./Mr/Ms. they'd very likely ask you to call them by their given name. (And it isn't an uncommon thing since NZ has a large number of international students particularly from Asia, e.g. [9]). Calling tutors (or anyone) dude is likely to get some odd looks or perhaps they'd think you watch too much American TV (unless you are American). Calling them mate would probably be okay. In Malaysia on the other hand it's unlikely you'd call lecturers particularly professors who are significantly older then you by their given name (which may not be their first name even if their First name in the commonly understood meaning of the word). I asked a friend who asked a friend currently at a Malaysian university and he said they usually just call their tutors tutors as calling them by their given name seems disrespectful but the small age difference makes calling them Mr./Ms. seem odd. Which leads to a perhaps important point. You don't necessarily have to call them anything in many cases depending somewhat on the level of interaction. You could just say something like "Hi, could you help me..." I suspect however it's not uncommon that people in Malaysia do refer to their tutors as Mr./Ms. even if the age gap is relatively small and suspect it isn't uncommon in a number of other Asian countries either. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is the same as for anyone else - call them what they want to be called. If you don't feel comfortable asking them you can usually tell from how they introduce themselves. People often explicitly say "call me X", but even if they don't you can often tell. For example, "I'm John, John Doe" would strongly suggest you should call him "John". --Tango (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the perfect answer. If in doubt, ask them. If nothing else, it should give a good impression, as there are likely relatively few who take the time to ask. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As a corollary to this: if any colleague in an academic setting insists on being called by anything other than their first name, they are very likely an insecure, pretentious arse and you should think twice about working with them. Rockpocket 22:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Years ago there was a movie and then a TV series called The Paper Chase. It was set at Harvard. There was Professor Kingsfield, who called all students by Mr. or Miss. The students mostly called each other by their last names, except maybe those they were close to. I don't recall for sure, but I suspect that the teachers referred to each other, at least publicly, by a title rather than by first name. I wonder if private institutions, at least, still maintain that level of formality? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That was set in the late 60's/early 70's - things were more formal then. I expect even Harvard uses first names now. --Tango (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As with my comment above, I'm doubtful this is universal Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

True, only applicable to the West (and perhaps only the English speaking West, at that). Rockpocket 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

True - I understand the use of titles is far more widespread in Germany, for example. "Doktor FirstName" or "Professor FirstName" would be common there, I think. A teaching assistant/tutor/demonstrator without a PhD would probably be referred to by just their first name. (This is based on what I've heard, I've never actually been in an academic environment in Germany.) --Tango (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It also depends on the school. I've attended two universities in Canada: one out east that's old, expensive, and "prestigious," and one out west that's relatively new, not so expensive, and with less of a reputation. At the first one, we called most of our professors "Dr. Lastname" and at the second, most go by their first names. (But at both, the TAs always went by their first names.) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel depth

The Channel Tunnel article says the tunnel is 75 m deep at its lowest point. Does anyone know whether that is depth below the seabed or depth below sea level? Astronaut (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article Channel Tunnel also gives the depth of the sea between Dover and Calais as about 45m and this is repeated elsewhere. If the 75m figure indicated the depth below sea level, then this would suggest the tunnel is only around 30m below the seabed at its deepest point. However, from a quick Google it appears that many sources (this one, for example), give the average depth of the tunnel below the seabed as around 45m, suggesting that the 75m figure is probably intended to indicate the deepest point of the tunnel below the seabed, not the mean sea level. This site claims to be written by the consultant geologist to the Channel Tunnel project. It discusses the geological situation below the Channel in some detail, with statistics, and may be of more help to you. Karenjc 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A C.S.Harris wrote 'Engineering geology of the Channel Tunnel', so probably as claimed. Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And on further reading, I found this, which states explicitly that the deepest point of the tunnel is 114.9m below sea level. The 75m figure must indeed therefore be the depth below the seabed. Karenjc 13:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

At page 114 of the book "Channel Tunnel Trains" by Semmens and Machefort-Tassin (ISBN 1-872009-33-6) is a cross-sectional diagram -- or a longitudinal section, depending on how you think of it -- showing the whole tunnel and the land and sea above it. It's too small to measure accurately but it confirms that the deepest point, which is quite near the halfway point of the whole tunnel, is about 120 m below sea level. This point appears to be about 65-70 m below the seabed. The point of greatest depth below the seabed appears to be about about 3 km closer to the British end, about 75 m below the seabed and 110 m below sea level. But the point of greatest depth below the surface is clearly at Shakespeare Cliff, about 0.5 km in from the British shore, where the tunnel is about 160 m below ground and 25 m below sea level. (Warning: These measurements were done by applying a ruler to a fairly small diagram; if it is well drawn they should be within 10 m of the true numbers, but I wouldn't take them for any more accuracy than that. In other words, I'm not contradicting the 114.9 m figure, I'm confirming it and giving some other interesting numbers.) --Anonymous, 18:33 UTC, 2009-10-10.

65 year old WW II book

Historical and Pictorial Review of the 28th Infantry Division in World War II … Normandy; Northern France, Rhineland, Ardennes, Central Europe. Atlanta, Georgia: Albert Love Enterprises. 1946. I have this book fair condition very real printed in 1946 by Albert Love but also has a stamp in it by the War Department 1945. Does anyone collect these type of books and how do I find them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruo1 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of other people are seeking to sell the book on abebooks --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle

I'm planning on buying a motorcycle, and I am thinking about getting either a Honda CBR1000rr or the CBR600rr, but I have an issue: I'm very tall, and have long legs, so I think I may need to have the bike extended to make sure I can fully lay down without being curled up in a ball on the seat. Where can I look at these things: 1. Pictures of similar bikes that have been modified similarly to my ideas 2. Different ideas on which products/methods to do this 3. How this will effect the bikes performance (steering, speed, acceleration, etc.)

Thanks! Hubydane (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How tall is "very tall"? You may find it easier to get a bike more suitable to your size, such as a BMW tourer. I'm 6'4" and find my Triumph Tiger very comfortable. --Phil Holmes (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by motorcycle riders too pussy to do this[10]. PhGustaf (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say "lay down", does that mean you're looking to chop the bike to give you forward controls for your long legs, or are you thinking more of a streetfighter approach, with an extended frame to give you that extra knee bend room? This page has some examples of what can be done with a CBR. But it has to be said that customising a bike is both time-consuming and expensive; when you adapt a bike frame there are all kinds of implications for safety and performance as you are obviously aware from part 3 of your question. There are also local restrictions on adapting a vehicle for road use, and some jurisdictions are stricter than others about things like extended front forks, for instance. If you have the time and money to spare, you would be well advised to consult a reputable custom bike engineering firm - you can find them via the specialist motorcycling press - who can work with you to design the bike that suits you. Karenjc 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For Phil, I'm 6'8". And Karenjc, I'm looking to lay with the streetfighter approach; I wouldn't want to be leaning back on a bike similar to the CBR models. I'm looking for a streetbike, not a chopper. Something similar to the first or second picture on this page, which would allow me to move the feet pegs back and therefore be able to lay more comfortably. I originally posed this question because I sat on a friends Suzuki (can't remember the model), and when I would try to "lay down" (in the position used for higher speeds), my legs were in an uncomfortably cramped position; I felt like I was having to hike my knees up toward my chest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.184.241 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This? SteveBaker (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Information Superhighway"

Is the 1990's-era term "Information Superhighway," (meaning the internet) passe? I haven't heard it in a while. Then again, I'm not really "hip" so what I have or have not heard shouldn't matter. Any help? Torkmann (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still used by people that don't know anything about the internet but want (in vain) to sound cool and knowledgeable, but that's it. --Tango (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Series of tubes is a much more fun way to refer to teh intrewebz. --Jayron32 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's tres passé. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you bother to type one accent but not the other? It's très fyi :) --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was passé the day it was first used! As Usenet and Arpanet turned into the Internet, nobody who was using it at the time ever called it by anything other than "Usenet", "The Internet" or just "The net" - the term "Web" started to be used when the HTTP/HTML system started to come into use. These horrible terms like "Information Superhighway" are almost always dreamed up by journalists. We had "Silicon chips" (or more often "Silicone chips"!) and "Microchips" - when people working in the field only ever called them "IC's" (Integrated Circuits) or just "Chips". This goes back in time too - journalists loved "Electronic Brain" (or better still, "Giant Electronic Brain") when nobody in the field ever called them anything but "Computers", "CPU's" or "Processors". I guess journalists have always felt it necessary to add their own sense of drama to relatively dry technological terms. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Machine" is another one I used to hear often for "computer", back when it was basically one machine and not a cluster of servers. How would one find out the most common terms? I don't think Google hits would be very reliable. For the internet I hear "the internet", "the net", and "the web" most often, but that's anecdotal. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the internet and the web are not synonymous, even if many people use the former only for the latter. FiggyBee (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Machine" is entirely standard and current terminology for me as a software engineer. Where I work we would use the words "machine" or "box" rather more often than "computer". 93.97.184.230 (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Box", yes, in fact I probably hear that term more than anything now, especially in reference to a server. "Computer" is kind of an old-fashioned word that has stuck around, like "dialing" on a touchtone phone. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See the 1957 film Desk Set. (Really do, it's a fine film.) No computer as smart as the one in the film has ever been made, and everybody involved in the film has been dead for years. PhGustaf (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to Steve's assertions, the Information superhighway article seems to point the finger at Al Gore, not journalists. I recall in the 1994-7 period that the term was used extensively in UK and EU government. Journalists can hardly be blamed for reporting the terms that politicians and government use. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between making a one-off analogy ("The Internet is like an Information Superhighway" - or whatever it was he actually said) - and using the term every time the Internet is the subject of the conversation. The former is what Al Gore did - the latter is entirely the domain of the journalists who picked up on the term. SteveBaker (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But it was no one-off analogy. It was the terminology of the time, adopted by government policy wonks and _followed_ by journalists. The traces are still there to be kicked over, vide this google search. Way back when it was not abundantly obvious that the internet would be the winner which took all. ISH was a term that covered a multiplicity of technologies, not least private point-to-point connections of whatever protocol, implemented since there was no good alternative; or DSL, first applied to my direct knowledge in video-on-demand trials which had nothing at all to do with the internet. Thus internet, usenet, the web, etc are terms which cover only a limited segment of that which was discussed under the ISH banner, and are inappropriate terms for discussion of the whole. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Any UK based Mark and Lard fans from their days on radio 1 may recognise this, but I personally like to call it the "interweb" and sending mail via "emaither" (e-my-th-eugh phonetically)... Only in relaxed company though, as it doesn't sound too professional when in meetings Gazhiley (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Limousines

Back when I was a kid in the 1980's everyone of any means had a stretch Cadillac limousine (or in some cases, a Lincoln limo). Now it seems like nobody (and also in portrayals of the rich and powerful in the media) has these sort of limousines except for government leaders. Are strech limousines somehow out of favor these days? (In framing your responses please don't cite the 'current economic downturn' because this trend as far as I know started well before 2007 -- perhaps even in the 1990s?) Torkmann (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect this article in the New York Times nails it. Ostentatious displays of wealth defined the 80s (see Wall Street (film) for example), but within the next decade, more understated cars became popular among those with money, leading to the choice of Merc sedans, Porsche Cayennes and top end SUVs being the cars of choice today. Rockpocket 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of limousine services have gone on to stretch Hummers. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought Hummer was just purchased by a Chinese company. I don't see anything in the link provided by WTWAG. What is the current status? 174.146.137.114 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What we need, in these conservation-aware times, is the stretch limo version of the Smart Car. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been some edits since your question, but there is information at Hummer#Sale. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the time stamps, it seems that I missed the #Sale. Thank you for your attention to the detail. 68.244.184.167 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cost might be a factor. The average price of oil in the last 18 months is more than triple the average price in the 1980s, whereas gold is up by only 112% and interest rates are down by 65-90% (depending on lender, borrower and tenure). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where was McCain born?

I was clicking through some articles related to a recent thread, and I notice that John McCain's bio says John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama,.... On the other hand, natural-born citizen of the United States says he was born at Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama, outside the CZ. Which is correct? According to some of the theories of what natural-born citizen means, it might have made a difference to his presidential eligibility. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The former is correct according to most reliable sources (e.g., the New York Times: Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed.). However the blogosphere promotes the theory he was actually born outside the CZ. Unverified birth certificates have been produced that are contradictory (e.g. a CZ certificate, but one that also lists the hospital as Colon Hospital [11]).

In reality, one might imagine a scenario where CZ based Americans gave birth in a hospital physically outside the zone for medical reasons, but with the understanding of all involved that it was considered within the zone for legal purposes. I'm sure it would make all the difference for those who like to lawyer over every single letter of the Constitution (when it suits their particular views), but for most reasonable Americans - and I would include Supreme Court Justices in that category - it would be inconceivable to deny "natural born" status to the children of US service people overseas (while in the service of their country) on such technicalities. Rockpocket 22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but Congress did pass a motion that said that McCain was OK as a "natural-born citizen". The clause was apparently put into the Constitution by framers who were, justifiably at the time, afeart of foreign monarchs taking over the new nation. This fear is long past, and the clause is obsolete. PhGustaf (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really pretty simple - you have to have been a citizen from birth. You can't be born as a citizen of some other country, come to the US, take up US citizenship - and then become president. That's the full extent of it. McCain's parents were citizens - therefore, he was a citizen at birth...it doesn't matter where he was born. SteveBaker (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, articles like this suggest to me that while it is very unlikely McCain would be ruled out (not least because his father was in active military service on "US territory" at the time), it is not crystal clear in the constitution whether a "natural born citizen" includes people born outside of the United States to American parents. Perhaps once someone has actually done it and there is a precedent, arguments like this will go away. But until that time, as the New York Time quotes, "it is not a slam-dunk situation." TastyCakes (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tasty cakes hits the nail on the head. Until an actual court case comes to fruition, in which the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" can be established via case law, they are literally just words on paper, and it is impossible to say with any reliability what they really mean. There have now been two "serious" challenges to a President's "natural born" status, those of Chester Alan Arthur and Barack Obama. There were a few lawyers and political opponents who claimed that Arthur was born either in Ireland or Canada, but those never saw a court, so it was never truly established what "natural born" means. The same is likely true of the current "birther" nonsense. This would not be the first case of ambiguity in the consititution, consider the case of John Tyler, the first Vice President to ascend to the office on the death of a President. The wording of the constitution is very ambiguous as to whether the Vice President becomes the actual President upon the President's death, or if he becomes merely the "acting president". Though Tyler, by sheer force of will and personality, basically took the stance "I'm the real President in every way, be damned with this 'acting' nonsense", the ambiguity in the text was not actually resolved until 1967, when the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution replaced the original text by a clear instruction that the VP becomes the real-and-honest-to-God-President upon the death of the prior President. Prior to that, all of the prior VP's to ascend to the office did so by tradition and precedent set by Tyler, but without the actual force of an unambiguous legal standing. The same exact situation exists with regards to the phrase "natural born". So far, ignoring the unverified claims of partisan political opponents, we haven't had a single President who claims to have been born outside of the U.S. proper. We have had at least two candidates who may meet the bill (the aforementioned McCain and Goldwater) however, since neither actually became president, there was no impetus to resolve the ambuguity. --Jayron32 04:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Goldwater, myself, a few entries back. What possible justification could anyone have for asserting that a US Territory isn't physically and legally part of the United States? Not liking a candidate does not legally disqualify him from holding office. B00P (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely it depends what kind of territory? I find it difficult to imagine that someone from an unincorporated and technically unorganised territory like American Samoa who doesn't have US citizen parents and doesn't even have current US citizenship nor the right to it and can't vote in US Presidential elections (or most other federal and state elections) in any state could be considered a natural born citizen and suitable to become President, the fact that they may serve in the US military not withstanding. It's possible the Supreme Court may decide that the current situation is unconstitutional and rule that they're entitled to/are US citizenship or something but in the mean time I'm sure you'd agree it seems unlikely. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No citizen of any US territory can vote in US elections. You can't get much more "organized" than Puerto Rico, but they don't vote in US Presidential elections, either. In fact, it took a constitutional amendment to allow citizens of the District of Columbia to vote in Presidential elections, yet there was never any question about their being US citizens. Citizens of all US territories are US citizens. Where do any of our articles suggest otherwise? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The situation of the Puerto Ricans is different — they're full US citizens; the only reason they can't vote in presidential elections (and there aren't any other nationwide elections) is that there's no state for them to vote in. If they move to a state, then they can vote for president, or rather for the electors from that state. And no one can tell them they can't move to a US state.

American Samoans, unless the situation has changed since the last time I checked, are US nationals but not US citizens. They presumably have neither the unconditional legal right to move to a US state, nor the right to vote in any state they do move to, though I'm speculating on both counts.

Which does bring up another question I've wondered about — do I, as a US citizen, have the same right to move to Puerto Rico that I'd have to move to, say, Colorado? Or would I need permission from someone? --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, US citizens can live, travel and work in PR freely, without the need for visas or permissions. Rockpocket 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

According to both the later articles I linked to (I don't know personally and didn't check the references but I presumed it was correct) it remains the case that American Samoans are not US citizens but US nationals and they therefore cannot vote in most federal and state elections including Presidential elections in the US no matter where they live. (They can I presume vote in elections in American Samoa.) Therefore and this is IMHO the key point, it seems unlikely they can be considered natural born US citizens unless it's deemed unconstitutional that they are not US citizens or something.

As I mentioned above, this is clearly stated in the later two articles I linked to, it's one of the reason's I linked to them. "People born in American Samoa -- including those born on Swains Island -- are American nationals,[11] but are not American citizens unless one of their parents is a U.S. citizen." and "According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408, it is possible to be a U.S. national without being a U.S. citizen. A person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which as of 2005 is limited to American Samoa and Swains Island), or through descent from a person so born, acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship. This was formerly the case in only four other current or former U.S. overseas possessions". The second case I linked directly to the section and the first case a simple search for citizen will find it if you don't have the time to read the whole article.

Also mentioned in the section of the third article I linked to (and a number of other articles I didn't link to), generally the only reason why people in Puerto Rico and a number of other current and former US territories are or became US citizens is because they were specifically granted that right thorough US laws.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to clarify this, let me rephrase the question. As I understand it -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there are only two kinds of citizens: natural-born, and naturalized. Only the former can be president. If you're born of citizens, you're a citizen, and geography has nothing further to do with it; those throwing geography into the mix are merely confusing the situation (in some cases intentionally).

Does that help get to the root of the issue?

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, is that rephrasing the question? The query is specifically about McCain and his place of birth (hence geography), not the different types citizenship. Its the latter that is confusing the issue, not the former. Rockpocket 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only time that the idea of "natural-born citizen" comes up is in the qualification to be President and Vice-President. There is literally no other use for the term anywhere in the U.S. There is general agreement that anyone born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizens is automatically a natural-born citizen, however, the term is rather nebulous since it is never actually defined anywhere. Since there is no reason, aside from two people every 4 years, to contest someone's "natural-born" status, it has never come before a court. So until we have an actual test case, where a President is confirmed (it would likely have to be self-confirmed) to have been born outside of the U.S. proper, and the case comes before a court, then it will remain an undefined term. The other way to resolve it would be to introduce a constitutional ammendment which more fully defines it, but I don't see that happening ever. --Jayron32 06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This won't be relevant to McCain, but just to round out the picture: is it not also the case that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents? The usual example is Nicole Kidman, born in Hawaii of Australian parents. If that's always true, then U.S. citizenship comes through being born of U.S. citizens, or of being born on U.S. soil. Mostly it's both, but either will do. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's almost true. It doesn't apply to children of foreign diplomats. That's the reason for the subject to the jurisdiction thereof line in the first section of the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It is still not entirely clear, though, whether natural born citizen is the same as citizen from birth. The most intuitive reading to me is that they are the same, and that's the way I expect the courts will rule if they ever have to. But as Jayron says, it's not a trivial question.

The point is that the United States recognizes both jus soli and jus sanguinis, but not necessarily at the same level of fundamental law. Jus soli is part of the Constitution (as of the 14th amdendment, and was most likely considered part of the common law before that). Jus sanguinis, on the other hand, is a creature of statute. To what extent can a mere statute modify the meaning of the Constitution? To some extent, to be sure, but you see the difficulty.

To take an example, the Congress voted specifically that McCain was eligible, but do they have the authority to do that? Possibly, given the facts. But suppose they were to pass a statute that said Arnold was eligible; that presumably they could not do. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the intent of the "natural-born" clause was most likely to prevent congress from doing exactly that. The belief in the early days was that a royalist party would seize control of congress, invite a European royal of some sort, like say the younger brother of another King, offer him stautory citizenship, and put him forward as a candidate for president. I will have to dig for a bit, but I am pretty sure that in the Federalist Papers somewhere it does explain that certain safeguards would be taken to ensure that the U.S. would be a republican government in-perpetuity, and the "natural-born" clause was one method of preventing a sort of "back-door monarchy" from creeping in. So, while it is unclear if someone in McCain's situation is a "natural-born" citizen (he probably is), the Governator definately is NOT, and Congress specifically could not grant him natural born status. Regardless of what natural-born status is determined to be, one thing it MUST be is citizenship from birth, whatever that may mean. --Jayron32 20:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting a court to decide things like this, either the citizenship status of a candidate, or even worse, of an actual President Elect, or an Election result, especially with Judges of certain political loyalty, such as occurred in the Stolen Election of 1876 and again in 2000, just does not seem democratic. Whether Hayes' opponent Tilden would have made a better or worse President is not the issue. Both Tilden and Gore had the popular vote in their respective elections, so again, because of laws passed by politicians, the will of the people is ignored, and I am one who is not a supporter of Gore, yet I do not disrespect him. It would have been intriguing to see the course of History if he had been voted in. This is what you get without Proportional Representation. The only problem with having it here in NZ is that the politicians got hold of it and hurt it, rather than leaving it as the people wanted it to be. It is a shame that we wait for crises before dealing with them, rather than anticipating trouble - just as, when some bad beggar shoots up a mall, only then do politicians pass stricter ( but not necessarily necessary nor more effective ) gun laws, too little too late. If enough Americans are concerned about this, they need to clear up the issue - either decide what exactly is a natural born citizen ( my thought is one born on US Territory, not necessary in any state, but governed directly by the US ), OR change the law to let anyone in. Cheers, Arny. Eamonn de Valera tried in on, in being Irish ( and Spanish ), loyal to their cause, but claiming US citizenship due to his American birth, but I do not believe he necessarily had any real loyalty to America. So just being born there may not be enough for the requirement to be President. It does need to be sorted to avoid a possible contstitutional crisis in future. In England's history, any dispute about the eligibilty of a person to be Monarch was likely to lead to Civil War, and those Poms have had enough of those. I should think both England and America have had their fill of Civil War, and can find more legal remedies to any such situation. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cookie recipe gone wrong

I attempted to make almond blueberry cookies using the recipe from here: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/almond-blueberry-cookies-recipe/index.html and the recipe says 1 stick of butter, but I accidentally put two. Naturally the cookies came out all wrong, but I don't want to throw out the remaining dough, and have to start over from scratch. Is there any way I can salvage it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably double up the volume of the other ingredients, or slightly less to factor in that quotient of the dough already baked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Or try and turn it into something that requires lots of butter like shortcake or brioche.

Just had a look now, shortbread might work.Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The millionaires shortbread on that site might be okay. I don't think the bicarb will matter too much, he butter will probably make it go flat anyway I think. Dmcq (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

October 11

John Williams as a boy lived where?

Did John Williams the movie composer ever live in Douglaston Queens?? I knew a John Williams in Douglaston of about the right age who moved out in about 1948. I heard that he had come back to study at Julliard. Douglaston is two towns out from Flushing where your article says he was born.68.193.81.46 (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 68.193.81.46 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read John Williams? It notes he was born in Queens and moved to LA in 1948, are you looking for if he lived in a specific neighbourhood while he was there? TastyCakes (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This site says he was born in Floral Park. So it's possible that they could both be off (maybe they say Flushing because it's a better known neighborhood), or that his family moved after he was born. If those other elements of his biography match what you remember it seems like a pretty big coincidence for it to be a different John Williams. I couldn't find anything on google explicitly linking him to Douglaston though. Rckrone (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't say it would be a HUGE coincidence. John Williams is likely to be a VERY common name; I have a friend that lived in a town of less than 20,000 people and there were 4 residents that shared his same first and last name of approximately the same age, and they used to get confused all the time; get each others mail, etc. etc. And his name was not NEARLY as common as "John Williams" would be, which is a combination of one of the most common first and last names in all of the United States. It would not be all that unlikely for two John Williamses of about the same age to be living in Queens, a borough of over 1,000,000 people, at the same time. --Jayron32 05:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

IS Barack Obama is a 32 degree Prince Hall Mason?

Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any actual evidence of it from Googling. Sounds like another pathetic smear attempt to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the OP actually know what a '32 degree Prince Hall Mason' does or is? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See Prince Hall Freemasonry. Its basically like the Rotary Club for African Americans. People who hold that Freemasonry is a giant conspiracy to take over the world are about as unsupported by anything factual as are the "birthers", so I am inclined to agree with Mr. 98 on this one. Even if it were true, it would be pretty meaningless. We have had several Presidents who were Freemasons, as well as those who were members of many other fraternal organizations. I would attach no particular significance to it. --Jayron32 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it does turn out that a number of Congressmen are Masons, according to a recent article on Politico.com that was cited this week in the New York Times Book Review. They include Joe "You Lie" Wilson, among others. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The involvement of George Bush in "Skull and Bones" was vastly more worrysome. That club is downright creepy. SteveBaker (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If by creepy you mean "does weird shit in its internal, secret meetings" then yeah, probably. But they probably aren't any more active in conspiring to rule the world than any other U.S. college fraternity. --Jayron32 05:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want creepy, try Bohemian Club. Richard Nixon was a member. I can't think of anything creepier than a naked Richard Nixon. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The truth is, the creepiest clubs have not been the secret ones, but the public ones. Creepier than Nixon? Try J. Edgar Hoover in the 1950s. Conspiring to control the world? Try the CIA in the 1960s. It's amazing we bother to invent so many fears of dull societies when there is plenty of evidence of malicious groups being run under official auspices. Groups of businessmen... not too scary. Groups of secret police? Scary. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would put forth The Family as an especially scary semi-secret group. The idea of so many members of Congress essentially believing they have a divine mandate to rule...scary. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What does "T-ZLBH-L" stand for?

I am reading, for pleasure, an English translation of Emile Zola's La Bete Humaine. It is a paperback published in Great Britain by Penguin Classics in 1977. My copy is a 1978 reprint. The translator is Leonard Tancock.

On the bottom of page 273, aligned with the page number, two letter-spaces from the left hand margin are printed the following letters with dashes, all in capitals, in the same font as the rest of the book, as typed below:

T-ZLBH-L

There is no other such marking in the rest of the book and page 273 is not a special page as far as I can discern. It is in the middle of chapter 9. I have done extensive searches on Google and other search engines and come up with nothing.

What on earth can it signify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersdtm (talk • contribs) 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Printer's marks are sometimes visible on the cut page. The centre section (ZLBH) is likely just the code for the novel (Zola La Bête Humaine). The T and L may be letters used to identify a section of the text for binding purposes. Bielle (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's after a page number that's divisible by 16, if that figures into it at all. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly seen books that had a mark like that at the start of each signature, obviously to enable a human to confirm that the signatures were assembled in the correct order for binding. I expect "T-ZLBH" stands for "Tancock-Zola, La Bête Humaine", and the individual signatures are identified by letters after that. In this case apparently someone goofed and placed it too high on the page, so it wasn't cut off when the book was trimmed after binding.

It is a bit odd to find signature L (i.e. #12) at that page number, though. I believe the most usual size of signatures is 32 pages, so the first 11 signatures would correspond to pages 1 to 352. Maybe they used some signatures of another size, or skipped some letters. Does this book have a preface or something before page 1? How many pages is that, counting from the first sheet of normal paper inside the cover as pages 1 and 2? --Anonymous, 05:55 UTC, October 11, 2009.

Thanks all. It seems to me rather obvious now what the letters stand for (i.e., Title and translator's initials). I suppose what threw me off was its appearing mysteriously at the bottom of a seemingly insignificant page like that. I don't quite understand the significance attached to divisions by 16 and 32 and what not as I'm not a publisher or printer. That is, I understand the maths, but not the significance. In answer to the question above, the first numbered page - 7 - is the first page of the introduction. Before that, that are three leaves, which, of course, would constitute pages 1-6. If numbered, they would read as follows: Page 1 - Brief bio of Zola, Page 2- Blank Page, Page 3 - Title page, Page 4 - Copyright page, Page 5- Contents page, Page 6 - Blank page. In other words, there are no unaccounted for pages in the numbering since the first numbered page is 7. Does this clarify or further muddle things as to why the letters would appear on p.273? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersdtm (talk • contribs) 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. Thanks to Anonymous above - and the related bookbinding wiki article, I now understand all. All, that is, except the point brought up by him/her. It is indeed very odd to see signature "L" where it is. So, I went back through the book. Sometimes, these signatures come after 16 pages, sometimes after 32 pages, sometimes not at all. So, altogether, a somewhat shoddy job I suppose of paginating signatures (or whatever the term is). The book is otherwise in great shape with no breaks in narrative etc.

So, thanks to one and all once again. It seems very hard for me to believe that I was dumbfounded by these letters. The Zed alone should have been a dead giveaway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersdtm (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point, the "signature" is the group of 16 or 32 pages, not the T-ZLBH-L mark. --Anonymous, 20:15 UTC, October 11, 2009.

Thanks. Point clarified. I suppose the way to put it, then, is "a shoddy way of organising the succession of signature marks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersdtm (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's "shoddy" in that some but not all of the markers were positioned so as to be trimmed off, but many books (particularly cheap ones like mass-market paperbacks) make no particular attempt to lose or hide them, because most readers just never notice them, or care much if they do. (In hard-cover books, they're often still present but concealed by the binding and cover.) Coincidentally, this came up just a few weeks ago at a meeting of a reading group I belong to: one of the members, who is a fifty-odd-year-old English teacher and who therefore has read a fair few books in her time, happened to spot just such a signature marker and wondered what it was, never having noticed one before. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL-Indeed? I'm very much like your English teacher friend. I've read and reviewed over 400 books for Amazon - Just finished reviewing ZLBH - and have read so many more, yet had not, until yesterday, noticed these signature marks. Yes, perhaps "shoddy" is a tad too pejorative. You're the expert, after all, and I'm glad you were around to cure my bemusement. Thank you, once again.--Myersdtm (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullets Under Water

In the film Saving Private Ryan, at the beginning in the scene where the soldiers are storming the beach there are a number of underwater shots of men getting shot by the bullets from the MG42s in the pillboxes further up on the beach. Considering these machine guns are at least 100 metres away, how likely is it that bullets would penetrate a few feet of water with enough force to even pierce the skin, never mind kill a man? Also, looking at the speed of the bullets going past each man that is 'killed' I would guess that they were going at just about the same speed that the 'installing bar' of Firefox addons goes, which is probably not even enough to hurt - it just so happens that the ones that hit these poor guys just happen to be the only ones going at supersonic speed. Also, considering the evidence put forward on a Mythbusters episode where they tested a theory about bullets and water, not a single bullet was even able to make a mark on a target at 1 metre depth - and this was at point blank range. Even the high-powered 50-cal (or whatever it was) was unable to make a mark, preferring to disintegrate its bullet and spread shrapnel all over the test swimming pool. So, is this just artistic license on the part of the director, or is it based on fact? Artistic license? In Hollywood? Never! Robin Hood DID speak American! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Mythbusters episode was somewhat instructive - but as is typical of them, they didn't quite push things far enough. They found that the bigger/faster the bullets, the more they broke up in the water - and the 50cal round didn't penetrate as far as a relatively slow muzzle velocity pistol. What they failed to investigate is how well a slower bullet could penetrate into deeper water. If the bullet had enough energy to pass through the water - but not enough to make it break up - it might still be able to do damage. In the movie, it's possible that these bullets had travelled a long distance to get there and had slowed down significantly. As for the 'trails' - it might be that the bullet travels fairly rapidly through the water - but the 'trail' it leaves behind expands outwards more slowly - making the trail harder to see until it's a second or two old. Anyway - there is no particular reason to give credance to the movie visuals. We know a lot of people were killed in the water before they even reached the shore - but whether they were several feet below the water as in the movie - or actually swimming on top of the water when they were hit would be almost impossible to verify - even by the most diligent of film makers. SteveBaker (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The angle it hits the water at is almost certainly a factor as well, although I can't predict the effect it would have (shallower angle might prevent the bullet breaking up, but would mean it has to travel further to get the same depth, really shallow bullets might bounce, other effects I haven't thought of might also occur). --Tango (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it likely. It is not surprising when a bullet passes through a soft body part, and human tissue is a stiffer barrier than water. A bullet traverses water comparatively easily and in order to collect an undamaged bullet for Ballistic fingerprinting a more viscous target medium is used such as Ballistic gelatin. There is a true anecdote about a policeman in a police station who tried to collect a bullet by firing into two telephone catalogs. The bullet pierced both catalogs, proceeded through a plaster wall and injured a colleague in the corridor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the OP mail Mythbusters and ask them to revisit this myth. As it gives them another chance to play with a wide variety of cool guns (possibly even a MG42), I have a feeling that they would not turn this one down. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea! I think I'll do that! And thanks for the answers, everyone. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Belatedly, the author of this piece on YouTube might be a good person to ask. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to mention that movie, it really is pretty amazing. TastyCakes (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Australian Movie Gallipoli, where at least two of my great uncles fought ( and survived ! ) the Australians pool together a kitty of a few quid, and give it to the one hit by a Turkish bullet when underwater, such that it draws blood, ( typical of them, since as it is said, they will bet on two flies going up a wall ). But is this the recollection of men who were there, as it may have been of those 29 years later and hundreds of miles away at Normandy , or is it, as suggested, the Director's choice of movie fantasy ? Certainly the Mythbusters episode surprised me, and I too have thought that as clever as they are, their experiments may not be as conclusive as they would wish, with limited budget and time. As we know, there are many movies in which people ( goodies and baddies ) are shot at through water. Just last night on New Zealand's Government run TV2, I saw Edward Norton try to kill Mr. Wahlberg the Younger and his mates by firing I believe an AK 47 at the freezing, ice filled water of an Austrian or Northern Italian Lake ( makes one appreciate more Hannibal Barcar's efforts over 2200 years ago ), but then they were not as deep, and yet one of them was struck by a bullet. This could give rise to another question as to whether temperature of water or air affects bullet performance. As Mark Wahlberg himself might know from his role as a sniper, bullets are affected by windage and other such anomalies also. Of course, when a person falls far enough, and therefore according to the equations of kinematics, gathers enough speed, they will hit water as if it is solid ground, so bullets, at an even faster speed, should do so too. Bullets will deform depending on what they hit.The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say the temperature of the water or air is pretty trivial compared to the viscosity the bullet experiences when going through water. I don't know if you've seen the mythbusters episode, but it was pretty convincing to me: the slower the bullet went the shallower it was able to penetrate, and the faster the bullet went the faster it was torn up by friction etc. After watching it, I'm convinced water is a pretty good at resisting bullets and that getting hit as you described at Gallipoli would be unlikely. That's not to say you couldn't get shot while in the water, but if you were down even a couple of feet, you were probably safe. TastyCakes (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

sidebands

i would like to know that if in an AM signal ,frequency remains the same.then how these sidebands with different frequencies are present in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavmahajan3190 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Sideband explains this phenomenon. I am not a scientist, so I can't explain it for you, but I can tell you its effect [no - I misintrepreted]. Normally you pick up an AM frequency on only one point on your radio dial, in your car let's say. But if you get very close to the source (as I did once with a 50,000 watt station's broadcasting tower), the signal is overwhelming, i.e. it picks up on many or all of the points on your radio dial. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. An AM transmitter sends out a carrier wave at, for example, 1 MHz. If it chooses to to use this carrier to send information, it must modulate it, and that involves making sidebands. A 1 MHz signal fully modulated by a 1 KHz signal will send out its 1MHz carrier, plus sideband signals of 1MHz plus and minus 1KHz at half the amplitude. This is why AM stations are spaced ten or twenty KHz apart. It gives room for the information. The same applies to FM stations, though they get the information in by wobbling the frequency and don't need extra power for the sidebands. In applications where fidelity isn't important, AM transmitters can suppress the carrier and one sideband, letting them put all their power into the information and letting the receiver figure the signal out. This is the most literal example of "bandwidth". PhGustaf (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs has a point, though: if you're close enough to a powerful station, you'll hear it at all sorts of places on your dial, through imaging and heterodyning and brute force. In extreme cases the signal can turn on your lights. PhGustaf (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking I should draw a line through most of what I said. Meanwhile... turn on the lights? Maybe they should call that the "Tesla effect" or something. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Turning on the lights is just some form of induction, surely? --Tango (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you pick it up at harmonics too? --Tango (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be an extreme case. I'm thinking of the 16KHz station the Navy has in Maine, which can send information to submarines all around the world. When it turns on, so do a lot of fluorescent lights in Maine. But in a less extreme case, my dad negotiated with a local station to reduce its power on Sunday mornings, because the church's electronic organ was picking it up. PhGustaf (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC) ,K1LUU

I used to hear stories about people picking up radio stations in the fillings in their teeth or some such. I wonder if that's possible or just silliness. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See[12], tough it doesn't exactly qualify as a Reliable Source. But the answer is basically yes. Any number of things can make an inefficient diode, and a diode will detect AM signals. A rusty joint in a steel gutter will cause all hob with a sensitive receiver. PhGustaf (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand why I've sometimes heard radio stations on my amp (when it was set to something other than radio) and even occasionally on my telephone. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Picking up signals on teeth, or getting harmonics, or hearing the same station all over the radio dial are non linear phenomena. The 16kHz signal would have been transmitted very cleanly without emissions at 32 or 48 kHz. But various electronic items would be overloaded and generate harmonics - or close to DC components if it is rectified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Radio or audio frequencies can be represented by the cosine function from trigonometry. AM (Amplitude Modulation) is the multiplication of a carrier frequency by a modulating frequency. Let's suppose the modulating frequency is a single frequency audio tone. Then here List of trigonometric identities#Product to sum and sum to product identities we find the multiplication of two cosine functions:
$\cos \theta \cos \varphi ={\cos(\theta -\varphi )+\cos(\theta +\varphi ) \over 2}$
Here all the power that before modulation was at the carrier frequency has gone into the sum and difference frequencies that comprise the sidebands. The receiver must take in these sidebands to recover the modulating tone. Apropos a different kind of modulation FM mentioned by PhGustav, it also transfers carrier power into sidebands. In this case the sidebands are more complex than in the AM case, and power at the carrier frequency is completely lost to the sidebands at some modulation depths. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Capacity of a minor to enter into contract

What are the consequences of entering into a contract with a minor unassisted or without the guardain's consent,and the remedies available to the other party in Botswana (Africa)...which has a Roman-dutch common law system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OJ koveya (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask a lawyer. Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. Xenon54 / talk / 12:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Xenon54 correctly points out that the RefDesk cannot give you legal advice. Law is complex, and those who advise on it need specialist knowledge and a clear understanding of the facts in the case. The consequences of giving flawed advice may be very serious, which is why Wikipedia does not permit us to advise you. If you look at this article, you will see that even the definition of a "minor" in Botswana is not a simple matter. Sorry, but if your question refers to a real and specific legal problem, the only advice we can give you is to consult a qualified professional with a knowledge of Botswana contract law. Karenjc 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You should indeed contact a lawyer. Karenjc is correct, though it's OK for us to answer his question, if anyone knows, since OJ koveya is not asking for specific legal advice. This does not answer your question, but for comparison, in the US, I have been told (but am not sure!) that in every state of the US, any contract entered into with a minor is simply void, as though the contract had never taken place. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Great example of why we can't give legal advice there: you're not quite right. The details vary from state to state (as with most things law-related in the US), but in general, most contracts entered by a minor are voidable by the minor. Makes doing so a high-risk proposition for the other party. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think from my paralegals' course in contracts, there are ways in which a minor can "ratify" a contract by observing its terms, at least in some states of the U.S. The greater risk from the other party's point of view is that he, she, it or they might still be bound to perform their own obligations under the contract, regardless of the minor's performance or non-performance (2nd possibility: the minor's non-performance might render the whole contract and all its provisions void; 3rd possibility: the minor's ratification or performance might bind the other party.) Yet another reason to ask a real lawyer, after giving him or her all the material facts, documents and records. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

... and the other thing is, there are probably reasonably qualified lawyers here who can harp on about US, English, and other Commonwealth law - but the OP reminds us that Botswana has a Roman-Dutch system (I thought Roman-Dutch would by definition not be a common law system??) -- and so everything we say is probably irrelevant and possibly misleading. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Health care certification in US

What are the different types of healthcare certifications available for Business analysts and IT professionals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.173.246 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone, no matter what their field, can go to their local fire department or hospital to find out about CPR certification. I can't think why IT professionals would need any sort of healthcare certification at all for their position, so I don't know what sort of answer you're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 22:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure of the context of your question. If you are looking for certifications for IT professionals 'Specializing' in the health care industry...See: Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology. If I am heading down the wrong path, please rephrase your question. 174.152.61.116 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nut Cracker

Hi There, we have been looking for our nut cracker on the web but we don't seem to able to find him we know he belongs to the Hussar family he stands 52" tall and he is red with a black hat and a black and gold sword n his right side his red coat has a cross on each side with dots in each corner and he has a upside down v with 6 dots going down each side.Hopefully you will be able to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.195.203 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you wanting to trace which Hussar regiment he represents, or the maker of the actual nutcracker? Do you know where it was made? It's quite possible he's made in Hussar style, rather than being representative of a particular regiment, but if he is designed to accurately represent an actual regimental uniform, then have a look at these, to see if any look similar: French Hussar uniforms, Sacramento Hussars (2nd image). The Austrian Hussars don't seem to have red jackets, but there are some with green jackets, red breeches, black shako (scroll down to illustration and table). Russian hussar (scroll down). British Hussars (serach by regiment). Also look in these books: Polish, Hungarian. Gwinva (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See:this. Details such as the MFG/location/date may help. If this is a priority a trip to Sonneberg (see Nutcracker as to why) may be in order. 174.146.231.171 (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

October 12

Business management

Business management.... can u tell me d advantages n disadvantages of control which is one of d managerial function? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.205.203 (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not look it up for yourself?86.209.30.56 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question. Wikipedians will not do your homework for you. After trying to decipher your chatspeak, I think your question is too vague to get a coherent answer anyway. Xenon54 / talk / 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Try Fayol for a start. 92.24.128.70 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See the article Management which links to other management-related articles. Control is only one of the activities of a manager. Others are planning, organizing, staffing, leading and directing an organization or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mummy

How can I buy Egyptian mummy for personal collection? --Hok1234 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (who oversees all archaeological finds) is selling any to average people. Xenon54 / talk / 16:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be a long and difficult process. I would imagine the first step would be to start a museum and get it internationally renowned. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

However, a surprisingly large number of them were removed from the Egypt in previous centuries. Many of these were destroyed for various stupid reasons, but some of them wound up in the hands of private collectors. Some of those may still be extant. Perhaps you could track one down and purchase it.

This would require a lot of detective work, and who knows about the legality of it. APL (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are UNESCO regulations that govern the sale of antiquities... you would definitely want to get a lawyer who knew about this sort of thing. It's likely not possible. There are a lot of national and international regulations regarding the sale of things like mummies. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sadigh Gallery regularly has bits of mummy wrap, masks, etc. available for sale. You can get a mummified falcon for $9,000, for example. I've purchased other kinds of items from them; each item comes with a certificate of authenticity. While we think of mummies as being priceless heirlooms from the past, until recently it was no big deal to sell them by the ton - for example, as a source of mummy paper or fuel. Matt Deres (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A certificate of authenticity from who? --Tango (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[13] Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

T.V.

Why is it that the more channels you have to choose from on your tv, the less there is on, is this not some sort of paradox.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is only a limited amount of good TV available. If it is diluted across countless channels then it appears as if there is nothing worth watching. The more channels there are available to buy TV programmes the easier it is for production companies to make and sell crap. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Bruce Springsteen song 57 Channels, which pretty much covers this exact topic. It was also cool in that it featured Bruce playing lead bass instead of guitar. Fun song. --Jayron32 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in the 60s sometime, when the only way to get TV was via antenna, one of the Peanuts characters said to another, something like, "Now that our reception is good, the programs aren't." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Teevees of that era had "brightness" controls. They didn't work. PhGustaf (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure they did. Well, they turned, anyway. As opposed to being glued in place. But I do recall having to fiddle with several knobs to try to get the RGB in balance. Color sets kind of do that for you nowadays. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because you had NTSC - which stands for "Never Twice Same Color". Those of us who had PAL didn't have that problem. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, he's making a frigging joke about how dumb the shows were. Adjusting the brightness levels didn't make them any less stupid. Why would he hijack a thread regarding show quality to drop in a non sequitur about technical difficulties? Matt Deres (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, before cable all you had were 3 network affiliates, maybe an independent, maybe a public TV station. So if you wanted to watch something, you didn't have much choice, so you stuck with whatever was most appealing out of the five. Then you went on vacation during the summer because it was all reruns. And here's the problem with cable: A number of cable channels seem to have endless reruns. To put it another way, the quantity of original programming that's on 57 channels at one time might not be all that many. And a number of the channels are niche channels with a fairly narrow audience. So while there seem to be 57 channels, the choices for something new and interesting, at any given time, might be considerably less than 57. And thanks to channel surfing, you can practically watch all 57 shows at once. Entertainment overload. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that when there ARE new shows, all of the channels feel the need to compete for audience share - so many of the new shows are scheduled at the exact same time. You'd really hope that DVR's would go some way to preventing that practice...but these companies are slow to change their ways, and the "official" ratings systems (which are racing to catch up with modern viewing techniques) aren't helping that! People like me who "collect" an entire series of shows on DVR before starting to watch any of them must really screw up their methods! SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think TV is getting better. In the olden days you had three channels of shallow crap. Now you get about fifty channels, by shear chance some of them produce good shows from time to time. For instance, quality Sci-fi like the new Battlestar Galactica, and Firefly would never have happened in the 3-network era. APL (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The more sure you are than at least one of these goshdarn channels has something good on, the less charitable you will be to whatever it is you are watching or thinking about watching. That said I remember the dreadful days of 1993 when we only had 26 channels. When Matlock is your best bet for entertainment, you know you have failed God and yourself. Vranak (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to flat-screen TV's and DVD's, you can watch whatever's available, on a big screen, and nearly commercial-free. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

26? 26?! Until 1997, we had four. And we were glad of it. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What states have the McDonald's Monopoly million dollar winners been in?

In other words, what states have the Boardwalk tickets been found in? I'm just wondering if they change fairly randomly or if the winners come from the same state or from a small group of states every year. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No clue, but I want to point out that a "random" distribution would not necessarily mean that winnings would be distributed equally across U.S. states—it would have to do with the number of McDonald's in each state, presumably, which likely varies by state (Montana should not have nearly as many as California, for example). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has, of course, an article on this promotion, McDonald's Monopoly, which also discusses the 2001 fraud. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like North Carolina was a hotbed for McDonald's "winners" in the late 90's-early 2000's because of the fraud Comet Tuttle was talking about. This FBI investigator's report http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/finaffar.pdf is a more entertaining read than any TV crime drama! 71.161.59.133 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

the mysterious British House of Commons

(Not House of Kafka, oh no.) I am most interested in the Guardian story "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament", but it's impossibly evasive and uninformative. One part:

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found. / The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

Does anyone here know what it's about? -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The Order of Business for Monday is published here. Although on further digging, I guess the information might in fact be in Questions for Oral or Written Answer beginning on Monday 12 October 2009. But that's a huge list of questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oral question 13 for the 12th reads in full: Mr Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): In how many primary schools in Chelmsford there were. That's somewhat cryptic: "there were children withdrawn for 'extraordinary rendition'", perhaps? I can't immediately see anything else of interest for yesterday. If I were in Britain, I'd pop out to buy a copy of the Eye. Thank you for the longer list; I'll peruse it from now. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) .... PS 2344 questions? Um, not all by myself. If we can muster a dozen interested volunteers, perhaps we can divide and conquer. (The last question -- so far -- partly involves "Huntingdonshire", which I'd naively believed had disappeared thirty or forty years ago. I doubt that I'm qualified to look through even one twelfth of a set of questions about this inscrutable nation.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The last issue of Private Eye indicated that Mr Justice Eady had gagged the press with relation to a potential libel, to the extent that even reporting on the case would be a breach of the gagging order. It also added that an MP had made it clear that he would use parliamentary privilege to raise the matter when the Commons reconvened. That is likely to be what the Guardian is referring to, although it is unable to say any more due to the gagging order. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't happen to say which MP? That would make a search more easy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here we go. Questions for Written Answer - Notices given between Thursday 17 September and Friday 9 October. Questions 60 to 63 seem apropos, and the matter is already covered in our article, here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Grauniad has also published The Trafigura files and how to read them --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is most interesting. Thank you for the information, Tagishsimon and Malcolm IV. I'd already been vaguely aware of the Trafigura affair, and also of the surprisingly wide scope of British libel law. (For the latter, I warmly recommend this paper: don't let the word "linguistics" in the title scare you: I read it and -- with mounting disbelief -- understood it before I'd ever studied any linguistics.) I shall resist a mighty urge to make a tart comment on this (it might be deleted as inappropriate speechifying), and instead simply raise a glass to Paul Farrelly. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Guardian claims victory on 'gag'. See also Streisand effect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In New Zealand, if Parliament is filmed ( we have only one House - that's enough as it is ), they are not to be filmed if they are doing something stupid, which is pretty much most of the time. But nowhere to my knowledge is a paper banned from reporting the whole business of the House. Let them be accountable, State Secrets aside. It seems politicians want to have it all their own way, and show an arrogance they may not have had otherwise. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to read through what's been going on, 202.36, you'll see this issue arose out of the application of libel law by UK courts, rather than having anything to do with mendacious politicians. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, libel laws in the UK are a sticky wicket indeed, but most everything that transpires in the H of C eventually comes out in the Hansard--Myersdtm (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stockdale v Hansard is probably relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 13

Question (NSFW?)

Do you know where is an article about a woman's moaning while having sex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.5.206.236 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd've thought this [14] would cover it, but no. In fact, they make the subject rather bland. My next stop was the Human voice article, which you could follow and see where it takes you. Ironically, the illustration of the vocal cords in that article could probably be added to the initial one I pointed you to, and it might fool some viewers. A better place to start might be Masters and Johnson. They did actual scientific study about human sexuality, and it's possible they get into the vocalizations angle. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alex Comfort in "The Joy of Sex" calls it "birdsong at morning". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What if it's afternoon delight? Fittingly, there's a section farther down, about skyrockets in flight. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Professor Speculum gave this address to the International Sexology Congress. 'Delegates, I have recordings that prove my theory that there are 3 kinds of female orgasm, namely the negative, positive and neutral. Firstly I play the negative (click) "On no! no! n-oooh!!". Now I play the positive: (click)"Oh yes, more, more, just like that, y-e-s oooh!". Finally here is the neutral: "Baseball it will take 9 months so why the hurry?"' ' Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)<(/small>

I know of three kinds: Positive (Oh yes, yes), Religious (Oh God, oh God), and Fake (Oh Cuddlyable3). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Amor wins. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're all forgetting the inimitable "It's your turn to sleep on the wet patch". SteveBaker (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry - I forgot to be macho..."...those four wet patches". SteveBaker (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And the LORD sayeth, "Maketh it so good, that they will cryeth out My Name!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For a scholarly example of the OP's phenomenon, scan the film Porky's for the "Lassie" sequence. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Falling sensation while closing eyes by standing on one leg

Sir, If I stand on one leg and close the eyes, I cannot stand for more time than I stand while my eyes are open. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryamadduri (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably because you lose your sense of sight, which is important to balance. Equilibrioception#In_humans mentions this explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP seems to report two perceptions: the loss of balance noted above, and the sensation of falling in the title, that may be symptomatic of Acrophobia. Wikipedia does not have much content on balance in Acrobatics. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Giants Stadium

Giants Stadium in New Jersey is to be demolished and a new stadium, Meadowlands, will be built in its place. However, neither of these articles say why this is happening. What's so wrong with Giants Stadium in the first place? And if it has to be improved, why couldn't the existing structure just be upgraded, like Wembley Stadium in London was, rather than building a whole new stadium from scratch? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea about the Giants Stadium, but just to note that Wembley Stadium was not just upgraded - the original 1923 Wembley Stadium was demolished in 2003 and a completely new stadium with the same name was built on the same site over the next 4 years. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I've taken the liberty of removing the small tags, since I think your post is pertinent to the discussion. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New stadiums get built to replace structurally sound previous stadiums because there's money to be generated by construction projects. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, in most cases the new stadium comes at such a deep discount to the sports teams that it is essentially free. The local governments (state, county, and municipality) front HUGE sums of money to build these stadiums, basically because NOT having a major sports franchise means that your city is "second class", and that perception tends to, more than anything, drive the desire to keep and maintain huge new stadiums every 20-30 years. So there are two reasons why they are built:

1. Team owners want new stadiums with luxury boxes, which for their square footage, generate MUCH more income than good old seats do. Plus, the NFL revenue sharing agreement only covers standard seating, exempting luxury boxes. Thus, if an owner hypothetically built a luxury-box only stadium, they could keep 100% of their ticket revenue.
2. Cities want to keep their sports teams at all costs, and so are willing to bend over backwards to give the owners what they want, because there is another city willing to build that stadium anyways. --Jayron32 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope they find Jimmy Hoffa's body when they dig up the old stadium. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They need to check the "coffin corner". (Hey, that was Sports Illustrated's line, not mine.) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, from what I'm hearing, there doesn't seem to be anything actually wrong with the current stadium, except that it doesn't have enough revenue-raising opportunities. Would that be fair to say? I was actually hoping to hear from someone who knew the stadium and could comment on its general state of (dis)repair – which might, perhaps, be a legitimate reason for getting rid of it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the empirical evidence that large, concrete stadiums can be safe and viable decades and decades (see Fenway Park, Wrigley Stadium, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum) with proper maintence and occasional overhauls, then there really cannot be a claim that Giants Stadium is somehow falling apart after 30 years. It is most certainly due to wanting a better stadium than merely that the old stadium is somehow in disrepair. --Jayron32 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New stadiums get built because someone wants to build them. They do deteriorate over time if not properly cared for. But given that the average lifetime of a stadium nowadays is less than 40 years, that's not really an issue anyway. The closest a major league park ever came to being condemned for legitimate reasons would be incidents at Baker Bowl. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that how you spell Olympic Stadium where you come from? ;) Matt Deres (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Who are the ten most famous people in the world?

Out of all people ever to live, who are the ten most famous people today. I assume that Jesus is number one and Muhammad is probably number 2, but who else? Does someone like Obama make the top 10 overall? Reference to actual data of some kind (e.g., surveys) would of course be most interesting, but I suppose in the absence of that, your justified opinions are of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk does not tend to answer questions of opinion, per the rubric at the top of the page. neither do I think there is any objective or near objective measure for the question you're asking. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly an objective measure, this is an empirical question. Out of the 6.7 billion people currently living, who are the individuals that the most have heard of? This is clearly a question of fact. There is something of what might be termed an epistemological problem; in the absence of very good data, how can we know? But certainly, there is an objectively "right" answer and there is room for informed speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... why is it that so many ref desk regulars answer "we don't answer this" when they just don't know the answer? It's incredibly irritating. This is an entirely answerable question and surveys of this sort are done at national levels all the time. Why assume that nobody has done surveys on name recognition? Why assume that this entirely answerable question is asking for nothing more than "opinion"? --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to define "most famous" and "people" first. --Tango (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of good data, we are left with opinion, which as I say, we do not do. Please take the hint. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure some magazine (Time perhaps?) has made such a list before, although they call it the list of most influential people of the time period. I don't recall if they made one for all of human history, or if it was limited to 20th century or whatever. I will look around to see if I can find that article. Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Time annually publishes a list of the 100 most influential people of the year. It's not really the same thing at all, and sometimes the people on it are in fact quite obscure.

Alright, I'll get the ball rolling then. According to reliable sources, the following people make the list: Barack Obama ("perhaps the most famous man on the planet" according to the New York Times. [15]), according to the Joshua Project [16], just under 4 billion people have heard of Jesus, or roughly 60% of the world population, this would seem to place him on the list. Other sources include [17], the methodology of which is somewhat suspicious. Nonetheless, it places Shakespeare, George Washington, Einstein, Da Vinci, Lincoln, Walt Disney, Elvis, Michael Jackson, Martin Luther King, and Christopher Columbus on top. This, however, seems to be a highly amero-centric list.

"Most famous man on the planet" suggests they are restricting it to men alive today, the OP clearly means to include the dead. --Tango (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the data on this, but I'm sure this data exists and someone with slightly more initiative could fill this out. First, I suggest a good start would be to restrict our group to adults, we'll use it in the "able to understand" sense and not really the legal sense. I'll make an estimate at 13+ for this?

• I assume the size of the population in each country, large religious group, and culture over 13 can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.
• I imagine that probably 80-100% of the people in our population know at least the name of the leader of their country. I imagine it's possible some countries are lower, but not substantially lower. I doubt any country has less then 80% of it's population not even knowing the name (or close to it) of their nation's leader. This gives us a good start I'd guess.
  • We'd have to add in popularity in other countries, some leaders are more known abroad then others, Obama being an example of a well known foreign leader.
• I imagine that probably 90-100% of the people in our population know at least the name of the/a central figure of their religion. Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha/Moses. Eastern cultures in China/India due to their quality of life probably aren't educated as well, but I'd guess that they have extremely basic religious education, at least most of them do, or they wouldn't be put in the count of adherents of that religion. These are some more figures.
  • We'd have to note that Jesus is a well known figure in Muslim cultures (he's a prophet in their religion) so he is probably known by a large portion of muslims.

There is a lot more too this, and I haven't went into other historic figures (Einstein/Colombus/Da Vinchi) and I don't know enough eastern historical figures, which probably are on par with those. But I think this is a list that COULD be estimated with some amount of confidence. The fact that we add Jesus to the list with some confidence, and dismiss Millard Fillmore isn't completly opinionated I believe. Chris M. (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this may be worthless subjective opinion but I will dare a list: 1. Madonna 2. Fergie 3. Paris Hilton 4. The Queen 4. Bono 5. Bill Gates 6. Shakira 7. Sasha Baron Cohen 8. Steven Tyler 9. Oprah 10. Kylie Minogue. Sorry if this offends anyone. Vranak (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "offensive", but it is an entirely worthless and no doubt inaccurate opinion. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr.98, your characterisation of another's post is less than civil. It is unlikely that you can justify calling their opinion inaccurate. Vranak said the opinion was subjective. It is not worthless because it gives an interesting snapshot of media celebrities at, I estimate, the turn of the last century. You should take care not to be "offensive" yourself. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He's the one that suggested that it was worthless; I agreed. As for accuracy, that's another question, but Sasha Baron Cohen is probably not even widely known in the Western world, much less the rest of the world. The rest of the list suffers from such problems. I think we're allowed to comment on how useful others' answers are. Giving a random list of entertainers is not helpful. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr.98 thank you for explaining. I have strikken my last comment that I now feel was unnecessary. I don't think Vranak's list is random; it is ordered and not only entertainers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Sasha Baron Cohen is rather well known among the 15-35 year old age bracket. For more mature people I'm sure he's a bit of an obscure lunatic if the name rings any bell at all. Vranak (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A measure of the notability, or even fame, of Sacha Baron Cohen is that he rates four - 4 - Wikipedia articles including those devoted to Sacha's character creations Ali G, Borat and Bruno. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Benny. Here[18] is a pretty good version of his story. PhGustaf (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If the dead are included in such a list, Michael Jackson has to be in there somewhere. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's a top ten list, as suggested by the original poster, I'd be doubtful about Michael. Obviously he's well known in the West, but how deep does he fan base really run in the East? I suspect the top ten list would be heavily populated by names that are well-known in both the English speaking world and in China/India given their collective 2.5B people. So Ghandi, Mao Zedong, Confucius, Buddha for examples. Obviously Michael is famous, just not so sure he is top-ten famous. Dragons flight (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, a sorted list of the top 166. Bill Hicks is #164, so that's your grain of salt to take this list with. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably the most famous person is Australopithecus. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we accept proto-humans (and a long way proto at that) as people, I doubt many people have even heard of the genus and certainly not any individual members (Lucy is the only one I've heard of and I'm reasonably well read on the subject). --Tango (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's NOT a "sorted list of the top 166". If you actually look at the voting page, it asks people to rank the pre-existing list. The source of the list is not given (I suspect the source is the website owner made it up). I doubt more people worldwide, or even in the United States, have heard of Marilyn Vos Savant and Charles Everett Koop than have heard of, say, Adolf Hitler or Jesus. FiggyBee (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on some of the above: Providing a link to a published survey is one thing; editors providing their own personal, subjective opinions is quite another, and contrary to the rules of the ref desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be too prescriptive. No one wants to see the Reference Desks degrade into a mere forum, but I don't think it should be as narrowly focused as Google Answers was either. The activity level of the RDs right now is more than manageable. And of course, in the interest of prescriptivism this comment should be on the talk page :) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

However, it says, right there at the top of the page, The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions... Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Then the proper response could be to delete the request. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep the meta-debate on the 'discussion' page. Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia "famous people" links to an article with an appropriate talk page about improvement. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For a subjective, but well known list of the 100 most influential people, please see our article about Michael H. Hart's book "The 100". The top ten there, are

1. Muhammad
2. Isaac Newton
3. Jesus Christ
4. Buddha
5. Confucius
6. St. Paul
7. Ts'ai Lun
8. Johann Gutenberg
9. Christopher Columbus
10. Albert Einstein.

--NorwegianBlue ^talk 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken car, get rid of it without a loss

So I have a car I paid $1.5k for about a year ago.

Yesterday I was driving home in Charlotte, NC and the brakes failed. I had missed my insepection date so I figured I might as well pull in somewhere and have them take care of everything.

An hour later I have a $1k bill just to pass inspection, and an additional 4-5 hundred for the rest (including the brakes, which hadn't technically failed me on my inspection because they haven't fully failed... yet.)

I left the car in their parking lot but there is no way I'm paying that much, or even close to that much for this car. It's a 1998 Ford Countour.

I was wondering what the process would be to basically have it taken off my hands, and if there is any way I could do that so I can be free and clear and not have to pay anything at all (even towing expenses). Is this possible? What would you recommend? Thanks! Chris M. (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Got a friend with a tow-rope? Tow the vehicle to a scrap-yard and they'll (usually) pay you some money for it. Alternatively call up a scrap-yard explain what you have and where it is, find out how much they'll give you for it and how much they'll charge to collect and if you're happy that's that. If you have the time put the car on e-bay (listing the issues honestly) and see if you can't find someone who wants to use it as a shell to nick the best bits from (I know people who've done this a few times as it can be cheaper than getting a number of spare parts from a scrappers). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It will cost more to get back on the road than it will be worth when it is there, so its only value is as scrap. Look through the local phone book and find a scrap yard - they may well collect for free in exchange for the car, or possibly pay you for it (I don't know what scrap value cars typically have). --Tango (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it looks like I might get a little over 100 for it (craigs list), how bout that. Thanks for the advice, if this falls through I'll look into your alternatives. Chris M. (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about values, but wouldn't hundreds of pounds of good metal be worth substantially more than $100? --Falconus^{p t c} 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps - but only after you've gotten rid of the nasty fluids safely, stripped out the plastics, cloth, ceramics, then separated the metals out into aluminium, steel, copper, etc. The cost of doing all that is enough to wipe out most of the value the metal has. SteveBaker (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is to donate it to some charity in the area - they'll generally pick them up, take care of the paperwork and let you write it off as a donation for a tax rebate. If all you're going to get is $100 - that would probably be the best option, because they'll happily claim it was worth lots more than $100 for the purposes of your tax rebate. I know (for example) that our local NPR radio station does that. SteveBaker (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is probably the way to go. In my area, the name of the charity is Good News Garage (didn't think there would be an article...). They work on the car, get it in good shape, and then give it to a needy family. Dismas|^(talk) 00:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no source for this claim, but I heard that the IRS in the US is now more focused on this as an area of tax fraud; a person with a car worth $100 donates that car to a local charity, where the mechanic grins and gives the person a receipt for a $1000 donation. The person writes off $1000, and the IRS gets angry. Formerly they would not usually find out; these days, I have heard, they are more likely to apply scrutiny to the car-gift writeoff. Tempshill (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd heard that too - but it's hard to police because by the time the IRS come to investigate, the actual car is long gone. The person donating the car can reasonably claim that they have no idea what the value of the vehicle was. The charity accepting the donation are the ones taking the responsibility - but they can probably cite the green-book value of the car which is written on the assumption that the car at least runs and is in a saleable condition - which the wreck that was hauled away probably was not. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would a charity want to do that with a car that is worth less than it would cost to repair? They could just spend the money buying an already working similar car. --Tango (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of them have volunteer/amateur mechanics who give their time to fix up the cars for the cost of parts alone - others give them to high-schools who run car repair classes for students - others go to scrap, which still nets the charity some money - yet others are genuinely working cars that just look a bit scruffy and maybe have expensive-to-fix but non-critical problems like non-working A/C or broken electric windows and such. It's amazing how many people will throw away a car when the effort required to fix it is minimal to someone with the right tools and expertise. Once the value of a car gets low enough, a lot of people would rather give it to a charity than have to go to the hassle of selling a really crappy car. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not provided as legal advice, only as recent experience. I had a car I was considering junking, and asked several seemingly informed persons about the charitable donation route. I was told that all I could claim was what the charity sold it for. So no $1000 deduction for a $100 car. The car was fine except for the one major mechanical problem, so I paid close to the resale value of the car (were it in good condition) to have the repair made, rather than dishing out major money for a new car, or buying a used car with someone else's hidden problems. Edison (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rockets in Physics

Is anyone else's class building rockets for Physics?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember, please, this is the reference desk, not a chatroom. If you have a question about rockets, ask it on the Science desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Building water rockets is quite a common school physics project, is that what you're doing? If so, you may find that article useful. --Tango (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we are make regular rockets with real engines.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You must go to a rich school, or at least one that isn't worried about safety. The school system in my area let us use all sorts of heavy machinery in shop class, but we still were only allowed to build water rockets come springtime. I don't think rockets are built for physics, though. I can't imagine any public school being able to both afford the amount of rockets that would be required, and take the risk of injury or property damage. Xenon54 / talk / 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Even average, middle-class public schools can afford to do Model rocketry. Model rocket engines are for sale all over the place; this website is selling individual engines for $3.50 and full kits to build 12 rockets for $42.00. Schools can probably order bulk supplies for much cheaper from educational supply companies. --Jayron32 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unless the OP is at university, it seems unlikely that they would be building real rockets. I can imagine a university physics or engineering project to build a sounding rocket. --Tango (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that unlikely at all. Model rocketry can be a hobby for virtually all ages. The engines are store-bought and removable.

The launch-pads are store-bought and come with an electrical launch controller on the end of a long wire. (They often require a key that a teacher could hang onto until seconds before launch.)

Really, it's a perfectly safe hobby. It's entirely reasonable that a single adult could supervise an class of middle-school model rocket enthusiasts. APL (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We got to make and launch model rockets with the real solid fuel engines when I was in Middle School. We even put a rocket engine into one of those CO2 cars and launched it. It goes a lot faster when running on solid rocket fuel. Googlemeister (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1969 Ford Ranchero

Are the doors on a 1969 Ford Ranchero the same doors on a 1969 Ford Torino? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcstman (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the Ford Ranchero would seem to indicate some common design features between the Ranchero, the Torino, and the Fairlane in the 1968-1969 model years, but I don't know how interchangable parts from the three models are. If you look around online, you may find a "Ranchero Owner's Club" or something with a forum where you can ask and have a better shot of getting an answer. --Jayron32 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

October 14

Protecting a book

Many a time at school, I find myself with some time on my hands (anywhere from 5 to 50 minutes) in which I have absolutely nothing to do. Except...read! I'm enjoying some books from the school's library, and I take good care of them and whatnot. However, I have at least a dozen books of my own collection that I haven't read yet, and free reading at school would be a great way to work through them. There's just one problem; I'm the type of person who meticulously cares for his belongings. I always promptly return discs to their cases, I handle any sort of delicate electronic equipment with measured care...I don't even open my books much farther than 100 degrees, to prevent the spines from cracking. Yes, it is a bit ridiculous. ^_^

However, it would be a nightmarish...nay, impossible task to attempt taking one of my books to school without protection and preventing all sorts of damage. Even a minor scuff to the cover would be inexcusable to me. What would be a viable method of protecting a book to this extent? The only thing I can think of would be a small cardboard box, but I'd probably look silly carrying that around all the time, right? Perhaps I could stow it in my bookbag, but what if the weight of my textbooks crushed it? What to do, what to do?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 01:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If your books are hardcover, you may consider stretchable book covers. That would minimize scuffing. Falconus^{p t c} 01:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as meticulous as you but I generally throw my softcover books into a gallon size Ziploc bag and then toss that into my bookbag. Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

...I know the answer you want isn't, "stop being so OCD," but seriously, books are meant to be read, and that means cracking the cover a bit, and that's OK, because it means you are actually using them. When I was very young, I used to avoid eating candies that were terribly pretty because it felt like it would destroy their aesthetics. Then one day I found that maggots had gotten a lot of them. After that I resolved to just use things as I saw fit—not trash them, mind you, but understand what they are for—and get the most out of them. A book is meant to be read. Unless you're talking about treasured, collectible keepsakes (which you shouldn't bring to school)... just read 'em! A weathered book is a good friend. They will last longer than you expect. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit of samurai wisdom from Hagakure: After reading books and the like, it is best to burn them or throw them away. Vranak (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to burn them before I read them. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in the olden days, before manufactured book covers existed (because 1950s parents wouldn't pay real money for them anyway), we made our own. Short of bending galvanized metal around your books, there was nothing that beat a book cover made from a plain old brown paper grocery bag -- especially if you could reinforce the corners with duct tape!

Paper grocery bags aren't as heavy today, so perhaps you could use two layers of brown bag. Alternatively, try to acquire a couple of manila file folders, and repurpose them to this task. Or, do you have a dog? Carefully cut open a dog food bag, flatten it, and use that multi-layer product to make a book cover which might also be mildly water-resistant.

(I guess it should be noted, in case it's not obvious, that this works best for hardcover books, not paperbacks.)

Good luck -- and have fun! -- with your project. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Book stores used to sell book covers that you could wrap around the hard covers of books. There were even flexible vinyl covers to help protect paperbacks. The ziplock back (which of course didn't exist in my youth) is an excellent idea. Truth to tell, though, taking a special book to a public place...? Ask yourself if you could live without it, i.e. what you would do if it got stolen. Here's an idea: Keep a "good" copy stashed at home, and a "reading" copy with you, maybe a paperback version. Over time, you may discover you have more affection for the reading copy. However, if it gets stolen, you've got that other one. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect book covers with adhesive transparent foil (vinyl is better than ordinary sticky tape that in time turns brown). Your protected covers will be durable, can be cleaned with a damp sponge and keep their second-hand value. Alternatively consider taking off the dust covers (jackets) from hardcover books and keeping them in a safe place since they are relatively fragile. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Plastic covers are very common on library and school books. You could ask your school librarian where they get theirs or try your local office supplies superstore. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As for transporting them, I suggest investing in a hard-surface briefcase. Some are made of rigid plastic or other synthetic material, and I've even seen attorneys using metal (aluminum) briefcases. — Michael J 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm like you about my books :) I used to take books to school in a hard plastic pencil box, like a Spacemaker. This has the advantage of people thinking it's just a pencil box and not knowing you're actually being neurotic about the pristine condition of your books. Saves some ridicule :) (I know all about that firsthand.) Larger books probably won't fit, but my paperback copy of Lord of the Rings fit perfectly, so I was a happy kid. It prevents not only scuffs, but bent pages, spilled liquids, getting trompled by other things in your backpack, and all manner of other damage that bags and covers might not. And they can be obtained for about $3 at your local school supplies store. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

53-foot semi-trailers

In the U.S. of A., a couple of decades ago (maybe even post-1973 oil embargo), there was a wide-sweeping "reform" of interstate trucking regulations. I recall two features of the law, which affected the maximum size of semi-trailers: one for width, the other for length.

As a result, we have 53-foot trailers on the road today. Alone among semi-trailers, they are required to have their length displayed in large letters within a few feet of the front of the box.

Now, where the heck did 53 feet come from? I've pondered this at length, and my best idea is that it's the maximum length which can make a turn of some radius -- said radius being significant to road designers. But, that's just a wild guess.

Does anyone know the Real Truth of the matter? A good night's sleep depends on a credible answer! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some searching, but in the meantime, another factor is the size of a standard commercial pallet (40" x 48"). Having the internal length to be a number divisible by 48" would be a "good thing". I believe the 53' measurement in the external length; internal would be more like 51' - 52', which is divisible by 48". Matt Deres (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One possible reason for such regulations on the dimensions of vehicles may be the need to ensure compatibility for truck-train combinations in shipping. The term in the US seems to be "intermodal". Clearly, trucks would have to follow certain dimensional standards to optimally fit onto the rolling stock available. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[19] seems to suggest that there's always (since the 1950s at least) been limits on vehicle sizes; the reason the current maximum is 53' is because a maker of 53' trailers actively lobbied to have the maximum size raised to that number. 53' is the maximum size of intermodal containers in the USA, although that's more likely a result of the trailer sizes rather than a cause. FiggyBee (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

different causes with confusing name

It's understood KTWV released quite a few compilation albums. They each were called "Wave-Aid". Portions of the proceeds benefitted AmfAR. But I know there's a different WaveAid. That one was a benefit concert for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake relief efforts. What can be done to clear up this confusion?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that it's too late now; whoever was last should have named their effort something else. Since 99.99% of Earthlings have heard of neither effort, I doubt this is much of a problem, by the way. Whoever was interested in either cause will presumably find out quickly that they're investigating the wrong charity effort. Tempshill (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

business management

business management,

 can i know d advantages n disadvantages of control which is a managerial function????
      it is not a homework question.... its just for my reference

can u give more information about control which is one of d managerial function —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.205.120 (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See the article Management which links to other management-related articles. Control is only one of the activities of a manager. Others are planning, organizing, staffing, leading and directing an organization or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Accepting that this is not a homework question, it is however the same question as you asked 2 days ago. It is unlikely that you will get different answers this time. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, "just for your reference", the word "the" does not have a d in it. FiggyBee (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also a good idea, for a manager or anyone else, to spell "and" as "and", or "&". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that the OP's IP address resolves to India, where English is commonly spoken, but is not a native language, so maybe some slack could be cut. Just a suggestion.-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Polo shirt

I've just had a haircut. At my school, students must wear polo shirts in terms 1 and 4. I hate wearing polo shirts because they are itchy (even itchier when I've just had a haircut). What's a good way to remove itchiness from polo shirts? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 09:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fabric softener? Also, I'm guessing that the shirts have to be of a certain color or have some other restriction like that. Is there a way to get the required color or whatever in a cotton shirt? Cotton may be less itchy to you than synthetic fibers. Dismas|^(talk) 10:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to try a different laundry detergent - some people are irritated by certain types of detergent (eg. bio vs non-bio). I would expect that to make any shirt itch (and other clothing), but it might still be worth a try. --Tango (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure but try dry cleaning.Adi4094 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dry cleaning a cotton polo shirt is usually not a good idea... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Several washes will do the trick, but age the shirt.86.200.134.121 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the school requires this type of "uniform", perhaps they would have some suggestions about how to fix this problem. If their answer is "tough it out", maybe you should go to a different school. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful BB, as always —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should he have to put up with something uncomfortable? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not answer a question with a reference instead of making flippant comments? Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you constantly trying to keep the ref desks in a box? The questioner is asking how to put up with something. I'm asking why do you have to? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Undershirt? -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're not talking about a school uniform (you don't specify.), you could just get different polo shirts. They're not all made from the same material. APL (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet:The new GOD?

I saw a doomsday documentary on the History channel.It says Internet is equivalent to God.It can make certain predictions. How does this theory work?It was just mentioned not explained.Adi4094 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How should we know? You are the one that watched the documentary. It sounds like a reference to the wisdom of crowds. I think there is more to being a god than precognisance, though... --Tango (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for cats and pirates." --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The internet can also change reality by making certain things true or false. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and if you wanted to extend it further... it tells us how things are ordered, you can make a plea to it and maybe it will respond (and maybe it won't)... and.. yeah. I don't know. It's a little crackpot. If it is a God, it is not a Christian God, it is more like one of the Greek gods, who is occasionally shagging a sheep and all that. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That would explain why it doesn't always respond very quickly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get into the church of the high technological, I recommend reading about the technological singularity, which is a far more far-out concept than saying the Internet is God (which is intellectually rather shallow). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the first two results in this google search and they seem like they might be relevant. If not, you'll have to give us more details. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Television was once similarly described, in that it could reach everyone at once, or at least everyone who was tuned in to it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I've heard it said that God is truth. So insomuch as the internet spreads truth, it could be described in divine terms. Or we could just be a little more plain-spoken and say that the Internet is pretty nifty. Vranak (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Insomuch as the internet spreads truth..." is a bit like saying "Insomuch as Ann Coulter is a liberal...". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is pretty good when it comes to accurate information, I think. If we talk about most anything outside Wiki... you're right. Sports scores, that's spot on. Vranak (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is pretty good when it comes to accurate information", haha! What a comedian! Adam Bishop (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am disturbed by your apparent lack of faith! Well, no... not really. :) Vranak (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see both sides of that question. Mostly, the info in our articles happens to be accurate; it'd be a damn poor show if that were not the case. But WP does not focus on "the truth" per se of a subject. It focuses on what information can be verified from reliable sources. Big difference, but with, hopefully, a big overlap. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To "verify" means to "make true". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not around here; see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor can assert something as being true, thinking we're supposed to take his word for it because he and all his friends "know" it's true (a frequent problem on wikipedia); or he can find a citation and "make it true" under wikipedia standards. Verification is needed for facts that are not universally or substantially obvious. You can say "Barack Obama is male", and demanding a citation for that would be silly. But a statement about his height and weight would require a citation. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

None of which makes it necessarily "true" that he's whatever height we say it is. All that's true is that some reputable sources say he's that height. We accept the word of reputable sources; but reputable sources have been known to be wrong. We allow for that possibility when we make no claim that any of the facts presented in WP are "true"; all we ever claim is that they've been verified. Calling this "true under Wikipedia standards" is a distortion of the meaning of the word "true". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And that argument likewise distorts the meaning of "verify". Here's the deal: "Truth" can be a relative concept. To "make true" in the wikipedia sense means to make the facts "as true as we can", although the "absolute" truth may be uncertain. We do not blindly accept sources if it's obvious that they're wrong, because that would be an insult to our readers. If the only source for Obama's height said he was 4 feet tall, we couldn't use that, regardless of what the source was. And we have to use some editorial judgment when supposedly reliable sources provide conflicting information. An example of the latter was discussed recently in regard to the ballplayer Dave Kingman and comments that an opposing manager, Tommy Lasorda, made about Kingman, back in the 1970s. Some logic and reason had to be applied to provide the "true" answer. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the analogy. No god in human history ever made predictions as far as I know. Among other things, making any kind of predictions would imply they were not in control. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 26:34 is one example that comes to mind immediately: "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm constantly getting yelled at for making "unhelpful" responses. The fact is that Tango's initial response was sarcastic, pointed, and totally fitting. The OP asks us to interpret a TV show that he just watched. How silly is that? There needs to be an approved procedure for simply saying, "Sorry, can't help you. See ya." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok now you challenged me to actually give a thoughtful response.

What I'm getting from the original question is akin to the typical doomsday sci-fi scenario, ala Skynet. When people start putting together a large scale network with some AI capabilities, something interesting happens and we can either get large-scale malice, or as the OP says, we might be able to get some useful predictions. Well, the way computers work is like this: they are very good at doing specifically what you instruct them to. When it comes to extreme high-level functions like predicting the future -- well that's just a non-starter. Computers are very very dumb. If you can make a machine to see into the future, you can already do so yourself. That is my understanding. Vranak (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in Saint Vidicon. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Gods usually evoke worship. Who, pray tell, worships the Internet? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Prayer Verily I bowest before thy shrine of 102 buttons and do invoke thy mysterious spirit by pressing thy holy button, that button not of the 102, even that button of which Saint Gates commanded Thou shall not press a second time for they that seek to End shall pray to Start. Blessed be thy infinite network for its packets bring me comfort and I shall surf in its bandwidth forever. Give us this day our chat, our mail and our porn in abundance, for now we see as through windows dimly the great domain of thy name sung by 32 angels but we rest in faith that soon at the last bugfix of the last glitch there shall be no more workarounds and a vista made mightier seven-fold by a chorus of 128 angels shall be our reward. E-men. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Being Released From Prison

When a prisoner is released from prison, do they arrange anything for them like sort of a halfway house or anything? Just curious, I always see that in movies where the gates open, they walk out and then they close... but I wasn't sure how the system really works. Do they arrange anything at all? Because some might not have family and obviously no job or home, especialy in the winter months.74.218.50.226 (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What jurisdiction are you thinking of? Here in the UK the prison will issue a "Get you home" travel warrant plus a Discharge Grant (not very much). If the prisoner is being released early for good behaviour reasons, he/she will have been assessed as being capable of surviving on release, and if not, there will be some form of Social Work intervention, failing which, there may be a half-way house arrangement - but not always. Prisoners MAY NOT be kept incarcerated beyond their ultimate sentence duration in any circumstances. 92.23.90.16 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, prisoners can specify where they would like to be released to (e.g. to stay with a friend or relative or a halfway house). There's then a decision made as to whether that is possible, and whether it will be permitted. Shelter give advice to people in this situation and try to find suitable accommodation for those who need it. Warofdreams talk 15:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are released on parole then I believe your parole officer is responsible for helping you settle into your life as a free person. There will be systems in place to help them do that. --Tango (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For better or worse, many U.S. states and the U.S. Federal government have abolished much of the former parole system in favor of fixed sentences, so I think there are fewer parole officers, at least by that name. (They still have probation officers, who enforce the provisions of a probation sentence.) There's also been a philosophical shift towards deterrence, punishment (retribution) and incapacitation, and away from reform and rehabilitation, as ends of a criminal sentence. But there must be some system governing early release. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an article: Halfway house -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

PSAT question

What are some of the questions highlighted with a blue box on the answer sheet, while others are not/Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's predictable (i.e. every 5 questions are highlighted in a different colour), then it probably only means something to the people who wrote the test.

If you are referring to highlighting similar to [20] , I believe it is only to assist in page orientation for the student. You can contact PSAT directly at: psathelp@info.collegeboard.org. --Preceding unsigned comment 02:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer

What do I do If I hired a lawyer to do a job and it took so long for them to get it done (not due to a deadline) Just took too long I had to hound them many times. It has caused me severe financial hardship

help09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20jump02 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the first instance, complain to the lawyer themselves. If that doesn't work, you can probably complain to the local bar or similar - where are you? --Tango (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Missouri. Whats complaining going to do Ive done that already manytimes thats the only reason they got anything done.this has stressed me out alot.they are getting it done now(I hope) !!!! Its to late to start over i spent to much time already with them, do I just take this bull sh... and know never to use them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20jump02 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that complaining to the offending party is unlikely to do much good. If you think that the lawyer has violated ethical standards, you could complain to the Missouri Bar association. If you think that he or she has violated any laws, you could hire a different lawyer (after getting references) and press charges against your former lawyer. Other than that, you could always look for forums online where you can describe your experiences with this lawyer to try to warn others that they may risk the same. Marco polo (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The applicable term for "lawyer did not appropriately fulfill his professional obligations to a client" is malpractice, specifically legal malpractice. But note that not all "lawyer didn't do what they were supposed to" situations rise to the level of malpractice. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Haiti

Okay my fiance' has a child that lives with its mother in Haiti. He is not being well taken care of, what are the child custody laws in Haiti so that i can help get my fiance' his son back and i can adopt him?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.65.191.34 (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. Sorry. Xenon54 / talk / 18:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But we can be a little more helpful. Search on google for 'Haiti custody law' or 'haiti custody lawyers' and follow the links - as noted you'll need to get legal guidance (something we can't provide you) but a bit of searching may find you an avenue 'in' to contacting someone who can provide more info. This result (http://www.hg.org/law-firms/Child-Support-and-Custody/Haiti.html) for instance appears to have a link to a view Haiti based lawyers that will help with child support / custody. ny156uk (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Casino perks

Quite often in movies that involve gambling at casinos (e.g. Rounders and 21) some character will say that they were "comped". I take this to mean that they got a complimentary stay at the casino hotel, dinner at a restaurant, etc. How often does this actually happen and what's the process? Do casino staff just wander around and hand out slips of paper saying that whoever presents the slip to another staff member gets whatever they got comped for? Does this just happen with people who are winning (to maybe entice them to stay longer and thus lose their money back to the casino?) or can you just be wandering through the casino and be 'comped'? Dismas|^(talk) 19:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Accoutring to our article Comps (casino), it seems the more you play, the more "Comps" you get. Fribbler (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have known that we'd have an article on that... Dismas|^(talk) 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You should read this article about government-owned casinos in Canada using so-called perks to lure compulsive gamblers into spending their life savings on blackjack and poker. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The only comps that you can get just by showing up and looking interested are free drinks, in my experience. You really don't have to play much at all to get those -- you just have to be with someone who is playing. Considering it costs them almost nothing to provide the drinks, even with a large percentage of non-spenders getting them, it's not very surprising. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're a high roller, you generally have to ask for a comp (other than drinks of course). They then check out your "action" on their computer (tracked by the player's card you either place in a slot machine or present to a dealer at a table game before you start playing) to see how much you've played to decide if you warrant it. It's no big secret how they determine what you're worth to them. Basically, they calculate your expected loss (not your actual win or loss) and "rebate" you a percentage of that in comps. AFAIK, it doesn't matter if you're winning or losing. I believe that Jean Scott, the "Queen of comps", states that you can get the most comps for the least amount of $$$ by playing video poker (if you learn the right strategy). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone I know got offers in the mail, but I think it involved some king of registration as well as spending big in the casino. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

October 15

Reconciling bills in US government.

I've been following the progress of the health-care bill(s) through the US government - and we're now at the point where (according to NPR) they are attempting to 'merge' or 'reconcile' various bills that have already been passed by one or the other elected branch - plus those voted on by some committees. Do both houses then go and re-vote on the merged bill? I kinda got the impression from the radio report that the merged bill would merely go to presidential signature/veto - and that's that. That doesn't sound right to me - what exactly is the procedure? Who decides how to cherry-pick bits of one bill and bits of the other? SteveBaker (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See Conference committee. And, yes, there is a re-vote, as described in United States congressional conference committee. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Afghanis

In the 20th century many powers have tried to control Afghanistan.The British,Soviets failed.It looks like US is failing.Where do they get so much willpower,knowing that the invaders are much superior? US helped them fight the Soviets,but why the Afghanis wanted to fight them in the first place? Even before US assistance? They fired at Soviet helicopters with WW2 guns.Where does this exceptional courage come from? Is it in their genes? Or are they simply freedom loving people?Are they determined to cause the invaders damage,if only a little?Adi4094 (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you oversimplify things. The British outright lost the first war, but from most perspectives won the second and third under their new assumption that they didn't want to control Afghanistan so much as they wanted to keep it as a buffer between the Russian Empire (later the USSR) and British India. These were not large wars, by any means. The Soviet invasion was repulsed, but only with the support of America, as well as India and many Muslim countries. Does the social make-up of Afghanistan make it an especially difficult place to "conquer"? Probably, the isolated, tribal, traditional culture all lends itself to fighting "outsiders". But I would argue no more so than other places in the world, which didn't fare so well against recent invaders. Indeed, Afghanistan hasn't fared that well if you look back through its history. I would say the biggest difficulties for would be invaders is the remoteness, the extremely difficult terrain and the lack of political will to properly support an invasion (due to the fact that it isn't a particularly useful piece of land). Second to all of that is "innate Afghan courage". I also think it is bordering on inflammatory to suggest the Taliban was a "freedom loving" government. TastyCakes (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason the forces there at the moment are struggling is because they are trying to fight the Taliban while not harming the innocent population. If they were willing to harm the general population they could win in a few days, but it would be a serious moral problem and they would be left with a complete mess - a completely failed and likely depopulated country which would result in lots of people turning to crime in the same way as lots of people from Somalia have turned to piracy causing a big problem for the rest of the world and other people moving there to use if for crime, eg. the growing poppies. The invading forces would be left having to occupy and police the whole country themselves without any cooperation from the local people (people don't usually cooperate with you after you kill large numbers of their friends and families). So, due to the moral and practical problems, it has been decided that the forces should protect the local people, not fight them, which makes it very difficult to defeat the Taliban. --Tango (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In premodern times, empires expanded simply by winning battles and killing or capturing opposing leaders. Ordinary people in conquered regions typically didn't care much who their master was, as long as he didn't greatly increase their burden. Thus what is now Afghanistan formed part of a variety of empires through history. In early modern times, empires were able to expand while greatly increasing the burden on ordinary people (through colonization, taxation, exploitation, etc.), because the imperialists enjoyed overwhelming technological advantages, such as (early) modern firepower, cavalry in regions that lacked it, and transoceanic navigation. Also, early modern imperialists succeeded in coopting local elites with various inducements. Since the 19th century, the calculus has changed with the rise of nationalism and the diffusion of modern weaponry. Short of blasting a place into ruins and committing something close to genocide, as Tango points out, it is exceedingly difficult for an outside power to subdue a country whose inhabitants are motivated by a nationalistic passion to resist external control. Nationalistic passion or something like it is now nearly universal, no less so in Afghanistan. As Tasty Cakes points out, Afghanistan resisted conquest in the early modern period because there wasn't much there to attract imperialists. The British probably could have subdued the country in the 19th century, but the lack of valuable commodities would not have justified the expense. It was enough to get the ruling elite to agree to help deter the Russians. Ruling elites and their people are no longer so amenable to taking the dictates of outsiders. Marco polo (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Milk in a coolbag

Is it possible to keep milk in a coolbag if said coolbag is frequently topped up with those gel coolpack thingies or ice or something? Will this work like a fridge of sorts? Thanks :) 129.67.144.173 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that will work fine. --Tango (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can keep it cool - sure it'll work. Easiest way to tell milk has gone off? A quick smell, a little sip and (if necessary) a quick spit of it into the sink as there's little worse than gone-off milk for unpleasantness of flavour! 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks a lot :) 129.67.144.173 (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

... and if you don't have a coolbag or fridge or access to ice etc, another way to keep milk cool is in a dish of cold water covered with a damp cloth. Dry air and a breeze speeds evaporation of the water, and this cools the milk (because the latent heat of evaporation has to come from somewhere). This method can work surprisingly well in some conditions. Dbfirs 18:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Two warm milk bags have double the charm. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not medical advice but question on why people use anal beads and safety

You would think that given the length of the anal beads pictured in that article, they could go quite far in, possibly get trapped, cause some damage? Kinda sick when you think about it. I can't believe people use these without thinking that it's gonna get trapped in their intestines.--Fillchugg (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Was there something hard to understand in the article you have seen where it says "Those who use anal beads enjoy the pleasurable feeling they receive" ? Do you have a question we can answer? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The rectum is about 12cm long. There is no scale in those pictures, but they don't look that long. --Tango (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The body apparently has little problem expelling things from its nether regions that are unwanted. I would liken the situation to getting food stuck in your throat. It may stay there for hours, even days, but eventually it does spontaneously move out. At least that is my speculation on the matter. I have no personal experience with anal beads, let me just state that up front. Vranak (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all true. The rectum is not suited to expelling anything other than soft stool, and those who use items for anal stimulation that are not intended for that purpose (curtain rings, billiard balls, marbles, vaginal vibrators, strings of pearls) frequently end up having to visit their doctor for an uncomfortable extraction. It's for this reason that sex toys that are designed for the anus have a facility either for easy removal (anal beads always have a lengthy string) or a mechanism to avoid total ingestion (butt-plugs have a wide base, many anal balls or beads have a collar on the distal end of their string). Without these the toy can become trapped, causing total de-facto constipation, which (if left unchecked, as someone might be tempted to do, given the embarrassing fix they've gotten themselves into) can lead to very serious complications. 87.114.150.241 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Solar panel installation in maui

My question is.... how to find due south in maui? how many degrees & what direction we need to comepnsate for our earths magnetic pull? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenao.q (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See Magnetic Declination. PhGustaf (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic declination can be found on many sorts of maps, particularly nautical charts. A local navigational facility such as an airport can probably tell you (this data from 1985 says that it was 12E, though that may have shifted by now). Alternately, a non-magnetic means of determining direction (such as GPS) will give you true readings. I'd bet that 12E is close enough for jazz, though. — Lomn 20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you could use a solar compass, look at the shadow of a vertical marker at local time noon (adjust your timezone for your longitude on the earth). After all it will be the sun position that is important. If this is worth tens of thousands of dollars use a surveyor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not that critical. A fixed solar panel is always a compromise because the sun moves across the sky and that track shifts through the year - so your panel won't ever be perfectly oriented. Furthermore, the amount of sunlight the panel gets is proportional to the cosine of the angle between the direction it's pointed and the sun's direction and so a small error has almost no effect - even around noon. I'd use a compass and go with that. More important than the southerly alignment is the slope of the thing. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)