::Your idea won't work. Your body weight isn't based solely on the weight of the food that you consume. You're completely ignoring calories and a balanced diet. Let's say that you can eat that 0.3 pounds of food. There are many things that you could eat but having .3 lbs of chocolate isn't the same nutritionally as having .3 lbs of lettuce. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
::Your idea won't work. Your body weight isn't based solely on the weight of the food that you consume. You're completely ignoring calories and a balanced diet. Let's say that you can eat that 0.3 pounds of food. There are many things that you could eat but having .3 lbs of chocolate isn't the same nutritionally as having .3 lbs of lettuce. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
::"''Your body weight isn't based solely on the weight of the food that you consume.''" Oh? Then, what ''is'' it based on? Doesn't delta weight for all practical purposes equal eat minus excrete?
Revision as of 01:08, 3 November 2009
Welcome to the miscellaneous section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
As opposed to another world? Do you want to contact the Vatican? FisheatersDOTcomSLASHaddressesDOThtml (Wikipedia won't let me link you to it -- apparently, it's SPAM) DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one wants to answer this seriously, I will. this website lists email addresses for prominent vatican officials. The address for the "Cardinal-Secretary of State" would probably suffice for official state-to-state type communications at the governmental level, there are also numerous email addresses listed for "Pontifical councils" which would likely deal with various issues; depending on the reason for contacting the Vatican, a specific council may be best for dealing with your needs. As far as directly contacting the pope; besides being the head-of-state of a tiny state occupying a few city blocks in Rome; he's also the Chief Executive and spiritual leader of a religion of some 1.147 billion people people; he's probably about as easy to contact as the President of the U.S. or the Queen of the UK or any other similar world leader. --Jayron3204:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take offense to that, Jayron. After Googling "contact the vatican," I was directed to the fisheater website, listing contact information for both conventional as well as email -- when I tried to link to it, though, I was told it was SPAM. My post was sincere as well as serious. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)12:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was impossible. It's also possible to meet other world leaders in person as well. I just said it was as likely. --Jayron3204:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the person I knew who met the Pope, had that meeting with the previous Pope. Hard telling whether the current Pope's policy toward openness is the same as was his predecessor. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page "human interest" article a month or two ago that said it was far easier to get such audiences if you belonged to a group that had booked through the Vatican's own travel agency. But the original enquirer just wanted to pass a message on to His Holiness, and I don't know what's the best advice. It probably depends on the kind of message. I'm sure the Pope does read a few messages from ordinary people from time to time, but of course no matter how many he reads they would be a very minute fraction of all those that are sent. U.S. President Barack Obama says he tries to read at least ten such letters (picked by his staff) every day. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that having people believe that you are powerful and important is the main, if not only, factor in being powerful and important. Also you don't need, to put a comma, every time you stop to think, about what to write next. FiggyBee (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a problem for God, assuming he exists and is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and all the other omnis he's said to be (omniomnious? panomnious?). If the world became entirely atheistic, would that mean he would cease to exist or to have the powers he's currently believed by theists to possess? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Applying the formula "seeing is believing" to the Bible verse Joh 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time" gives the conclusion that everyone is a non-believer or atheist. Paradoxically there are many who insist on the reversed formula "believing is seeing"[1].Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does everyone need anti-reflective coating on his glasses?
The Wikipedia article Antireflection_coating#Ophthalmic_use suggests there is indeed an advantage to it:
its "decreased reflection makes them look better, and they produce less glare, which is particularly noticeable when driving at night or working in front of a computer monitor." However, do they mean modern LCD computer monitors or just the old CRT monitors? Would clean glasses without anti-reflective coating also produce glare?--Quest09 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need? No... I think I have it, but that's a choice. Historically, plenty of people have done just fine without it. If you want it, you can get it. If not, you don't have to. Falconusptc12:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically an upgrade that can be sold for an extra charge. You don't need anti-reflective coating any more than you need power windows or a sunroof -- do they provide greater benefit? Sure, but at a greater cost. Since anti-reflective costs about $10 extra, the cost-benefit analysis might seem toot rigorous to apply (for those for whom $10 is not that big a deal, of course). DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)12:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and if we disregard the price, since it is only $10, what disadvantages would we find in a coated lens? Through some basic research I got the impression that coated lenses could get scratches easily, and get dirtier.--Quest09 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<personal experience> I was talked into antireflective coating on the lenses I purchased previous to my current ones, and it made them nearly impossible to keep clean, far outweighing, for me, any possible reduction in glare (since it was immediately offset by having to peer through a film of grime). When I bought my current glasses, the optometrist told me that the coating created a mild static charge that attracted dust and oil. He also said he sold glasses to a few local TV news reporters, and they always bought one coated pair to wear on camera, and one uncoated pair to wear the rest of the time, because the only thing the coated lenses were any good for was looking good during the 6:00 report. </personal experience> Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-glare coating gives you a weird greenish smear at the slightest provocation. When my normal lenses get dirty (=always), the smudges may appear as blurs, but basically my eyes focus past them semi-automatically. How many times have you seen a glasses-wearer remove his specs and remark with shock at the buildup of crap on the lenses? They don't notice it much because they compensate without thinking about it. However, you can't compensate so easily for a shift in the colour. On top of smudging more easily (personal experience) there's no ignoring the greenish rainbow that will end up covering a wide swath of your field of vision. Matt Deres (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<More personal experience> I've worn glasses for around 45 years, and adopted the anti-glare coatings when they first became available. About 15 years ago the coating on my new pair (acquired due to a change of prescription) began to delaminate in patches, which persisted after the opticians replaced (or possibly recoated) the lenses, so I asked for replacement uncoated lenses. With subsequent pairs I've not had the same problem, so whatever manufacturing glitch that was around then seems to have been overcome. As to other pro and contra-indications; the coatings do reduce reflections somewhat, particularly when further glass surfaces (CRT TVs and monitors, car windscreens, camera and telescope optics) are involved; they used to show smears a little more, but my latest coated pair do not seem to do so; as to dust attraction, I suspect this is as much or more down to the particular type of plastic that lenses are often made of nowadays (instead of much heavier glass): overall I'd say that the coating is mildly advantageous but not indispensible. For an extra £10 or so on top of glasses costing £100-200 (as mine do) the saving - for something that's part of my facial appearance and essential for most everyday activites - would be trivial, but your budget may vary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Economically, but not psychologically, £10 or so on top of glasses costing £100-200 is the same as £10 or so on top of glasses costing £50-75, by the way. But my preoccupation is less the cost than the utility. Actually, I tend to prefer clean glasses with a little glare than slightly dirty glasses without glare. Anyway, the anti-glare coating can be done as an add-on some time after buying and testing the glasses without anti-glare. So, I don't see any impediment to buying the glasses without it. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
buying a used semi pro digital SLR?
Iam thinking of upgrading to a digital SLR since I seem to like photography and point and shoot digital cameras seem to be restrictive. I have been doing some research on DSLRs and i found that Nikon or Canon seem to be the best choice. Im also open to less stellar brands such as olympus since the price seem to be lower. Due to the budget constraints, im forced to consider mostly "entry level" DSLRs such as canon eos 1000d. Luckily in ebay people sell body and lens in the same auction and therefore i dont have to buy lenses seperately. I have never used SLRs or DSLRs before and therefore have no idea about them. Iam scared that they, being complex machines, become less reliable with time. Could you please say what I have watch out for when buying them?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.25 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want quality pictures the most important hardware part is clearly the lens. So, if you are on a budged, read some reviews about lenses and spend the highest part of your budged on a quality lens.--Quest09 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd recommend checking out the largest retailer in your region -- the people who sell the most have the most experience in terms of customer demands and focus (no pun intended) for the product, and they would likely be the most appropriate to answer any and all questions. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the vast majority of modern DSLRs (like their film SLR predecessors) tend to be aimed at an audience with deeper pockets and higher standards – serious amateurs and semi-professionals on up – than the buyers of lightweight point-and-shoot pocket digital cameras. Consequently, these cameras tend to be solidly, carefully manufactured. Often the consumer and 'prosumer' DSLR models share parts, sensors, firmware, and other design features with their professional-grade brethren.
Just off the top of my head, here's a few things to think about when making the switch from point & shoot to (D)SLR. These cameras are bigger than the ones you've been using up until now. Bigger lenses with more glass. Bigger optical sensors. Overall larger bodies to accommodate more buttons. While all of these features will allow you to take better pictures under a wider range of conditions, they also mean that your camera is going to be heavier, and you're going to hold it differently from your point & shoot. Before you buy a DSLR online, I would strongly recommend visiting a shop and picking up a few cameras (with lenses attached). Find out if you can hold the camera steadily and comfortably. Are all the important controls (shutter!) in easy reach? Not everyone's hands are the same size, and not every camera 'fits' every person.
On a related note, is the viewfinder position comfortable, and can you see through it easily? This can be an issue for people who wear prescription eyeglasses.
Think about how you're going to use your new camera. Are you going to do a lot of low-light shooting or time exposures (night shots, astrophotography, caves)? Some cameras perform better in very low light than others -- though all will produce 'cleaner', less-grainy images than your point & shoot would. Are you going to do any rapid action or artistic shooting? Will you need the ability to take several photos automatically in rapid succession, and will you need very short shutter speeds? Will you be relying on the on-camera flash, or will you acquire a separate flash unit?
Before you buy a used SLR online, find some way to get a few hours or even minutes with a camera of the same model. Some DSLRs are fairly simple to operate but others aren't, and some operate in such a counter-intuitive way that it makes you want to throw them out a window (or sell them on eBay). I personally couldn't make sense of the Canon software so I went with a Nikon. (The Fuji was worse - the buttons were labelled only in Japanese and the text on the screen was so tiny I would have needed a magnifying glass to read it.) Also make sure that the model is still supported by the company with respect to firmware and software updates, and that you'd be able to download any updates without being the original buyer. --NellieBly (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tracing a UK Pension provider gone astray. Not looking for Legal advice though.
Sorry for probably wasting everyone's time - but here goes. About 35 years ago I was made redundant "let go" by an English Clothing company called (United Drapery Stores aka John Collier aka Alexandres Clothiers) that I had worked for for about 11 years. I was given a compensation package and a future pension at age 65. I built a new career that involved moving around the UK quite extensively and have now retired but am not yet old enough to claim the aforementioned pension. Trouble is, the company appears to have been sold, merged, incorporated, split-up and apparently, it's pension liabilities were also shunted around, to the point that I don't seem able to trace my pension. The UK Pension Tracing service have worked really hard for me, but with no luck. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR LEGAL ADVICE HERE!!! But if anyone had any clues how I might get over or around this brick wall I should be most grateful. Many thanks. But I won't be surprised or disappointed if no such clues emerge after such a long time. 92.20.20.220 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if approaching the BBC might help you? They do regular features on pensions, and their personal finance journalists might actually be doing one at the moment. Radio 4 has a programme called Money Box. The BBC's website should have contact details. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)BB[reply]
Have you tried the major pension providers in the Uk? Approach the companies and ask around trying to find if they have you on their lists - it'll presumably be either a Group Personal Pension or a Corporate Pension Scheme. Failing that if you have any company-names (new or old) it might help in tracking them down, do you know who the original provider was? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that anything as obvious as that would have been tried by the "UK Pension Tracing service" - if there was anything that simple then they'd surely have found it. I suggest you start tracing that web of sales, mergers, incorporations and splits. There could be a couple of dozen companies still in existence at the ends of that web - it should be possible to call the HR departments of each of them. Another possibility: Can you recall the names of any of your co-workers? Perhaps you could find some of them and see whether they figured it out? Finding people is fairly do-able with the resources of the Internet these days. SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Crown Prosecution Service says here that steam-powered vehicles count as motor vehicles and that insurance is required to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. So, yes on insurance.
This apparent anomaly might be (note might; I haven't actually checked) explained by a system similar to classic cars. They're still liable for tax in a particular class, but the rate of tax applicable to the class has been set at zero. So you'd still need to get a tax disk, but it would be free. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you did need MOT, most steam vehicles are more than 25 years old - which exempts them from most of the tests - and for antique vehicles, they rarely require features that the vehicle didn't have when manufactured. So the test (if you have to take it) should be really simple - brakes and lights - not much else. I wonder though whether you'd fall under the same rules as steam locomotives and steam traction engines - for those, you'll need boiler pressure tests and a whole bunch of other stuff. That's only sensible though - if your boiler is corroded, it could explode and boiler explosions are NASTY accidents. SteveBaker (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phone Line Activation in UK
I'm considering O2 broadband in my new flat but the phone line hasn't been used in more than 8 months so the greedy people at BT have disconnected it. That leaves me with a £120 activation charge.
Could I get another broadband provider to activate the phone line for me without signing on with them? If so, which UK company charges the least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.27 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would contact BT directly and 'haggle' them to waive the connection charge. I would be amazed if there is a broadband provider willing to pay BT to activate the line without locking you into a contract for their broadband. I would definitely contact BT and push for them to waive it - though your best tool for haggling would be claiming you will only sign up to their Total-broadband (or whatever it's called) service if they waive it, otherwise you'll go with O2 (but that obviously means if you succeed it'd mean going with BT). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia in Germany
I've heard that swastikas are banned in Germany. What implications does this have for Wikipedia there? Can English Wikipedia articles containing them be accessed? Can German Wikipedia articles have them? Am I misunderstanding the ban, is it only related to non-educational or commercial material or something? TastyCakes (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that, but it doesn't see to impact the de.wikipedia much. Given the restrictions on the publication of Nazi symbols, I could see much evidence of this at this page. I'm assuming they are just sensible and work within the grey area of non-supporting material. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]16:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put a colon before the "de" to link to German Wikipedia. Like so. Also see de:swastika.
Perhaps I should mention I don't speak German ;). The Swastika page above does include Nazi swastikas, is that part of the "gray area" mentioned? As in it's technically not allowed in Germany but they don't make a big deal out of it for Wikipedia's purposes? TastyCakes (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no gray area. The ban does not cover all fields. The use in educational material, in news, or in art works is permitted. You certainly can see swastikas in Germany: just watch a documentary about the Second World War. Another different story is shaving your head and wearing a swastika T-shirt in a demonstration against immigration. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "grey area" I meant was exceptions themselves (namely "[The law is] not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.") as you say. I'm sorry if that weren't clear. Basically the German page has a "fair-use"-type question system (more generally for the whole WP, than individual uses) to ensure use would fall within this. (I should note there is what I call a grey area, but not WP-related, "(4) If guilt is slight, the court may refrain from imposition of punishment pursuant to this provision."). 92.20.249.149 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC) - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might sound too pedantic, but I wouldn't call legal exceptions "grey area". For me "grey area" are loopholes that allows breaking the "the intent of the law without technically breaking it." The intent of the law was that no association could identify with the Nazis and that no one would get the impression that Nazis are tolerated in Germany. Using the swastika for the purposes cited above is not infringing the spirit of the law, not even slightly.--No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to disagree with this interpretation. Many - perhaps almost all - laws have a legal threshold that you have to cross to be punished. Merely not punishing slight offenders doesn't mean that there is something unclear in the law. Specially regarding the use of Nazi symbols in Germany, you can rest assure that this legal threshold is very low and you can count on being persecutedprosecuted for any minor use of the swastika with the intend of defending Nazi ideas. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article is dated 27 April 2009. Please reality check your answers - would it really be described as a pandemic if there had been less than 5000 reported cases worldwide? --Tango (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there have been over 414945 cases [3], in other words your figures are nearly 2 orders of magnitude too low, it seems it would be more accurate to say you've been paying no attention at all, not that there's anything wrong with that but I would respectfully suggest you take more care next time before accusing people of 'crying wolf'. (The actual effect of this pandemic so far doesn't appear to have been much worse then seasonal flu but I think it's understandable there was significant concern given the early reports.) In fact as the WHO article says, the number is almost definitely significantly higher then that because countries are no longer required to report to the WHO [4] and many countries have long given up on properly tracking cases anyway. I know a family who very likely got it, but I'm not sure if they even saw a doctor (they did call up the healthline and one was affected for over 2 weeks so it's possible they did) so I'm doubtful that they would be included in any figures and expect Graeme Bartlett could confirm something similar. Many countries probably were never that effective at tracking cases anyway. BTW, in terms of a pandemic, one of the WHO's main requirements is there [5][6] "the pandemic phase, is characterized by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region" (in addition to other criteria like community level outbreaks in at least two countries in one region) so I would expect it's technically possible for a pandemic with only 4k cases but it's probably rather unlikely. (There were around 30k cases when H1N1/09 flu was declared a pandemic. [7]) I know because there was some controversy/criticism of the WHO definition at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Australia has had 36,991 laboratory confirmed cases, with real figures probably in hundreds of thousands, it probably struck down 10% of people I know. See 2009 flu pandemic in Australia. US actually had 58,151 cases according to 2009 flu pandemic by country, so still beats Australia. The figures reported like this actually indicate the capacity of laboratories to confirm cases rather than the actual numbers. . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons you give and I mentioned above, we can't really answer this question. I would note that our articles are a bit sketchy anyway, as often happens with this sort of thing, some of the figures may have been updated recently others not for a long time. Given the lack of any accurate information for most countries it's of questionable use anyway IMHO. It could be a southern hemisphere countries, they were initially significantly affected because it began to spread just before their winters. Potentially something like Argentina which has had a large number of deaths (likely for a number of reasons including the figure of 8k [8] cases is way too low). But a northern hemisphere is going to overtake the south if it hasn't already particularly given the demographics differences. The earlier site gives 300k cases for the US and we are pretty sure it was spreading in Mexico for several months before it was recognised too. And who really knows what the situation in China is like? Eventually someone will come up with estimates I suspect Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 6.5" Alpine door speakers keep getting blown
I have gone through about 4 pairs of speakers because they eventually sound staticky or no sound comes out at all. I get the system put in at a local car audio shop, which is now out of business. I have to amps, one of them is the following:
I have one 10" Kicker sub in the trunk. Currently the problem is that there is quite static sounding music coming from the passenger side speaker. The driver side speaker is fine right now. What do I need to do to make less bass go to the front speakers (if that is the problem)? I am trying to learn about the different settings (HPF,LPF,Subsonic,Levels) but I am pretty confused on what I should touch. I don't know how to tell which knobs control which speakers. Here is a blurry picture of the back of the amp, thought it may help to give you an idea of what I have
I would think that if the speakers are dying completely then they are not man enough for the job. That amp has high outputs, that needs a speaker that can handle that output without destruction - you might find that it's hard to source a speaker small enough to fit in the door and still take the load. I will also point out that a couple of hundred watts of music in a car will not be good for your ears! Ronhjones (Talk)01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really have to put more money into the speakers than the amp, and if you really want high volume you are going to have to go beyond the door and put speakers in other places to share the load. In your case perhaps you can add a fast acting fuse to the speakers to protect against an overload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow
Can someone produce, or does someone have access to, an exhaustive list of countries which experience cold, snowy winters (at low elevations)? Rimush (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until very recently, there were 3 Scottish Banks that could and did (and still do!!!!) print and issue their own currency notes - The Royal Bank of Scotland - The Bank of Scotland - and The Clydesdale Bank. Each of these banknotes bore the signatures of the respective governors with the usual, "I promise to pay the bearer on demand" guarantee. But since all of these banks have now been absorbed into other non-Scottish Banks or been largely nationalised by the UK Government, what value do those "promises" have? In other words, are Scottish banknotes legal tender? I know from personal experience that they are NOT accepted in non-UK countries (except perhaps in Scottish-owned bars in Spain and Greece), and there are large pockets of England which will not accept them. But my question stands ie., are Scottish Banknotes legal tender in Scotland given there are no Scottish Banks remaining to guarantee their face value redemption? 92.21.81.185 (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the responsibilities of those banks now lie with the banks that took them over, so the situation has not changed. Also, I believe that the "promise to pay the bearer on demand" has been an empty formula for some time. What is and isn't legal tender does not depend on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our article states: "Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes are unusual, firstly because they are issued by retail banks, not central banks, and secondly, as they are not legal tender anywhere in the UK – not even in Scotland or Northern Ireland – they are in fact promissory notes. Indeed, no banknotes (even Bank of England notes) are now legal tender in Scotland or Northern Ireland." --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Legal tender" has nothing to do with redemption or guarantee or the "soundness" of the currency; Legal tender is merely something which must be accepted as settlement of a debt. FiggyBee (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted as settlement of a debt is actually a very restrictive idea as well. It is NOT equivalent to "accepted as payment for services"; it is incorrectly assumed that currency being "legal tender" means that every business must accept cash in exchange for goods and services; that is not so; businesses are free to refuse to take cash if they choose; they can establish the method of payment before providing the service to you, so technically, you do not incur any "debt" before the service is rendered. As a practical matter, legal tender is not a very inforcable concept; it was put onto paper money during the early days of paper money because people did not believe that banks would honor such notes with "hard money", i.e. coins, so the government required people to accept such notes in "payment of debts" from banks, mainly as banks pay off debts to customers in the form of withdrawls. If you put money in the bank, you expect to get that money out, and if people put coins in the bank (which they usually did), like say $500 of gold coin, they expected the equivalent in real metal coins out. The government is basically telling you "this paper is worth the amount in real coins we say it is" when it uses a phrase like "Legal tender". Since modern currency is essentially "fiat currency" and not based on hard metal standards anymore, the concept of "Legal tender" is pretty much pointless. --Jayron3214:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the above responses. But that all leaves me with 2 more questions viz. If paper money is NOT legal tender, how can I be arrested for copying ie "counterfeiting" it and second, are the issuing banks required to hold sufficient gold or other equivalent valuable currency so as to be able to redeem all its issued notes if required to do so? And if NO to the second question, what security are they issuing against? 92.8.203.8 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your first question is fraud; its still illegal to use deception to get money and/or goods and/or services without paying actual money. Secondly, even if it is not legal tender, Scottish Banknotes are still legally recognized as valid currency; the UK government will gleefully accept them as payment for taxes, for example. Thirdly, currency is no longer "backed" by anything other than the full faith and credit of the issuing institution. With the notable exception of the Scottish and Northern Irish situations, most true currency is issued by central banks and not commercial banks. Also, currency itself represents a small portion of money. Currency is a convenience, but is itself a minor bit of the total economy. Almost all money exists solely as entries in a computer spreadsheet. In the U.S., for example, the Federal Reserve Bank controls the money supply not by printing more or less bills. It has the responsibility for printing bills, and does so largely based on demand for those bills, but printing more bills has only a minute effect on the value of the Dollar. What the Fed does is it lowers the interest rates at which it (the Fed) will loan money to other banks. When it lowers that interest rate, other banks will borrow more money from the Fed, and thus put more money into circulation. Here's the deal; the Fed just invents the money out of whole cloth. The idea is, the U.S. government is "good for it", so when a bank takes a loan from the Fed, it does so based on the agreed-upon terms, and the Fed just dumps a bunch of money in their account. The Fed doesn't have any gold in "reserve" backing these loans; they are backed by the fact that people generally trust the US Dollar. And that's it. Other central banks operate on much the same method. --Jayron3219:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what are the oppurtunities that came along for some companies with the onset of this great depression
are there companies which gained out of it, what and how did they do it? anyone please
Well first it's probably premature to call it a great depression. That said, there are companies that do better during hard economic times. I believe Walmart's and McDonald's revenues went up during the difficult recent quarters, and I saw on the news that dollar stores are having record years in some cases. There are many "recession proof" businesses, some of the sectors are mentioned here. In this recession in particular, there has been a lot of complaining that banks that were bailed out last October are now in (unfairly) excellent positions to make huge amounts of money as things bounce back, in part because their smaller competition has dropped out. Because of that many of the big banks reported good profits over the last few quarters. TastyCakes (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is part of why this is a recession and not a depression. While there many that will argue the nuances in the difference between those terms, the broad entire-economy-wide downturn that one saw in the "Great Depression" is just not happening here. There are many sectors, such as employment and housing, where the economic downturn has hit hard to a large number of people, so it is easy for people to think that "everyone and everything" has been hurt by this. But its just not so. People have not stopped spending, for example, they are just shifting their spending from higher-priced to lower-priced versions of the same items; which is why Wal-Mart and McDonalds are doing very well, since people are still shopping, they are just shopping on the cheap. Likewise, I heard several analysts say that places like Home Depot and Pep Boys tend to do well in a recession, since people tend to a) stay in their current homes and cars and not buy newer ones, so they need to fix them more often, and thus need materials to fix them and b) tend to do more work on their own rather than find contractors and/or mechanics to do it for them. So not everyone is suffering in this economic situation, some people and business are actually doing better. --Jayron3214:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waht abou the BPO sectors ? they are paying less for the same amount ow work? how to survive this??
Do you mean Business process outsourcing? If so, it would seem to depend entirely on the companies involved. If they're doing back office accounting for Chrysler, say, the future is a lot gloomier than if they're doing it for Walmart, say. There is a lot of talk of developing countries (particularly China) increasing their domestic consumption to make up for the drop in international business (the US trade deficit significantly narrowed for the first time in a long time because of the recession). India and China are still managing significant economic growth, while the US and some of Europe remains stalled (or worse). Consequently, I would expect outsourcing from the West to India (I'm assuming that's where you're talking about) to slow overall, but it is quite possible that domestic business could take up the slack. I think India's general economic growth would prevent wages from falling overall, but I have no data to support that. TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't offer a reliable source for this opinion but when I was a student, I had a part-time job with a "Bookmaker" aka Bookie aka Turf Accountant and during the great recession of Maggie Thatcher's Government in the UK, my boss would come to work gleefully smoking a big cigar and hoping for another big day ahead. When I asked how he could be so gleeful and confident during what was a period of great hardship and unemployment, he told me that a person with a single £ in his pocket was more likely to gamble it on a 10-1 loser than to spend it on something else like a pound of potatoes or a turnip. And we were always VERY busy in that period - but only on the incoming side of the counter - rarely so on the pay-out side of it. 92.8.203.8 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had access to a Bloomberg Terminal or equivalent machine, you could look up what percentage of companies in a given universe, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, have had increases in share price, revenue or profits since the beginning of the recession, whenever you define that to be. As an example, Palm Inc. and Amazon.com shares are higher than they were when the recession supposedly began in December 2007. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strange chess variant
Hello there, everyone:
Has anyone heard of this chess variant?
Pawns move and capture in the same way as in standard chess, with the sole difference being that when they take a piece, they jump to the square diagonally after the one taken. For instance, white e4 capturing black f6 would result in white jumping to g6.
as a consequence, pawns on rows A and H cannot be taken.
no stalemate. A king that cannot legally move equals the end of the game.
Every other piece on the board moves around in the same way, except the queen, which has the added ability to jump like a knight.
Or even just a variant with the first rule? I ask because, before I learnt the standard rules of chess, I was taught a version with these rules, as though it were the standard itself. This was the standard used in my school's chess club and with which I played with teachers. It was only upon leaving said school many years ago that I learnt that this was an offshoot. I have always found it curious why they taught these rules over the regular ones.
Also, has anyone else heard of a variant where the game is won by points?
Some of the elements seem to have been used before. From the (huge) book A History of Chess by H. J. R. Murray (1911):
The no-stalemate rule was in Arabian chess, and also in the early Spanish forms. Some of the Indian forms made it illegal for a player to put his opponent in stalemate!
The queen moving like a knight as well was used "in countries in which the European rules were ousting the original native method of play. Russian chess went through this phase, and the queen in Georgian chess still possessed this extended move in 1874." (quote from Murray) It seems to have been around in Turkish chess, too.
In one variation of the four-player Indian game, the different pieces had different point values, which were scored by capturing the piece, and the king could be captured like the other pieces.
I can't see (from looking at the index) any mention of pawns taking by jumping - I think if that's not just someone's bright idea (the headmaster's, perhaps?), it's probably part of some modern variation. AJHW (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COPC !! ??
Is COPC only about Transaction Monitoring (clause 2.4 COPC), as i am working under a COPC certified person in a BPO process and have found that we only talks about calls ,caliberation,GAGE RNR,Fatal,Non Fatal errors etc etc,. But there are various other clauses like (1.0. leadership and planning),(2.2 process control) so on and forth, which we never hear happening.So, if i were to implement a COPC plan as aleader in another organisation,"how am i suppose to start with" anyone?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be people reading this who know what COPC is, but I am not one of them. I guess it might be "Community Oriented Primary Care". If you would care to give us a hint of what on earth you are talking about, you might get more response. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be too much of a smarty, or they'll drag you to the talk page too. :) The basic problem with the question is that the prices of any of those things could vary widely depending on quality and/or where you shop. Probably more expensive at Macy's than at Wal*Mart, for example, and possibly of different quality. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In modern organizations, what is the relationship between one's position in the hierarchy and how hard one works? The stuff of myth is that bosses (like the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert) don't work very hard at all. Their desktops are virtually empty of paper and they seem to spend most of their time schmoozing contacts and playing golf. Meanwhile, the drudges below them work insane hours for comparatively little reward. How close to the reality is this picture?
I might hypothesize that the hardest working people in any organization are the middle managers, who work more hours than both the bosses above them and the junior staff (e.g. graduate trainees) beneath them. Or maybe it's the juniors that work hardest? Perhaps the higher up in an organization you go, the less work you have to do? --Richardrjtalk email20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think: Strategic: Tactical: and Operational. ie. Strategy - I have some capital, I know that field over there has coal beneath it, I want to buy it and profit from the coal being sold for more than it cost to extract it - make it happen - job done - just monitor and react accordingly. Tactical - I have been given terms of reference including buying the field, getting planning approval, satisfying environmental concerns, acquiring the equipment, arranging safety provisions, arrange transport and marketing requirements, recruit and manage the personnel, monitor sales and maximise profits, minimise labour disputes and accidents, manage budgetary considerations and report to management and shareholders etc., etc. Operational - dig that coal and bring it safely to the surface - obey all safety procedures - meet targets - report for work as per employment contract - work only the hours paid for and not a minute more - be happy but accept lowest pay on the scale. I would hypothesise from the foregoing analysis that the definition of HARD work (physical labour) may return the lowest pay - but the most ARDUOUS work is that of the middle-manager who usually earns less cash per hour of attendance than those doing the manual work. 92.8.203.8 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that excellent analysis. I should have stated, though, that I'm mostly interested in purely white collar organizations (e.g. banks and other financial institutions, IT companies, governmental organizations, etc) for the purpose of this question. And by "hardest working", I really mean "working the highest number of hours". Thanks again, --Richardrjtalk email20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the results of a 2003 UK government survey on work hours: [9]. You can see that the workers with the most hours worked were managers, followed by shop-floor workers and "professional occupations." "Administrative & secretarial" workers labored the least, at least in terms of hours. No doubt the Office for National Statistics and its equivalents in other countries have lots more data on this type of subject. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of related to your question: Fenton-O'Creevy, MP, Nicholson, N, Soane, E, and Willman, P (2003) 'Trading on illusions: unrealistic perceptions of control and trading performance', Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 53-68. found that job level (statistically) significantly correlated with total pay, profit contribution and people skills (though not manager's ratings of risk management or analytical ability). So from that, I'd expect senior employees to be contributing in a different sort of way than less senior employees (this jives with intuition, but it's nice to have empirical support). Now the question becomes which type of work is more time intensive, the people skills oriented work of more senior employees or the labor/mental oriented work of junior employees. I'd bet on the junior employees working more time and quite probably harder, though the skills the more senior members provide are also valuable to a well-functioning business.--droptone (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I worked for a number of years in a UK government office, and it was very clear that the least-paid office staff worked the hardest. The typist - it was some time ago - worked more or less flat out at top speed all day. The clerks worked non-stop all day but not flat-out - no tea-breaks. The professional staff with postgraduate qualifications worked at a much more leisurly pace, with quite a bit of free time during the day. The poor typist - worked really hard and then had only a council-estate tower-block bedsit to go home to. But at least everyone did the same number of hours without any kind of overtime. 78.144.206.114 (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contributing to the content/accuracy of WP by BUs
Is there any evidence that any banned user has, after (s)he was banned, contributed significantly (under another name or anonymously) to either the content or the accuracy of WP?--79.75.47.209 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is totally the wrong place to ask such a question, but still. There was a big hoo-ha earlier this month about a banned user called The Undertow who created a new account called Law. Under the Law name he apparently did a lot of good work, so much so that he was nominated for adminship. The shit hit the fan when it emerged that some of the people who were supporting him in his RfA as Law knew that it was a sockpuppet of a banned user, but chose not to mention that fact. The whole story is a bit tedious and bureaucratic for me (I mean, don't these people have real lives, families, jobs and stuff?), but if you care to read more about it, you can do so here. --Richardrjtalk email22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It probably happens more often than you think. The usual pattern is that someone does something terrible - we warn them - they do it again, and again - and they get short blocks - then longer blocks then an indefinite blocks. At this point, they often start making sock-puppet accounts and go right on offending, thinking that we won't spot that it's the same person - but 99% of the time, we can tell from the editing pattern, the kinds of ways they phrase things - the article types that they frequent, etc - it's usually a dead giveaway! You find what is supposedly a brand new user - suddenly knowing all of the Wikipedia guidelines - or using the system in sophisticated ways that newbies don't generally know. You'd be amazed at how obvious it is in almost every case. That's enough evidence to get a check-user run on the various accounts to find the ones that share the same internet address (IP) ranges. At that point, we'll block the IP address - or possibly a range of IP addresses and physically lock the person out.
However, if the person were to sneak back - mend their evil ways, keep their noses clean and do good work - the odds are extremely good that nobody would notice. We have no idea how many reformed vandals, trolls, etc there are - but in a sense, we don't care. If they don't misbehave, we really don't care that they came back. We aren't in the business of punishing people - we're in the business of preventing them from doing damage to the encyclopedia. However, in the case that Richardr refers to - the former miscreant tried for adminship. The idea of someone with that kind of history having admin powers is deeply worrying - the damage that could be done with admin tools would be fairly terrifying.
We can check admins carefully - but for regular users, we really have no clue how many banned people are shocked into becoming good Wikipedians after a ban.
Is it really that terrifying? OK, they delete something important, edit a protected page, ban someone innocuously... and it is probably noticed in about a minute and reverted and the admin is banned. I was under the impression that the ability of even an admin to do anything more than irritating damage was low. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Law/Undertow never actually did anything wrong with his admin tools. He tended to ruffle a few feathers because he was known, from time to time, to unblock someone as a show of good faith, often without going through proper bureaucratic channels, and yes, those of us involved in the fiasco have come clean and admited that it was a major error in judgement to keep quiet about the connection; however the person behind those accounts never misused his admin tools. However, such events DO happen from time to time; you can read about this user in back issues of The Signpost. this ANI post and This Signpost article cover the issue in some detail. It has happened that a disruptive user has come back, kept his nose clean long enough to get one of his accounts named an admin, and then started immediately misusing the tools. It's pretty rare; I only know of 3 cases where an admin has been discovered to be a returning blocked or banned user as a sockpuppet, and only ONE of those cases where there was ever a misuse of the admin tools. --Jayron3201:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to turn this into a long debate (so won't respond further) nor an attack Law/The undertow thread but I feel your claim that Law/The undertow never did anything wrong with his admin tools is misleading. In fact, the thing which resulted in his sockpuppetry being publicly revealed was poor behaviour with admin tools by Law, in particular unblocking someone who should have not be unblocked without proper discussion (i.e. WP:Wheelwarring). You don't have to take my word for it thought. It's easy to say the way arbcom was leaning before the shit hit the roof [10]. This wasn't a major offense by any means, not in itself worth of desysopping just a simple warning "don't do this again" and hopefully minimal drama and it's clear the arbcom was also leaning that way. And just to be clear, arbcom was also going to acknowledge that the initial ban that Law/Undertow was too long (but not improper) although my reading of the situation based on what people including arbcom said and my understanding of policy is that Law's offense was worse (wheelwarring nearly always is of course) if you want to quantify things in that way. Again this doesn't mean it was a major offence nor have I seen any suggestion it wasn't a good faith mistake, and we all make mistakes from time to time. But good faith mistakes are still mistakes and particularly when they occur with admin tools they need to be avoided. If a user keeps making such mistakes ultimately the community may have no choice but to remove their admin tools. While I don't know if Law had much if a history in that regard it's clear Undertow did [11]Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive417#the undertow[12] and it was part of the conduct which lead to his (voluntary?) desysopping. This specific example is far worse then the Law example since the user was indefinitely blocked, with some belief it amount to a community ban (with the arbcom seeing no reason to review it before and after undertow got involved). While there was seemingly some dispute about this and it may not have been properly handled, it's clear and should have been obvious that Undertow's actions didn't help the situation and in any case it later became clear the user in question was subject to a community ban and hasn't had much hope of having this lifted from what I've seen, in fact the behaviour suggests it's unlikely. Note that while policy suggested an uninvolved admin could unblock a community banned user it definitely didn't suggest it should be done without discussion [13]. In other words, a rather bad error of judgement. It definitely should not be seen as simply failing to follow bureaucracy (IMHO that's an overused sentiment particularly when applied to established editors). In terms of the sockpuppetry issue my understanding is that Undertow had some history with the user he unblocked as Law and the fact that this was effectively hidden was always going to cause controversy. Undertow was also involved in Wikipediareview where the user he unblocked (as the Undertow) is also active and if my understanding is correct he was discussing the unblock in a highly positive fashion suggesting again failure to consider COI and perception issues. Considering what I understood of the reasons behind the initial block of Undertow, his incivility leading up to the de-admining and block, as well as the behaviour I saw after the Law incident (including some off-wiki) make me question the suitablity of Law/Undertow for adminship. Sure Law/Undertow may have been a decent editor in some ways and maybe even did some good adminstator work but some people just don't have the temperament for such a role. There are many editors who I expect would make great admins if they could learn to better control themselves or at least restrict their activity to areas they can control, sadly Law/Undertow doesn't appear to be one of those at the current time. Some of his viewpoints would likely have made it difficult for some people to support him too. But then again, I myself may also fall into many of those categories and rarely vote in RfAs so perhaps am not a good judge. While you didn't really say anything concerning this I think it's important to appreciate that even without the misuse of admin tools other aspects would likely have made adminship difficult for Law/undertow. There were of course a bunch of problems which didn't help the situation and as I've said before, others also made mistakes, but two wrongs don't make a right. I would emphasise it's possible I got some stuff wrong part of it is somewhat hidden (e.g. deleted or never revealed outside arbcom), however I'm provided most of the references and this took rather long to write (with a lot of distractions in between) so I think I'm mostly right. I also read about the whole incident a fair amount when I first read about it a about 2 weeks ago or so (when the dust had mostly settled). I don't think I've ever dealt with The undertow/Law much before nor was I aware of the original Undertow fuss until now. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While not banned, User:Sam Blacketer an arbitrator resigned after it was revealed he had previously been different users which was not revealed at the time of his election Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-25/Arbitration reportWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 3. With the other/earluer acounts, he was desysopped and was blocked a few times albeit was not at the time the account was started although there was some overlap of the accounts and one brief block happened after the Sam Blacketer account was active. AFAIK there was no question of his good work for the arbcom although strictly speaking that doesn't directly contribute to content or accuracy much (although I'm pretty sure Sam had some quite good contribs otherwise he would never have gotten to arbcom) Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was User:Michael, who was allowed to come back as "Mike Garcia" with Jimbo's special approval and mentorship...that was a long, long time ago, and apparently it didn't turn out very well... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I was banned in December 2006 for trolling and general unpleasantness. Chalk it up to being an economically-frustrated 27-year-old male. I was never officially re-instated although my identity did come out later. I now edit in earnest. Vranak (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking generally, I imagine it will be a common pattern as Wikipedia continues that plenty of young folks will be banned for youthful misbehavior and then some of them will come back after gaining some maturity and make good contributions. I did some amount of mindless real-world vandalism as a tween, so probably would have vandalized WP as well if it had been around at the time. People grow up. --Sean15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some editors who were banned and later unbanned and contributed good content after the ban was lifted. If you're asking about editors who kept editing (evading the ban) after being banned, I can't think of any examples where their contributions were worthwhile. As for Law/Undertow, he was apparently (going by the RFA comments) sysopped the second time based on vandal fighting, which while a worthwhile activity doesn't directly speak to your question of contributing good content. He did make a number of content contributions that were considered acceptable under wikipedia's content policies, but whether that counts as significant depends on your standards. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What proportion of funds for cancer research come from charities?
There are many charities and drives for medical research, particularly cancer research. Does anyone know approximately what proportion of the research field's funding comes from charity? I can't help but think that it must be tiny, what with billion-dollar drug companies hoping to find a drug that will make them rich, and funding from the NIH and whatever.
Also, if cures were discovered using (some) money from charities, would this make them any cheaper to the patients?
According to [this article, in the US, in 1996/1997, "the three major contributors were (1) federal funding, US$3.060 billion (almost entirely from National Cancer Institute); (2) industry funding, US$1.6 billion; and (3) funding by nonprofit organisations (e.g., Howard Hughes Medical Institute, American Cancer Society, Komen Foundation), US$305 million." That sounds about right to me, in terms of proportions, though the figures have probably changed a bit over time.
As for whether charities would make it cheaper, it depends entirely on the licensing agreements regarding the individual charities and the discoveries, I imagine. Who owns any resultant patents, and do they have any requirements on licensing them? I doubt there is a uniform policy. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
October 29
How do I see the Micro Lettering in a Rs.500 note?
After seeing this [14] I got enlightened to recognise a fake note. I happen to see that there is micro-lettering between the potrait and vertical band on the right hand side and it says that it can be viewed through a magnifying glass but I fail to see it. Is there a way in which we can see it clearly? Srinivas08:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to find "RBI 500" in mucro-lettering on the image. It looks like "500" might be obscured under the end of the blue leader line. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The area between the portrait and vertical band on the right hand side has a design that appears like little doted lines filling up entire area. The dots are actually the words "RBI" and "500" written in very small font size. First look for a pattern of three dots and space repeated. With some effort, in bright light, I can read out RBI and 500 without using any lens. - manya (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "rush" is when a person experiences a rapid quickening of the senses, perhaps rapid heart beat, or suddenly feeling good or feeling active. So a "coke rush" is such a feeling as a result of taking "Coke" or "Coke". Sussexonian (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "rush" can also mean a stampede or mass movement of people so that a "coke rush" could conceivably mean an extraordinarily popular move to buy Coca-Cola drink or company shares. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a trivial note, Coca-Cola derives part of its name from "cocaine". The drug was once an active ingredient in Coke, and spent coca leaves are still used in its formula. There is no "kick from cocaine" in Coca-Cola, though. The "kick" comes from the caffeine, from the kola nut which inspired the other part of its name. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that annoys me is when I Get a Kick out of You is bowdlerized to remove the coke reference. Some versions also change the line Flyin' too high with some guy in the sky is my idea of nothin' to do to ...some gal in the sky..., I guess because they thought it sounded gay or something when sung by a man, but there is no indication that anything romantic was going on with the pilot, so that's pretty silly, and also destroys the internal rhyming of the line. Admittedly, Cole Porter was in fact gay, so he could have had a subtext. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best thread of the week, because I thought the "cocaine" version was just Blazing Saddles having its fun. Back to the OP, though, who may not be totally fluent in English: Richardrj is correct above, and the other responses above are basically jokes. Tempshill (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the programme diet doctors on channel 5 in the UK, did one woman have to excrete out of her mouth because her intestines were full of feces? Im asking because a friend told me about it and i dont believe him.
It's a distressing condition resulting from intestinal intussception, which is where the bowel twists in on itself and blocks anything from progressing through the intestine. It can result in death if not treated quickly enough. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Tammy can I just correct your statement. Intussuception is when the bowel slides inside itself, also called invagination. Torsion is when the bowel twists on itself. Both conditions can cause complete intestinal blockage and can eventually lead to faecal vomiting. I have witnessed this, many years ago, and it was extremely unpleasant because it was to some extent projectile as well. I suspect that it is pretty rare these days as diagnostics can pinpoint the problem before these extreme signs show themselves. Richard Avery (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. My nephew had intussuception aged just 13 months, which is how I know about the condition. As you can appreciate it was quite a traumatic time so no wonder I couldn't quite remember the details! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the programme in question, luckily I had already finished my dinner! The lady in question was just plain constipated and was cured by a high fibre diet.Alansplodge (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1970's incident
During the 1973-74 oil crisis, and shortly after the speed limit on highways was uniformly set to 55 mph by federal law, three drivers in Michigan decided to drive side-by-side at that exact speed one day. They ended up causing a traffic backup that stretched for many miles, since no one could pass them on the three lane road. I've been looking for an article on this story, without luck. Can anyone assist me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.29.109 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there were some instances of such "rolling roadblocks," and not just "wishful thinking." I have personally seen slow drivers in multiple lanes preventing people from speeding (perhaps by spontaneous conspiracy), but can't say how long such a phenomenon endured or how far the backup extended. Edison (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that professional truck drivers do this before construction zones. It's OR from when I used to drive a truck. I don't remember the reason why they do it though... Dismas|(talk)05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK during the early 'noughties' (Fuel protests in the United Kingdom#2000) there were reports of rolling road block being (definitely threatened if not acted out) by truck drivers as they tried to influence the government into reducing Fuel duty. Seems with a scan of the article linked that in Scotland in 2007 they may have done something like this in protest. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
need to find location on a 1966 lincoln continental
Suppose your coach tells you to go running for 5 minutes. Is it possible to complete the run in 4 minutes? At first glance, by definition, the run is determined by time, 5 mins, so no matter how fast you run, you still have to do 5 minutes of running. But what if we were to apply some of Einstein's relativity theory to it? If I was to go faster than the speed of light or something, will it be possible then to complete a 5 minute run in 4 minutes? Acceptable (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can. If you run at 0.6c (ignoring acceleration/deceleration times) 4 minutes in your frame of reference will correspond to 5 minutes in the coach's frame (assuming he is not running alongside you, in which case you are out of loopholes). See Twin paradox for more deatils of the phenomenon. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A spinoff question would be, at that speed, how many laps would that be around a typical quarter-mile track? Assuming he's got really high-quality track shoes (Nike's finest) which enable him to go around each semi-circle at roughly 112,000 miles per second, that would be about 450,000 times around the track in one second; 27,000,000 times in one minute; and 135,000,000 times in 5 minutes - or 4 minutes. Either way, he still has to go around the track 135,000,000 times. Right? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The runner would be in an accelerated frame going round the circuit so fast, wouldn't that slow them down a bit more again? Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His body structure would fly apart as he tried to turn in such a short radius at 0.6c He would literally have to withstand millions or even billions of g's in acceleration. Googlemeister (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing Spike Lee now: "It's gotta be the shoes!" I was assuming a standard oval track. But if it was a great-circle track around the world, that would eliminate the issue of turns (never mind how they would build a track across the oceans - that's a different question). But in any case, if you had to go around an oval quarter-mile track 135,000,000 times, the great circle route of 25,000 miles would be 100,000 times as long as that track, hence "only" requiring about 1,350 circuits of the globe in those 5 (or 4) minutes, or 270 circuits in 1 minute, or an average of 4 1/2 times around the world per second. It would now be interesting to see how many times in one second that Superman flew around the world in the 1978 film. Anything less than 7 1/2 trips around the world would mean he's not actually exceeding the speed of light, and hence couldn't "reverse time". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's never clear to me why anyone would think that travelling faster than light would "reverse time". Aside from the complete impossibility of doing it - what the equations suggest might hypothetically happen is something akin to taking the square root of -1...your experience of the rate time passing in the rest of the universe would be a complex number. But complex numbers never appear in the results of real-world calculations. It's impossible to say what it would hypothetically mean to someone if they experienced a lorentz contraction that was a complex number. That in no way even hints at a reversal of time...it hints at something so completely beyond comprehension as to be literally indescribable.
Fortunately (or not), Nature has a way of protecting us from such ugly math problems. For example - the equation for the period of the swing of a pendulum has a square root in it - so the time that a pendulum of negative length would take to swing would be a complex number...but nature doesn't allow us to make physical objects with negative length - so the question never crops up. In this case, the protection against tripping over a complex number is that you can't go faster than light - period. SteveBaker (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What luggage should we buy? (to use it as check in luggage)
If you are open to flying with any air company, but do always want to check in with your trolley, what measure should your trolley have? I have researcher online and found the following extreme values: from 43 cm x 28 cm x 20 cm to 56 cm x 45 cm x 25 cm. Of course, I won't buy anything bigger than the highest allowance. I was thinking to buy something near 50 cm x 40 x 20 and try to fly with it even if the company has a lower allowance. The question is how tolerant are companies of minor deviances of a couple of centimeters? --Quest09 (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Company tolerances vary considerably. Then again some institute a 'blitz' for a short time. The only way to be sure is to visit the sites of the airlines you most use and check individually. Also remember that the luggage regulations vary with the class of ticket you pay for. Travel First and almost anything goes. Travel cattle and you'll be cramped. Finally, you can often get by with flexible luggage. Sports bags, etc. These squeeze down and often fit where a hard case would not. Finally, finally, check out the carry-on allowance. The maximise what you are allowed. i.e. a large handbag (purse) for a lady... good luck.Froggie34 (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hand baggage regulations are also imposed by the airports. As well as checking with the company you're flying with, you should check with the airport(s) you're checking in at. Don't forget that many places forbid the carriage of large volumes of fluids. --Phil Holmes (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the regulation regarding fluids in the European Union is still in force. I wonder why liquids have to be carried in single containers with a capacity not greater than 100 ml, being a half-full 200 ml container not permitted, and all of these single containers must be packed in one transparent, re-sealable plastic bag with a capacity not greater than 1 liter. Quest09 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why is the regulation the way it is? Why is half-full 200ml not acceptable? Why should the bag be re-sealable? Why do you have to divide everything in small bottles? --Quest09 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the people who make rules like this are not grounded in reality. Or at least the version of reality that applies outside their government building. Googlemeister (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Security theater. Having rules makes people think that action is being taken which is likely to keep them safer. You are not actually safer; but it makes you think that you are. See my response to a similar question below. --Jayron3219:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're going overboard with theatrics about security theater. You are asserting that increased analysis of passengers' carry-on liquids makes airline travel actually 0% safer, which I disagree with. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about 0% safer, it's about the trade-off between measures taken and security gained. In general airplane security does not have a good track record—it costs a huge amount of money and we don't get much for it. Bruce Schneir has written quite extensively on this, and it is quite good analysis, and he knows of what he speaks. Check it out. There's an argument, for example, that regulations of this sort lead travel security people to focus on the wrong sorts of things when they are evaluating the overall threat assessment of a given person—if true, that means that they are actually doing less than increasing security 0%. If people (and security folks) feel more secure than they are, then your security theater has created an atmosphere of less security than you had when you started. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that the carried-on-liquids rules may not be worth their costs. I'm disputing the claims above that they increase security by 0% (or less). I think such claims are silly. And the claim that "The TSA must be overlooking important vectors of attack because of the carried-on-liquids rules" is pure speculation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the belief is it's easy to mix explosives if you have a larger container. Of course it would seem likely you could just mix the explosives in the 1l plastic bag you're required to carry anyway. It may not be as easy, but it would seem likely to be good enough. (Also according to below you can just buy a large bottle after you've passed security.) The reason for transparent/resealable should be obvious. The reason for single bag I suspect is more to do with convenience for the security staff. If you have passengers pulling 3 bottles out of various pockets of their bags it's going to waste more time then if they are all in one place. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends totally on the airline, and the cost of the ticket is often related to the amount of leeway you are given in terms of hand bag size. I have witnessed a furious row between a passenger and a check-in girl who refused to allow an item of hand baggage even though it fitted into the size checker, because she said the bag's little plastic feet protruded above the top rail of the checker (they did, by about 4mm tops) and because the bag had been pushed down into the size checker instead of dropping in with no resistance. This was with a no-frills airline. The bag was eventually checked in at extra cost, and the passenger loudly announced his determination never to travel with that company again. The only safe answer is to check the individual airline's rules and ensure you more than abide by them. Karenjc20:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question about school policy
Why don't schools allow us to go on social networking sites when in a study hall? it seams like if you don't have many schoolwork to do, and the site doesn't contain any malicious software it should be allowed.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every school will have its own rules and ideas about these things. Their logic is likely to be that social-networking sites are a distraction from school-work. They don't know if you are or are not busy in your studies, but they expect that the site will reduce likelihood of doing the work. There's plenty of debate on this subject across businesses too - my office allows Facebook but plenty don't, it's partially a question of trust I guess. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A further consideration is how many computers with internet access the school has and how they are charged for access. If there aren't enough for everyone to access the internet at the same time, the school won't want to waste a terminal on someone visiting a networking site in case someone else wants to use it for work. And if the school is paying for internet access in any way other than unlimited broadband at a set cost and very high speed, they won't want people using the connection for things other than work, particularly if the sites they visit show a lot of pictures and videos. 86.139.237.128 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you always have schoolwork to do. You have tests to study for, papers to write which are due in a week or two, textbooks which contain review problems which, while not assigned for a grade, still exist and you could still do them to give you more practice. The deal is, there is school work that you do not want to do during study hall. It doesn't mean that you don't have anything school-related you could be working on. --Jayron3216:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it all depends - if there's so much H1N1 around that teachs dont' assign much schoolwork, or the person is just really fast, they could still do work ahead, but near the end of the year, there might not be. But, that's when you can work on something you like for the future. I know a guy who tried to write a book during part of study hall, so writing is one avenue you can explore. Or, anything you're interested in going into in college, should you choose to go.4.68.248.130 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) A sentence that starts with "it seams like if you don't have many schoolwork to do," seems to imply exactly the opposite. Aside from that, Facebook and MySpace have historically been quite efficient avenues for distributing malware. --LarryMac | Talk16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify LarryMacs comment - if you don't have any other school work to do, you should work on your spelling and grammar. --Tango (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be honest -- no one here learned spelling and grammar by studying it intensively -- you just pick it up over the years. Vranak (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you learn it largely by reading and writing; hence, if one has no school work to do, get a library book and try reading a bit... --Jayron3219:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones who gripe about me going off-track ought to read this thread. Here's the deal: The school owns the computers and they have the right to determine how they're being used. If you're going to a news site like CNN, that's presumably a good thing, as it could be expanding your knowledge of current events - and improving your reading skills. If you're going to chat rooms, that's not a good thing. You're in school to study; you can socialize at appropriate times, like in the lunchroom. There could also be bandwidth issues. That's one reason why Youtube is blocked at my office. Another is that it's likely not work-related. It is very unlikely, in an industrial company, to find something on Youtube that's vital to watch during working hours. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never tire of looking things up in the dictionary, and reading in general. But in my day, it was toward the end of what you might call the "pedantic" approach to schooling. It seems to have shifted toward another direction now, where somehow good English is not important. And someday, it's going to cost us dearly. I've met some people who said, "I don't like to read." What can you feel for that, except sadness for what they're missing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never forget Accdude that these so called social networking sites are about selling you a product. They are a business. Undoubtedly they are distraction for vulnerable individuals who cannot distinguish between the relative social value of an education and logging on to Facebook and similar. It is quite clear that some people need to concentrate on their education. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh, how high-minded and moral we all are, all of us who probably edit the Ref Desk while at work, school, and so forth. Get to the school, young man. Study and be diligent and avoid distractions. Just like how we did when we were in school, and we had to walk uphill both ways, in the snow, at that.) --Mr.98 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, memories of Gym class! "Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach Gym." --Woody Allen. In any case, we didn't have computer terminals in my day, all we had were manual typewriters. Not much internet surfing on those babies. Although every generation thinks it has it tough. I'm hearing Larry Miller's prospective comment to his son someday: "In my day, we didn't have jet-packs; we had to drive to school!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no liquids can be brought on commercial flights
Does the rule in the US that all liquids brought into the cabin of a commercial airliner be in tiny bottles and sealed in a plastic bag include the crew? For example, if the pilot wants to bring a thermos of coffee with him for the flight, will it get taken from him by the security drones? Googlemeister (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, once you pass through the security checkpoint, you can purchase a coffee or a bottle of water and safely bring it on the plane. Most moderate-to-large sized airports have plenty of vendors on the "safe" side of security; no one checks you once you have passed through that point, so pilots should be able to buy a cup of coffee like anyone else and get on the plane. Pilots and other airline workers have "break rooms" and pilots lounges where they can get coffee; they could presumably get coffee there and bring it aboard. Most planes I know also have a pot brewing on the plane itself, so the fact that pilots cannot bring an actual cup through the checkpoint should provide little impediment to getting coffee to fly with. Security is generally only handled at the checkpoint; furthermore there is still very little security at the "back doors" of airports. Workers that do not enter through the traveller checkpoints aren't subjected to the same level of scrutiny that travellers are; that gives way to the criticism that the whole system is Security theater; designed to make passengers feel like the industry is doing something to keep them safe; but a determined terrorist would still have little to no trouble getting a bomb on board a plane. Have a nice trip! --Jayron3219:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a passenger in both in Australia and Britain, I have taken an empty plastic bottle with me and filled it up on the "safe" side from a drinking fountain. The security people didn't question it. Saves a heap of money too!--80.176.225.249 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong argument that this is just security theater—something that makes it look like security agencies are doing "something", but doesn't actually increase security. A nice write-up of this particular argument is: "The Things He Carried", from the Atlantic Monthly, 2008. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reportedly if you merely claim the liquid is medically necessary, such as contact lens fluid or baby formula, there are no limits, implying it is all theater. Edison (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baby formula you are usually made to taste to show it isn't liquid explosive. I'm not sure about contact lens solution... --Tango (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly left my contact lens solution in my carry-on luggage recently and they let me bring it on the plane. The thing that annoys me most about the liquids thing is the 100ml limit. It seems pointless, since anyone wanting to bring on, say 200ml of liquid explosive would simply carry on two bottles. --Richardrjtalk email09:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The taste thing is an interesting issue. Provided you can avoid showing too much aversion to the liquid, the only question is whether it's possible to have liquid explosives which won't kill you (or make you too sick to follow through the plan) within a few hours. If you can then it's not likely to be effective except that if the person decides not to follow thorough with the plan after they've passed security they may still die. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a company named AMNES retail store which was the biggest competitor of WAL-MART some 10 years ago. But I dindn't find that company. Can you please provide me the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunjal88 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This event is the world's largest Arabian horse event. It attracts thousands of Arabian horses from all over the world and around 250,000 human spectators each year. How would I go about putting together a listing for it? It is a non-profit event benefiting childrens charities. I am not very tech savvy but would love to do something to get this event the listing as they really deserve to be part of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owensharkey (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia, I use your website all the time but lately every time I come here I have to log in when it Remember up to 30 days it hasn't been 30 days its like the day when I have to log in again, please help me I really love website I wanted stay logged in for a while that is up to the 30 days not the day where I need sign in again.
Do you have your web browsing software (i.e. Internet Explorer, Firefox etc) set up to accept cookies? If not then you will keep getting asked for your password. Change your setup to accept cookies and that might solve the problem. --Richardrjtalk email23:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently heard someone say that the U.S. Government has a patented shade of pink that they use in prisons to calm people down. Is this true or just a myth? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
International Klein Blue is often described as a patented colour, but it's actually the method of preparation of the dye which is patented - if someone uses a different method to produce the same colour, that doesn't infringe that patent. Warofdreamstalk14:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason you couldn't patent the specific application of a specific color for specific ends. This is how people patent all sorts of things that supposedly aren't patentable, like equations and theories—you don't patent the color "by itself", you patent the specific use of color for psychological control in correctional facilities. These kinds of patents are always of a "Method of Using X" variety. You don't have to have a patent on "X" itself to patent a method of using it. (Similarly, as noted above, you can patent a method of making a particular "X"—which might or might not provide strong intellectual property control, depending on how unique it is.)
That all being said, I don't find anything like that in my quick Google Patent searches for what I would imagine would be obvious terms (calming color prison, etc.). So I'm not sure there actually is a patent on it. If you could establish that the practice was novel (which would be hard at this point given that the US government has been doing it for 50 years or so), you could almost certainly get a patent on it, even the use of specific shades of color. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the US government were allowed to patent or copyright anything at all...much less a color. Of course it could be that some outside contractor employed by the government had patented it - but even so, it's not possible to patent a color because it's a natural phenomenon. SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The US government can own titles to patents, and does (to a lot of them). Usually it is because a wing of the government did the research (e.g., someone in a DOD laboratory), or a contractor assigns it to the government (which is required by some government contracts). Again, you can patent the use of a color, just as you can the use of many natural phenomena. (You can't own the patent to "beryllium, the ore," but you can to, "use of beryllium in X, Y, and Z". Same with colors and just about anything else.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Ohio and I seen a commercial a few weeks ago for a free online college for Ohio residents. I am trying to remember the name of the college so I can find out more info. Does anyone from the area know what I'm talking about?74.218.50.226 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. As far as I know, this is a complete list of the accredited colleges in Ohio. I see a couple on that list that refuse to report their tuition (usually because they charge by the class instead of by the year), and quite a few that are pretty affordable, but none that list themselves as free. It might be that this free school is not accredited, but non-accredited schools are often not worth it if your goal is to get a job or get into a graduate school (as opposed to just learning for fun), because almost no one will be willing to credit you as having a real college degree. --M@rēino18:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Remembrance Day soon and a lot of people (including myself) are wearing poppies to commemorate. Something my father said to me a few nights ago caught my attention, though. He asked me why ladies wear their poppies on the right-hand side while men wear them on the left-hand side. I, however, had never noticed before, but sure enough all the ladies on the next two TV programs we were watching at the time were wearing their poppies on their right. Is this just a coincidence or is it an actual convention? If so, why? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be related to not-so-universal habit of women's clothes buttoning on the opposite side to men's clothes (for which we oddly have no article). Matt Deres (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The buttonhole thing apparently dates from the time when a lady would always have a maid to do up her buttons for her so they were put on the other way round (assuming the maid was right handed). Gentlemen however, might find themselves in the difficult position of having to do-up their own buttons! Never seen it in writing but it sounds reasonable. On men's suits, the lapel button-hole is always on the left, so not much option there.Alansplodge (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a tangent, why is the red Flanders poppy used on November 11. It was a northern hemisphere event, but they have just started flowering now in my southern hemisphere garden. They must be 6 months out of season in the northern hemisphere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that many veterens of the Ypres front would have had memories of the remarkable bloom of poppies on the battlefield; they thrive in broken clay. The French use a blue cornflower in remembrance; as they prefer the chalky soils found in the Somme and Verdun areas. Again, it doesn't flower in November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do I promote a topic?
Am trying to start a movement to have Monkseaton High School
"Opencourseware/Wiki~"
their Spaced learning, as I
believe globally people would benefit from this teaching style. In pursuit
of that goal I am writing a letter to the Headmaster Paul Kelley in the Made to Stick format. Was wondering
if you could make some suggestions on getting people involved and
interested?
I went through the American school system, but in general our administrators were much, much more likely to respond to their own teachers than they were to respond to either students or to outside adults. So I'd recruit a couple teachers. Expect to have some good, long debates, and be prepared to lose a few points in order to win them over -- after all, if there's one thing teachers are knowledgeable and opinionated about, it's teaching. But if you can convince them that this reform is worth their while, then you've as good as won over the Headmaster. --M@rēino18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another idea is to make a huge poster with something like rasterbator and post it on a bridge or something, hand out flyers and give presentations in the Made to Stick Format at local University's, School's and other organizations. Which is exactly what I'm going to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandredparis (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
November 1
Why does the my "computer room" at home get so warm?
Ok, I have my desktop computer in a 10 x 15 foot room, with good ventilation. When I'm in there playing around on my computer after a few hours the room gets pretty damn warm -- so warm in fact that my face and neck get all sweaty, causing skin blemishes. I know the computer does put out some heat (I've heard that mainframe computer rooms from the 1960s and 70s got pretty hot), but really, is my little home computer causing all this? How much heat is this machine generating? Any answers? Torkmann (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The heat energy it generates over time is almost identical to the power it uses, since all the energy has to end up somewhere and it pretty much all ends up as heat eventually. You can get monitors that go in-between the plug and the socket to measure that, but it will be in the order of hundreds of watts. You radiate about 1000 watts yourself. Altogether, that is a lot of heat. You need some way of removing that heat from the room. The main ways are ventilation and air conditioning (things like desk fans just move the heat around - you get a bit of evaporative cooling, but then you just end up with extra humidity rather than extra heat and that is no more pleasant). You say the room has good ventilation, but it would seem that isn't true if that room is getting significantly hotter than outside/the rest of the house (depending on where the room is venting to). I suggest you try and increase the ventilation - open the door, open a window, use a fan in such a way that it moves the hot air out of the room. If that fails, then consider air con. --Tango (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tango, I think you might have slipped a decimal somewhere. The amount of heat released by the average person is going to be on the order of a hundred watts or less, not a thousand. The rest of your numbers look good, though. (For the computer, an LCD monitor will add heat at around fifty watts; you can double or triple that for a CRT. The CPU and other peripherals add another hundred to four hundred watts; higher numbers correspond to powerful graphics cards and processor-intensive games.) So figure that the computer being there is like having anywhere from two to six extra people in the room with you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't got the number of noughts wrong, as such. I gave the gross amount radiated, you're giving the net amount (radiation minus absorption). With hindsight, your value is the more relevant to this discussion. --Tango (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
coffee creamer
Bah, I just noticed that the main ingredient in coffeemate is corn syrup, i.e. glucose. Anyone know a good alternative that buffers the coffee's acidity (like cream does), and is non-perishable (like coffeemate), but doesn't have sweeteners? It's ok if it contains dairy products as long as they don't spoil. Something like powdered milk would be fine if I could get it in very small containers, as I only want to use about a teaspoon a day. But the supermarket seems to only have it in large boxes. Also, the big boxes say "nonfat dry milk", but for coffee purposes, I thought that fat was the main idea. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong (I don't drink coffee) but I was under the impression the primary reason most people add milk is for taste not to add fat. In any case, I would be surprised if you can't get full cream milk powder in the US (I presume you are in the US since you didn't say and it's there that corn syrup is most commonly used as a sweetener). You definitely can here in NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the UK you can get Carnation condensed milk in squeezy bottles, which should have the effect you're looking for. It's naturally sweet and I don't think it has added sweeteners (haven't got one handy so can't check). May be worth looking for condensed milk where you are! Oh and it shouldn't spoil, especially if you keep it in the fridge. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the idea of "nonperishable" is that I want to store it in a place where no fridge is conveniently available. I can get condensed milk in cans here, but I'd expect that once opened, it spoils quickly without refrigeration. Interesting about the squeezy bottles. I don't think I've ever seen those here (western US). 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the idea of UHT is that it's sterilized and sealed so it doesn't need refrigeration before you open it, but what about after you open it? I guess I'd normally put about 20ml of cream in a cup of coffee, so at 3-4 cups a week, if I can get UHT in 200ml containers (like juice boxes) I'd need it to last a month or so after opening, but if it's in 1 liter containers it would have to last much longer. Coffeemate works pretty well except I didn't realize there was so much glucose in it.
Update: I just looked at milkette and thanks, I didn't know before what those things were called. The ones we get here usually have regular half-and-half in them and need refrigeration. Plus they generate a lot of waste, as the article says, though my consumption is low enough that I guess I wouldn't feel too bad about it. I'll see if I can find some UHT ones. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update again: it looks like milkette is not a normal US term. Web searches found mostly Canadian sources. Anyway I'll check some restaurant supply places. More suggestions are welcome. Re Antilived: yeah, I mentioned some issues with powdered milk in the original post. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google suggests that the usual term in the UK is milk pots or jiggers, and they're easily available over here [18][19] but won't ship to the US. It seems there's also something called "Dairystix" that have the milk in a little plastic stick instead a pot (apparently cheaper than the pots), but they have an irritating website. My attempt to search for similar things in the US is hampered by Google's annoying increased tendency to remove any possible way for me to search without it being affected by my IP address. Hope this gives you a few more search terms. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Racemic mixtures in Drugs and Medications
When I purchase, say Aspirin or Acetaminophen at a drug store, are the pills in the bottle a racemic mixture of the levo- and dextro- enantiomers, with dextro- being the only active form?
If so, and if assuming that it is a 50/50 mixture, will taking twice the racemic mixture of aspirin be equivalent to one dose of the dextro- form?
Furthermore, if these assumptions are true, why do pharmaceuticals choose to do this?
Honestly, I'd ask your local pharmacist. This gets dangerously close to medical advice, and I think we'd best avoid giving any definite advice, at least on the first bullet. The others are, I think, more obviously fair game. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answering from a purely chemical point of view, aspirin has no stereocenters at all, see the structure below. Likewise neither does acetominophen. See, d-l stereoisomerism requires assymetric tetrahedral carbons (that means an sp3-hybridized carbon with 4 different substituent groups). --Jayron3200:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in aspirin all carbons are sp2 carbons, except the methyl on the right. No tetrahedral carbons means no stereoisomerism
same with acetominophen
WHAAOE. Our article on enantiopure drugs says "One enantiomer of a drug may have a desired beneficial effect while the other may cause serious and undesired side effects, or sometimes even beneficial but entirely different effects. Advances in industrial chemical processes have made it economical for pharmaceutical manufacturers to take drugs that were originally marketed as a racemic mixture and market the individual enantiomers, either by specifically manufacturing the desired enantiomer or by resolving a racemic mixture". The article gives a list of pharmaceuticals that have been available in both racemic and single-enantiomer form. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nitrogen atom in acetominophen looks to be assymetric, except that the hydrogen can so easily swap sides on the nitrogen atom, that it would be a racemic mixture almost immediately. A quaternary nitrogen could be an assymetrical centre. But your idea is right that the mixture may have only half the potency. But it does not apply to your example. The dose information on the box should be correct for the content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bathmat that does not go moldy?
I have a bathmat on the floor next to my bath. I often have to replace them as they get moldy quickly. Is there such a thing as a bathmat that never shows traces of mold? The mold usually initially appears underneath it in my experience. I do not mean the kind of plastic mat you put inside the bath to make it less slippery. 92.24.132.67 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One made entirely from a synthetic fibre like nylon will not (itself) go moldy, as the mold won't eat plastic, no matter how wet it gets. Like nylon shower curtains, such a mat will still get a bit moldy from the deposition of soap, shampoo, and skin that accumulates in it (but, like a shower curtain, is pretty easy to clean). But a nylon mat is probably going to feel a bit unpleasant to the naked food, and look a tad naff. I have a simple cotton mat, which I hang over the bath side once I'm done (so it dries out pretty soon) and that is machine washable (so it gets washed with the towels) - it doesn't have the (to my mind pointless) rubber backing that some mats have. If things in your bathroom are generally prone to mold (towels, the silcon seal around the bath, etc.) then this may indicate that the bathroom is in general poorly ventilated, and that you may need to run an extractor fan, or keep a window open, during or following a shower. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rubber backing is not pointless. It's purpose is to prevent the mat from slipping underfoot. However, that makes cleaning the mat more difficult. Hanging it up to dry would be the best bet, although that should be supplemented by drying yourself as much as possible before you step onto the mat. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that hanging it up to dry after showering keeps it from getting moldy. We've had the same one for years—gets daily use, but hanging it up (even just on the rim of the tub) after bathing keeps it dry and without mold. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the bathmat for? I don't use one so I don't know what people are trying to achieve, but there might be a novel alternative that fulfills that goal without being susceptible to mould. If it's to avoid an uncomfortably cold floor, for instance, I have seen hardwood gratings that I think look rather smart, and being close-grained oily hardwood they're pretty much impervious to damp. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a city in Germany, there is an apartment/shopping complex/community that consists of three connected chimneys or towers. It was an old pre WWII power or water supply station that was designed in the 1980's, I believe. What is the name of this complex and what city is it located in?99.54.5.209 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's the kayaking guy, and I have two more questions:
See my archived question for the full story--search Kayaking Escapade in Miscellaneous.
1. Seeing as I'll be on a multiple night kayaking trip (from Wilkesboro, NC, to the ocean-end of the Pee-Dee River in South Carolina), I need to know about trespassing/camping laws in both states, and potential laws that I may need to hold in mind. Also, would asking special permission from governments be able to help.
2. I need sponsorship ideas! I've now decided to use this trip to raise money for hearing impaired individuals, as my traveling partner and I are both hearing impaired. So, what is a hearing impairment association (preferably national or a charitable local) that donations could be for? Also, what specific companies/outfitters should I write to in search of getting sponsorships? (Again, see my archived post to see all my items needed (but include sunglasses in something that I could get a sponsorship for).
And if someone could put a quick-link to my previous article, that would be great. I'm not a pro at WikiEditting, or even vaguely familiar, so...
State laws vary, and we can't offer legal advice, so you should check with a lawyer if that's what you want. However, my understanding is that, in most parts of the United States, it is illegal to camp except in a public campground upon payment of a camping fee or on private property after securing the permission of the owner. So you would need to identify the owner of anyplace other than a public campground where you intend to camp and get permission. Camping outside of campgrounds is also possible in some national forests or parks, but you typically need to secure a backcountry camping permit (for a fee) in advance. I would carefully identify places along your route where you hope to camp and secure permission in advance before setting out if I were you. Marco polo (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oil Discoveries
Besides drilling, what methods do oil companies use to discover if there is oil in a particular piece or patch of land? Is there any specific machines that will detect if there is oil underground, how does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.254.37 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the submarine, but I sail in the Solent occasionally and the three objects in the background do look a lot like the forts. Note that it's not impossible that a pre-Revolutionary Russian submarine might have been visiting Britain. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weight-loss based weight loss plan
My idea for a weight-loss plan is simple. First, eat a good meal, including a beverage (so you're not dehydrated) and then weigh yourself. Let's say you weigh 200 pounds. Then, say, you want to lose 1/2 pound a day. So the first day, nothing goes in your piehole until your weight drops below 199.5 pounds. If you weigh yourself and the scale shows, let's say, 199.2, then you can have 0.3 pounds of food and/or drink, but no more. If you want more, you have to lose some weight (through urine, feces, sweat, whatever) first.
This idea is so incredibly obvious I'm surprised I haven't heard of it before. Can anyone find any references to it, or is this original with me? 76.210.248.64 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea won't work. Your body weight isn't based solely on the weight of the food that you consume. You're completely ignoring calories and a balanced diet. Let's say that you can eat that 0.3 pounds of food. There are many things that you could eat but having .3 lbs of chocolate isn't the same nutritionally as having .3 lbs of lettuce. Dismas|(talk)01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Your body weight isn't based solely on the weight of the food that you consume." Oh? Then, what is it based on? Doesn't delta weight for all practical purposes equal eat minus excrete?
in aspirin all carbons are sp2 carbons, except the methyl on the right. No tetrahedral carbons means no stereoisomerism
same with acetominophen
![[14]](http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/TOIH/2009/10/26/15/Img/Ad0150719.png){kind=link}
![[15]](http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww183/DarciesTVs/DSCN0015.jpg){kind=link}
