Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 10

Checking Luggage without a Flight

I'm in Europe and long story short I want to send my suitcase home before I personally get on the plane about 2 weeks later. Do airlines allow you to pay to put your luggage on a plane and send it to a specific destination. I could certainly have someone from home standing at baggage claim to pick it up at the airport back in the USA when it gets there. Would the airline that I'm flying on allow me to send it early? Thanks! Jared (t)  14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally no. Luggage requires a passenger. In fact, if you check luggage and miss your flight, airlines usually find and remove your luggage from the plane prior to leaving.

Ship it Federal Express,the ship luggage all the time.

It's for safety reasons. You could look into shipping it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

US airlines do send your luggage if you don't get on the flight, a fact which astonished me the first time I discovered it, given their claims of high security. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather surprising too. This has been a big deal ever since the Air India bombing in 1985. I would expect an airline to send checked baggage ahead of the passenger only if they were the ones responsible for the passenger not being on the flight. --Anonymous, 22:13 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Plus baggage claim is airside so how would your friend get to it? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US airports I've been to, luggage is checked in at the ticket counter and picked up at the baggage claim, both of which are outside the secured parts of the airport. In any case, he should look at shipping the suitcase through normal means. My assumption would be he's trying to save money, but in this day and age a suitcase without a passenger would raise all sorts of red flags. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But unless it is sent from an airport that has US customs pre-clearance, the bag would have to be picked up prior to clearing customs, which is in the controlled part of the airport. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) So if I understand you correctly, people who haven't flown can take bags off baggage carousels? That's... bizarre. And it doesn't happen in Europe. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I bet your right - baggage for international flights would be handled differently. But it is true that for US domestic arrivals, at least, you could theoretically park your car in the airport garage, waltz into the baggage claim area, and grab someone else's suitcase - although the odds are good its owner would be grabbing for it at the same time, and would politely ask you what the bleep you think you're doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:WHAAOE, see baggage claim. This, along with experience, confirms that international flights have baggage claim located prior to Customs. Domestically, there is no control on baggage claim in U.S. airports, other than normal surveillance and security. However, people generally don't take other people's bags unless there is a case of mistaken bag identity. I suppose there are more domestic fliers in the USA, which is why it seems the norm here. _{Someone from Europe finds commonplace American practices bizarre? This must be a first!} Coreycubed (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi - send it freight. Or by FedEx, DHL, etc. only problem - cost. Sorry.Froggie34 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you do ship your stuff ahead, be sure to use a service that includes package tracking. It's worth the cost if you don't want to lose your belongings. That could be registered mail at the post office (or its equivalent in your present country), FedEx, UPS, or the like. I personally would avoid any means that involves the US Postal Service. On two different occasions in my life, I attempted to ship personal goods via unregistered mail from Europe to the United States—once from France and once from Germany. In both cases, most or all of the items that I shipped never made it, and the USPS claimed that it was unable to track them down. (I suspect that pilferage was involved somewhere along the way, probably on the US side of the ocean.) Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is, assume whatever you're shipping could get stolen, and hence only ship stuff that's replaceable and not too expensive. Although shipping with tracking and insurance is a reasonable deterrent. If you ship anything valuable with no tracking or insurance, you might as well stamp "steal me!" on the box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but note that checked luggage is also highly vulnerable to theft or loss. The best carriers still lose luggage 3% of the time, which means if you fly every day, you can look forward to them losing your stuff once a month. The way they handle it is just pathetic, in many ways:

1) As noted previously, anyone can go up and grab your luggage after domestic US flights. If caught, they can just claim they mistook their luggage for yours. If you don't see any other bags that look like yours, they could just say they have one just like it, at home, but forgot that they brought a different bag this time. The proper way to handle it would be to check the ID of each person trying to claim a bag against the official ID tag.

2) The way they collect baggage headed to different cities, put tags on it all, mix it all together, then try to pull each bag out and put it on the right cart based on the tag, is likely to cause problems.

3) The open, often overloaded, carts they use to deliver the bags to the plane are also a problem, as bags can fall off.

4) Connecting flights are yet another opportunity for the baggage to be pilfered or lost.

A more reasonable way to handle checked luggage would be to have everyone carry it with them, through security, to the gate and then the plane, and deposit the checked baggage right by the plane door for loading into the baggage compartment. I've seen them do this when they decide there's too much carry-on baggage for the overhead compartments. Then, at the other end, you should get the baggage back right at the terminal, and have your ID checked against it. Of course, carrying all those bags the length of a terminal might be problematic, but having enough electric carts (or just push carts) and such available would fix that issue. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Citation needed" on the 3% claim. I have taken about 180 flights in my life, a large majority of those with checked baggage, and only once did my bags fail to make the flight I was on. And that one wasn't the airline's fault. (Due to a change of plans I found myself at the check-in desk more than 3 hours before the flight I was booked on, but there was space on another flight in just 30 minutes. I got on that flight, but the bag took the following one, less than an hour later.) --Anonymous, 22:10 UTC, March 10, 2010.

• Barring theft, the bag has to go somewhere, so it might get misdirected but it should show up eventually. I've had a bag "lost" a couple of times, but it was eventually found. It's important to include some ID inside the luggage, in case the external tag gets torn off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My sister once had someone accidentally walk off with her luggage. We figured it out by waiting until there was just one extra piece of luggage from the flight, which happened to look like hers. We called up the name on the tag and sure enough, she had picked up the wrong bag and not checked. Eventually she drove back to the airport and swapped it out. Annoying to say the least! --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My idea of requiring everyone to show ID that matches the name on the bags would have stopped that problem. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And added a lot of time to an already time-consuming process. I suspect the incidence of things like I described happening is pretty low (people generally want their own bags), and not worth adding an extra 30-60 minutes on to the baggage-retrieval process... or do you think that airport personnel would be able to cross-check bag tags and IDs for 150 people any quicker? Especially when, inevitably, some people will have lost their bag tags or they will be out of date or borrowed or whatever. In my case, it would have been easier if my sister had just put a big piece of yellow string on her bag so that nobody would have been confused about whose it was... it also would have cost less than a penny and taken up no additional time for anyone involved. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking IDs against names on bags requires no equipment and no special skills, so they should be able to provide enough employees to do that in a timely manner. For example, the stewardesses who just got off the plane can be asked to help out during this task. They could even wake up and/or sober up the pilot, and ask him to help. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On the 3% claim — that may approach the correct value for 'number of bags delayed, temporarily misplaced, or misrouted', but is far, far, far from the fraction of bags permanently lost (through theft or other mechanisms). This article notes that roughly 98% of 'lost' bags (which includes bags that are delayed through misrouting, failure to catch the passenger's plane, drunken baggage handler, extra security fondling, etc., etc.) are 'found' again within five days; most of those are found much more quickly than that. The article pegs the fraction of bags which are totally and irretrievably lost at less than one in ten thousand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, but not having your stuff for 5 days can be a major hassle (like having no suit to wear for that job interview), as is making arrangements to pick up the baggage, especially if you've gone home by then. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had my luggage "lost" many, many times... it usually happens on connecting flights at busy airports—the people make the connection but the bag does not. It is always sent along on the next flight. At my airport they always have delivered it to my home afterwards, though it can take a day or two. Fortunately they always seem to lose it on the return end of my flight, not the outgoing, so it is not such a big deal for me. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, Mr.98? Do you ever wonder "What am I doing wrong?", or "Why am I choosing crap airlines?". I've done a fair amount of air travel, but my bags have never been lost. I know people who've had that experience, and once is more than enough for a lifetime. To have it happen "many, many times" would seem to be getting into the realms of conspiracy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that "a fair amount" of travel will mean very different things to different people. To some, it might be one vacation a year, while to others it may mean flying to work and home each day. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I sometimes have to travel a lot (once, maybe twice a month or so). It's usually not mysterious when they are going to miss my flight—it's certain airports and certain tight connections than do it. Flying a tight connection through Denver and your bags will probably get delayed. (Fly a late flight from DC to Boston in the winter, and your flight itself will be delayed. Guaranteed.) Part of what I do "wrong" is sometimes schedule tight connections like this—because the alternatives are usually pretty awful (I don't do red-eyes). When I'm flying back home, I accept this as a possible consequence, because the stakes are low (Logan delivers late bags to your door for free). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not really practical in many cases. However, you're absolutely right that you should never put anything valuable or irreplaceable in checked luggage, especially things like jewelry and money, because there's a reasonable chance you won't see it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What parts aren't practical ? If you mean redesigning the gate area to include a luggage carousel, that would require some work, but they could do that whenever they rebuild the terminal next (which they seem to do on a regular basis, anyway). There could be lots of less expensive methods, though, right down to putting the baggage in a roped off area and having the passengers point out their own bags. Having less automated movement of baggage should ultimately cost less, though, as there's currently a massive unseen complex for handling baggage from the ticket counter to the plane, and none of that would be needed anymore. If you mean more of a load on security, that would have been true when they didn't check luggage, but now they are scanning all checked luggage, too, so this change would just move those scanning machines from the baggage handling area to the regular security area. It would also be helpful to have the person there to ask them about any questionable items. StuRat (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Travelers are already annoyed enough at the airlines, and if they had to lug all their bags to the gate instead of having someone put them on a conveyer and let a system take care of it, that might put them over the edge. I've been behind groups of tourists with lots of bags, and the thought of the extra time and inconvenience that approach would put them through is unsettling to say the least. Along with having to pay a bunch of money for those carts. Yes, they sometimes have to gate-check items, but in general the current system seems to be optimal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason those carts have to be so expensive, they can soak travelers to pay for their new stadium some other way. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason hot dogs cost 5 bucks at either the airport or the ballpark, but they do. But even the carts were free, shlepping your family's luggage to the gate and then having to wait behind everyone else who shlepped their luggage would add a large amount of time to the process. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But you already have to wait behind those people while their bags are checked at the ticket counter, that activity would just be moved to the gate. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that check-in takes place over a larger physical area and a longer timespan. It's not often I can say this but this time I agree with BB. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But you're assuming things must stay the same as they are now. The length of the desk at the gate can surely be extended to accommodate one or more person moved up from the baggage check area. As for time, I see no reason why people wouldn't get to the gate earlier, if they no longer needed to check their bags first. And, at the gate, they would no longer need to ask you where you are going and print out appropriate luggage tags, as obviously they already know where everybody at that gate is heading, so they would just have a pile of pre-printed tags to which each customer could add their name. In the case where this is the first leg of a flight that ends up in multiple cities, then they could have a small number of piles of tags, each in a bin with the appropriate destination clearly marked. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished to hear that in the United States, any Tom, Dick or Barry can just wander into an airport and take incoming bags. That's certainly not the way it works in Britain... :O ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking theory. It's possible they keep an eye out for folks walking in off the street. But there's no guarantee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article about the problem, including some remarkable photographs: [1]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Our security screeners and baggage handlers remove anything of value before the bag reaches baggage claim, so there's little reason for the general public to go into the bag-theft business. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be possible to do this at Inverness Airport, for example. The main baggage claim is not seriously segregated from the arrivals area of the terminal, and my relations have been known to meet me in there. The airport even used to have a carousel out in Arrivals as well - I don't know if that's still there. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also possible at Frankfurt Airport (not UK, but Europe and one of the worlds major airports). This is irrespective of where you arrive from. You have to clear customs if you want to get from Baggage Reclaim back to the outside, but anyone (with a rough idea of the layout of the airport) can just walk up to the carousels. I've always been quite puzzled by that.213.160.108.26 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I once sleep-walked right through baggage reclaim and into the public area without picking up my backpack. It was no problem to just turn around and walk back in - I kinda expected to be challenged, but by looking comfortable and as if I belonged (or by someone else sleeping on the job ;-) I managed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Search online for "luggage forwarding", "door-to-door luggage service", and simply "suitcase shipping", and you'll find a number of services that will ship suitcases, air or surface, door to door. These services all charge (the only one I could find online that gave quotes wanted >£150 for a Europe->US transfer for a single bag); some partner with airlines so you should check with your ticketed airline and see if they offer the service or have a partner who does (it should be cheaper, but I doubt it'll be free). The security and customs concerns raised above aren't any different for any other shipped item of comparable size (50 pound packages are airfreighted around, door to door, every day. If there's a security concern they'll open it. If there's a customs concern you'll have to pick it up at a customs office. Given the costs involved, however, you may consider whether it's economic to just give some stuff to charity and lug the rest. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So what's the deal with splinters?

I've got a couple I'm trying to find right now. It seems the biggest ones (i.e. macroscopic ones) are almost entirely painless, while the ones that hurt like hell^H^H^H^Hheck are either barely visible or nonexistent. What is going on here? Oh, and secondly, if I don't feel like getting out the microscope to remove these, how long is it going to take for the dermis to grow out and drop them? ZigSaw 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what small-and-decreasing percentage of readers now will get the ^H^H joke?--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it somehow represents someone starting to say "hell" but then changing to "heck". Is that it ? StuRat (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Methinks ^H is backspace and just two of them would have sufficed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WHAAOE, which helps to slow the decrease. ^H. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a 25 year old splinter, which I don't expect to fall out anytime soon. Actually, I suspect that the wood has all dissolved, and just left the wood stain behind. Apparently, this is a new way to get an accidental tattoo (with getting really drunk being the original way). So it seems a splinter can go deep enough that it's below the layer of skin which is shed, and thus remain permanently. As for small splinters hurting more, perhaps they are able to go down farther, to the nerves. I've always found it easier to locate splinters in profile than viewed straight on. So, if I have one on my finger, I rotate it so that anything sticking up will go into a profile view. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps smaller ones hurt similar to how Paper cuts hurt so much? The article suggest it's to do with the number of pain-receptors affected in a small area and leaving the wound open to air. Either way they bl@@dy well hurt when you're not expecting them - metal splinters being the worst i've had the misfortune to experience. ny156uk (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

e-mail address of Jim Davis (Garfield creator)

jim davis's email address(garfield creator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcbwayne (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) _{I have reformatted the question to its own section. Richard Avery (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)}

I doubt Jim Davis publishes his personal email address. You can use this link to visit the "Contact Us" page on the official Garfield website. (Their Site Map has a link marked "E-Mail Jim Davis", but it simply takes you to the Contact Us page.) Coreycubed (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

They also have information on how to make contact for commercial purposes (licensing, reproduction, etc), and contact details (email and postal) for Paws, Inc, the company that handles the commercial side of Garfield[2].--Normansmithy (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

how to?

how to convey a message of dismay and unhappyness wih your big boss and askk for the position you looking for..al i mean is how do i go about it,do i say, i find myself capable of taking up new challanges etc etc?hope you got this.. please help.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're wanting to switch to another department, badmouthing your current boss is likely to do nothing but brand you a malcontent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so try to only present the positive part, as in "i find myself capable of taking up new challanges" (although proofread it better first). If all else fails, look for a job outside the company (but don't quit your current job until you have a new job). StuRat (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Hopefully, ) OP was asking how to convey a message of dismay and "unhappyness" regarding his current position and not with the big boss himself. If the request is written, I hope for OP's sake that he proofreads it first, though. Coreycubed (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If 'big boss' means somebody in line authority higher than your immediate superior there is nothing positive to be done directly. (You would be cutting out your immediate boss.) Also never put a complaint in writing unless you are starting a formal Complaints Procedure (with guidance from Union rep, etc.). Depending on your relationship with your immediate boss you may raise the matter with him/her, informally. Test the water with a minor niggle and note the response. But you ain't going to beat the system. Best solution - probably - keep quiet, get a new job, and leave without complaint. (Your old bosses will be asked to give a reference so you must leave them happy. Good luck.Froggie34 (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about other places, but in the US generally companies are not allowed to make comments about former employees, either good or bad, except to verify dates of employment. That way they avoid risk of lawsuits from either the former employee or his next company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Legally they're not, but in practice they have ways of saying, or not saying, things in references that on the surface are innocuous and not provably negative, but may be understood by other management/HR personnel as detrimental. Undocumented and unattributable word-of-mouth information can also be conveyed when they meet in business or quasi-social contexts (conferences, Freemasons, Rotarians, RAOB etc: since the employee in question can never get to know whether this has taken place, it's impossible for him/her to instigate legal proceedings. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but it's worth avoiding the risk in the first place by diplomatic conduct. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone assumes the issue is negative comments. But positive comments can be a problem also. The issue is that while a given person may be right (or wrong) for a given situation, he might be wrong (or right) for a different situation. So if a boss gives an ex-employee a positive review, and the employee doesn't work out at his next place, that reflects negatively on the employee's former company. So the safest policy, and certainly at my company, is to say nothing to a recruiter except to confirm dates of service. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, but I'm fairly sure companies aren't legally prohibited from commenting on former employees, although they may decide to follow such a policy to avoid legal trouble. The First Amendment applies to bosses, too. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten the jobs I've had without positive comments from former employers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - you definitely need to keep it positive. Talk only about how the new position would be good for you - and (importantly) why you'd be a greater asset to the company in the new position than your present one. Explain that you've been thinking about a move like this for quite a while - you don't want to make it seem like this is a snap decision. You might even be ready with an explanation about how your old department will be able to get by without you - you probably don't want to offer that unless asked. Be sure to point out that you'll be prepared to work harder to cover the transition - to avoid leaving a sudden hole in your old department. Be prepared to accept an 'overlap' period where you may need to pick up tasks from the old job until they can get a replacement. SteveBaker (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms in non-European countries?

In Europe, it's common for countries and their cities have their own coats of arms. But how common is this outside Europe? Are coats of arms of countries and cities used in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia? JIP | Talk 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's very common, would be unusual to have none. Sometime it's as simple as an emblem like that of the Imperial Seal of Japan. See List of coats of arms. --Kvasir (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at a few entries on the list, and my general feeling based on this was that while every country has a symbol for both the country itself and its cities, not all of them look like what I've accustomed to think coats of arms look like. I've come to think of a coat of arms being shield-shaped, with an easily distinguishable, artistic but not overly detailed, image on it, and very few to none exterior decorations. Most of the European coats of arms look like this. In contrast, based on my quick glance at the list, most of the coats of arms outside Europe go to one of the extremes: either they are very simple designs, or overly flourishing images. JIP | Talk 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll find that the Coat of Arms of Commonwealth countries follow the style of the British one, be it Canada, Australia, Uganda etc. which include an emblem shield, supporters, crest, motto etc. See Heraldry#National_styles for different heraldric traditions that are as unique as culture itself. --Kvasir (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In Gallery of country coats of arms you can quickly compare different heraldric traditions. The Coat of arms of Sweden, say, is no less elaborate than that of Cambodia. --Kvasir (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here in Canada the coat of arms appears on all of our paper money (as well as the rarely used 50-cent coin). For a while around 1980 it was printed in full color and I liked the way that looked, but later designs show it in monochrome. It also appeared in full color on the Canadian Red Ensign, the old flag (never officially adopted, but generally used) that the present design replaced in 1965. --Anonymous, 22:18 UTC, March 10, 2010.

It is well to be aware of the distinction between a Coat of Arms, the term more-or-less correctly used to describe the heraldic design depicted on a Shield (though as the name suggests it originally referred to the design displayed on a Tabard), and a full Heraldic Achievement, often though wrongly also called a coat of arms (our article is misleading on this point) which at absolute minimum could consist only of such a shield but for most individuals usually also includes a Motto, Helm (plus Torse and Mantling) and Crest, while for higher peers, some corporate bodies, and countries it usually also includes other elements such as a Coronet or Crown, Supporters and a Compartment with Badges, etc. In many circumstances only the Shield/coat of arms, or the Crest, from an Achievement can be validly displayed on its own, which can lead to further confusion. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that at least in the United States, cities have seals instead of coats of arms. They can be used for the same purpose for identifying the city, but I think the traditions behind them are different. JIP | Talk 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would demur. In Western Europe after the rise of Heraldry in the 12th Century, the seal of an individual (usually) or corporate body (such as a city) more often than not included the individual's or body's Achievement or parts of it (shield, crest). US cities (founded largely by Western Europeans) that adopted (or altered) seals after European rule ended may well have chosen non-heraldic designs, but they would have done so as a conscious alteration to the existing tradition, not as something that had arisen independently. I confess this is surmise, and I am ready to accept evidence to the contrary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds plausable. Modern UK Borough Councils have big wax seals, issued with their Charter by the Queen. However, they also have a coat of arms but these days are more likely to use a corporate style logo for most purposes. Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider also the rise of landscape heraldry; and that not all seals were heraldic, even in heraldry's golden age. —Tamfang (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Most states, cities, and local councils of Australia have a coat of arms, appearing on official stationary and government buildings. You can view the Canberra one here or the one for the City of Perth (a local government) here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WWII Poster

I'm searching for an image of a Spanish antifascist poster from WWII. If I remeber correctly, it represents a skeleton with angel wings flying over a ruined city. The main color should be red, but I'm not sure about it. I've seen it on a book a lot of time ago but now I can't find it anywhere. --151.51.61.156 (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this it? --Mr.98 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work Mr 98!! Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be from the Spanish Civil War? Surely by 1939, Spain was firmly in the Fascist camp. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find much about the poster specifically. I imagine it is Spanish Civil War era. It would be nice to know exactly where it was used, who made it, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it says "El angel de La Paz de los fascistas!", which translates as "The angel of La Paz of the facists!" (there's also smaller writing, but I can't make it out). Also note the skeleton angel is wearing a gas mask and has a hand formed into a swastika. There are many places named La Paz, but, of course, the largest is the capital of Bolivia. So, could this poster have been criticizing a political figure or party in Bolivia as being sympathetic to the Nazis ? StuRat (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was able to enhance the pic to make out the smaller text. It says something like "Las juventudes libertarias lo sabran destruir !" which, I think, roughly translates to "Sabran youths, it is up to you to liberate or destroy !". Sabran is a region in France, though, so that doesn't seem to fit. I'm going to cross-post on the Language Desk, to see if I can get a better translation there. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I cross-posted, and here are the answers: [3]. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Which puts us back where we were... Spanish Civil War (not Bolivia). But at least we know it was probably made by the Federación Ibérica de Juventudes Libertarias. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 11

Question on a Citation Style

I was wondering if anyone could help me. Is there an English citation style which combines in-text references consisting of the author's name plus a superscript number with full citations in the endnotes? In other words, the in-text reference might look like (Smith, Johnson ³), and it would correspond to entry number 3 in the citation endnotes. Paul Davidson (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that manylegal citation systems work like this. I know that at leas the Australian Guide to Legal Citation does.Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much appreciated. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hierachicise?

Is there a verb which means "to place in a hierachy"? I've never heard of "to hierachise" or "to hierachicise". "To tree" sounds quite nice. The specific context I am working in is describing file structures. You can search, link and tag or you can... Yaris678 (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's (US spelling, obviously) says "hierarchize". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the original meaning of "hierarchy" is "sacred ruler/leader", going back to a Greek word. It traditionally means an order of angels. That's something Mike Scioscia fills out every day. A related word is "hieroglyph", which means "sacred carving", referring to ancient Egyptian writing, or your doctor's handwriting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not find Hierachicise in ANY English dictionary. HeirarchizeHierarchize is found[4] in a small (6) number of dictionaries. corrected Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It turns up (with both an 's' and a 'z') in the online version of the concise OED. But since this is technical writing, and its meaning will be clear, I think you'd be safe to use it, regardless. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing an "r" in Hierachicise and you said "Heirarchize" but linked to "hierarchize". --Sean 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The verb "unflatten" seems to be used in jargon senses[5][6][7]. This makes sense because "flatten" is to reduce or remove hierarchy, particularly in data-tree/directory contexts. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Basic occupational safety and health training course

What would be the reason for attending the basic occupational safety and health (BOSH?)-Out of scope question by an IP at Commons, so not sure of the country or context this is asked in. Thanks in advance.KTo288 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See the article Occupational safety and health. The goal of all occupational health and safety programs is to foster a safe work environment.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, on a purely pragmatic level, appointment or promotion to various posts in many companies requires formal BOSH qualifications. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Practically, such a course points out to the trainee what their rights and responsibilities are in relation to health and safety. Reminds them to follow good health and safety practices. Introduces them to the health and safety structure of the workplace - for example who to talk to first about health and safety problems or questions. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

entertainment/games

are activision xbox360 games multiregion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.200.240 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about companies, but if you were after some specific games, then this thread claims to list all multiregion Xbox and Xbox360 games. It was written in 2006, but the thread is still being posted on in 2010...The main post was last updated in 2008. I imagine if you asked there, those people might be able to help you. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, excellent - this one even has a talk page - a list from Wikia Gaming. My searches would seem to indicate that companies don't decide, as a whole, whether or not to region lock games - it's a game-by-game decision. I could be wrong, that's just how it seems. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(I'm a game developer) Often it depends on the game content. For example, it's illegal to sell games that show blood or Nazi symbols in Germany. If your game has that stuff in it, you'll generally have to use region locking to keep the game out of Germany and make a special version for sale in Germany (typically using green "ectoplasm" as a stand-in for the blood and other art changes to keep any undesirable symbols out of the game). It's also possible that Microsoft, Nintendo or SONY might lay some requirement on you to region lock for deep, dark mysterious reasons known only to themselves. Also, if you had to buy rights to music or characters or movie rights or something - then those licenses will typically only apply to a certain set of regions - so again, you'll have to lock the game. SteveBaker (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dentists and orthodontists

What is the difference between dentists and orthodontists? Chevymontecarlo. 13:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the cleverly titled dentistry and orthodontics. I think you'll find your answer there. Richard Avery (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of which is actually so titled. Sorry, but ...  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't ever apologise for being a pedant Jack, some of my best friends is pedants. Richard Avery (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Put simply: Dentists treat tooth disease and tooth disorders. Orthodontists work on tooth and jaw alignment (braces, etc.). As with any set of related professions there is some overlap in definition, especially since orthodontics is considered a sub-set/specialty of dentistry. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wiley's Dictionary: "Overbite: n. Something your dentist notices in your child's mouth, just before he remodels his office." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I am so stupid sometimes. I often wonder whether I'm actually intelligent enough to edit articles and help people on Wikipedia! Chevymontecarlo. 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We here at the reference desk resemble that remark. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't edit any encyclopedia that would have me as a member! -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Too stupid to edit"? Ha! That never stopped anyone else! (Me included.) 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?

Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?

--Mr.98 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dentists are doctors who diagnose and treat diseases and conditions of the oral cavity (such as those of the teeth, gums, palate and tongue) and related structures (lips, muscles of mastication, TMJs, etc.). Some dentists specialize in a smaller, more concentrated area of training, such as endodontists (who generally limit their practice to root canal therapy), orthodontists (who generally limit their practice to treating malocclusion with the use of orthodontic braces and other similar apparatuses), periodontists (who generally limit their practice to treating diseases of the gums and perform gum surgery and place implants). There are other specialties, and you can ask directly on my talk page if you'd like further elaboration. So, to be precise, an orthodontist is a dentist but a dentist is not necessarily an orthodontist. And whereas there are no regulations in the United States, for example, forbidding a general dentist from performing orthodontic work, one who does will in general be much less familiar with the procedures and will be held to the level of a specialist in case of a malpractice suit. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unable to find article about Mephenesin

Dear sir or madam,

I cannot find pharmacology information about Mephenesin, a muscle relaxant. Could you please add this article in your website? 115.178.25.154 (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to check our page on Mephenesin? Coreycubed (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, that is just a stub, so we are still in need of a proper article. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

European lotteries

Dear Sir/Madame, My question is: As european citizen which European Lotto & Lotteries I am eligible to play ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osfpkassos (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be rather surprised if they exclude anyone based on nationality, as the more people play, the more money the lotteries make. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is believable - I'm pretty sure I remember there being a story relatively recently about people flocking to Italy (I believe) to buy tickets because the prize had 'rolled over' repeatedly. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have received an advert trying to convince you to buy European lottery tickets, don't send any money. It is an Internet scam. 310exit (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If I buy a lottery ticket here in the US, I'm not asked to prove my citizenship. I would imagine that in Europe, the same would be true especially because the borders are even more porous. Dismas|^(talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the various lotteries have their rules posted somewhere, which should be consulted before "investing" in a lottery (i.e. helping make someone else rich). Contests sponsored by companies as marketing gimmicks typically have rules forbidding anyone connected with the company from participating. I could imagine that employees of lottery administrators, and their families, would be similarly barred from playing. And for whatever reason, it's always possible a given lottery might have other restrictions on who can play. For example, if "Powerball" has an official website, which I would expect them to, they probably have the rules somewhere on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The important question is not whether you are eligible play - it's whether you're allowed to collect the money if you win. In the UK lottery, you either have to be physically present at a retailer who sells tickets - or you have to have a UK bank account. The French, Spanish and Italian "Loto" web sites specifically state that foreigners are welcome to play and to collect prizes. The German lottery site doesn't say you CAN'T play and collect winnings - so I presume it's OK there too. At this point I got bored - so if you need to know more - you'll have to type "{somecountry} lottery eligibility" into Google yourself! SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

EuroMillions runs in several countries (listed in the article). I'm fairly certain I've seen posters for the Irish Lotto in UK bookmakers too. As User:310exit says, beware of any emails telling you you've won a European lottery, as it may be a lottery scam. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK national lottery specifies you must be a UK resident to play online, but that appears to be more to do with having a UK bank account with which to pay for tickets and receive prizes. Their terms and conditions don't say anything else about citizenship/residency. I have played other European lotteries (buying tickets at lottery outlets) and won (small) prizes, and have never been asked for any ID when buying a ticket or collecting my prize. Astronaut (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Vampires

Wouldn't it be more helpful if vampires had enlongated two front teeth instead of the canines? My guess you will need to puncture then suck. --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some do from Nosferatu but canines seem to have become more common. meltBanana 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, incisors are for slicing bits away, the canines are for gripping. This is why cats (both great and small) and dogs (including wolves foxes etc) and snakes have elongated canines rather than incisors.--92.251.227.109 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is based on nothing, but I've always imagined that the canines on a vampire are hollow, and they such blood through them. That way they can get a lot of blood without spilling, and it explains why the wounds are so tiny (often they look just two small red circles, like slightly larger snake-bites) Belisarius (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That would require a direct connection between the apex of the canines and the lungs, so as to provide negative pressure for the suction. Unless vampires rely on capillary action. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A connection with the mouth would do. Consider how you use a straw. (Can't believe I'm posting in a thread about vampires!) --Anon, 05:12 UTC, March 12, 2010.

Given that vampires are fictional, anything you might imagine has equal validity with anything else. Vampire bats pierce the skin with their teeth, salivate a blood thinner, and lap up the blood. It's insects such as mosquitoes that pierce the skin and drink through their built-in straw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That kind of remark is often made in reply to questions about fiction, but it isn't quite true. There is such a thing as canon (fiction). I could imagine that vampires absorb their victims' blood through their elbows, or use a curly straw and cocktail umbrella, and those ideas would have distinctly less validity than popular concepts of the actions of a vampire. 81.131.52.202 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a vampire canon??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Canines are much wider and bulkier than incisors and have much longer roots -- in fact, they generally possess the greatest root length of any tooth. Because of these characteristics, canines are some of the last teeth remaining after the devastating effects of periodontitis ravage the dentition because average overall bone loss contributes to a smaller bone loss-to-root length ratio for canines. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This section could almost be added to the Dentist section above, as it's covering some of the same ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not all vampires have fangs. See Tables of vampire traits. Astronaut (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, WHAAAOE. —Tamfang (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Becomes soggy in milk", haha! I love that article. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I get too smug about how great an encyclopedia edited by anyone is, I like seeing articles like that to reduce my enthusiasm. Count Chocula, Count Duckula... it's at the same time interesting, yet utterly inappropriate. Kind of like a Baseball Bugs comment, only in the form of an ugly-ass table. Matt Deres (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Resources to deal with alcoholics

I'm specifically looking for websites which help teenagers (school-age) deal with alcoholic parents, in the UK. I'm Googling, but my results aren't terrific, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to check out our article on the National Association for Children of Alcoholics. Here is NACoA's UK website: [8] Hope this helps. Good luck. Coreycubed (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also Al-Anon and Alateen. Marco polo (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, should be useful. It's for a friend, I'll show her when she comes online tonight. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 12

River of northern Iran

What is the name of that river in northwestern Iran that starts near Mount Sabalan, flows north past Ardabil into the Aras River? Thanks, Shannon^talk _contribs 01:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at one of my atlases, the river that makes a turn to the west after Ardabil, flows due north after that, and enters the Aras on the Iranian border with Azerbaijan, about 20 miles SW of Füzuli, is the Qareh. Not sure if there are alternate spellings. AlexiusHoratius 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Wow! That was hard to find...this says that the river that flows through Ardabil is called the "Baliqly Chay River" SteveBaker (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The main river which flows into Aras is Qare Su. Baliqly Chay passes through Ardabil, joins another river, and makes Qare Su. By the way, there are also some other "Qare Su"s in Iran in other provinces. --Omidinist (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like that there are actually two rivers around the Sabalan region that join together and flow due north, but I haven't been able to find the name before I asked. Thanks for clarifying. Shannon^talk _contribs 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sea salt vs Table salt

I was going through differences between sea salt and table salt. Sea salt has 98% NaCl and 2% other minerals; whereas table salt has 99.9% minerals. From this it looks like sea salt should be considered as bad as table salt, but sea salt is recommended when compared to table salt (?). Is it because of 2% minerals in sea salt ?! Just wondering, adding >2% minerals to table salt will make table salt better than sea salt ?! --V4vijayakumar (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bad" in what sense? If you're trying to cut back on sodium, I expect sea salt is almost exactly as bad as table salt.

If your sodium intake is within limits, will substituting sea salt improve your health by supplying minerals you'd otherwise be missing? I don't know. It's not ridiculous on its face, but I don't have any data.

But if your doctor has said "ixnay on the altsay, because your BP is way too high", and you assuage your guilt by using sea salt instead, I don't think that's really gonna cut it. Speaking purely hypothetically of course — not offering any medical advice, nor do I claim any competency in this field. --Trovatore (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It'll make it taste better than regular salt! I doubt that there's any other effect, unless you have some specific mineral deficiency. Paul Stansifer 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But is that really true? Does it really taste any different at all? I'd be most interested iun seeing the results of a blind test. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, if you think it tastes better, then it does taste better. This is an area where getting the scientific facts is not necessarily the path to maximum utility. --Trovatore (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but if the eater was not aware that it contained sea salt, and assumed it was just table salt, would they notice any difference? I am yet to be convinced. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to get the table salt in your blind trial to have the same crunchy texture, or that would be a giveaway. Possibly the texture is the only difference. Then again, I'm sure we can detect 2% of various things in our food, such as 2% burnt bits or 2% engine oil, so it's not unreasonable. 81.131.52.202 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about sprinkling salt on to a finished meal, where the visual appearance is a give away even before they get to the texture. But in that case, the individual eater would be doing the sprinkling so of course they'd be aware of what they were putting on their meal. Now, what about using it in the cooking process itself, where it becomes totally dissolved? Would two identical steaks, one cooked with sea salt and the other cooked with an equivalent amount of table salt, taste any different? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. People often delude themselves into thinking silly things, like $2000 wires 'sound better' or even sillier things like certain digital streams sound better even though they are exactly the same stream. You may say caveat emptor or tough on such people but IMHO those who spread such nonsense to make money are committing fraud and I have no sympathy for such people. For those who are doing it out of ignorance and have no personal benefit on the RD even if this isn't the science desk, we should challenge any claims without good evidence, we can't force people to accept they may be wrong, but if we show them there's no evidence for their claim, and challenge them to do their own tests if they won't accept the evidence, perhaps some will begin to change their minds. We definitely should not be perpetuating nonsense on the RD. Coming from NZ, where iodine deficiency is a very real problem, it really irks me when people promote sea salt or uniodised salt without good reason and yes, if you're going to promote taste as a reason, I expect good evidence or failing that at least acknowledgement that what you're saying may very well be complete nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If the $2000 wires sound better to them, then they sound better. I'm not going to take that back. I happen to be just plain right about this. --Trovatore (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to believe something which sounds exactly the same as something else sounds better (e.g. two digital streams which are exactly the same), that's you're right of course, but since this is the RD, I call that nonsense, and will call it out whenever I see it. Sure you can make philisophical arguments about what 'better' means but as far I'm concerned if two things are the same, then they are the same, claiming one is better simply because some people have deluded themselves into thinking it is better when they are unable to detect any difference is not something I'll ever advocate. Sure if people are aware they are unable to detect any difference but don't mind because they are happy with the way their delusions make them feel, I have no problem with that. But the evidence suggests this is not the case for the vast majority of people. They will insist their delusions are real, in some cases even going as far as to outright reject any evidence while still believing their delusions are real. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, you changed your essay after I'd responded to it, without noting that fact — not really kosher. You're still wrong — the subjective experience is the entire point here, so if someone thinks his experience is better, then it is. --Trovatore (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did however inform you on your talk page (before you said anything here although I understand you were likely composing your message the same way I was adding something to my comment above). Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. --17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is not what pressure waves hit your eardrum; the point is how much pleasure you get out of it. If it sounds better to you, then it sounds better, period. So you can call it like you see it, but you're just flat wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Again I disagree, and from my experience as mentioned above, this is not what the vast majority of people making such claims are saying. They are genuinely claiming that there is a difference. Many are simply misinformed and will be surprised but have no problem accepting when it's shown to them their deep seat beliefs were incorrect, and in fact will often be happy that you've shown this to them (although the evidence has to be strong enough and they sometimes may require a fair amount of explaination). The more die hard will reject any evidence, even from their own senses and come up with silly reasons for why you evidence is wrong or the experiments don't work but they will still insist there really is a difference, they just argue you aren't showing it. They will often get worked up about it, if you challenge their beliefs precisely because they strongly believe their most be a difference (similar to the way religious people and those who believe in other pseudosciences tend to get worked up). A vanishing few are fully aware that there is no difference but don't care because it seems better to them (i.e. the case you're talking about). Again I don't really care about the later and isn't what I'm discussing here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'll just add one more thing and then I won't be back to this discussion unless someone asks me to on my talk page. My main point above, even if it got a little sidetracked in the discussion is that if you are going to say something "tastes better" you should at least clarify what you mean by "it tastes better". If you solely mean "I think it tastes better but in reality it probably tastes the same I've simply deluded/whatever myself into thinking it tastes different because of preconceived believes and emotions on my part, and there's no reason why you should share let alone embrace my delusions/whatever" then explain so in some meaningful way and I don't care since you are entitled to your personal beliefs.

My concern is when people just say "tastes better" but are intending the above, and given this is a RD even if not /S, people may be confused into thinking such statements have some basis in fact, rather then simply being personal delusions/whatever which others may not share, and in particular many people who approach the world from a more logical viewpoint are not going to want to share.

(And I suspect/OR that this is a majority of people since as I've mentioned the way people generally respond if challenged is either accept it or reject it because they don't accept the validity of the testing. Even those who do accept it may be in their imagination but still believe it anyway often also believe there may be something there you just aren't detecting but don't care that much either way. In other words as I said before from my experience/OR it's only a small number who actually fully accept its in their imagination/whatever but don't care.)

Now, if you mean "double blinds tests have shown I can taste the difference and I personally do believe it tastes better (perhaps with an explaination of why you feel it tastes better if you can describe it)" then I'm even more happy with you mentioning that. If you mean "double blind tests have shown that in geographical location X among people Y, A% of people find it better tasting & here are the refs to show that" then say so, the later of course being the best answer since this is the RD.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my point: You keep repeating this thing about "deluding oneself" into thinking that something tastes better. It is not a delusion!!!!. There is no such thing as being "deluded" about your sense perceptions. You can be deluded about how they relate to external reality; you cannot be deluded about what they are.

So if you think coffee tastes better in a pretty mug, then guess what, it does. It really, factually does. The reason it tastes better may be psychological rather than anything related to the neurochemistry of your oral and nasal cavities. So what?

And obviously double-blind methodology is simply aggressively missing the point here. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very easy to delude yourself into thinking something tastes better.

While you're correct that barring some kind of bizarre mental illness, if you think you're happy then you are. But you're wrong in assuming that people can accurately compare their memory of one thing with their current experience of some other thing.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that our logical, conscious understanding of our own pleasure is accurate. In fact, people are very poor at logically analyzing their own emotions. It's entirely possible to fool your conscious mind into thinking you enjoy X more than you enjoy Y, when in fact you don't. You would think that you would notice this error immediately, but naturally you stop eating Y in favor of X, believing that you are maximizing your pleasure when in fact your memory of Y is faulty.

(Later, when X is unavailable you might be forced to try Y again and realize your mistake.) I'm surprised you've never noticed this effect.

However, All of this philosophical debate about subjective experience misses the point. Unless you only ever prepare food for yourself, when you're preparing a recipe you want to know if there is an objective taste difference between the two items. And if so, what. The same goes for building a stereo system that will be listened to by more than one person. APL (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You say "it's very easy to delude yourself into thinking something tastes better". On the contrary, it's a logical impossibility. --Trovatore (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Beware, people who make money selling sea salt are going to make all sorts of claims about it. As sea salt is the sort of thing that is sold in health food shops, then its easy to tuck it in with health foods. I try to avoid all salt in my diet, by not adding any and avoiding processed foods. I make my own salt-less bread. My food tastes just as good as with salt. If you add up all the salt in food you eat in a day, then you will probably have an unpleasant surprise. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, both about how marketing works, and the potential risks of salt, or more specifically, sodium. We do need some salt, but there's already plenty of salt in foods, generally, so it's not normally necessary to add any. One oddity: The OP said "Sea salt has 98% NaCl and 2% other minerals; whereas table salt has 99.9% minerals." That last part should say "99.9% NaCl and .1% other minerals", right? Especially as he seems to have corrected himself in the next sentence. But I don't like to mess with other people's posts directly. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sea salt makers sometimes claim that because it tastes nicer you can use less (which is presumably healthier, if true). More scientifically, salts which contain not just sodium chloride will also have additional minerals and trace elements that your body requires such as iodine - manufacturer sites[9]products.mercola.com/himalayan-salt/ - so that is healthier. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hence, the use for iodized table salt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and specifically, because a lack of iodine can cause goiters. Unfortunately, iodine has a nasty taste. That's why they added it to salt, because salt has such a strong taste, that it tends to cover up the iodine. However, you can get uniodized table salt, and it does taste better. I suspect that that's what's going on with sea salt, too: it tastes better because it has less iodine than regular iodized table salt. But, of course, if you skip the nasty tasting iodine, you're putting yourself at risk of an iodine defficiency. StuRat (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You can get enough iodine by eating seafood occasionally, such as sea-fish. You ought to be eating oily fish (such as salmon, sardines, mackeral)for health reasons anyway. You should not eat salt just to get iodine. 89.242.121.98 (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Most table salt sold in the UK is uniodized. The main difference between sea salt and ordinary table salt is that sea salt has a higher proportion of dead fish and sewage in it than table salt. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

for double blind tests (or similar) showing uniodised salt tastes better Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, again, that most people in the Western world get PLENTY of salt in their diet as it is—way too much, from a health standpoint. The incidence of iodine deficiency is practically nonexistent North America and Western Europe. Don't add more salt to your diet out of fear of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree you shouldn't be adding salt for fear of iodine deficiency. However, the question of whether you should choose non-iodised salt vs. iodised salt is a valid one Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Though does it matter in practice? If you eat out every once in awhile, surely you get enough salt and iodine, provided you don't just eat in places that serve sea salt? I am presenting this as an honest question. My understanding is that Americans in particular get a huge overdose of salt from eating out. I imagine that most of that is iodized? If that were true then you'd never really need to intentionally add additional iodine to your diet, right? (Since the amount of iodine required to avoid deficiency is very small.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since more relevant to the original question I'll answer this but also leave after that. This ref says

The proportion of the US population with moderate to severe iodine deficiency (<50 µg iodine/L in urine) has more than quadrupled in the last 20 years, 2.6% in NHANES I vs 11.7% in NHANES III

I'm not sure if that reallys means 11.7% of the American population has moderate to severe iodine deficiency or I misunderstood something (didn't read it in depth) but either way, I'm not sure if the problem is really that small. Nowadays of course, you're probably better then many in the past and in the US still far better then many other countries, but the recommendations are I presume set on what should ideally be minimum level for the average person based on the evidence available. [10] does at least suggest the problem may not be getting worse at least from the 90s-2000.

Also I'm not sure how much the overconsumption of salt from eating out helps since [11] says

Contrary to popular belief, four-fifths of the salt in American food is not iodized. That would be fine if we only consumed fewer over-salted, processed, prepackaged, and fast foods (which do not contain iodine)...

The site may not seem the best but it does have a HONcode which seems to suggest it's not complete quackery.

BTW, as mentioned in the 1st ref & hardly surprising, those on a sodium restricted diet are at obvious risk although iodised salt may not help much here (although it would make sense that of & salt they do use for it to be iodised without a good reason to the contrary particularly if they're reluctant to take external supplementation).

And as you may guess from the womentowomen site there's more likely to be a problem for women, pregnant and lactating ones in particular [12]). This isn't an uncommon problem with many nutrional requirements although as with many isn't an easy thing to solve, supplementation is useful but many pregnancies are unplanned and the mother may be unaware for weeks that she's pregnant which can be a problem in itself. Also while I'm not sure if this is a problem in pregnancy, if you suddenly increase iodine intake that will generally be a problem in itself causing hyperthroidism [13] & the w2w ref

The w2w also suggests iodine intake in the US is "marginal" & something that may seem to the contrary

As recently as 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine defined our iodine status here in the US as “marginal,” based on data acquired from the International Council for the Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorder and the World Health Organization (WHO). More specifically, the WHO data suggest the greater risk in the US is not iodine deficiency per se but iodine-induced hyperthyroidism (overproduction of thyroid hormones) or iodine-induced hypothyroidism. Interestingly, both these problems can occur when people who are already iodine-deficient are given too much iodine, too quickly......

I haven't hunted the original ref but while it may suggest many Americans are taking too much iodine, the w2w conclusion is not that nor have I seen any other refs saying that. (Many refs mention the lack of major problems from Japan's very high level & the first ref mentions they don't have much more hyperthyroidism then the US although they do have one type less common in the US.)

Other then perhaps an unavoidable issue without carefully targetted individual nutritional profiles, my guess is that it may also be a combination of 1) immigrants to the US having a sudden iodine increase (c.f. the first ref on sudden iodine increases) 2) migration within the US due to substanial differences between geographical areas 3) iodine deficiency is often picked up on in the US and treated with supplementation (which would imply it does occur often enough for this to be a detectable problem) but this is done poorly/too fast.

Either way these & a few other things I read lead me to believe a resonable number of Americans will benefit from increased iodine intake. Again I emphasised this because a key point when it comes to nutritional things like this, it's not that the level is critically low but that a higher level will generally be better & in particular, you're more likely to be lower than ideal then higher than ideal bearing in mind that while hyperthroidism is a problem if it does occur from what I gather you've either suddenly changed your level, are 'unlucky' or perhaps have other major problems like are consuming way, way to much salt in which case the excess iodine may be the least of your worries. I haven't see any recommendations Americans in general should avoid iodised salt because they're like to be overconsuming iodine.

My impression (i.e. WP:OR) is it's perhaps only a very minor problem compared to other parts of the world (both in terms of the number of people affected & the how low their level is) and as the US is a developed rich country, people don't tend to care about it anyway since they can take care of themselves. Within the US the problem isn't big enough particularly compared to other issues that it get's much attention & it's not an easy thing to resolve anyway (mandatory fortification tends to be controversial).

Iodised salt doesn't have to be the solution but if you don't have a good reason not do take it or you believe you'll get little benefit but don't have any real evidence (e.g. if you're regularly tested and you level is within recommended range then that's different) then I think it's something worth considering from what I've read.

P.S. Just to re-emphasise what I said above, if you're planing to increase your iodine level do it gradually & seek medical advice if necessary.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out Kosher salt. It does not usually have additives like anti-caking agent and iodine. It is one of the kinds of salt suitable for aquarium use. --Kvasir (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sea salt tastes different because of magnesium chloride which has a much stronger sensation than NaCl. This also absorbs water and makes the sea salt sticky. the small amount of sulfates, iodides or Potassium or Calcium salts would not make much difference to flavour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that minerals like potassium and magnesium help to regulate sodium concentrations in the body, as well as to regulate other bodily functions. I don't know that the trace levels in sea salt would actually make any significant difference, but there is a value to taking in a more comprehensive spectrum of these chemicals. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube

How do you solve the last corners if they are in the right position but oriented differently?--Mikespedia is on Wikipedia! 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's heaps of websites detailing solutions to the Rubik's Cube. Try Googling it, and you'll see there's hundreds. See if you can find the solution there. Chevymontecarlo. 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Snap them off and put them back in the other way around. 148.197.115.54 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Would that be the disassembly algorithm?  Buffered Input Output 14:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This site's instructions are good. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

backstreet boys

its written in Wikipedia that they had their first concert on july 8, 1993, but i checked some other sites and they showed that its actually may 8, 1993. can anyone help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.137.170 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses references to show that the statements in articles are true. References are links to sites and books that say the same thing as in the article. The actual Backstreet Boys article uses the MTV site, [Located here] as a reference (Go to the link and scroll down to the 'biography' section). Try looking on several websites for their first concert dates - if they say the same date then it's more likely that whatever that date is is true. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo. 16:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That MTV link doesn't give a date for the first concert. Many of the sites that say July seem to be Wikipedia clones. But this is a discussion for Talk:Backstreet Boys. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Open_admissions and academic quality

Can a university have both? At least, in some fields like art?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take the liberty of rephrasing your question so the Reference Desk can give a proper answer: "Can anyone point me to examples of a university or college that had open admissions and high-quality, highly regarded academic programs?" (The way you phrased it, everyone could lazily answer "yes, it is possible.") 74.212.140.226 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they could say simply 'yes.' But, perhaps the OP just wants to know if being selective is a condition to being good. I personally believe that it is not, you can be a good educator and accept any student who knocks at your door. You'll try the best and the result will not be consistent. On the other side, highly selective institutions could have excellent students coming out of them, without being good educators. It is the selection effect that makes their student above the average.--ProteanEd (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What do we mean by academic quality? Quality of teaching, of research? Quality of an individual student's potential education? Or do you mean the ability of all of the students to do well according to various types of testing regimes, earn extremely high amounts, etc.?

Sure, it could, in theory, have all of these things. In practice, the performance of the students (however measured), on average (individuals can certainly buck the trend), probably drops as you widen admission requirements. That doesn't preclude the possibility of hiring excellent faculty for the most part (though "quality of students" is a factor when considering where to work, in my experience—working with students who are just a step or two out of high school is a very different sort of job than working with slick Ivy League kids), though it probably does, in practice. Academics want to work in places with money and/or status. Theoretically an open university can have both, though I'm not sure in practice that they do. That being said, there are some notable exceptions. The College de France has free and open lectures, and is renown for the quality of its faculty. Many excellent academics have worked for the Open University. City College of New York is ranked higher than many other institutions which have more selective admissions requirements. There are probably other examples as well. On average, though, if you are considering institutions like community colleges, open admissions does seem to be correlated with both a decrease in the quality of instructors (as measured by the standards of the wider academy) and students (ditto). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only endorse the three recommendations of Mr.98. I have also heard of the quality of these institutions. Furthermore, I have to add that it also depends on the field of study. In many cases, like classics, history, or philosophy, there is not a lot of competition (at least in Europe), so the university is in practice open for all who know the language and have a high-school diploma. --ProteanEd (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WILDLIFE QUESTION

I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SUGAR GLIDERS ARE LEGAL IN PENNSYLVANIA. I SEE ON THIS SITE IT STATES THEY ARE LEGAL AS HOUSE PETS...BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME STIPULATIONS ON THE SALE. CAN I GET A PERMIT? I'VE SEEN THEY DON'T ISSUE THEM ANYMORE? I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHERE I CAN PRINT OUT IN BLACK AND WHITE THE EXACT GUIDELINES/RESTRICTIONS FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.249.102 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read the conditions at the top of this page, you'll see that we can't give you legal advice. You could try contacting the State Veterinarian's office whose details are given here; they should be able to advise you --Normansmithy (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Sugar Glider article has some general info on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when is asking what the law about something in a state is asking for "legal advice"? It is pretty hard to figure out what PA's laws are; there's not a list of specific animals that I can find -- most likely it's internal Game Commission policy, since they consider each application individually and specifically. (For example, for big cats and such, they'll want to know what provisions the applicant has made for safety, etc.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this Pennsylvania law, "A new applicant for an exotic wildlife possession permit shall provide documentation of at least 2 years experience of hands-on work with the designated species, including care, feeding, handling, training and husbandry. This experience shall be from a recognized/approved facility and the owner, manager or licensee of this facility shall provide a letter of reference." If you feel you can meet these requirements, you should contact the Pennsylvania Game Commission to request a permit. Marco polo (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't write in capitals either. There's no need, as it won't get people's attention any more than any other question. Chevymontecarlo. 09:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it may turn people away. Dismas|^(talk) 10:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fat people

I'm 6'1" 260 lbs. I'm overweight and I have a gut. However, my arms and legs don't have drooping fat. But when I watch TV shows like Judge Alex and Maury and trashy shows like that, the people are absolutely enormous. I have terrible eating habits and I don't exercise, but I don't look anything like them. What exactly makes them so large?

I was under the impression that Canadian and American lifestyles are pretty close to the same, but on my excursions to the US, there are more very large people. Why is there a difference? What are they doing that I'm not that make them so much bigger? Aaronite (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, this isn't a judgement: as far as I know, I should look like that too, but I don't, and I don't really understand why. Aaronite (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Body chemistry, metabolism, genetic makeup, that kind of thing. With the (near) exception of identical twins, every body is unique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They take in more energy than they expend?--79.76.188.14 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They spend too much time sitting on their butts answering Wikipedia Ref Desk Q's. :-) Butt seriously, those type of freak shows either go for "hotties" or the hideous, because that's what their viewers want to see. So, those people aren't representative of Americans, thank God. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is completely speculative, but I think that Canada's educational systems are better on average than U.S. educational systems. As a result, I suspect that a larger percentage of Canadians than of people in the United States are aware and appreciative of the importance of good nutrition and exercise. Furthermore, in some low-income communities of the United States, there is an entrenched culture of eating and drinking high-calorie foods (especially soft drinks) and avoiding exertion. There may well be cultures like that in Canada, too, but because extremes of income are much greater in the United States (see our article Gini coefficient), a larger percentage of the U.S. population lives in poverty. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is also completely speculative, but I think that the combined factors of drinking bagged milk and proximity to A. alces makes Canadians more susceptible to illnesses therefore necessitating a public health care system. Seriously though, I think fat people (okay, fat Americans) know that eating junk food and not exercising is unhealthy - they just don't care. It's not a lack of education, unless you're trying to make the argument that the Canadian school system is better at stigmatizing obesity than the American school system. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, though. Coreycubed (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some have blamed high-fructose corn syrup, which is used heavily in the US because (for political reasons) it's artificially cheap relative to cane sugar. Is HFCS used much in Canada? —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe Canadians just burn more calories shivering ? StuRat (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you any idea how many calories you can burn singing O Canada? Also, it is a well-known fact that Timbits bind to fat and flush it out of one's system. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm relying on the negative calories found in Diet Coke to do the job. (Actually, I prefer to call them "Dark Calories" - a rather specific form of Dark Energy that's found only in Diet Coke). SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Many Americans live in low-density neighborhoods where you have to drive to get anywhere. Canadian cities tend to be somewhat higher-density, and many more people get to work by public transit (which necessitates walking to and from stops). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The gulf between calories consumed and calories burned is larger for them than it is for you. End of story. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Andrews, Scotland.

I have visited St. Andrews regularly and have just returned from yet another visit there. And I always forget to ask at the local Library or Tourist Information Centre why it is that Saint Andrews is so called. Oh I know it is named for the Patron Saint of Scotland St. Andrew but it would make more sense to me if the town had been named St. Andrew's (Town or City) or the City/Town of Saint Andrew. I walked around the graveyard surrounding the ruins of St. Andrews Cathedral and actually found a few headstones that remembered a deceased loved one or more who had been "a prominent academic or a respected cleric, or a successful businessman of St. Andrew's", but in the formal absence of the apostrophe I began to suspect that it's presence on a headstone several hundreds of years old might suggest a mistake had been made by the stone mason. So the absence or even the presence of a possessive apostrophe keeps me guessing. Why then is the famous University Town that is named for Scotland's Patron Saint named St. Andrews, without the apostrophe? Thanks in anticipation. 92.30.44.225 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A chap called Saint Rule allegedly took Saint Andrew's bones from Constantinople to Scotland "for safe keeping" and buried them. The full story is here[14]. I expect the apostrophe just got left out, like Harrods. However, St David's seems to have kept theirs. Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't read my own sources. Rule took the relics from Patras, (where Saint Andrew was crucified) to Scotland, so that they WOULDN'T be taken taken to Constantinople. Simple! Alansplodge (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at other similar names (St Johns, St Peters etc) you will in each case find places with and without the apostrophe. I speculate that in many cases the spelling became established before the use of apostrophes for possession became as firm as it is today. --ColinFine (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also a government-controlled convention in Australia and some other countries that geographic names dispense with apostrophes, even though we abide by standard spelling rules in all other contexts. So, here we have places like Wilsons Promontory (not Wilson's), the Princes Highway (not Prince's), Uluru, formerly known as Ayers Rock (not Ayers' Rock), etc. We also have places called St Peters, St Marys, St Helens, and a few others. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Books has various 18th century texts including a 1792 volume of Samuel Johnson that spells it without the apostrophe[15] There's not much from before 1700: I only found one text, from 1654, and it also spells the town "St Andrews"[16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.14.1 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Constitution

Is there a 28th amendment to the bill of rights. There is an email floating around that states there is. Regarding the disparity of the new health bill by the president of the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William A Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the "Bill of Rights". What you are probably asking is if there is a 28th amendment to the Constitution. There isn't. See List of amendments to the United States Constitution. Rimush (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. There aren't any amendments to the Bill of Rights itself. Our article has a list of amendments to the United States Constitution which stops at the 27th, Variance of congressional compensation. It passed in 1992 and no amendments have passed since then, nor have any been proposed in the last thirty years. Usually, anything you read in "an email floating around" is the sort of thing they debunk over at Snopes. In this case, a cursory search seems to show that they have already done so. Coreycubed (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights had 12 articles, of which 3 through 12 were adopted as amendments 1 through 10. Article 1 or 2 of the BoR, I forget which, was eventually passed as the 27th amendment. The other one of the 12, if I recall correctly, had something to do with allocation of representatives, and probably is of little consequence at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That would have been Article the First, rendered virtually irrelevant by Public Law 62-5. If Article the First had passed (and Public Law 62-5 had not) we could be looking at a House of Representatives cap of about 5,600. And you thought today's government was getting big? :P Coreycubed (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would go further towards countering the claim that people are inadequately represented under the current system. And the newly expanded Congress could hold their sessions in Nationals Park. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Without that clause (and PL 62-5), the cap is 5/3 as high. So? —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see, there could be as many as 5,628 representatives or some such. No stadium needed, just a good high school basketball arena. Ironically, the original idea seems to have been to keep the Congress from being too small, rather than from getting too large, which could be the consequence of it passing nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see Congress even bigger...around 250 million. In other words, all adults with citizenship. We could vote with computers or by phone. Special interests couldn't bribe all of us, as that only works when you have a small number of "representatives". It's called Direct Democracy. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Even politicians only partly understand most bills, do you really think it is a good idea to have the general public, who will mostly have no understanding at all of the bill, voting on it? Direct Democracy tends to dramatically increase the Tyranny of the Majority problem, too - take a look at some of the direct democracy that goes on in Switzerland (the recent ban on minarets is an obvious example, but the local votes on individual citizenship applications are rather interesting too). --Tango (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bills are absurdly complex now, that's part of the problem, because they're written, and voted on, by mostly lawyers. If everyone voted, they would insist on simpler bills. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering how much trouble people have figuring out the wording in a simple referendum, or even in how to use a voting machine (as per Florida, 2000), the thought of the public voting on even "dumbed down" bills is fairly scary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, the stupidity of many thousands of people gives us some really bughouse crazy elected officials. Not sure that it would change that aspect all that much. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Congressman are at least accountable to the voters, and can be voted out if they support bad legislation. The voters themselves are accountable to no one and can't be "voted out" if they pass bad legislation - unless you make everyone's vote a matter of public record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In theory they can be voted out, but the reality is that there's such an advantage for incumbents that they rarely are. StuRat (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They can, in fact, be voted out, and often are. You can't "vote" the citizenry out, though, except through societal pressure. Making everyone's vote on every measure a matter of public record would be necessary to achieve accountability - and would likely increase majority tyranny, as those in the minority would be afraid to vote in favor of something that's seen as unpopular. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as protecting minority rights, that would be far easier if everyone voted, since the majority of citizens are members of one or more minority group (assuming women are included), whereas only a small portion of US "Representatives" are. So, who is more likely to vote for minority rights, the minorities or rich, white protestant men ? (Perhaps the Senate could be kept as is, so we would have both a popular vote and the "deliberative process by experts" you advocate.) StuRat (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You count women as a minority group? The split is pretty close to 50/50 (I think with a slight female majority, in fact). Women are under-represented in politics, but that doesn't make them a minority group. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, women are often considered a minority, due both to having the numeric minority in elected offices, business executives, etc., and to having historically been a class which was legally discriminated against and marginalized. They are also frequently included as a "protected class", meaning you can't fire someone just for being a woman any more than you can fire someone just for being black. StuRat (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware if it's common women specifically are a Protected class. Our article doesn't mention it and it's primarily a US term anyway. Sex may be, as with race. This means you can't fire someone for being a woman or black, but you also can't generally fire someone for being a man or white. The later may be a less common issue but it doesn't mean the law discriminates based on sex. There are some cases when it does, here in NZ, male assault female is a specific offense but it doesn't sound like that's what your talking about Nil Einne (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sex" was added as a protected class to remedy discrimination against women, not men. If there are some men out there who got fired for being male, and they can also use the law to their advantage, that's a bonus.StuRat (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bills may be "absurdly complex" now, but that's the price you pay for having meaningful and fairly-applied laws. Can you imagine what a mess we'd be in if every law was as "simple" as the Second Amendment? Ordinary people may think it's obvious what simple words mean, but lawyers (and philosophers) know different. FiggyBee (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the OP might be thinking of the proposed amendment to prohibit flag desecration, which would be a constitutional restriction on freedom of expression, hence it would "amend" the bill of rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghost photo

This is a very eerie question. Last week, I've seen a ghost photo at one of my friends' computer. This was a very disturbing photo, not one with those orbs or ectoplasms.
In the foreground there is a smiling woman with two children with Halloween costumes. In the background, there is a tall dark figure (a ghost?) with a pale face that seems to be hanging from the celing wrapped up in a long veil. Under the picture, there was a description from the person who took the photo.
I've meticulously searched for it in the most prominent ghost-photo sites, but with no success. --151.51.61.156 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you ask him about it? That would be the most direct way to find out, as there are probably gazillions of fake ghost photos circulating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a very logical answer! But unfortunately, he doens't know. We talked about it lately, but we both weren't able to find it again. Also, he was the one to find and show it to me, and now he has no clue about the original site.--151.51.61.156 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate he didn't download it or bookmark it. Is there any chance it's in his history of sites visited? I know these questions are kind of elementary, but ya never know. Or did he in fact download it? If so, there's a site (I forget its name just now) that can track down the sources of internet photos if you have a copy of the photo on your PC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I believe you're talking about "tineye.com," which is a kind of reverse image-search. OP, give it a shot if you still have the file. AlexHOUSE (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that they were wearing Halloween costumes, the most likely explanation (having not seem the photo in question) is that it was just a Halloween decoration. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A possibly more interesting story involves some couple whose wedding photo, which is up against a wall, appears to show a "demon" peaking over the guy's left shoulder. It's obviously a photo of a dog (you can see its tail on the other side), but they've made a big thing of it. Always take photos with a grain of salt, especially if they're about stuff like spooks. Although it would be interesting to see the photo anyway. What about the caption? Do you remember what it said, or part of what it said? I've found surprising results when posting part of a sentence to some obscure statement. Google is amazing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When they can make Forrest Gump shake JFK's hand and have blue aliens ride dragons, I'm sure they can add a ghost to a still photo and make it as disturbing as you like. Astronaut (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

These days, you can fake anything in a photo extremely easily. You can also fake video - but it's harder. Consequently, any photograph that you don't personally know the history of has to be regarded with deep suspicion if it purports to show something controversial like a ghost. If we could see the photo - it's likely that we could spot something in it that would reveal how it was faked. But finding a photo from just a description is very difficult. SteveBaker (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell from some of the pixels, and having seen quite a few shops in your time? FiggyBee (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to still bother you with my silly question! My hope was that someone had seen this photo so he/she could report it here. For example, I was able to track down you dog-demon photo: [17] (but I can't find the tail (-: ). The possibility to find the photo in my fried's computer is near to zero (and he surely didn't save it).
It was allegedly a "real" ghost, not a Halloween decoration. And was really disturbing!. Obviously, I'm well aware that it could be (very likely) a hoax.
The description was something like: "I was taking a photo of my children and later we saw this strange thing". If I remember correctly, she mentioned the fact that they moved from the house because of it. She also wrote that, even if the ghost seems to hang from the ceiling, they haven't a fan or a chandelier in that position. --151.51.61.156 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I had seen the "demon" thing only in quick clips on a video. What I thought was the tail was her bare shoulder. The couple claims other photos taken in that vicinity don't show that creature. But they don't show us the other photos. They claim that fear of this "demon" drove them to the straight-and-narrow on drug abuse. So even if they're wrong, it served a purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 13

Subliminal messages on youtube ?

I was watching a Life after people on youtube and noticed a flashing frame with some guy, which was a bit creepy, so I tried to stop the video and take a look what is it (here`s a screenshot of the frame http:// img37. yfrog. com/i/creep.png/ ), but it`s just a guy. So now I`m curious, because I don`t know what to make of it - is it someone`s take on subliminal messaging or something ? I came here to ask two things - does someone recognize the guy (maybe he`s famous) and is he present in other videos from this episode (if someone can check - S1E3 this frame appears after Angkor and sea scene, right before it says 600 years) or is this some strange practice on youtube ? 95.68.112.111 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The frame looks to me like a frame from an advert - I think it's some financial services company who's name I can't remember (so much for the power of advertising!). The style of rotoscoped/toon-shaded picture has been used in a couple of movies ("Through a scanner, darkly" is one) - and for that series of adverts. So I strongly suspect that whoever recorded this and put it on YouTube didn't successfully edit out all of the advert from the broadcast. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, but can someone verify this in some way ? Because I see slight problem with this - thought it looks like ad, it would make sense that if someone cut out advertisements beginning or end of the sequence would remain and it usually contains channel identification and even if not, this looks like what would be in middle of ad, and (at least in my region) History channel doesn`t run ads 95.68.112.111 (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The version of THC that comes over my cable certainly includes ads—quite a lot of them. The brokerage Steve couldn't remember the name of is Charles Schwab; here's an example of one of the ads. Deor (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Frank Zappa wrote a song about this general topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

hacking

is there a way to hack a 40 minutes trial game and play it forever.--Myownid420 (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It would take you so long to do this that it would be more efficient to just buy the full version. Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Trial games often only have a restricted number of levels or features that you can only get in the full game. You'd be better off just buying the full version. Chevymontecarlo. 09:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can... but we should know what trial game it is. Try googling <game name> + serial/crack. --Belchman (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Though be aware that the majority of the links that will come up these days for serial gens and cracks are just viruses. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That couldn't be further from the truth :) --Belchman (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't think so. The few times I've recently tried to track down cracks or keygens, I was astounded at how many of the links were bogus. (I have a Mac so I wasn't at much risk myself.) Again, just anecdotal. But in my experience most dedicated crack sites are just chock-full of viruses. (Whereas most full-program torrents seem less likely—or, at least, that they are a virus is apparent from the comments.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Trial or demo games normally only include the levels you are allowed to play. Even if you managed to hack it, the data for the other parts of the game simply isn't there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? Of course, a CD that comes free with a PlayStation magazine won't have the full game, but downloadable ones can - and do. Many games that I've played (I've no idea if this is indicative of the majority) simply required a code to activate the full game (examples: Braid, Battlefield 2142 Deluxe Edition); playing witrhout one just gives you access to limited content. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

On a PC, two simple things to check are 1) Does the game have a registry entry? If so, are any of the registry fields that either indicate how long the game has been played or whether it's the trial/full version. 2) Are there any .ini files or the like in the games install directory? If so, do they have any similar fields? There was a time when a great many shareware software titles could be made full version with a little simple change like this. Lately, however, designers have done the little extra work it takes to hide the switch. This all pre-supposes that - as Fire2010 mentions - the full game is actually there.NByz (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could a Sandbox (computer security) be used for things like this? I mean after the 40 minutes are up, you delete the sandbox and start again. The other option is to play one of the many freeware and other free games. 89.242.120.116 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a computer games programmer - and I can tell you what we've done in the past:

1. The trial game typically only contains the data for a single level - the data for the other levels simply isn't there. In the case of one game I worked on, we hadn't even built all of the other levels when we released the 'teaser' version of the game with just a single level in it!
2. The game's software is missing large chunks of code that's unique to the other levels - so even if you could somehow wedge the extra data in there somewhere, you still wouldn't be properly playing those other levels.
3. Usually, there are also time limits and such built into the trial version. These could probably be circumvented - but it makes it harder. It's usually very easy to play that same first section as many times as you want...deleting and reinstalling the trial version will often be enough.
4. In cases where it's likely that people will try to hack the trial version in some way, there will be deeply obfuscated mechanisms to make that difficult. That's not to say that they won't be circumvented - but game manufacturers don't need to stop people from hacking their games - merely to delay the time when those hacks might start seriously eating into game sales until the game has already made 99% of the money it's ever going to make.

So basically, no. On a higher level, it's deeply unfair to people like me who put heart and soul into making games to try to steal our livelyhood from us. If we were people who did bad things to you, it would be understandable - but realise that we are the reason these fun games exist in the first place...you're actually cutting into the quality and depth of future games by doing this kind of thing. SteveBaker (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Artistic Travel

In London, the Metroplitan line has no cameras on its carrages, is this the cause of tghe high level of grafitti? I ask this because the Bakerloo line has cameras, and very little graffiti. What percentage of people are caught creating graffiti? is a person arrested for every peice of writting? what is the percentage? Why is it so rare that anything is actually readable? most things say something like SKUM MEVK WAHPR, surely these people are stupid enough to do graffiti on their own train but they must be able to spell a few three to four letter words correctly or am I giving these idiots to much credit. I would not mind it if I could readwhat it says. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, graffiti can be one of the reasons why there's cameras on the underground, but they're there for other stuff too - assault, vandalism, suicides, accidents...they're there just to make sure everything's running smoothly. The reason why a lot of graffiti is unreadable is because a lot of people spray their 'tags' on stuff. This is basically their name or nickname that they use whenever they graffiti. But I agree with you, a lot of the stuff people spray is completely random and pointless. I suppose there are figures out there for the number of people who have been arrested for graffiti but it'd be hard to find that out. Many graffiti artists pose as painters or work late at night when there's not that many people around. Chevymontecarlo. 09:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the aesthetic of graffiti is its incomprehensibility, in many cases. It is kind of like the psychedelic rock posters of the 1960s that were intentionally hard to make sense of or read unless you were "in the know"—part of the select community, one of the cool kids. They are usually spraying their "tags"—street aliases that identify them as graffiti artists. Anyway, as for statistics... this page has a good deal of statistics, though I admit my unfamiliarity with the British justice system makes me uncertain as to how to interpret them. I think graffiti is considered "criminal damage to a dwelling/building", and if I read the tables correctly, there were some 27,000 cases reported in 2007, but only some 2,200 prosecutions. Now we could imagine that each of those offenders was responsible for 12 tags, but I think it is probably a bit optimistic to think that everyone, or even a majority, get caught. This is a nice concise write-up of graffiti in the London Underground: how much damage it costs, why people do it, what happens when they are caught, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Metropolitan line is also mainly overground (35.5 overground, 6 underground) and has long stretches between stations (nearly 4 miles between Chesham and Chalfont and an express service cutting out some stations), giving vandals ample time and opportunity to do whatever it is they do - on the train, to the train and to the infrastructure. The sidings at Neasden and Wembley Park are also relatively easy to access by fence-jumpers and the like. Met trains are also currently being upgraded from the 50 year old London Underground A60 and A62 Stock to London Underground S Stock which add CCTV and aircon. Nanonic (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support Nanonic's suggestion that it's the sidings that are key. The most egregious graffiti is done overnight and the sidings in NW London are very accessible. They're also exceedingly grim. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

English language in a Youtube video

[18]

What does the voice say at 0:10? "Keep arms down, head back and *****" Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hold on". FiggyBee (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was thinking. --Belchman (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Smoking

This is not medical advice, just curious. Which is better or worse for you, smoking roll your own cigarettes or normal cigarettes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that "roll your own" are less bad, since the tobacco used for them tends to include fewer additives. Also, if the inconvenience of having to roll one reduces the number you smoke each day, that's a plus. StuRat (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd want a citation on that 'fewer additives' claim. Secondly, people I've seen roll their own cigarettes do not add a filter: this is bad. Thirdly, is it even the additives that you should be worrying about? Fourthly, people I know who roll their own are quite capable of rolling a large quantity very quickly while chatting or watching TV: they then put them in a tin to smoke as they would smoke bought cigarettes from a packet. It doesn't seem to slow them down, but they're very keen on how much cheaper it is, potentially meaning they smoke more. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with StuRat, commercial cigarettes have more additives and chemicals in them then if you rolled your own. Still not great for you though! Chevymontecarlo. 13:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference to a reliable source, or are there just opinions on this topic? (Remember, we're supposed to be the Reference Desk.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies Ten and Warning OR follows...I did some contract work at one of the larger brands, in the production area. I was quite surprised that on the packaging floor (from raw product to sealed cartons) there was a noticeable lack of trashcans. Plenty of brooms around. I think it was safe to say that for dirt, debris, etc. there was 1 basic way out of the factory. The disgusting efficiency still amazes me to this day. 68.28.104.249 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a rather extensive list of additives to cigarettes: [19]. In an OR example, I happen to be allergic to one of them, ammonia. Cleaning fluids containing ammonia cause my throat to constrict, as do cigarettes, although the degree seems to vary widely by brand. Pipe tobacco, on the other hand, has never caused this reaction, so I conclude that it's ammonia-free. StuRat (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An obvious problem with the above examples is that there's an assumption that additives=bad. While this is a common assumption nowadays, it's often far from correct. For all the evils of tobacco companies, adding things with the sole purpose of killing you don't generally help them in any way. They may of course use additives to make you more addicted (which would generally be a bad thing to the health of the consumer) or enjoy their product more or make it work better, or they may use additives to reduce the cost (which could be either way). However they may also use additives to try and reduce harm, a smoker who lives longer & remains a smoker is clearly a better thing then a dead smoker. In the US, the FDA has decided to regulate tobacco and any health claims will need to be shown via research [20] so 'healthier' cigarettes may result. Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance, RYO [Roll Your Own] smokers tend to believe that RYO cigarettes are less harmful compared to factory-made (FM) cigarettes [1] despite evidence to suggest that RYO smokers are actually at increased risk for certain cancers [3-5]." [21]

"Smokers of hand-rolled cigarettes showed an increased risk of cancer of the mouth and pharynx (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5; 95% confidence limit = 1.2-5.2) when compared with smokers of manufactured cigarettes. Also, the risk of laryngeal cancer was greater among smokers of hand-rolled cigarettes (OR = 2.7; 95% confidence limit = 1.3-5.7) as compared with smokers of commercial cigarettes" [22]

"Many smokers believe that RYO cigarettes are more 'natural' and therefore are less harmful than manufactured cigarettes. The current findings suggest that this is not the case. " [23]

"... debunk the myths associated with rolling tobacco - it's not less harmful, it's not more natural and you're just as likely to develop smoking related illnesses." [24]

86.178.167.166 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant answer, to the point, referenced, accurate, no discusions and stays on topic, if only every question could be answered like that, thank you and well done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent, detailed, well-referenced response, in the best traditions of the Ref Desk — thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Medical research journal with full text for free?

I'm very interested in reading those journals about medical research that pop up in Google searches now and then; but most of them require a paid subscription to be able to read something more than just abstracts, which I find really frustrating. So, does anyone know a medical journal that one can read without paying? Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Google gave me this: [25], but I still would like to hear someone's opinion. --Belchman (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Public Library of Science is licened under creative commons--Aspro (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, here's the link for their medical journal [26]. No idea how good it is, but they're definitely not crazy fringe hippies. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The PLOS journals are generally quite good. Some other publishers have at least some content that is free. For example, Highwire Press (Publisher of many medical and other science journals) has several free-access journals, and for most other of their journals, the content is free after 6 or 12 months (free journal content). At other journals, authors can pay to have their content made free, but I can't recall specific examples at the moment. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick scan of the site you found doesn't throw up any red flags, they all seem to be respectable journals (some very respectable - NEJM, BMJ and Blood for example). If you are interested in specific articles which you find in searches but can't find free copies of I have had some success with looking up the authors website - search under the name of the last author and their institution, they are usually the head of the research group that carried out the work. They often post a PDF copy of their papers on their website. Alternatively get in touch with your local university library - they often allow access to local residents and should have subscriptions to all major journals.131.111.185.69 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point — if you do a PubMed search (direct link), you can filter your results to only include results which have free, online, full text. In the upper right corner of the list of results, there's a panel which says "Filter your results:". Click on "Free Full Text" to see only the hits that you can download for free, usually straight from the publisher. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

While PubMed Central is not itself a medical journal, it does contain a lot of freely available peer-reviewed medical articles. Gabbe (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

March 14

Oil transportation economics

Would it be more economical to build a refinery close to the source of the oil or close to the customer market that would use that oil?--LastLived 01:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is practical for oil refineries to be close to their customers because 1) It costs more to ship the many different products of refining than a single commodity crude oil; 2) Oil producing countries would get excessive control of markets if they also controlled refineries; 3) Few oil sources are in developed countries so there are extra infrastructure costs in building refineries close to source.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

USN flight control rank

If a person was in the flight control room of a USN aircraft carrier, radioing taxi instructions to airplanes preparing for takeoff, what would his/her NCO/officer rank be? And also, what is the lowest rank a USN fighter pilot can be?--LastLived 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pilots are always officers. I don't think you are expected to do any other job before becoming a pilot (you aren't in other forces I know of), so you would start training as an Ensign. You would probably have been promoted at least once before you actually fly in combat. --Tango (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Air traffic controller article claims military ATC controllers, worldwide, are usually enlisted. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Air Traffic Controller (US Navy) is indeed an enlisted rating. US Navy and Air Force pilots are always Commissioned Officers, but Army (helicopter) pilots are Warrant Officers. An exception to "usually enlisted" military ATC controllers is the RAAF, whose controllers are officers. FiggyBee (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger Williamses marriages

Was pianist Roger Williams married three times? Believe he was married to a woman named Jane Arnold, from Audubon,Iowa, in addition to the two cited in his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emelar35 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

His wiki bio says he's been married twice, but there are no sources for that. I looked everywhere else possible, no mention of his marriages. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Which Roger Williams are you talking about? Dismas|^(talk) 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The pianist. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why there are not many ship routes along the southern coast of Indonesia

I was looking at the Pelni ship routes. Why is it that there are no ship routes along the southern coast of Indonesia ( Java in particular). If it is due to not having any ports/ major cities along the southern coast, why is it that there are no ports/ majour cities along the southern coast. 220.227.207.32 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are very few major cities along those coasts. The landscape of Indonesia, and particularly that of Java, suggests the ridge of high volcanoes keep the interior of the islands largely inaccessible. The volcanoes are also generally closer to the southern coasts leading to steeper slopes and shorter, faster flowing rivers in those areas. Rivers were an important means of transport in the past, while slower flowing rivers on gentle slopes are better for growing crops. The climate can also play a role - it seems that Indonesian waters (presumably the waters between Java and Borneo, though I'm unsure about this) are less prone to violent storms and typhoons than along the coast of the Indian Ocean. It is therefore unsurprising that cities grew near to the rivers and gentle slopes of the northern slopes. Astronaut (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

These routes are all inter-island routes within Indonesia. There are simply no major islands off the south coast of Java, so there is no need for a ship route to connect them to Java. If you look at the northernmost islands in Indonesia, you will also see that there are no routes extending north from them. Certainly there are shipping routes extending south from Indonesia to Australia, but these are not handled by Pelni. Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

solid waste management

what is third waste? and briefly discuss its attributes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogeshmech549 (talk • contribs)

Could you give us more information about what appears to be a homework question, given that the question doesn't really make sense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, rabbits have their own way of recycling first waste. And dogs will happily eat catshit and occasionally eat dogshit, so they in a sense can produce third waste. Does that answer your question? PhGustaf (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it answers the question, but it does point out how one can learn something new every day. :) P.S. I was going to add something about flies dining on cowpies, but I figured I would get ragged on about that. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no waste expert, but most discussions of waste thirds I can find relate to 42 USC § 6924(g) which specifies a division of waste into three classes or thirds, for disposal in landfill, with the first third the most dangerous and the most highly restricted; the classification of waste into thirds is done by the waste producer not by law.[27][28] --Normansmithy (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Painting

Despite having train in grapghic design, I am unable to paint very small delicate peices, I wish to paint hair-thin lines, and minute details. no matter how small the brushes I use I tend to get much larger lines than those I want. Is there a technique to this? I have had my best results using impliments other than brushes eg a table knife. But this is still unsatisfactory, what is the usual traditional method of creating small details with oils or water based, or oil based paints. and any other info would help thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I spoke once to a maker and painter of high-end furniture and decorations for dolls' houses. He uses toothpicks (wood and plastic depending upon the effect he wants), pen nibs, and sponge applicators like the tiny ones used in furniture refinishing. He also uses the one- and two-hair brushes, as does a friend who creates magic-realist paintings up to 4 feet by 6 feet in size in egg tempera. (The latter's paintings take about a year to finish and he makes his own brushes.) Part of the technique is to use very little pressure on the applicator and to work under a magnifying glass. If you only want one or two lines, you can also tape it (or them) off, or make a template and paint it like a stencil. (You need to be very careful with templates, however, as the paint tends to bleed under them.) Here's a video of someone painting miniature flowers using watercolour. Note the brush technique. Bielle (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Winsor Newton make "special" miniature brushes. [29] see also, [30]--Aspro (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Miniatures, especially portrait miniatures have a long history, although they fell out of fashion with the advent of photography. These small-scale composition necessitated specialized techniques. You may want to investigate the techniques used by 17th and 18th century miniature portraitists. I apologize for not having details/more comprehensive references, but I believe that they did things like paint with a single cat's whisker to obtain the fine detail needed. -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Pity the cat that happened to be walking by.) Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

removing dog hair from clothing

I have a dog that sheds a good deal, especially in the now-impending springtime.

I have tried all of the following methods to remove dog hair from my clothing, with the following results with my clothing and my dog's fur:

• trying to get the excess hair at the source with a Furminator (works pretty well in reducing overall volume of hair, but I still get it on my clothes)
• sticky lint roller (time consuming, only somewhat effective)
• non-sticky lint brushes (totally ineffective)
• washing the clothes (does pretty well, all things considered, but is not good for when I am running out the door, obviously)

Is there something I have missed, some magic bullet, some easy way to do it? Some magic, high-tech gismo that uses static electricity or something otherwise clever to quickly and effectively and easily de-fur my clothing? (Is something more effective possible even in theory, if not as a product?) I suspect not, but I thought I would ask, just in case...! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You participated in this thread from January, so I guess the shedding has gotten worse. The 3M Velcro device that I mentioned might help and might be a little better than those sticky lint rollers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered getting the dog groomed and clipped? If it's trying to get rid of hair, you could be helping that process along.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You could try wet sponge - water makes hair stick together, so it is easer to remove them and unless you overdo, your clothes should remain dry enough. 193.40.56.38 (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Humor me for a minute here. We've all seen pictures, and some of us have participated in the science project involving a Van de Graaff generator, in which a lot of static electricity makes one's hair stand on end.

Suppose our OP had such a device near their back door. Would a 30-second session with one's hands on the globe cause all the dog hair to fly off in all directions??

Making no claim that this is practical. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Shave your dog completely naked. Then buy him a coat if he gets cold?--79.68.142.101 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not going to shave the dog. (Wrong kind of hair for that anyway. And the dog would definitely not enjoy it. And would look silly.) It's not so much that the dog sheds so much (which she does), but that the hair gets totally stuck to my clothing. I suspect this would be the case even if the dog didn't shed so much (there'd still be enough to get on my clothes), and I find lint rollers fairly ineffective. (I can get a lot of the hair off with the sticky ones, but I have to use maybe three or four separate pieces of the tape to get it all off—it loses its stickiness quickly).

Is this the 3M velcro thing? Worth investigating, I suppose (reviews on the web are mixed; it seems to me to depend a lot on the type of surface it is being used on). And yeah, I wondered if someone had/could invent some sort of static electricity based mechanism, though I wonder if that wouldn't either be dangerous if it was to be effective. (I am not going to go off and start experimenting with electricity so don't worry about giving me thoughts on this!) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the 3M device I was mentioning. I have mixed feelings about it, myself. It's OK. Maybe it'll work better for you than for me. I don't use it on clothing, but on furniture. By the way, we should raise a fund for someone to do DaHorsesMouth's suggestion. Mostly I just want to see it on YouTube. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Van de Graff generator approach would make the hairs try to stand on end - that's because static electricity likes to collect at sharp edges and points - and the tip of a hair is pretty pointy. The points (having like charge) would then repel each other. However, I can't imagine a mechanism that would make them fly off of the clothing as a result. Most efforts at removing pet hair from clothes seems to involve neutralising static charges - not inducing more of them! SteveBaker (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

SB: don't overlook one key fact: when static electricity makes your hair stand on end, it's STILL ATTACHED AT ONE END :-). It has no choice but to stick out, eh? What would happen if it weren't attached on EITHER end? DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest segregation. That is, you need to have certain "dog free zone(s)", such as your clothes closet. Play with the dog before you get dressed for work or to go out, then lock the dog up, put on your good clothes, and leave the house without sitting down or touching anything in the "doggie zone". This should allow you to limit the hair. If your car seat is also covered with dog hair, this will present a problem. If you have two cars, I suggest that one be a dog-free car. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If your dog is a uniform color, another option is to buy lots of clothes in that color and the same texture as the dog's hair. That way the dog hair won't be nearly as visible. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Swap the dog for a pet without hair - a fish or a lizard? Honestly though (and I'm sorry to sound unsympathetic here) you have a dog, therefore you will find its hair all over your house, your car, your clothing and anywhere else the dog goes. Hair everywhere is just one of the things that comes with dog ownership (along piles of poop in the garden and large bills from the vet). Astronaut (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A more practical answer: wrap sticky tape round your hand (sticky side outwards, of course) and dap your hand over hairy clothing. It's hell of a lot cheaper than sticky lint rollers, so long as you don't get too obsessed with keeping your clothes absolutely free of dog hair all the time. Astronaut (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anty sound effects

Video of ants building a bridge to cross a pond, then ripping a crab to pieces from the inside out. Fair warning for anyone who doesn't like insects.

Throughout much of this video, there's a quiet rustling noise - presumably, the sound ants make as they work. Or is it? Is it really possible to isolate that sound from the background noise...or was it just added in post-production for better effect? Basically: Is that sound real? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those movies fake the sound - I wouldn't assume it was real without further evidence. SteveBaker (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for that assertion, Steve. For a documentary series, I would think they'd like to be as accurate as possible. And I don't think it's that unlikely that they'd have a very good unidirectional mic with them. Dismas|^(talk) 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't viewed the linked video, but can back up Steve's assertion generally. In the superb "Private Life of Plants" series by David Attenborough, there are most definitely fake sound effects employed throughout, including bellows noises when pitcher plants inflated and tearing/ripping sounds when mushrooms were sprouting. These things were filmed in super slow motion; there's no way they somehow recorded the sound of an apple ripening or a leaf unfurling; even if those things did make a sound, it would be completely blotted out by the background noise. Also note that some scenes are actually filmed on the equivalent of a set and are in no way done out in nature; the purpose of a documentary is to educate, not create Cinéma vérité. My reference for the filming on sets are all the various "making of" videos BBC nature crews include where they make no effort to hide the fact. Matt Deres (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of those sounds are obviously fake. I've also noticed that the sounds don't seem to be at the right scale, in many cases. For example, I'd expect a smaller object falling to produce a high frequency sound, but it produces a solid thud in the movie. It would be interesting to look at the credits for such a movie to see if they have a Foley artist listed, which is somebody who makes fake sounds. But, even if they don't, that probably just means the Foley artist is listed under "sound engineer" or something less obvious. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so sure, Dismas — see Nature documentary#Staged content, which only cites two examples; but I think Disney's nature documentaries from several decades ago did this a lot. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the Disney example is from decades ago. The equipment in use now wasn't (as easily) available then. And the source for the staged content that you pointed me to doesn't mention sound work. (note: I only checked the last ~10 years entries on the source) It says quite a bit about scenes being filmed in zoos instead of in the wild and so on. I still say that it would be easy enough for a recent documentary to have good enough sound equipment for the sounds to be genuine. Compare the sounds at this page with the sounds in the clip provided by the OP and you'll hear that they're not very dissimilar. So, yes, maybe the sounds in the video didn't come from those specific ants. But they may very well be genuine ant sounds and thus not "fake" according to my definition of the word. Dismas|^(talk) 05:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit off topic but related to the veracity of the film, I noticed that the crab does not seem to react at all to the ants biting its soft tissues. It goes from a menacing, active, state straight to a completely still (dare I say - dead) state without any sign of any sort of reflex movements. I can't believe it would happen like that. But of course the camera never lies;-) Richard Avery (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a novel idea. Let's find an answer to this question (with references) rather than speculating. A two-minute google search (using cunningly chosen words such as BBC, wildlife documentary sound recording) yields these two articles on the very subject: [31] - (mainly on music, but includes general reference to the difficulty of recording sound in the wild, with foley effects later) - and THE SOUNDS OF NATURE, PART II: Sound Editing in Nature Docs: The Second Narrator (scroll down to half way through) which tells you it's all done post-production: some foley, some stock audio. Gwinva (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, thanks for that! Dismas|^(talk) 08:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry.) Anyway, here's Part One of the Sounds of Nature. Gwinva (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Felix Arndt composer of "Nola"

Years ago, I heard or read that the song "Nola" was written spefically as a flashy demonstration of player pianos. I've also wrote it for and named it after his sweetheart.future wife.

Can anyone verify the piano demonstrion point?

reply here, please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.115.4 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Spacing and wording adjusted above to make question display properly)

I cannot locate a specific citation that supports your piano demonstration hypothesis. The nearest you get is Ragtime's entry on Donald's Encyclopaedia of Popular Music, which states that "coin-operated player pianos in public places were probably adjusted to play the piano rolls quickly in order to make money faster" and goes on to say that this led to "novelty" piano music, of which Nola is cited as an example. So it's probable that Nola was indeed regarded as a flashy novelty player piano piece, but that doesn't establish whether Arndt deliberately wrote it with that end in mind. Karenjc 00:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha! So that's why I could never play it properly! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would that make it a toccata? 62.121.27.161 (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

March 15

Fastest-paced sports in the world.

Can anyone tell me what sports are the fastest paced in the world? Thanks in advance. Ann Caitlyn Johnson (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean speed? Human-powered or vehicular? Motorsports are extremely fast. Ice hockey, or simply hockey as I prefer, is quicker than basketball speed-wise, but the back-and forth of a tense basketball game can have a great pace. Soccer, too, has fast-paced moments. Aaronite (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you have a gauge to measure pace? Some contenders might be basketball, ice hockey, or lacrosse though all can have lulls where the ball/puck doesn't move for a few seconds at a time. Dismas|^(talk) 06:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jai alai, according to our article, promotes itself as the fastest sport in the world. Dismas|^(talk) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Squash is fast-paced; as our article notes, "one hour of squash, a player may expend approximately 600 to 1000 calories (3,000 to 4,000 kJ), which is significantly more than most other sports and over 70% more than either general tennis or racquetball", mainly due to the fast pace of the game. The ball, too, travels quickly: "typically [reaching] speeds exceeding 200 km/h (125 mph). In the 2004 Canary Wharf Squash Classic, John White was recorded driving balls at speeds over 270 km/h (170 mph)", which is considerably faster, for example, than the fastest tennis serve of 155mph. Gwinva (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jai alai is promoted as "the fastest sport in the world", with ball speeds of up to 188mph. The article notes that badminton and golf have both seen faster peak ball speeds, although I can't imagine anyone describing golf as a particularly fast-paced sport. Warofdreams talk 13:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Jai alai claims "fast" because the projectile moves fast - but rifle shooting is by far the fastest sport by that measure. You might complain that the bullet isn't being propelled by human muscle power - and I'd retort that in archery the arrow can fly over 200 mph - and with crossbows, even faster. So Jai alai's claim is completely bogus. If you are asking about the speed that the human body moves - then probably the fastest "unaided" speed comes in parachute jumping which gets you up to 120 mph - or with the aid of a machine, then air racing gets you to 200 mph plus and formation aerobatic contests reach speeds close to the speed of sound. If you call that cheating then the 100 yard dash has human bodies moving faster than they do around the Jai alai court - and that's easily beaten by the speeds in speed-skating and downhill skiing. I can't think of a single measure (however contrived) by which Jai alai could reasonably be called "the fastest". SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Chess, in certain environments is the clear winner. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If one considers Chess to be a sport perhaps. Googlemeister (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! I declare Dweller the winner! I was trying to one-up that by suggesting Golf, in certain environments at 1 km per second, but that lightning fast game of chess reaches 7.7 km/s and therefore wins handily. SteveBaker (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One could make a case for Sumo, whose matches can last a matter of seconds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can one-up that one by suggesting Diving. There is a fair amount of 'posturing' and psyching yourself up for the event in both diving and sumo - but the actual dive is much shorter than even the briefest of sumo contests. But then we get back to rifle shooting again. There is really no basis for rational comparison here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I also overlooked a rather obvious one: Roller Derby. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me offer an alternative definition of "fastest pace": the game where the ball (or puck or whatever) is in playmotion for the largest percent of the time. Note that this isn't the same as when the clock is running, as some games have times when the clock runs but nothing is happening. By this def, I don't know the fastest paced, but American football has to be among the slowest paced, as the ball is in playmotion for only a tiny fraction of the total time. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That would once again inflate the pace of golf, as the ball is often "in play", but just sitting motionless in the grass. —Akrabbim^talk 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I mean the ball (or puck, etc.) is in motion. Under that def golf would be one of the slowest paced games. I've modified my def accordingly. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In basketball, the ball has to move pretty much 100% of the time. I can not think of many instances where it is just sitting still. Of course, the ball is not moving at 100+ mph either and a fair bit of that motion is simply bouncing. Ping pong or tennis might fit the requirements better. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Global gerrymandering

Which body decides which country encompasses which mass of land, in respect to a portion of a country seceding from another portion. If the inhabitants of a particular region want to self-rule, is it within their right to secede, and who is there to tell them that they cannot? Obviously, the larger portion that disagrees will tell them they cannot, but is that anything more than bullying? Taiwan, Quebec and Chechnya some to mind, but I suppose a mock example could even be the State of Florida. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the question has to do with gerrymandering. That's where the boundaries of a certain electoral district are deliberately drawn so as to make its voting population very different (say, 50% or 200%) from the average population of electoral districts in that jurisdiction, to give a particular party or group an advantage or disadvantage. Secession is a very detailed article; it should contain some of the details you're after, which will no doubt differ from country to country. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I was using the term loosely to describe cutting up regions as one would like -- perhaps too loosely. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How about the Confederate States of America? An entire block of states decided to form a separate nation, and the Union fought a 4-year war to advise them they couldn't do that. I don't know that the issue was ever decided constitutionally. The Constitution requires Congressional approval for states to join, so at best it's implied that approval is also needed for states to withdraw. In cases where both parties actually agree and/or have had enough warfare, typically a treaty will be negotiated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Though boundaries are redrawn less often now than they were 100+ years ago, the same principle applies: might makes right. In other words, if you can adequately defend yourself, you can make it happen. To quote Richard Chamberlain from the miniseries version of James Clavell's Shogun, when responding to the Toshiro Mifune's comment that rebellion is treason, "not if you win." 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "might makes right" is the key principle. The main way to determine national borders is through military action or the threat of military action. There is no global body that determines these things, although the United Nations does something similar when it decides whether who to admit as members (it decides based on who has de facto control of the territory, usually). --Tango (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A region might declare its independence, but it doesn't mean a lot unless other countries are willing to recognise it. Northern Cyprus is treated as occupied territory and has restrictions on direct trade or travel with countries not recognising it.

Recognition of declarations of independence depends a lot on politics and international relations. For example, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognised by few countries except Russia, which has tense relations with Georgia. Russia's declaration of South Ossetia's independence was in response to (an original researcher might say it was tit for tat) the recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia (a Russian ally).

The articles linked from Declaration of independence generally state who recognised each declaration and when. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Related article: Micronation ... entities that claim to be independent nations or states but which are unrecognized by world governments or major international organizations. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Even better, see also Sovereign state and Diplomatic recognition. To the OP's question, the general priniple recognized by most countries and the UN includes the notion that if a government claims sovereignty over a patch of dirt, they must be able to establish the ability to defend and control that patch of dirt; i.e. so that if someone else claims you can stop them from taking it. A somewhat recent example of a situation where two countries claimed sovereign control over the same patch of dirt would be the Falkland Islands War. The same generally holds true for independence movements as well; a subnational unit that claims independence generally has to establish that it has control over its territory, and not the former government. This can be accomplished peacefully, where the former sovereign government grants independence, see responsible government for how this worked in the British Empire, or by force; such as the situation with places like Israel, which was established by military action. --Jayron32 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the State of Israel was itself "established by military action"? --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It was. The region of Palestine was conquered by the British (during WWI), occupied (under mandate from the League of Nations) and then (after WWII) turned into the state of Israel. (I am massively simplifying the sequence of events, of course, but that's the gist of it.) --Tango (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was established by a vote. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A vote of who? --Tango (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps by vote he means "A vote of the people who carried the guns and fought the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." There was the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, but that didn't really establish the modern state of Israel, there was no way it could have been put into force without military action. Israel was clearly established by military action. --Jayron32 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a little disingenuous to say that the State of Israel was established by military action. The British took possession by military action, but the actual creation of the state was not military. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with DJClayworth. The vote, in reply to Tango, is discussed at some length here. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, there was a vote of the UN General Assembly, I forgot that. The UN wouldn't have been able to vote on it if it hadn't been for the British military, though. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(If we're going down that line, the UN wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the Allied forces in WW2, etc. Everything is connected to everything else, and pursuing such questions too far makes the legitimacy of everything dubious!) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict> You can apply "if" arguments like that to justify pretty much every country's existence being based on pretty much any premise. If it wasn't for plate tectonics, we'd all be living on a big ol' island. Easy on the "ifs" when looking at historic causality. (If it hadn't been for the British military, there wouldn't have been many Jews left to have a country.) --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you mentioned Québec, here's on the Canadian electoral system. In Canada, Elections Canada is the non-partisan agnecy that monitors and reviews all federal electoral district boundaries, among other things. See Electoral district (Canada) on how number of seats and delimitation of boundaries are determined. Generally, boundaries are adjusted to reflect population changes after a census. Provincial and territorial boundaries, on the other hand, are historical and are rarely changed unless there's a dispute between provinces and territories (Québec vs. Labrador)or in the case of Nunavut a land claim agreement. The Canadian system allows the population to launch referenda for issues like Québec seccession without gerrymandering. See Quebec_sovereignty_referendum,_1980 and Quebec_sovereignty_referendum,_1995. Neither were successful, obviously.

On Taiwan, since the People's Republic government does not have administrative control over the island (plus a few other chains on China's coast), it has no say over Taiwan's electoral districts. And since Taiwan is governed by a different government than that of the People's Republic, whatever decided in a Taiwanese election has no direct legislative effect on the Mainland. But whatever the views put forth by the ruling party or its president has a huge effect on the Taiwan-China relationship. See Political status of Taiwan. --Kvasir (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Montevideo Convention takes an astonishingly loose view, suggesting that anything can declare itself an independent country, provided that it has:

• A permanent population;
• A defined territory;
• Government; and
• Capacity to enter into relations with the other states (ie. people + money).

On such a basis, people can technically go around declaring their own homes sovereign states – indeed, Sealand and other micronations do. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For fiction-based ideas on the concept of micronations, see The Mouse That Roared and Moosylvania. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

cell phone failure

I live in a small town between a mountain and the water. We have one cell tower that belongs to my carrier Z. It works as long as we don't go around a corner . The other night we had a power outage. I was in a restaurant with twenty people and many candles. Their phones with many different carriers worked. Mine said for each call, "call failed". The power came back on. My phone worked on some numbers but not others. Then when I tried again some numbers that had worked failed and vice versa- It seemed to be random...twenty hours later it worked for all numbers. My phone was fully charged all this time. What happened ? How could it be random ?? Why did no one else's fail. Several people tried to contact me and got a no longer in service message. Some calls did come through. How could it be random?? 71.183.80.186 (talk)Sesquipedalia —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

It sounds like the cell phone tower wasn't fully protected from electrical damage during the power outage and possible spikes. You might want to contact your provider and let them know about them problem. Also, does your cell phone work correctly when you are in other towns ? StuRat (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that each provider builds its own cell tower network; our cell tower article is silent on this (but I've now asked on the talk page that it be answered in the article). If you use, say, AT&T and the other people in the restaurant use, say, T-Mobile, perhaps that was the issue; the closest AT&T tower may have been right at the edge of the usable space, whereas the closest T-Mobile tower may have been right next door. (You mentioned there were many different carriers, but you weren't specific about whether any of them were the same as yours.) Also there are several different cell phone radio technologies, with acronyms like 3G and CDMA and GSM. It may be that even if all of you were using the same cell tower, and you all used carrier Z, your phone had worse reception because there was some characteristic about your phone's radio technology that made your reception worse, in that time and in that place, than the other phones' — for example, maybe your phone receives and transmits on a different wavelength than the other phones, and there was a local generator of radio interference that interfered on your phone's wavelength but not the other phones'. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fictional Map.

Does anyone know where I can find the map of Durdane from the Durdane series of books written by Jack Vance ? Scotius (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this any good[32]? Scroll down to page 7. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Entertainment Desk would be a better place for this type of Q. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Einstein graduation picture

In this article on Einstein, it states "In the photograph of his graduating class, while all his classmates are sitting up straight and proper, Einstein is lounging back, legs crossed, staring off into the distance as though he had better places to be". Where can I find this picture? --Mark PEA (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I have longish light brown hair and a beard, lots of people call me jesus, is it just me or do all guys get called this when they have the same sort of hairstyle as the messiah.