Why are white people refered to medically as caucasian? I realize that the Causases are in europe but why not slovakian, as this is central where as the Caucuses are on the bridge between europe and Asia. Thanx
Why are white people refered to medically as caucasian? I realize that the Causases are in europe but why not slovakian, as this is central where as the Caucuses are on the bridge between europe and Asia. Thanx
== EU ==
Macedonia has been trying to join the EU, but has been blocked mostly by Greece who feel that Macedonia should be part of Greece. With the current headache that Greece is giving the EU, would this increase the chances of Macedonia becoming part of the EU, or how has it affected MAcedonia, if at all. Also why is MAcedonia rarely mentioned as a potentail member when it is so completely part of Europe while Turkey, is often bandied about as soon to become part. Turkey is Asia, and Islamic, which are not in line with European culture, nothing against Asians and Islamicism, bust that it is Asian rather than European. Or am I completely wrong in my views of Turkey Thanx
Revision as of 14:24, 28 April 2010
Welcome to the miscellaneous section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
The above law was enacted to ensure that no Roman Catholic, nor any person married to a Roman Catholic, would ever be allowed to occupy the British Throne as Monarch. No mention was made in that Act of any other faith group such as Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Scientology et al. So my question in this time of multiculturalism and anti-discrimination and religious tolerance and inclusivity in the UK and the rest of the European Community is simply, would the European Court of Human Rights find the UK guilty of blatant religious discrimination and persecution by its persistence in maintaing that law on its statute book? And has any such action ever been raised in the ECHR in the past? Thanks. I expect that someone will reply that Wikipedia cannot give legal advice and I won't therefore be surprised when and if that happens. But I am not actually intending marrying into the British Royal Family - just curious. 92.30.75.103 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Scottish main Catholic Bishop, last year, called for a change of this law[1], and again cited the reasons of European Law, as you give. He did not succeed, we believe. Catholics in the UK generally have not been forward in this argument as perhaps they are worried.
How is it religious discrimination – both heads of church are Christians (?). It was the popes straying into the political affair of state that got Europe upset.--Aspro (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This law probably won't last all that long as plans are afoot to reform it, with cross-party support[2]. The purpose of the Act was to prevent a repeat of the reign of James II of England, which led to all kinds of mayhem and bloodshed. However, the only fly in the ointment is that this could lead, many years hence, to having a Roman Catholic as Head of the Church of England, being that those who marry into the Catholic faith have (I believe) to promise to bring-up their offspring as Catholics. However, there are a great many glitches like this in the British Constitution, and they usually get sorted out by some amicable compromise in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alan. The way attitudes are at the moment, it is likely the law will be quickly revised if and when a heir to the throne has a successful relationship with a catholic. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is blatant religious discrimination Aspro, because whilst it is currently illegal for say Prince William to one day ascend to the throne if he marries a Catholic girl (unless she changes to ANY other religion first), it would NOT disbar him from becoming the Monarch should he marry a girl of ANY other religion, and she chooses to remain a practising member of her (even non-Christian) faith. 92.30.75.103 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catholics do have very clear rules on Abortion and Euthanasia and on Birth Controle, to mention just a few. So the issue is far-reaching. Catholics may have something to say if the law is changed.
To be fair, while the Act of Settlement explicitly bars only Roman Catholics or their offspring from the line of succession, in practice the bar is against other religions or religious variants too. Prince Philip was Greek Orthodox, but they made sure he was received into the Church of England (and became a British national) before he married, in order to avoid any possible difficulties. Times may have moved on since then, but I'd bet good money that, even now, if the monarch or an heir with a realistic prospect of succeeding did decide to marry a Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, Buddhist or whatever, there would be a lot of behind-the-scenes kerfuffle and a sudden conversion to C of E before the wedding. Karenjc17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it from this point of view: if you're the young lady in question, would you rather be a Catholic commoner, or the Queen of England? I have no actual experience in this matter, but I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose one to the exclusion of the other, the Holy Father would be out the door in a heartbeat!
Also consider another weird anomaly: the choice of new Anglican bishops is made on the recommendation of the UK Prime Minister, who may be of any religion he or she likes, or none at all. Imagine a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or an atheist PM - or, shock, horror, a Catholic PM - deciding who will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. In practice, it's an internal church matter, the PM agrees to whatever he's told, he/she simply forwards the recommendation to the Queen, who also agrees and signs. But in principle, a PM could object, or insert their own candidate over the heads of the Anglican church authorities. Crazy. Even if the PM is Anglican, it's still crazy in principle to have a politician involved in church matters at all. It'd be like the Pope being elected by the United Nations General Assembly rather than by the College of Cardinals. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Undead
In both Christianity and Zoroastrianism, there is the concept that in the end, the world will be destroyed and all of those who have died will come back from the dead.
Why is this
Why would you want the dead to come back to life
I think the bible mentions that all flesh will be reserected, so this must mean the physical bodies, hence zombies
Why do beleivers asume that the world will end while mankind is still around atall, the sun will die and hence earth but not for billians of years, and so it is highly unlikely that man will be around at that time anyway
In antiquety, they did not know for scientific sure that the world would end eventually so why scare monger people with the end of the world and zombies coming back from the dead.
how could people in ancient time, let alone now days beleive this tripe? Dead coming back to life, Adam and Eve and talking snakes, and other animals, etc etc etc not to mention a big invisible guy in the sky that no one has ever seen or ever will who controls everything, sees everything and who, if you sin will punish you for all eternity in a burning lake of fire...until he brings you back from the dead. Who in the old testament smote the Israelites time and again, with barbaric ferosity, and will do it again when the messiah comes, yet you have to love him like you father. Do people really beleive this? Or is it an example of the bigger the lie the more likely people are to beleive it as expressed by Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted your questions, so they're easier to read and respond to (you had two No. 3's, but no 4. I assume that was just a typo). Incidentally, it sounds like you may be trying to start an argument with religious believers. While you may be succesful in that, it's not really what the reference desk is for. I exhort anyone who answers to stick to answering the questions as succinctly as possible, without other commontary, and preferably with references (i.e. papers by religious scholars, studies by anthropologists, etc.). Buddy431 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scripture, The New Testament and The Old Testament have very definite and precise revelations on this. The first such is found in The Book of Job. The Nicean Creed which all main-line-Christian-Churches adhere to, is very precise on this issue, as is the Apostles Creed. The Final Judgement in Saint Matthews Gospel spells it out, referred to in the other Synoptic Gospels. A percentage of the revealed prophicies in the Bible (I would say 20%), have still to happen. All of this is a question of belief.
References for all of these and others are readily available. However, I shall refrain from citing them here, as I fear that Buddy431 may be right in his assesment of your reasons.
Saint Catherine of Sienna said: "For those who do not believe no explination is possible, for those who do none is necessary".
Sorry if I offended any one, I just honestly want to know how people can beleive that this is reality? And why most organised religions seem to want to scare people? Specifically with the world ending. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your questions assume the faulty premise that these religions believe that people will be walking the earth as zombies. While I can not speak for Zoroastrianism, I have never once heard of this belief within Christianity. When the New Testament refers to the dead in Christ rising, it is not stating that zombies will dig their way out of their graves to feast on the brains of the living. Googlemeister (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, not all major religions do believe that the world is going to end. I believe Hindus are somewhat well known for having a cyclic world-view, believing that the world is destroyed and recreated on a regular basis (does anyone have the Wikipedia article pertaining to this aspect of Hinduism? Because I can't find it, and navigating through all the Hinduism related articles is a pain). Buddy431 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My set of beliefs as a Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") teaches not that the world will be destroyed, but that it will be cleansed. It logically follows (for us) that those people and things not in harmony with God's commandments will be destroyed.
Latter-day Saints normally consider our spiritual existence to be like a three-act play, and that we are currently in Act Two. In other words, we came from a pre-existence without a physical body, we are now in mortality where we each gain one, and when we die, our spirits leave our bodies and enter the afterlife. We believe that the human spirit is immortal, and never dies. Our physical bodies do, however; and this is the part of the soul (for us, spirit + body = soul) that remains after death. So with this background, I can try to answer your questions, at least from my spiritual perspective:
1. We believe that the earth must be cleansed because it is to be inherited by the righteous. (See Matthew 5:5, for example.) We believe that those who have died will come back from the dead because for us, a righteous spirit reunited with a resurrected physical body is necessary for us to reach our eternal spiritual potential. (Or even more simply stated, we believe it because it's what our Scriptures teach.)
2. What we "want" is somewhat irrelevant, but Latter-day Saints believe that we all knew each other before birth, and this knowledge and these acquaintences have been veiled from our memories. I am really looking forward to visiting with my paternal grandparents, who both died before I was born. While it may be strange to say, I "miss" them, even though I never knew them.
3. Googlemeister above addressed this. Resurrection does not mean the random quickening of mindless dead bodies. For us, it means the reunion of a specific spirit with her/his specific body. Resurrected beings essentially retain their physical dimensions and personality.
4. There's not room here to delve into a "science v. religion" discussion here, but suffice it to say, for us, that given our belief in God, He can control the laws of nature, and perhaps even is aware of some that we aren't familiar with. We believe that the earth won't need billions of years to fulfill the purpose of its creation. Opinions (please note the word) vary greatly on this subject, and while Jesus himself did not know when he'd return (see Matt 24:36 or Mark 13:32), most Latter-day Saints likely feel that it will be within the next century or two.
5. Perhaps the simplest explanation, then, is to give the believers in antiquity the benefit of the doubt, and concede that they truly believed that at some point, the world (i.e. wickedness) would end. This end may be scary for some, but it is actually kind of comforting to those who feel that they are in harmony with God. Again, though, we don't believe in zombies.
6. Just as a belief in the things you list seems most illogical to you, a disbelief in them seems most illogical to us. It doesn't do to simply dismiss God as "a big invisible guy who no one has ever seen," because we don't accept this premise. Moses and several other prophets have seen Him, so the question becomes whether these prophets are truthful, deceptive, or insane. We tend to believe that they were truthful. You end a somewhat lengthy list of marginally accurate descriptions of God by asking, "Do people really believe this?" My answer, I guess, would be "No, not as stated." I do believe in God, though, because believing provides an explanation for this earthly existence that makes the most sense to me.
I'd like to address the general nature of the questions posed by the OP. Despite all the specific differences, there is a common thread among many religions, namely the "belief" or "hope" that there is a life beyond this one. It's fair to say that, in general, religionists believe there is, and atheists do not. That kind of addresses points 1 and 2, specifically. Beyond that, the OP's questions reflect misunderstanding, to put it politely. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will address question #6. I am not a believer in the teachings that you mention (in some cases inaccurately), but I am sympathetic to believers. I think that this kind of belief starts from the experience, which I think most people share, of the vastness and complexity of the universe, which was completely mysterious in ancient times and much of which remains mysterious even to modern scientists. To make sense of this vastness and mystery, people accept the existence of one or more transcendent and possibly supernatural forces or beings, which may take the form of deities. Once people accept the existence of transcendent and supernatural forces or beings, it is easy to accept teachings about them that nonbelievers consider myths. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close to your questions are much of the film Religulous, which features Bill Maher asking various religious people how they can possibly believe that there was a talking snake, that Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib, that Jonah survived in the fish's belly for three days, and so on. This mostly lampoons Biblical literalism. Your "zombies" interpretation does, too. Note that many religious people are not literalists. As to "do people really believe this", well, yes, many people do, obviously. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the criteria that need to be filled to be the Jewish Messiah? in point form so its easy for me, and what are the criteria that Jesus met, and which did he not meet, hence the schism between Jewdaism and christianity. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, the Messiah is to be from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal affiliation is passed patrilinially, and although the Book of Matthew opens by tracing Jesus' lineage, it ends with Joseph, who was not Jesus' father. The various explanations of how it could be transferred to Jesus (adoption, via Mary, spiritual descendancy) are all incongruous with Jewish law, thus invalidating Jesus from being the Messiah. Moreover, the age of the Messiah will be one in which, as described by the Prophets, there will be peace, with no nation bringing war against another nation -- there has hardly been a day in the last 100 years in which there has not been war somewhere. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus referred to this in the Gospels.
Begin with Saint Luke's Gospel regarding what Jesus said to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke: 24: 13-35).
Jesus was very clear in what He said to indicate He was fulfilling what was said of The Messiah.
Rabbi Jonathan Romain from the Reform movement in Britain (in practice near-identical to the Liberals mentioned above) has written, Reform subscribes to the idealised picture painted in the later books of the Bible of life in Messianic times. It is an era of peace in which justice and righteousness reign supreme and all live in harmony. In such a time swords will be beaten into ploughshares (Micah 4:3), while even in the animal world the wolf shall lie down with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6). The benefits will apply not only to Jews but to all people, and there will be universal tranquility and co-operation. (It is, of course, the absence of such world-wide peace that is one of the reasons why Christianity's claim that Jesus was the Messiah has never been accepted by Jews. Another factor is that in the Jewish understanding there is no hint that the Messiah will be an object of worship or divine, nor that the Torah will be abrogated by the Messiah's coming.)╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that you bring up what Romain states -- because he's certainly not an acceptable source of Jewish though or philosophy from an Orthodox or Conservative perspective, and according to Alvin Reines, Reform Judaism is a polydoxy, and the only thing able to be affirmed is each individual's right to decide what is true for them and what is not. That being said (however ridiculous from a non-Reform perspective), even Reform Jews are not bidden by it...so why bother quoting it? It's not like you're quoting the Rambam or Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, on the cross, quoted Psalm 22/21: "My God, my God, why have you deserted me?...". This a clear Messianic Criteria, and deliberately so by Jesus. (Mk: 15: 33-39), (Mt: 27: 45-50). To see it you need to read Psalm 22/21, all of it, the Psalm that begins with those words above. Oh, by the way, the end of the Psalm has yet to be fulfilled!
That validity of that can be thoroughly called into question -- if Jesus was God, who was he talking to? If he was the Messiah, and he knew it, and this was the fate of the Messiah, why was he complaining? That was his destiny, by definition. And he did not say desert -- although that would have been the correct thing to have said. He rather misquoted the verse by saying zavachtani, which translates as "sacrifice me." DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus' words are quoted exactly as he spoke them: Mt: 27, 46: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" and again in Mk: 15, 34. He had to hawl Himself up to say them on the nails; painful. Psalm 22/21, v. 16 "...they tear holes in my hands and feet, I can count everyone of my bones..." (Written at least 600 years before Christ). If you read the Gospels with an open heart then all will be clear, if not they will remain shut.
Thanks for that latter advice, and all, but this preaching doesn't address the original poster's questions (or anyone else's, as far as I can see). Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. It is a definite Criteria requeted. All set out in the article page mentioned above: Jesus and Messianic prophecy. Preaching would be expounding and applying these cited references.
Most significantly, Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world. Concerning the more difficult tasks some prophets assign him, such as Isaiah's vision of a messianic age in which the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the calf with the young lion (Isaiah 11:6), Maimonides believes that Isaiah's language is metaphorical (for example, only that enemies of the Jews, likened to the wolf, will no longer oppress them). A century later, Nachmanides rejected Maimonides's rationalism and asserted that Isaiah meant precisely what he said: that in the messianic age even wild animals will become domesticated and sweettempered. A more recent Jewish "commentator," Woody Allen, has cautioned: "And the lamb and the wolf shall lie down together, but the lamb won't get any sleep."
The Jewish belief that the Messiah's reign lies in the future has long distinguished Jews from their Christian neighbors who believe, of course, that the Messiah came two thousand years ago in the person of Jesus. The most basic reason for the Jewish denial of the messianic claims made on Jesus' behalf is that he did not usher in world peace, as Isaiah had prophesied: "And nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4). In addition, Jesus did not help bring about Jewish political sovereignty for the Jews or protection from their enemies. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to Judaism, the word "Mashiach" is generally used instead of "Messiah". (The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one".) This will help in your searches. :)
"The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15). " (Source:JewFAQ) See also:
As far as I know, without researching further at this stage; the word Messiah, means; The One who is sent, directly referring to these references in Isaiah. The word Christ means; The Anointed One, referring to those references in Isaiah. The words; Son of Man, refers to those references in Daniel.
I'm going to see Lewis Black tonight at the New York City Center. I've been to NYC a total of 2 times in my life and don't go into large cities very often, so I'm not sure if this is a concern... Will I be able to carry a pocket knife into the show? I always carry one and I don't know what to expect. (if it's the same as planes and federal buildings, etc.) Thanks, 24.151.16.55 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought your best option would be either to leave it at home if it's likely to cause a scene, or maybe call ahead? Their contact details are at: [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You probably won't need it for any protection. That theater is in Central Park South, basically in one of the most affluent part of New York, and I can't imagine you'll run into any trouble. Contrawise, theaters in nice areas don't often do searches for weapons, so you likely won't be stopped for carrying it (venues in bad parts of town often do). If you do have it on your person, and are caught with it, it could be seen as uncouth or inappropriate for the location, so my advice would be to leave it at home for this trip. --Jayron3215:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the venue, but it is just possible that they have you pass through a metal detector. They probably don't, but they just might. Unless you are very attached to your knife, why risk trouble? You could phone and ask if they allow knives or screen for weapons, but that phone call just might alarm them enough to screen when they would not have done so otherwise. Incidentally, I grew up near New York City and have been there many dozens of times, and I have never experienced or even witnessed a violent attack. As others have said, the neighborhood of that theater is one of the safest in the city and well patrolled, so you really do not need your knife. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people still believe the city is still dangerous and unsafe? Central Park south is not a bad area. Don't drive into the city unless you enjoy paying through the nose for parking at a garage. Take mass transit - or a Hertz rental car according to Google Maps - and keep your weapons at home. --Blue387 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you pass through Airport security with a Swiss Army knife, even the simplest one: The Spartan, you will lose it! The cost is £12 to £15 for the cheepest. Not worth it to lose it. A new one can be extreemly sharp! You may be allowed to bring it in boarding luggage, not hand-held.
At almost every concert I've ever been to, I have been frisked or had to pass through a metal detector. Usually they are looking for recording equipment or drugs, but weapons will raise alarm bells. If your knife is found it is certain to be conficated. What happens next will depend on the type of knife - a small swiss army type of penknife will be simply confiscated and you might get it back at the end of the concert if you ask nicely; carry a huge bush knife and you'll probably be held by a couple of big security guys until the police arrive. Best advice is leave it at home. Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a cliche that carrying a weapon makes you more likely to be hurt, and I don't think it's a silly one. A willingness to hurt people will engender that same attitude in others, towards you. Vranak (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's three people that have reacted to the prospect of the original poster carrying the pocketknife as a weapon, though there has been no indication that is the reason he or she carries it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Buddy431 said above: "for cutting open bags of chips". I've carried a Swiss Army Knife for years, simply because you never know when you'll want a little knife, scissors, tweezers, screwdriver, etc., and difficult-to-open packaging is exactly one of the reasons. It is not meant as a weapon and would be hard to use as one. But since 9/11, when another sort of knife that's hard to use as a weapon actually was used as one, I am not allowed to take it on airplanes or into a few other places. But those other places have not included any theaters I've been to in New York or anywhere else. --Anonymous, 04:10 UTC, April 24, 2010.
Besides the airport, the only place where I wasn't allowed a knife was in a court house. Even then, once I was given a juror badge/card/whatever, they stopped caring if I had a knife. (But I should add that I don't go to a lot of concerts.) APL (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, and most of my family have always carried swiss army knives or another multi-tool. We have all used them often and never as far as I am aware as a weapon. I use the screwdriver attachment regularly for tightening a screw inside my car that always works its way loose due to vibration, and I use the knife for opening parcels, prying up tins of paint and removing thumb tacks from my pinboard. My dad once used his to cut a piece of rope we found on the side of the road to length so we could securely attach a load to our roof rack when we discovered we didn't have enough straps. Without it we would have had to leave the load behind. At least in my experience (UK) far more people carry knives as tools than as weapons, you just don't hear as much about it. 131.111.185.69 (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vranak, have you ever SEEN a Swiss Army Knife? It would make a poor weapon. I carry a Swiss Army knife at all times, and it's difficult to imagine a realistic situation where using it as a weapon would have a happy ending. I'd rather pretend I was unarmed than attempt to make a stand with a Swiss Army knife. Mostly I use it for opening things, driving screws, and occasionally prying something apart. One day I may even use the tweezers. APL (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether intended as a weapon or not, many security guys consider even a pocketknife a potential weapon and will confiscate it anyway. Security guys see the worst in everything and everybody - for example, at the last football game I went to, the cap of my water bottle was confiscated for "security reasons"! Astronaut (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried a knife every day (almost) for the whole of my life from age 12. I object most strongly to that freedom being taken away to the extent that even non-locking knives, nail scissors and such like are verboten. They must pry my knife from my cold dead fingers!
(Except that I had to comply if I wanted to go on holiday!)Froggie34 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus fuck, people! I said a pocket knife. It's a tool. Not a weapon. I've carried a pocket knife of one sort or another since I was 12 and my brother got me my first Swiss-Army knife. I live in an area (don't bother looking up my IP, I'm far from home) where men are prepared and thus carry a pocket knife. Not so paranoid that we insist everyone else not carry anything. My normal tackle includes a Swiss-Army knife, a mini Leatherman on my key chain, a full size Leatherman on my belt, and a ~4" Spyderco lock blade. I leave some of that at home if I'm just going out to dinner with the wife but always have the Swiss Army knife on me. And yes, they all come in very handy and no, I've never used any of them as a weapon. Nor do I want to. The Spyderco is fast and easy for cutting open bales of hay, cutting rope in general, etc. The S.A. knife is handy for many things, including for the "server reboot tool" a.k.a. the toothpick. The Leatherman is handy for the pliers and the Phillips screwdriver. Among the other things I carry, because they come in handy are a Space pen, a bandana, my wallet (with a flat coin like screwdriver behind my driver's license), a pocket watch, and keys.
Thank you to those who kept a level head and had good suggestions. FYI, there were no metal detectors, LB was hilarious, the people in front weren't too tall, and, even though my wife said she had a fat ass, the chick next to me was pleasantly curvaceous. 24.151.16.55 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If stopped and searched on the streets of the UK you may lose it, depending on the length of the blade.
If it is packet-knife length, you may clame it back from the police station.
If it is long and obviously not a pocket knife, you will lose it and be prosecuted for holding in a public place an offensive weapon.
So, it depends on the nature of the tool/weapon, the length of the blade, and where it is carried (i.e. a public place). Some small knives can be flick-knives or tools.
The police-officer has to make up his/her mind as to its purpose.
The term "cradle robber" is sometimes applied to a man who dates or marries a much younger woman. It may be a term of envy on the part of the man's contemporaries. The half age plus seven rule would say it is fine if he is 32 and she is 23. Or if he is older than that and she is 9 years younger (like he is 70 and she is 61). In general, it is no one's business but theirs, assuming she is legal age in the applicable jurisdiction. Edison (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a name for pots where the lid rests inside the basin? Most pot lids rest entirely on top of the pot, but I need to find a 2q pot whose lid rests on an interior lip within the pot basin, like the lid here. (its for mother's day and mom's real specific). 160.10.98.106 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon it is called a nested lid, there are not many references on google to support this, but somewhere in the recesses of my mind this emerged. Richard Avery (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tefal make the sort of pots you're referring to. I have a Tefal stock pot, and the lid fits snugly on a lip inside the basin. I also have a smaller earthenware crock pot which fits the description. It may be a case of shopping around and asking the shop assistants. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kaltenbrunner is a common name in Austria (see for example soccer players Ernst, Günter, and Josef Kaltenbrunner, or writer Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner), especially Upper Austria, where Nazi-Ernst (from Ried im Innkreis) and Gerlinde (from Kirchdorf an der Krems) are from. Politician Alois Kaltenbrunner (from Ottnang am Hausruck) and writer Carl Adam Kaltenbrunner (from Enns) hail from the same state. That's not to say that they weren't possibly (remotely) related, but I can't find any mention of it from a quick look (and I'm too lazy to look for more). Rimush (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TV gimmicks
Many HDTV makers are offering refresh rates of more than 60 HZ. I've seen up to 240 HZ. Another weird thing is Sharp is now offering TVs with yellow pixels added to the RGB color model. What's the point of these features if the broadcast or source is only 60Hz RGB in the first place? Is this just a gimmick? Another thing that sounds kind of gimmicky to me is the upscale feature on some DVD players and receivers that outputs and HD signal from a standard definition source. It's basically resampling or stretching the image. Isn't that what the TV already does in order to fill the screen? Does it matter if it's done by the TV/monitor or the source player? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three phosphors, such as RGB, only allow reproduction of those colors which fall within the triangle encompassed by those three points in the CIE color space or some more modern equivalent. The transmitted color signals may include hues outside the triangle of the three phosphors. Color TVs in the early 1960's for instance, had poor reproduction of reds due to the lousy red phosphor then used. A cherry red in the televised scene would be reproduced on the screen as mere brick red, Today the same transmission would produce more vivid reds on today's sets withe better red phosphors. Adding some phosphor outside that triangle could in principle broaden the gamut of colors shown on the screen, with appropriate circuitry to drive the fourth phosphor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense! Without changing the way color TV/DVD signals are encoded, there is absolutely no way for the TV to produce colors outside the RGB 'cube' meaningfully. There is simply not enough information in the incoming signals for the TV to do what you're claiming they do...and even if there was, our eyes literally cannot tell the difference between yellow light and a mixture of green and blue light.
The real reason for the gimmick (and I'm pretty sure it isn't much more than a gimmick or TV's would have been doing this for 20 years) is that each pixel in the TV's panel has to emit red, green and blue light - to match how our eyes work. So you have three tiny little glowing blobs - one for each color. But three is a very inconvenient number to pack into a nice dense square grid - so what to do with that fourth 'spot'? Some designs put a second green emitter there because our eyes are more sensitive to green than red or blue - and being able to emit more green light makes for a perceptually brighter picture. But our eyes are also more sensitive to red than to blue - so ideally you'd like to make some extra red light too. Hence, filling that slot with yellow is a way to make a somewhat brighter picture - but that's about all.
You're making the assumption that a display device is capable of producing the full RGB gamut. I don't think that's necessarily a valid assumption; and if it's not, a fourth emitter could indeed broaden the gamut. --jpgordon::==( o )02:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that, even if today your tv has extra colour-capacity that's useless because it's above the colour-information being broadcast, maybe in a year, or five years, your broadcasters will start sending more colour-precise broadcasts and THEN your tv will be ready for it! Duomillia (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is that scenario very unlikely for bandwidth reasons, it wouldn't work. The TV would only know how to decode the format of signals now in use, not some new format with additional data. --Anonymous, 04:12 UTC, April 24, 2010.
There is no possibility whatever of broadcasters "widening the color gamut". Color is described in terms of three primaries - and that's how the human visual system works. Humans are physically incapable of distinguishing yellow light (meaning light with a frequency around 570–580nm) from an appropriate mixture of red (630–740nm) and green (520–570nm) light - we are biologically incapable of doing that. The color of a Sodium-vapor lamp (at 289nm) looks exactly the same to us as the color of a photograph of a sodium-vapor lamp displayed on a TV screen that is displayed as a mixture of (roughly) 47% red and 53% green light.
That being the case, adding a yellow source to the TV is utterly incapable of generating a different perceptual response in the eye compared to a normal RGB television...EXCEPT that in order to make sufficiently bright yellows, a conventional TV might need to generate (let's say) more green light than it's green emitters are capable of. Simply making brighter green emitters - or more green emitters - would solve that problem...but that's expensive. What you have to do is to dim down the picture generally in order that there is enough 'headroom' for the green emitter to be turned up high enough to hit the right red/green ratio to get the shade of yellow you're asking for. However, adding a true yellow emitter allows you to have less bright red and green emitters and still generate a vibrant yellow. It's not widening the gamut - it's increasing the brightness range of the TV, if it happens to be limited by being unable to generate enough red or green at high brightness ranges. However making red, green and blue brighter through other technological means would be a better solution since it would also allow brighter red, green, cyan, blue, magenta and white output. That's why the yellow emitter thing is a gimmick. If they actually relied upon the yellow emitter to reach the required brightness of yellow - they'd have a TV that couldn't produce enough red or green light when called upon to make a red or a green that's as intense as the yellow right next to it. This IS a gimmick...nothing more.
If pixels were infinitely small and infinitely bright, then, yes, 3 pixels with RGB colors would be just as good as 4 RGBY pixels. However, the pixels on a large screen are not so small that you can't see them individually, especially at 720p resolution. Therefore, seeing actual yellow pixels is better than seeing alternating red and green pixels, especially for thin yellow lines displayed on the screen. It would be better yet if they could create overlapping layers of clear pixels (when off) with 16 colors, or maybe 256. However, as we currently lack this ability, they should probably just fill in the "missing pixel" from the pixel square, and yellow seems as good of a color as any. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If what you said were true - then what about cyan, white, magenta? All of those colors wouldn't be improved in the slightest by adding a yellow pixel. To the contrary, the inevitable reduction in the number of red, green and/or blue pixels would make those colors WORSE!! Also (as I'm sure you realize), it doesn't matter that the image is being transmitted at 720p - the number of pixels per inch on the screen is what matters when it comes to 'fusing' the red and green light into yellow. Most flat screen TV's have a dot pitch of between a quarter and a third of a millimeter. Remember that our visual acuity is much lower for color than it is for intensity, we have about 4.5 million cone cells - so if the TV image completely fills our field of view (you have to be sitting unusually close to the screen for that to be the case!) then you need around 4.5 million RGB triplets on the screen in order to be totally unable to distinguish the individual pixels. That's a resolution of about 2100 pixels. If the pixels are 0.3mm across then so long as your display is bigger than around 700 millimeters (27") you can't see the individual dots. The Sharp Aquos Quattron (the one with the yellow pixels) has a 52" diagonal screen. So this argument of yours is nonsense. Unless you are sitting so close to it that you can only see about a quarter of the screen at a time - you can't possibly see the individual dots even with perfect eyesight. For all that matters - they might as well be infinitely small...which means that your argument is still 100% wrong and the yellow pixel thing is still a gimmick. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) People can see individual pixels. We have a Q right now which clearly demonstrates that: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#HDTV_stuck_blue_pixel. Not only did he manage to spot it right away, but it's a genuine annoyance. I've had similar experiences myself.
2) Even when people are seated too far away to see individual pixels, the image will still look "fuzzier" if composed of alternating different colored pixels than a single color pixel, especially if the pixels are not quite in line with each other:
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ <- Single color, single line
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ <- Two color, single line
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ <- Two color, two line
3) I think it's a fair comment that other colors, which don't contain much yellow, may not be as clear or as bright if the 4th pixel is yellow, depending on what the alternative 4th pixel color is. However, fixing the deficiency in yellow may be worth a reduction in those other colors, but that's a judgment call. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For 60 Hz source, the TV may interpolate to create the missing frames. While that's not as good as 240 Hz source, it can be better than 60 Hz source on a 60 Hz display. Also note that the TV doesn't solely get it's video source from broadcast TV. There's also cable, computers, DVD players, Blu-Ray, etc., some of which may offer higher frame rates than 60 Hz. StuRat (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I have watched TV broadcasts on older sets with the inferior red phosphors, and more recent sets produce more saturated reds. It is due to a phosphor change, not to a change in broadcasting. The phosphors provided in a set do not automatically reproduce all the hues and saturations present in the broadcast signal, nor is the broadcast signal automatically limited to the phosphors present in the set. Edison (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're saying - but don't think you understand 100% of what's going on under the hood. Let's come back to the choice of phosphor in a moment. Ignoring that, it's a matter of brightness. The TV has to compromise between saturation and brightness. If it wants to be able to produce a fully saturated red (using only the red phosphor/LED/LCD/micro-mirror) - then it has to turn the green and blue outputs off. That means that the brightness of the picture is limited by the brightness of a single color element. However, if they are prepared to compromise and use a little green and blue mixed in with the red, they'll have a brighter overall picture - but less saturated colors. This is attractive because most natural images don't have much super-saturated colors - and not many colors that happen to be pure primary colors. By NOT reserving 100% red for 100% red, you can have a brighter picture overall. It's a compromise.
Having said that, the choice of phosphor/LED color does have an impact. The human eye's green sensor is still picking up color over the frequency range that a red phosphor produces. So picking a red phosphor that's centered on the human eye's red sensor doesn't allow you to produce colors that are closer to infra-red which result in your red sensors being stimulated - but not the green sensor. So you can make a better color between red and infra-red with a phosphor that's lower in frequency than the 'center' frequency of our eyes...although now you don't have a way to maximise the amount of stimulation to our red sensors, so again, you get a dimmer picture. That's also somewhat true of blue phosphors - where choosing a blue phosphor that's closer to ultraviolet gets you purer blues. HOWEVER, you can't extend that argument to adding a yellow phosphor (or, in this case, a yellow LED) because every possible color between red and green can always be produced with an appropriate mixture of red and green.
It's interesting to look at what TV's and computer monitors put out for various primary colors. I've been using a blank CD-ROM as a "poor man's spectrometer". You can use the CD-ROM to break the light from your screen into individual colors. I did that experiment a while back on my DELL flat-scren computer monitor. When I display pure green on the screen, I get a mixture of mostly green and a small amount of red and blue showing up on my CD-ROM spectrometer. Clearly the designers favored brightness over purity and decided to create a slightly desaturated green in order to get a brighter overall picture for "natural" images. In the monitor's menu system, there is a selection widget that lets you choose between "Graphics" and "Video" settings and presets for "Multimedia", "Game", "Warm", "Cool" and "Standard". These all seem to alter the degree of saturation/brightness compromise.
While this is unrelated to the original question since the discussion has been sidetracked by this colour discussion, I thought I should point out first, when it comes to TVs, the YCbCr colour space is usually used, the relationship with RGB is explained in the article. Now the primary reason for this interjection is that HDMI 1.3 onwards support xvYCC and Deep Colour. However not that many devices actually support either, only some expensive displays & for output devices in particular Bluray does not (although AVCHD supports xvYCC) although some computers and gaming consoles may (they also have their own alternatives for a wider gamut). The reason why I mention this should now be obvious, if you want a wider gamut, there already is xvYCC (and equivalent on computers) which you may want to combine with Deep Colour (i.e. a larger sample depth), no need to worry about the future (and as with others, I highly doubt a display which doesn't already support these will later be updated to support them. Yellow pixels isn't necessary or helpful unless you decide to only expand the yellow gamut but ignore the rest.
Now in terms of this yellow thing, a/some? DLP systems do use yellow filters, e.g. the Texas Instruments' BrilliantColour [4][5][6] as mentioned in our Color depth#Television color article (the section on BrilliantColour is fairly misleading IMHO but I'll let someone else with more experience in this deal with it). However this is different from the LCD case for reasons somewhat explained in the earlier linked articles and could I think potentially make a difference to the brightness perhaps allowing brighter DLPs to be made at a lower cost (the gamut still being irrelevant) brightness of course being generally quite important for DLPs, because of the way DLPs work. For a simplistic explaination see this. This could work for LCDs too as SB mentions although I don't know how much of an advantage it is. There's someone who actually saw the Sharp commenting here (see last post)
I came across this while looking at the yellow thing
Others have done this and continue to do so. 720 to 1080 sets - in a blind test nobody could pick the 1080 set. 120 to 240 hz sets - again, no visual difference except on your credit card statement from buying one
There's also some mention there of a well known and hopefully fairly obvious thing. Many displays in shops are contrived or even misleading, choosing the source which shows off any advantage is an obvious thing but far more insidious is screwing up the settings and calibration of a cheap TV so it looks far worse then the more expensive one then it should. And similar some of the changes may make the more expensive TV stand out and look better in a crowd, but may screw up with the accuracy of the reproduction as SB hinted at above so some people pay for a professional calibration of their TV according to the defined specs.
In terms of upscaling, the quality of upscaling definitely varies. Being close to the source may also help since it ensures nothing has happened to the signal inbetween as mentioned at Video scaler#Upscaling/upconverting DVD. I don't have a HDTV but from my research for a friend, the PS3 is said to be one of the best upscalers. Surprisingly most specific PC software including GPU supported ones (combined with the various filters GPUs generally have themselves) still aren't generally rated as good although the GPU deinterlacing options in the mid & high end ATI & Nvidia cards are fairly good. However there are various filters available for the PC which can give good results, e.g. [7] (and there are also fancy deinterlacing filters which can do better then GPU ones). Note that deinterlacing is more of an issue for broadcast sources (including HDTV e.g. 1080i for example as well as some SD broadcast TV) and older TV sources then it is for movie DVDs.
Of course you don't have to take my word from it. For example, there is a deinterlacing test pattern I used [8], while this is partially artificial, some of the stuff are clearly things you may encounter with real videos. I used it with the various GPU deinterlacing options and the difference is clear (this wasn't a double blind test but I have sometimes realised there was something wrong when the settings got screwed up). I see the above link also has a test disc for upscaling. A key point of course is it will generally vary from source to source and from viewer to viewer depending on what they prefer.
However most of my research is about a year old and I don't actually know how big the difference is in general and how many people will notice it and in particular how this compares to the displays native filters (I do have experience with deinterlacing as mentioned but IIRC I never set up the system I was testing to use the display deinterlacing or even worked out how to).
Not 100% sure of this, but might a multiple of the usual 60 Hz refresh rate not also prepare the TV for showing 3D content? If not sufficient, it's at least necessary, in order to enable flicker-free display of 2 images from different viewpoints each at 60 Hz, in combination with shutter glasses. JH-man (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
April 24
NBA vs. NHL
Why are the highest/lowest number of wins/losses and longest winning/losing streaks by NBA teams more dramatic than in the NHL? I know in the past, the NHL had ties, but if you count the win percentage excluding the ties (instead of counting each tie as .500 wins, or 1 standings point, as they normally did) and count OT losses as regular losses, this pattern remains true. Also, in recent years with no ties, if you count all the losses as regular losses, this pattern also remains true. Does this mean there is more disparity between strong teams and weak teams in the the NBA than in the NHL? What would be the cause of that? Revenue differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American and don't know anything about the teams but a significant factor may be that basketball has much higher scores than ice hockey. This can lead to fewer "semi-random" results where a good team loses to a bad team which gets lucky in a few plays. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the initial premise is wrong. The worst ever NHL team was the 1992–93 San Jose Sharks at 11-71-2, while the worst ever NBA team was the 1972-73 Philadelphia 76ers at 9-73, certainly comparable in terms of shittiness. Longest NHL winless streak (losses and ties) is 30 games for the 1980-81 Winipeg Jets. The longest NBA losing streak is 24 games (over 2 seasons) or 23 games (over 1 season). The former was the 81-82 and 82-83 Cleveland Cavaliers and the latter was done by 2 teams: The 95-96 Vancouver Grizlies and 97-98 Denver Nuggets. Recently, the New Jersey Nets and Minnesota Timberwolves had an historically terrible year, which is why it seems like the worst NBA teams are worse, but that is only recentism, in that we had a rare year with TWO really horrible teams (12 wins for the former, 15 for the latter). The premise is simply wrong if applied over the history of the leagues. --Jayron3201:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that a lousy NHL team has a greater chance of beating a really good opponent on any given night than its crummy NBA counterpart, making a losing streak easier for the latter. One factor is that the best basketball players get most of the playing time, whereas it's more spread out in hockey. It's not unheard of for a star to play 40+ minutes in a 48 minute game, whereas there are four lines in hockey. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CaribbeanTongue is independent from the author and publisher. The person asking for help probably did so after seeing the internal links comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou for some time.
Thank you for your meticulous attention. Hope one day I can join wiki's league of eagle-eye editors.
Did you bring this up with the person that added the COI tag? You can find such information by clicking the "History" tab at the top of the article. The appropriate thing to do would be to strike up a civil conversation with that person at their user talk page, and then reach a reasonable conclusion. It is quite likely that the two of you can work this out amongst yourselves. --Jayron3205:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a pretty simple case to me - on 22 April 2010, a person logged into Wikipedia using the User:CaribbeanTongue account wrote (on this very page) "Hello Wikipedia, House of Nehesi Publishers would like your expert assistance to further wikify following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou. Description: Please help by adding relevant internal links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Sincerely, House of Nehesi Publishers" - which leads us to believe that this account belongs to someone who works for the "House of Nehesi" publishers. Since House of Nehesi is the publisher of Sekou's biography, that person has a clear conflict of interest in editing our article on that person. Wikipedia's rules on conflict of interest are quite clear. Since User:CaribbeanTongue has made more edits to that article than any other editor, it is necessary for us to either remove all of those edits - or to use a standard Wikipedia template to indicate clearly to readers of the article that it has been edited by someone with a potential conflict of interest. Hence, that template does indeed belong there and we should not remove it without also removing all of the edits that User:CaribbeanTongue made to the article in direct contravention of our editing guidelines. SteveBaker (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Steve. That is exactly why I added the COI tag to the article. I also added an explanation why on the article's talk page. It is quite a new article, but not too bad an effort in my opinion. I think there is a slight emphasis of Mr Sekou's literary achievements over other aspects of his life, but what is there does seem quite well referenced. It could do with some input from uninvolved editors which would hopefully balance out the article. Tha aim of me adding the COI tag was to hopefully attract knowledgeable but uninvolved editors who are familiar with Mr Sekou's work. Astronaut (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I changed the title to avoid it conflicting with the previous question. Astronaut (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jamaican Wine
I've been listening to an audio book recently set in Georgeian times. In it the characters vist Jamaica and drink a wine called Cilary or Sillery or something. Anyone know the correct spelling and anything about this wine? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that one can find a good deal of interesting information about Sillery by searching Google Books for Sillery wine—such as the assertion, by one Herbert Mayo in the early 19th century, that "a man may drink more Sillery with impunity than any other wine". Deor (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm convinced (meaning I'm not actually sure) that I'd done aHow come a WP search on Sillery and failed to find anythinbg relevant. Doh! -- SGBailey (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hairstyle Options
I currently have my hair shaved fairly short. I like this for a number of reasons. It means I don't have to worry about my hair, no work on it each morning. No hair products beyond shampoo. Lots of time between haircuts. It has been suggested to me that I try something new, but I value the simplicity of my current style. Are there any slightly more fashionable haircuts which retain most or all of the above traits? I'd be prepared to have slightly less convenience in one or all of the above areas, but I'm not keen on spending lots of time, effort or money on my physical appearance (though I'm prepared to upgrade from the almost non-existent level of each of those I spend now).
An English Cut (also called a Schoolboy) is quite simple to maintain - grows long on top, parted, but clippered up the back and sides. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's time the Bowl cut cut came back into fashion. Easy to keep it in shape yourself, with items you can find in any kitchen. Be a leader of style and not a follower -go for one of them!--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pygmy hippos seem to weigh about 200kg[9], whilst normal hippos weigh about 1500[10] (give or take a couple hundred depending on sex). So you're looking at something about 7-9. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going on volume, it will make a difference if the pygmy hippos are whole (they don't pack together very well), or minced so you can stuff them into all the nooks and crannies of the hollowed-out big hippo. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IPA
Hi, I've googled but can't find an answer so I hope you can help. How do you write the Asian sirname Advani (pronounced Ad-var-nee - that's the best I can do to write it phonetically) in IPA. Thanks. 86.184.106.49 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means "likely to be cut..." ; it might help if you could share the context in which you read it. If I said "that lazy, mean-spirited worker is ripe for the axe," I'd mean that she was about to be fired from her job. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be applied literally to people, especially in historic usages, meaning they are likely to be beheaded (or perhaps executed in some other way).
Sticking with the metaphorical usage, it could mean any inefficient process or department which is likely to be eliminated for budgetary reasosns. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know. If I worked at The laboratory for shuttering, reinforcement, concrete and ferroconcrete operations for composite-monolithic and monolithic constructions of the Department of the Technology of Building-assembly operations of the Scientific Research Institute of the Organization for building mechanization and technical aid of the Academy of Building and Architecture of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - (pauses for breath) - I'd much rather call it "The XYZ Department" than what its acronym actually and unbelievably was - wait for it - NIIOMTPLABOPARMBETZHELBETRABSBOMONIMONKONOTDTEKHSTROMONT. I kid you not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"an imp. factor which influences the balance of payment of a country is the exchange rate of its currency vis-a-vis other major currencies" briefly explain the statement.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsabhi (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified: An important thing, that changes the amount a country pays, is their currency's worth compared against currencies of other countries. 86.184.106.49 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want someone to direct you to the articles Externality and Incremental capital-output ratio? The third term is vague without context. What is the context for the term? As a further issue, presumably your economics teacher assigned you a textbook. In general, textbooks are better sources for this information because they are tailored to the content and level of the course you are taking. If you open the textbook and read the chapters assigned to you by your teacher that match the part of the class you are in, they often contain clear statements of definition, or the book may have a glossary which explains these terms. --Jayron3214:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jobs, as you like it
Are there people from one country trying to setup base for information for the other , for e.g people in UK/US wanting some information in regards to vegetation/business/photography from any other country for their business /research and need someone for assistance on a paid bassis, which eases the burden of travelling away from home on a frequent basis and also provides source of income for both.if there are where do we find them? i had a friend helping a science research by providing vital information on spread of various diseases to a research house in another..hence curious, anyone.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of some possibilities:
1) An NGO might hire locals to determine which villages need food, wells, medical care, etc., prior to bringing in those resources.
2) A news organization might hire locals to scout out potential stories of interest, so they then know where to deploy their reporters.
3) A government intelligence organization might hire locals to warn them of terrorists in the area or spy on others. This job, of course, is potentially dangerous and may violate the local laws. StuRat (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jobs again
Are there special packages offered to the third world/developing countries for employment offers in the developed countries.got to know lately,that, countries like UK/Canada etc do have such offers. How do i find my way out if i wish to work for about 3-5 years and come back to the country of my origin, how do we get there? anyone please.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, as in all countries, the system is set up so that citizens have a much easier time getting a job than foreigners. Generally a foreigner wanting a US job has to contact the company of interest, apply for a job, get hired, and then obtain an employment visa, like an H-1B visa or an O-1 visa. They make it difficult; there are only 65,000 H1-B visas issued per year, and the employer has to claim they couldn't find a US citizen qualified for the job. (The TN visa is easier to get, but is only for Canadian and Mexican citizens.) United States visas has more information. But I don't believe the US federal government runs any particular type of program that seeks out foreign workers in general, and promotes their hire. This would be unpopular politically in any country, particularly in an era of high unemployment. (There could be exceptions, like if a country has a nurse shortage and all the hospitals get together and hire a few people to try to attract foreign nurses. This appears to be related.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think some nations have a guest worker program, where workers are brought in to work for a certain period of time, but are then expected to leave, and denied any chance of gaining citizenship. I believe Kuwait has such a program. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that many guest worker/work visa programs are only for work in jobs where there is a shortage of home applicants. Embassy websites usually have a visa section which provides links to the list of eligible jobs. Astronaut (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mirror are backing Labour in the general election. They put some questions to David Cameron as part of the usual pre-election smear campaign and he didn't answer them, as he was too 'chicken', so they got a man dressed in a chicken suit with the paper's logo on his chest to chase him around London shouting those questions at him repeatedly. Nanonic (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are people who like their own sex who have had an operation to become the opposite sex gay? Are people who like the opposite sex who have had operations to become their own sex gay? I know labelling is kinda unhelpful but just want to know.--92.251.206.24 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People who have had sex reassignment surgery are usually referred to as transsexuals rather than simply "gay". Those articles are both rather detailed and provide some information about the sexual orientation of the people involved. The short answer is "it's complicated and it depends". Matt Deres (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I still say "it's complicated and it depends". Gayness and straightness are not binary options; the real world is much more complicated than that. A man who is sexually attracted to "a" male-to-female transgender may be attracted simply to the person as an individual and not particularly care about their biology/anatomy. It may be useful to keep in mind that both people's orientation may be complicated. That is to say, the male might be attracted to the transgender female because she's "woman enough" for him or he may be attracted to her because she still exhibits some male traits. In situations like this, labels are not useful. Matt Deres (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you define yourself. If you're a guy, and you've fallen in love with a trans woman, you're still straight if you think you are. Or you could say, "I'm straight, but I'm flexible enough in my straightness to marry Jennifer, with her Y chromosome and all." Or you might say, "I'm sort of straight- I really am most attracted to trans women, which is why Jennifer and I are so well suited to each other. Well, that, and her fabulous baked goods." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)01:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes an important point I planned to make myself. A man who is nearly exclusively attracted to women is most likely to consider himselves heterosexual and even if he finds out that one of those women happens to be a trans woman he's probably not going to change his view of his sexual orientation. Similarly a man who is nearly exclusively attracted men is most likely to consider himselves gay and even if he finds out one of them happens to be a trans men he's probably not going to change his view of his sexual orientation. For a man who has always considered himselves bisexual and is attracted to both men and women and this includes trans men and trans women, they're still going to consider themselves bisexual and the question of whether a relationship with a trans man or trans woman is heterosexual or gay is rather moot. Similar examples for women of course. If someone is primarly attracted to trans women or men, things will probably be different. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is shown to be in part nonsense by specifying genders: "A heterosexual man who likes women has an operation to become a man." No operation is needed "to become their own sex." Edison (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the question is silly, I think your misunderstanding, it probably not helped by insufficient punctuation and poor word choice. The 'own sex' does not refer to the sex of the person undergoing the operation but the sex of the person who is attracted to that person. Same sex would be a better word here rather then own sex. In other words, is a man who likes post op trans women gay? Is a man who likes post op trans men gay? (the converse for women obviously.)
For example, in the first case, we are discussing a post op trans woman who formerly had the same genitialia as the hypothetical male in question (i.e. 'own sex' of the hypothetical male) and underwent operations to change their genitalia to that of the opposite sex as the hypothetical male. Note that many trans women would I think consider themselves always women both pre-op and post-op so saying they underwent operations to become women may be offensive, and even biologically the concept of sex isn't always clear.
Pre- or Post-op don't really have anything to do with it. A transwoman isn't a man who suddenly became a woman when their genitalia were changed. The same way with a transman. Straying into the binary, as I feel I must, a man is straight if he predominantly favors women, cis or trans; gay if he strongly favors men, cis or trans; and the same with women.
You shouldn't try too hard to pigeonhole people. Some people fall in a gray area between labels. That's OK. If there's enough of them, maybe one day someone will invent new words to describe them. Or maybe not. There's no law that says that everyone's sexuality can be described with a single word. APL (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern US army, going home, then back to war again
Hey guys,
I'm currently planning out a short story that works under the premise that a U.S. soldier in the Iraq War is sent home to the United States for a while, but will be returning to the war at a later date: A "holiday" of sorts. Are there any real-life situations in which this type of arrangement can occur? What would such an arrangement be called? Ideally such a situation will be brought about so the soldier can recover from their injuries.
On a similar note, how is the Medal of Honor awarded to soldiers who are still in active service? Do they fly home, receive the award then fly back? Is it awarded on discharge?
Suggest the publicity value of the Medal of Honor would bring the soldier back for a prestige presentation. Unlikely thereafter that he would return to active front line service.Froggie34 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think medals are usually awarded at the end of a tour of duty. The Medal of Honor is probably no different in that respect. Soldiers will almost always get some leave between tours of duty. They will also spend some time training before being sent on another tour. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen evidence that a medal is a ticket out of the war. In the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the National Guard and Reserves have been repeatedly deployed in the combat zone, along with the regular professional military. In the Vietnam War, I believe it was regular forces that were deployed, and the National Guard was left home. Of course they had draftees back then. In WW2, the US Army forces in Europe did not get any furlough back home. Edison (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Medal of Honor is normally pinned on by the President personally. The recipient would almost certainly travel to Washington DC for the ceremony. Zoonoses (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1, There is a song that won the eurovisions ong contest a few years ago, it was a youtube hit with some fat guy mimeing it, I heard this version in some eauropean language, the I heard it again but in polish in poland, I heard the same song a 3rd time in south africa, but in Afrikaans, what was this song, the afrikaans lyrics where, Jy's nie die een vir my is it common for songs to be reused like this in different languages? Please provide more info concerning how songs get sold, rewritten into different languages, and who gets the credit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably thinking of "Dragostea din Tei" by O-Zone, originally in Romanian. I know there was a fat guy who mimed it (Numa Numa), and that an Afrikaans version exists. There might also be a Polish one. It never won the Eurovision song contest, though. Rimush (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-mythical animals
2, Have there been any animals like the griffin for instance, where everyone knows it does not exist, but then a specimen was found, and the mythical animal was proved to be real. if so, can you please give me examples of these, thanks and... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt it. Some people do believe they exist but I don't think there's been any fossils or specimens found of them - they're just mythical creatures. Chevymontecarlo. 10:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there is the story of Black swans, or more specifically Black swan theory) - not sure how accurate the story is but the idea is basically people didn't think Black swans existed - they thought all swans were white, but then they discovered black-swans. ny156uk (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly mythical, but the coelacanth was believed to be extinct for a long time, until one was caught in the waters off South Africa in 1938. That said, I also doubt it was ever known (extinct or otherwise) by "everyone". The story of Ebu Gogo and the speculated connection to Homo floresiensis is also interesting. See Cryptid for more info on mythical creatures. Astronaut (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that gorillas were fairly recently known as a myth, but the article gorilla doesn't mention this. I googled "mythical gorilla" and found a list of 10 such formerly mythical animals [12], although the facts stated in this list may themselves be myths. 213.122.43.218 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Okapi is often given as an example in this context. Prior to 1901 it was often considered to be either mytical or long-extinct. It was sometimes called "The African Unicorn". Nowadays they're in zoos. APL (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3, There are many articles on actors and actresses on wiki, but many of them are not very good, why do famous people not improve their own articles, for instance, Mel gibson corrects and improves his own article, he wioll be able to ensure that all the info is correct, and it will still be a notable article as he is famous, the only article that I can see where it would appear this has been done is crowbar, a very good band by the way. This will also be a service to their fans, so why do they not do this? It will also help to boost their fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have to do this, and many celebrities do not want to. In fact I think there are many good biographical articles of actors/actresses on Wikipedia, and there are whole WikiProjects (groups of Wikipedia editors) dedicated to actor/actress articles. Chevymontecarlo. 10:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia typically discourages people from editing articles about themselves, due to conflict of interest. It's not outright forbidden, but it's strongly discouraged. You can improve any of the articles you feel is wrong, as long as you have reliable sources to back up whatever you plan to add in the articles. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nataniel
4, There was a South African singer a few years ago called Nataniel, he was a bald, gay guy with a lovely voice, do we have an article on him or does anyone know where I can download his music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My wife asked me to put a pendant on a chain to use as a necklace but the narrowness of the loop on the pendant would not allow me to slip the chain into the hole because the first link on the chain is large to accomodate the clasp. So I folded the chain in half and slipped the chain (doubled) through the narrow pendant loop and then put the other end thorugh this loop I created. In case there's difficulty in imagining what I'm saying, the pendant is now nearly fixed in the middle of the chain and won't slide because of the friction of the catch-type loop. Anyway, I was wondering if there was a name for this type of tying modality. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)13:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wordless jazz song -- I say that because the primary instrument is a saxophone -- that I find interesting, and I want to get the name of it. I heard it played while waiting on the phone for some corporate office, and I think it's a popular piece used in movies, but I can't read music and can't describe the song in any way other than humming it, and even that doesn't even properly produce the song enough for anyone to tell me what it is, because the notes are so complex that I end up not even making it sound close enough to the real song for even myself to identify it based on my humming. Anybody have any suggestions on how to find out the name of the piece so that I can YouTube it or something to listen to it at will? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The song that comes to mind immediately is Take Five. Could that be it ? I suggest you use the names of the movies containing the music as a method for searching. That is, look through the list of tracks in each, until you find the common tune. StuRat (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HA!...that's it!!! I was totally asking this question without any hopes of getting an answer -- how in the world did you know what I was talking about? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. :) Although this number goes back 50 years, I only really became aware of it when it was used in a series of TV ads for a luxury car called an "Infiniti" (probably referring to the payment schedule), with spokesman Jonathan Pryce. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, we're good ! Two of us got it, independently, within 5 minutes of each other (ironically, based on the name), due to your description. We have JAZZ, COMMON, SAX, COMPLEX; which really narrowed it down. (The complex part probably relates to the unusual 5/4 time signature used in the piece.) StuRat (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Design ideas for an 'alien queens' wardrobe?
I was wondering if anyone on the reference desk had some suggestions on what an 'alien' or 'robot' costume for
a 'female impersonator' should look like?
The 'act' involves a number of fairly energetic dance routines which rules out certain designs,
and a 'modest' design would be preferable because the performer concerned is also
going to be involved in doing external promotion events.
I thought I'd ask here, as Wikipedia has a number of experts on 'Future Fashion from Beyond the Stars!" XD
I've also been considering reviewing specfic TV sci-fi... Any thoughts? Dr Who in the early 1980's made some intresting costume choices, as did Blakes 7 (Servelan in particular). There are also 'those' uniforms in U.F.O..
(As the original poster, you don't need to indent). Assuming you want an "over the top" look, I'd go for Lost in Space, Flash Gordon and Arachnia, Queen of the Spider People: [17]. Also, the female Romulans in Star Trek: TNG and later had a certain "tranny" quality about them: [18], while the original series portrayed them as more feminine: [19]. Villains typically have the most outrageous costumes, but you should probably tell us whether this queen is good or evil, so we can tailor our suggestions accordingly (pun intended). StuRat (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as familiar with 'drag' tropes as I'd like to be in respect of this, but 'she' is out to spread "universal cosmic harmony, amongst compatible inteligences" ;), Not an evil character, but still one that will go OTT if needed.
Someone else off wiki had suggested some kind of prop whose function was nominally like a wii-mote, so that when certain dance
moves were made, 'sonic transductions' were generated :)
You mention spiders, I'd considered the idea of an 'alien' dragonfly for subsidiary performers, but not the main 'queen'.
Which side of a scythe blade is used for cutting, the outside (facing away from the wielder), or the inside (facing towards the wielder)? --71.144.122.18 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The inside. The scythe is swung from right to left in front of the mower. The blade is tilted so that it can run parallel to the ground. Therefore the <handle> has to be specially shaped to facilitate use.Froggie34 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought these could be grown as far north as Deciduous trees can grow. Some, allowance may needed for the 'continental effect' but a few foot of snow is not going going to bring everything to a grinding halt. The Forest_gardening article could do with a bit of expanding. There are some videos on you tube about it. What you read is going to depend a bit on local climate and exactly what your aiming for, as no one book can cover it all. Personal, if I was doing it, I would arrange things so that it would support a few livestock. Look on amazon for a proper book --Aspro (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there some foods you can get out of evergreens, such as pine nuts ? Sticking with the deciduous trees idea, a sugar maple can be tapped to produce maple syrup, during the winter. I do agree with the idea of herding, though, as reindeer and other animals can turn the sparse food produced in such regions into meat for us (sorry Santa :-) ). StuRat (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I imagine the Russian Nenets and Sami people find lots to eat in the forests but they also have to eat a great deal of animal protein and fats too. I am presuming that the OP is interested in doing this to reduce the size of his/her foot print on the planet, and I do not think therefore, that this excise would be worth doing north or south of the deciduous tree line (for want of a better term), ( I think northern larch is deciduous and its sap can be fermented into a potent brew but I'm just talking in lose general terms). But I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong on any of these things.--Aspro (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I assumed you are asking about what food can be produced in winter in climates like that of Germany and farther north. If you meant to ask what foods can be produced in summer, then the answer is "just about anything", as only tropical plants are likely to be killed by frost. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Germany or farther north in Denmark you could develop a landscape like that of Normandy in France, with apple orchards and cattle grazing beneath the apple trees. This is sustainable and productive. Camembert, cider and calvados, mmmm! Further north/up mountains than apple trees like, the maple tree suggestion looks interesting. I think the kinds of pine trees that come pine nuts from only grow in southern Europe. There's always beech mast. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are people developing forest gardens (edible forests) in Massachusetts, which typically has colder winters than most of Germany. You can certainly grow fruit- and nut-bearing trees in these climates. I'm not sure what the northern limit would be to this kind of permaculture, but I am fairly certain that it would be a bit north of Stockholm or Helsinki. Walnut and apple trees, for example, can grow as far north as central Sweden and southern Finland. Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Rasputin would not tire to mention, pine nuts from the Siberian pine (commonly known to Russians as the "Siberian cedar") used to be a major forest product in southwestern Siberia. Russian wikipedia even has an article about the kolot - a traditional tool used by Siberian villagers for pine nut harvesting. (It says it was sort of like a huge wooden mallet, with a 2-meter-long handle made out the trunk of a young tree; one would raise it and knock on the tree forcefully, to make the cones come down!). A lot of cedars have been cut since, but forest berries, such as blueberries and lingonberries, as well as cloudberries and cranberries in swampy areas, are still picked by locals in large amounts throughout the boreal forest belt and way into the tundra, both in Siberia and in Lapland, although the season is necessarily short (August-September) - so people would make a lot of fruit jams. Wild mushrooms are a popular food ("taiga tucker"? :-) throughout the taiga belt and even in some tundra areas (where dwarf trees still can be found), although of course you need to know your mushrooms, and you need to cook or pickle them properly. I understand that Ramsons, a sort of wild chives plant (known in Russian as cheremsha) are also a popular forest food, commonly used in a pickled/marinated form. Birch trees can also be tapped for sap in the spring (rather like maples), but instead of evaporating the sao to make syrup, the Soviets used to sell the "birch juice" as a soft drink. -- Vmenkov (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking Surveys for Income
Hello all, I am from the U.S. and I was wondering if taking surveys over the internet is a good idea to make money. Is it safe and secure, or does it vary by survey? I don't know who else to ask, and I thought it might be an easy way to make money. Too easy, actually. Thank you for your help as always, The Reader who Writes (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe and secure (just don't give out account numbers, have them send you a check). However, you won't make much of an income this way. Perhaps, if you're a kid, the money might seem good, though. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of a panel for a large reputable polling company in Canada that pays between 1-4 dollars a survey. They send me maybe 2 surveys a month. Unless you do hundreds of surveys, it's unlikely you'd ever make enough to live off. Also, they surely have mechanisms in place to make sure you don't just churn out random responses for cash. As for safe and secure, they generally don't ask for too much personal identifying info (if they do, skip it; they're out to scam you), but they will likely bombard you with targeted advertising. Aaronite (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten some spam emails lately that promise that you can make some large amount of money (Tens of thousands) by filling out surveys at home. If those are what you're thinking of, I am 100% sure that they are scams. APL (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, APL, not naive enough for that. Just a small stream of income over the summer. I'm an undergrad. Just found out a friend of a friend does them for cash. She said she uses two reputable websites, one that pays through paypal and the other through giftcards.
I actually tried out Amazon Mechanical Turk for a few weeks (its basically a clearinghouse for this sort of stuff) Its got more stuff than surveys, but its on the same idea; do some tiny bit of work, get a tiny bit of cash. And a lot of it was basically surveys (there was some data entry work as well, but it was mostly "take this survey" type stuff). After doing it for a few weeks, I realized I was basically earning about 2 dollars per hour, and decided it wasn't worth my time. And that was organized. Roaming the internet looking for surveys to take for cash seems like an even less efficient way to do it. As always, "if it looks to good to be true, it probably is". --Jayron3204:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary keychain
I have a remote keyless system for my car that has buttons on it to lock and unlock my car doors. It's an oblong, about 1 inch by 1.5 inches by 0.5 inches. The oblong used to feature a plastic loop, to which one attaches a keychain; the loop has broken off. Any suggestions on how I could reattach it to a keychain? I am sure that supergluing a loop to it would fail within a day or two. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could get another keychain with a big flat part (like these) and glue the remote onto it with all of its bottom? Might look kind of crappy... And eventually also fall off... Maybe you could attach it onto such a flap with zip ties, or maybe use zip ties and glue. I suppose that wouldn't make it look less crappy... TastyCakes (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Superglue is pretty strong; why are you so sure? Alternatively, if there's a spot in the case with no electronics behind it, you could drill a hole and put a wire through. Or you could modify some kind of soft plastic mobile phone case so it's about the right size and put the controller in that. FiggyBee (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put the device in a Ziploc bag, just the right size, then pierce the corner of the bag and put the key chain loop through that. You don't need to take it out of the bag to use it, just hit the buttons right thru it. You may need to occasionally change the bag. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't glue the metal key-ring to a plastic device. But you might find another plastic eyelet you could glue to the device, then reattach the key-ring to that. (You could even use a tightened-all-the-way zip-tie.)
Alternatively, you could open the thing up and see if there's any place you could drill through without damaging any of the componants. Probably not, but maybe worth a shot. APL (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could order a new key. A dealership should be able to get hold of a replacement within a few days. It won't be cheap mind you - the dealership charged a little over €100 for a replacement key for a Renault Safrane. Astronaut (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's the option of just leaving them separate. When you put your keys in your pocket, hit the button to lock the car. When reaching in to get your keys, to eventually start the car, hit the button to unlock. Although, if yours is like mine, you'd be locking and unlocking the car while simply adjusting your position in the seat. (This happens to me all the time while I'm working in the yard with my keys in my pocket) Dismas|(talk)11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're lucky — in my case, I'm usually setting off the car alarm with the stupid "I want to set off the car alarm" button. Actually your note has made me reconsider whether I want the damned thing in my pocket anymore, for just that reason. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 7-year-old one with a fading battery, yet there's no apparent screw holding it all together. Should I just jam a knife between the two sides and twist to get at the battery ? StuRat (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Examine the edges carefully, along the join between the two halves. There may well be a little slot, just big enough for the tip of a small screwdriver. If so, insert small screwdriver in the slot, and twist. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Yes, there was an indentation along the seam where I was able to insert a screwdriver blade and twist. No screws were present. It was a common CR2032 battery, which I changed, and it now works much better. Thanks again ! StuRat (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, Unite (used to be TGWU), GMB, and PCS would probably be the main unions for office-type jobs. Many banks have company-specific unions. As Jayron said, the TUC should be able to help. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It very much depends on the workplace. Unite and the GMB are general unions and would be the best bet if there is no more specific union for your workplace, but many workplaces will have a more specific union which office workers will be able to join - e.g. the PCS for the civil service, Unison for health and education, BECTU for broadcasting, CWU for post and telecommunications, USDAW for retail, etc. I suggest asking whether any of your colleagues are in a union and, unless there's some pressing reason to do otherwise, to join that one. Warofdreamstalk13:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anybody sensible want to join a trade union, these days anyway?
Unions seem to be loosing the power they once had, especially if some recent disputes are anything to go by in the UK :(
It's a sort of glass half full/half empty thing. The half full option is to join and encourage others to join, in the knowledge that the greater the number of members, the more powerful the union will be. The half empty option is to believe that the decline in numbers is irreversible, or if not, you're going to wait for others to reverse it before jumping on the bandwagon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least in the UK, there are many, many good reasons for employees to join trade unions, which have absolutely nothing to do with the political power they may or may not have. Most obviously, there is the ability of union members - but not non-members - to call on one-to-one professional support from negotiators, legal teams and so forth when an employer, or manager, behaves unreasonably in relation to your workplace or conditions of work - as an insurance policy, if you like. On top of that, there is the ability to act together, in an organised and coordinated way, in support of your own workplace interests, such as in negotiating pay and conditions. Many employers (still) only discuss pay and conditions with recognised trade unions through collective bargaining - many would regard it is immoral for those who are not union members to receive the benefits which unions negotiate with employers, without paying union subscriptions. Etcetera, etcetera. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese cuisine and soggy salad
I am a foodie and eat out all the time and have for the past thirty years. I eat at lots of different restaurants and lots of different cuisines and all over the U.S., though my home base is New York City. I happen to adore Japanese food so I have eaten in an absurd number of different restaurants. I wanted to know if anyone knows why every single Japanese restaurant I have eaten in, consistently, ruins their salads by serving the lettuce dripping wet. It has got to be a cultural food thing. Always, the lettuce is wet. (For those of you who don't know. in Western culinary circles, lettuce should always be dried before serving in a salad). It really annoys me because I actually think the Japanese have amazingly tasty salad dressings.--98.116.33.87 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting observation. Haven't really noticed when I've been to Japanese restaurants, but I'm pretty sure I've had dry lettuce with ginger dressing more than once... I'll have to be more perceptive in the future. To be honest though, I doubt that sort of thing--were it cultural (very unlikely...)--would be preserved, seeing as we Americans like to shift foreign foods into our comfort zone anyway. · AndonicOEngage.00:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Salad" as Westerners understand it isn't really a Japanese thing, and most western-style salads I've encountered in Japan use cabbage rather than lettuce. A more authentic meal accompaniment is tsukemono. FiggyBee (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things about food in Japan that don't seem to work to well with the tastes of the west, even concerning western-style food. A couple off the top of my head: Fruits are graded for juiciness and sweetness, so a extremely sweet, juicy peach will be considered supreme, even if the "peach" flavor of it is quite weak. Bacon strips are never cooked crunchy. "Freshness" is also of extreme importance, even when eating cheaply. The tomatoes at Subway are much redder and generally firmer than those from anywhere else that I've eaten. I think it's likely that they keep the lettuce wet because they're trying really hard to preserve its "shaki-shaki", the crispiness and the freshness of it, though they might have tried a little too hard. I also agree with HOG's observation on hygeine, and the fact that cabbage is often used in Japanese salads, though that would assume a bit too bluntly that they don't know what to do with iceberg. 219.102.220.42 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certified ethnic cuisine
Are the various ethnic foods (in grocery stores and restaurants) certified by one or more official organizations as being genuinely representative of their respective ethnic cuisines? I can imagine that economic motivations might cause some vendors to use very large supply outlets with assembly lines and not much human attention. When a store sells Russian salad dressing or a restaurant sells souvlaki, can a Russian or a Greek discern whether they are genuine? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming you are referring to the US. Russian dressing is American; French dressing is American/British and the red orange version is very American. Much of the ethnic foods sold in the US are US inventions or modified for American tastes. Italian foods in the US are much heavier on sauces than those found in Italy. I have only found German cuisine properly prepared in one restaurant, and it sells American style dishes as well. I think every big Chinese buffet I have ever seen has chicken nuggets and French fries; General Tso's chicken is American/Canadian. American tacos are very different from real Mexican tacos. I think the only foods that are certified are kosher. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unlikely you are going to get cuisine identical to a region outside of that region. Peculiarities of food make them travel poorly. Modern mass produced and standardized and stabilized food travels well. But foods dependent on local conditions and artisanal preparation are unlikely to be found far from their region of natural production. Bus stop (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking for general reference, see the article Wikipedia. If you're asking because you want to cite a specific article, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, and the "cite this page" link on the left of articles. But be aware that some educators don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, and many more don't consider it to be an adequate source for anything beyond background information. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk23:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I don't think Finlay answered your question very well. Anyone who has Internet access and an unblocked IP address and/or an unblocked account can edit Wikipedia. The "date of electronic publication" is whenever someone presses the "Save page" button on the edit screen. Wikipedia is owned, but not necessarily edited, by the Wikimedia Foundation. ScarianCall me Pat!23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not too helpful to ask for the "date of publication", since this can be interpreted as the "Date of last revision" (as Scarian has done, above) or the "Date retrieved" - i.e. roughly, the time at which your browser requested the page. --Tagishsimon(talk)23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The servers and the Wikipedia trademark are owned by the Foundation. The copyright over the content is owned by whoever wrote it. --Tango (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all edits released under the CC-by-SA and GFDL? I remember some discussions about changing that, but I thought they decided not to...? Sorry, haven't been active in a while. · AndonicOContact.00:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but that has no bearing on the ownership of copyright. They are both merely licences to make use of copyrighted work, they do not assign ownership of the copyright to the foundation or to any other user. --Tagishsimon(talk)00:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Copyright is still in possession of the author, but the author agrees that under certain conditions (defined by GFDL and CC-by-SA licenses), others can use the material. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though the question lacks context, I suspect the person is asking because she wants to cite Wikipedia in a high school or college paper. The 'cite this page' link in the left toolbar is the easiest way to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Las Vegas
Hi, basically, I want to organise a trip for my friends and I to get to Las Vegas but without flying [at all]. How much would tickets on a cruise ship cost and then the road trip from California to Nevada cost? Taking into account hotels and petrol [gas] etc. etc. Are there any sites on the web that can organise these sorts of "adventures"? Thanks very much in advance. ScarianCall me Pat!23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cruise ships mostly call in at Long Beach. It's 280 miles from there to Las Vegas; you'd generally do that in a day (it's maybe 5 hours drive, depending on traffic). The website of a car rental company will show you their vehicles, which obviously vary in size and efficiency; we can't pick which vehicle you want. Gas in California run at about $2.95/gallon (ref) and about $2.80 in Nevada. The Super8 on Koval (which is perfectly good) in Vegas costs upwards of $40/night depending on what kind of room you want (ref). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk23:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Long beach is noted. Thanks very much for all that information. Now, how would I get tickets from the UK to Long Beach? All I need is the site that offers that sort of info and I can do the "leg work". Thanks in advance! ScarianCall me Pat!23:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard Liners and other ships from the UK sailing to the USA would generally go to New York, not to Long Beach (I don't know how good your geography is, but sailing to California would mean going a lot further; all the way down the east coast of the USA, across the Caribbean, through the Panama Canal, then back up the west coast of Mexico). If you really don't want to fly, I'd say your best option would be a liner to New York and then Amtrak through Chicago and down to Kingman, AZ, then a midnight connecting bus to Las Vegas. The ship would take a week and the cheapest option is around $2000 per person.[25] The train would take about 3 days and the cheapest option would be around $200 per person (it gets more expensive quickly if you want sleeping accomodation).[26] It'd be a heck of a trip, good luck! FiggyBee (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second Amtrak - the transcontinental trains go through some spectacular places. Otherwise, if you take a transatlantic cruise, you'll have to rent a car and drive, which could take two or three very exhausting days from New York if everybody drives in shifts (no hotels at all if you don't mind leaning on each other to sleep), or a week or so if you take the scenic route. US 66 from St. Louis to Arizona is a traditional itinerary. Acroterion(talk)03:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that Amtrak is notorious for not running on time. It is good between New York and Washington DC, but from there, I have personally seen delays on the order of 12+ hours. Also, service is somewhat infrequent, probably 3 trains a week from Chicago westward. Googlemeister (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, it seems they have gotten much better in the last couple of years, with some trains going from 5% on time to almost 75% on time. Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a bit of a different adventure, a freighter might be the way to get there. You can do something an American can't do: you can travel by freighter between American ports. So you can go, say, Southampton to New York to Long Beach and make your way overland from there. Obviously you're not trying to do this fast! --jpgordon::==( o )05:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jpgordon, I'm almost inclined to give you a cookie or something as a thank you for that link. Really. This actually is for me maybe not life-changing, but... unfathomably great. Have to process this when I have a bit of time. Really, thank you! --Ouro (blah blah) 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad that direct Amtrak service to Vegas closed several years ago. The station concourse was the casino at The Plaza[27], so you could lose all your money without ever setting foot on real Nevada soil. PhGustaf (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
April 27
Ants in my laptop
I don't know if this would be better off in the science section or computer section but hey, when in doubt, put it in misc.
Anyways my laptop (ASUS Eee) was infested with red ants (ants in your lap is a bad thing >_<). Yahoo answers etc. told me to flush them out using canned air but I can't find any in my place. Instead I put in a bag sprayed with bugspray, and left my laptop inside for a while. The thing worked but it left me with some nagging questions.
How can I stop ants from re-infesting my laptop? I neither have any food inside the house nor eat near my laptop so the infestation was weird in the first place.
Could bugspray have damaged my laptop?
How could I get the ant bodies out of my laptop? It's been a few days since this incident so I don't know if they're decomposing bodies will further damage the stuff inside.
I've noticed that ants love to crawl down in my desktop keyboard, too. It's something about having just the right sized gaps between the keys, for them to get in, but to keep predators out, that seems to make them love it in there.
Perhaps freezing them to death might be a better strategy. I'd remove the battery first, then shove the laptop in the freezer overnight. Check the specs to make sure that freezer temps won't damage it.
As for keeping it ant-free, how about storing it in an ant-proof container when not in use ? Perhaps one of those big tins that comes with popcorn in it ? I don't think the dead ants are likely to cause a problem. Blowing them around is more likely to cause one to lodge in a bad place, so I'd either leave the bodies as is or take it to a professional to open it up and clean them out. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You get ants when you have Linux. If you had Windows, they'd be bugs... Now seriously, putting your laptop in a freezer may not be the best idea. Different materials tend to shrink or expand differently when cooled, so you may damage something irreversibly. Also, you will need to make sure all the moisture from condensation has evaporated (which may take many hours) before you power it up, or you will kill your laptop. Finally, old motherboards used to have a small battery on them; don't know if the new ones still have it or not. You can't remove it without taking the computer apart. Freeze and thaw it, and Bad Things may happen. --Dr Dima (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't put it in the freezer... that is a horrible idea that will probably damage the laptop more than the ants. (Insects are very resistant to being frozen in my experience.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd take it to some kind of computer repair shop and ask them to open it up, remove them all and remove anything which might have lured them there. They also might know how to avoid this in the future. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From http://www.sillanumsoft.org/ you can download a free "Visual Analyser" which besides turning your laptop into an oscilloscope includes a neat sine/squarewave generator which makes sounds on the PC speaker. If prolonged sinewave sound is as annoying to ants as it is to humans this is a way to make an insect's life in your laptop intolerable. You would have to experiment with ants and high frequencies to find whether this idea works.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True story: I tried loud rock music to scare a mouse out of my house. It didn't work, he seemed to enjoy it. Maybe I should have tried opera. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What readily available toxic atmosphere could an electronic device be placed in to kill all insects and eggs, without damaging the electronic devices, and for how long? Nitrogen? Helium? Carbon dioxide? Hydrogen? Carbon monoxide? Moth balls? "No Pest Strips?" Various other relatively inert gases? Vacuum might work. In the U.S. and Soviet space programs, the space capsules were exposed to the very "hard" vacuum of outer space when the door was opened during extra-vehicular activities, and the devices and computers did not fail on that account, but ants would presumably have been killed. (That said, in my misspent youth, in high school chemistry lab, I trapped a wasp in a bell jar on a vacuum pump and operated it for all it was worth for several minutes. The wasp stopped flying around when the air was exhausted, but crawled around looking annoyed until I let the air back in and removed the bell jar, at which point he flew away). Wouldn't any of these kill the ants in a few hours? Do the eggs (if any are present) require oxygen to survive? Edison (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of oxygen should certainly kill them, but the question is if you can get the oxygen levels low enough to do the job. In the case of the wasp, I imagine it's oxygen requirements were greatly reduced once it stopped flying. Carbon monoxide would work, but that would be highly dangerous for any humans, too, so not a good idea. As for eggs, they do require oxygen, but at an extremely low level.
To get a lower oxygen content, first evacuate all the air you can, then fill the space with nitrogen, helium, or some other gas. Let's say that this reduces the oxygen content by 90%. You can then repeat the procedure to get to 99%, then 99.9%, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Texas, we have the oddly named "Paratrechina species near pubens" ant which (it is often claimed by local people) are sensitive to - and attracted by - electric fields. I've heard this said by many people, including a local exterminator. Our article claims (without citation) that all ants are somewhat sensitive to electric fields. I'm not sure I believe it - but I suppose if it is true - then that might explain your peculiar infestation - and suggest that the way to extricate live ants in the future is to give them something more exciting (electrically speaking) to swarm around. I'm unconvinced that this is true - it's hard to imagine an evolutionary reason for ants to have this electrical sense. SteveBaker (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Key broken in padlock
I would like the padlock off. It doesn’t need to be saved. I would prefer the hasp to be saved if possible. How do I extract the half key please? Kittybrewster ☎10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a short stubby screw driver with which you can apply some torque at the same time that you 'bump' it - that might do it. Alternatively, you can cut out a shim and use that. I have chosen these to videos because their production quality proves that you really do not need to posses that many brain cells to do this successfully.[28][29]--Aspro (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the key is fully engaged (i.e. it would unlock the lock if you could just turn it) then a small piece of wooden dowel and something sticky (bit of chewing gum) should be able to turn the locking mechanism to open the padlock. Again, if you don't care about saving the padlock, you can just cut it off with bolt cutters or a hack saw. --Jayron3215:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to airport officials, the Boeing 777 aircraft that took off from Dubai at 4 a.m. struck a Clear Air Turbulence about 60 nautical miles away from Kochi and descended abruptly to about 4,000 feet from an altitude of 18,000 feet. All passengers not wearing their seatbelts were hurled around and the cabin baggage fell.
If the news were true to state the magnitude of the descent, it would be truly a miracle, wouldn't it be? But the most of the papers said something like 200 to 1500 ft descent. Any chance of happening that miracle of a 14000 ft. swoop?--117.204.90.194 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm with Dismas on this. I too fly small aircraft, and the atmosphere does not behave in extremes like that unless you are in a major thunderstorm (which is why we don't fly through thunderstorms anymore). Two hundred is much much more plausible. Falconusptc11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's over 15,000 feet. I can't believe an instant drop that far (it would kill all the passengers and crew), but, a plane could lose that much altitude over time. StuRat (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And such a pocket would have to be massive. Assuming that the plane is in free fall the whole time and has a terminal velocity roughly equal to a human (I have absolutely no idea the true value), then falling 15,000 ft would take roughly 1.5 minutes, and by then, the aircraft would have traveled almost 15 miles. Googlemeister (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the aircraft isn't in freefall in a downdraft. It's still flying, it's just that the air it's flying through is moving downwards. But yes, it would still have to be an abnormally huge downdraft for the aircraft to descend that far, and in any case it wouldn't make any difference to the effect of exiting it (you'd get exactly the same "bump" whether you'd been in the downdraft for a minute or a second). FiggyBee (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out my awesome illustrative illustration :) -> as you can see, it makes no difference how long the aircraft has been descending in the air pocket; the deceleration on exiting it will be the same. Also, if you can imagine, it makes no difference if the pilots "climb" in the downdraft and maintain the same altitude; they'll get the same bump on exiting, only they'll be transitioning from level flight to climbing instead of from descending to level flight. FiggyBee (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this?
Sorry for disturbance, but may I ask that who is in this picture? With thankfulness.
That just says what the picture is being used for; it doesn't give any indication of who it is (or what the original context was). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanical Blinker Noises in Cars
I drive a Mercuery Mountaineer and it was recently brought to my attention that something mechanical in my car creates the "tick-tock" sound when I turn my blinker on. I searched the Internet to find what this mechanism is and how it works, but to no avail. What is this mysterious contraption and how does it work?
Gate28 (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, the sound would come from a relay opening and closing, to turn the lights off and on. In some newer cars, perhaps the sound is generated electronically as a reminder to the driver than the blinkers are on. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice its changes ticking speed when you switch on/off all the lights, then its probably a
Bimetal Flasher Unit. Which is a heat operated relay. Simple and cheap [30]--Aspro (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What date would a person have to be born in and place in order to have all planets in LEO? Meaning Sun/Leo, Moon/Leo, Rising/Leo, etc. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume by LEO, you don't mean Low Earth Orbit (which would be impossible for the planets to be in), but instead mean the astrological sign Leo. The first place to look would be planetary alignment#Astronomy and Conjunction (astronomy and astrology) which lists many alignments. You can check each one out, using some suitable astronomy software, to see which occurs in Leo. Set the date to be between mid-August to mid-September for each year to get the Sun in Leo.
As for where you would be able to see this alignment, pretty much anywhere on Earth will do because the planets, the Sun (which is obviously not a planet) and the Moon (also not a planet) do not move sufficiently far during a day to mess up the alignment; do note however, it will be very hard for someone to actually see this alignment if you want the Sun involved as well. Astronaut (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't take so long as I thought :-) From just after midmight on 14 August 1007 AD until around 9pm on 16 August, the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (all the planets that were known at the time) were all within the boundaries of the constellation Leo, except for much of the 15th when the Moon cut across the corner of Sextans (times are GMT). This just happens to be the first I came across, there are undoubtedly other occasions when this happened. Astronaut (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that, because of the effects of the precession of the equinox since (the currently used western version of) astrology was formulated around 3 or 4 thousand years ago, the areas of the purported Astrological signs no longer correspond physically to the actual astronomical constellations (chance perspective-created groupings of largely unrelated stars) from which they were derived, and did not do so in 1007 either - celestial objects physically "in" the actual constellation of Leo probably are and also then were, I think, "in" the astrological "sign" of Virgo. If Astronaut is working from an astronomical program, corrections will have to be made to allow for astrological "theory".
Off the top of my head, such complete near-conjunctions are quite rare, especially if you want to include planets (a term originally also encompassing the Sun and Moon and astrologically often including some 'minor planets', etc) only discovered since the classical era and 1007; i.e. Ceres and other asteroids, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and other 'dwarf planets'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My astronomy program is aware of the precession of the equinoxes and accounts for it, but the constellation boundaries are fixed relative to the stars. That is why I explicitly said "...within the boundaries of the constellation Leo". I did a search for Uranus and Neptune both being within the boundaries of the constellation Leo and found such conjunctions very rare. Astronaut (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was probably the case, Astronaut, and intended my remarks for the benefit of the OP, Reticuli88, who might not have been aware of such differences between astronomical facts and astrological theories. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi! i'm 17 years old, and i seriously want to increase my height, i'm currently 5'2, so that's very low for someone of my age. i've tried that "hanging onto a bar" exercise for about 3 months, but my height hasn't increased. plz help me, guys... anything, any exercise, any sort of therapy would help (as long as it's not expensive)
thanx
The only way to increase your height is to have different parents. Your maximum height is largely determined by genetics. There are environmental concerns, like diet, that can stunt your growth, but assuming you have been receiving adequate nutrition as a child, you will grow to your maximum genetically determined height. Also, by 17 years old, you have statistically reached what will likely be your full adult height. It varies greatly by individual (some people continue to grow into their early 20s, others stop in their early teens) but for most people, by the time they are in their later teens, they have reached their full height. You may want to read the Wikipedia article on Human height. The study of human growth is called Auxology, but sadly the article on that topic is little more than a definition. --Jayron3215:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Most people have reached over 90% of their adult height by the age of 17. Apart from radical, painful and expensive surgical techniques, there is nothing you can do. If your height really bothers you, I suggest you see you doctor for more professional help. Astronaut (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be seen emerging from small doorways. This is not a joke, it is a principle of set design explained to me by professional movie people. On one side of the street the doorways would be low e.g. for John Wayne to come through, and on the other side they would be high so as to make the female lead seem more petite. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also below average height, but I am older than you. You should make sure that you get good nutrition (plenty of vitamins and calcium, hopefully lots of fruit and vegetables) so that your body can make the most of any remaining growth spurt. (It is not unusual for shorter men to gain a couple of inches after age 17.) Aside from that, I strongly recommend making peace with your height. I am happy with mine. You don't have to be big to be happy. That said, you can work on developing a more powerful build through weight training if you like. But there are advantages to being short. You can fit easily and comfortably into spaces, such as airplane seats, that other people find cramped. You won't suffer from the issues that tall people have with joint trouble or issues of balance and falling. Also, I think there is just something cool about being compact. Why not embrace it? Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either learn to wear clothes and shoes and hairstyles which make you look tall, or try and get your hands on some form of growth hormone. I had a friend who was so short she was actually able to get this treatment on the NHS, so it isn't a lost cause. Prokhorovka (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, once a person has finished their linear growth, exogenous growth hormone will not be successful at increasing height but may result in acromegaly. This is a distinctly bad idea and an example of why we have guidelines against providing treatment advice on the reference desk. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two medical approaches to increasing height, but neither is appropriate for people who are merely short:
1) Administer human growth hormone. Usually done in childhood to fix certain deformities.
2) Cut the bones in your legs, attach them to an external frame, with thumbscrews used to slowly increase the distance while new bone grows in the gaps. (Sounds like fun, doesn't it ?)
As I said, a doctor won't approve either one for somebody at your height. So, perhaps vertical stripes, big hair/hats, and "lifts" are the way to go. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP, there will always be people who are shorter than you. Your attitude towards them will shape how you come to terms with your own height. This (video shows a sick attitude that needs adjustment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a friend through primary and high school who was the shortest guy in the class through 12 years of school, five feet and a few inches at age 18. He lived in a home with a somewhat overcontrolling mother. He graduated and joined the U.S. Navy and grew to 6 feet tall. Maybe it was a random fluke of metabolism, maybe it was a surge of hormones, maybe the Navy gave him enough calcium or some nutrient, or maybe it was just the change in psychosocial environment. Edison (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a big lake in the middle of Trenton, surrounded by multiple high fences? Is it a chemical plant? Water treatment facility? Public pool? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the airphoto and streetview, there's no way this could be a sinkhole. It may started out as a sinkhole as to why the site was selected. But with the manmade berm around the site it's clearly that it's a reservoir or a stormwater detention pond. Also, comparing the streetview and airphoto, the water level is near the top of the berm. After some research, the site is actually called the Trenton Reservoir. See [33]. Also see its history [34] as well.
Built just before the 20th century, this explains the ornate entrance gate columns. Surprisingly, this open-air reservoir has been used for treated drinking water since 1914 and just now they are considering building a floating cover over it. The white stuff in the airphoto you see at one end of the reservoir is water splashing out from the discharge inlet structure you see in the 2009 Report. --Kvasir (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can I get greater mechanical advantage on my caliper bicycle brakes
I have a standard... I guess its a city bike. It uses side-pull caliper brakes (the standard bike breaks up until recently).
I can't seem to find any information anywhere on how to fix spongyness with these brakes. I've replaced the caliper/pads, the linkage and the levers, to no avail. The levers are stiff, but the brakes don't grip and slow the bike down very well. From what I've read, fixing spongyness on other brake styles requires increasing the mechanical advantage. On centre pull brakes, this is simple. How can I increase the mechanical advantage on side-pull caliper brakes though? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢19:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using alloy wheels seems to work much better, especially in wet weather.
Two Cape Town questions
Hi, I will be passing through Cape Town not too long from now and I have two questions.
As I have so far not seen much of the world's poverty, it would be interesting to see some of the poorer neighborhoods of the city, but I do not intend to go there alone. I could go on a "tour", but I am afraid this will not be a comfortable situation, being a rich tourist sightseeing in poor neighborhoods seems somewhat... tasteless. Is there any way one can get to see a broader picture of the city without engaging in "crisis tourism"? Any "good" organization that does something like a tour that is not a tour? Any way to help a neighborhood without actually being there for long? I understand that I might be asking of a logical impossibility here. By the way, I will only be staying for a couple of days, and so any large-scale "involvement" is out of the question (well, contributing to a charity after going home might be feasible).
I hear that ZA is famous for its diamonds. However, is there any way to buy, say, a diamond ring in Cape Town and be certain that I do not help financing exploitive diamond industries in civil-war-ridden countries?
South Africa is a signatory of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, which means there should be no conflict diamonds sold there. But Kimberley is leaky, and diamonds are very difficult to trace or identify, so you can't be sure. And buying gemstones (about which I guess you don't have much technical knowledge) abroad can be tricky, so going to a foreign country and buying something that someone claims is a South African diamond may be a risky prospect. Cape Town has, of course, a jewellery district, but I rather doubt you'll find a significantly better deal there than you would in say Antwerp. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk20:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I visited Cape Town about 10 years ago on the tail end of a lengthy business trip to Johannesburg. From Johannesburg, it was possible to take an organised tour of Soweto, but I was glad to have the opportunity instead to visit one of my co-worker's relatives who lived there. We also went on a drive around the city's districts and visited a couple of popular bars with her cousins. So, if possible, I would definitely recommend getting to know one of the locals and visiting their home, rather than taking a tour. TBH though, I am unsure if the tours are still being run or whether they were ever run in the Cape Flats area. If the tour doesn't happen (or even if it does), you might find the history in the Bo-kaap area of interest, as well as the obligatory view from the top of Table Mountain and the tour of Robben Island. If you have a rental car, the trip down the Atlantic coast of the Cape Peninsula is nice day-trip (though the Cape Peninsula National Park closed surprisingly early the day I visited, so I never got to actually stand at the end of Africa). Astronaut (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the largest Internet forum in terms of average logged in users (general discussion if possible)? Many forums, unfortunately, don't provide such information, so the highest I've ever seen is like 15000 simultaneous users. --Belchman (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Something Awful is pretty high for general discussion, but I have no evidence to back that up. 2chan is (or was) supposedly the biggest and most active forum on the internet, but most users post anonymously (and in Japanese; you didn't specify English-language, but is that a requirement?). FiggyBee (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lines between forums and social networking have been blurred more and more since Livejournal gained popularity. That and Slashdot would be my first two guesses. caknuck° needs to be running more often05:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
masturbation myths
Why do people say "masturbation makes you blind", "masturbation makes you lose genital sensitivity", "masturbation makes you crazy" etc? Do they actually believe that (I read about some laste 19th century scientist that did), or do they have an agenda? If so, why do they want to discourage masturbation? And how come so many people believe this stuff without reasoning that it would also apply to vanilla sexual intercourse?--92.251.185.187 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. "Life is a job. You get $14.50 a day, but after you die, you have to pay for your sins. Stealing a hub cap is around $100. Masturbation is 35 cents (it doesn't seem like much, but it adds up). If there's money left when you subtract what you owe from what you've earned, you can go to heaven. If not, you have to go back to work." "And I came up-a 35 cents short." PhGustaf (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an agenda. For example, Joycelyn Elders was removed from her post as Surgeon-General of the US, in part for comment, "I think that it <masturbation> is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught <as a form of safe sex>." Many religions are... well, "anti-sex" isn't quite the right word, but its close... in that they feel that carnal pleasures, of which sex is surely one, tend to distract people from doing more constructive things, such as working in soup kitchens, healing the sick, and burning people at the stake for believing in a different religion. However, they grudgingly recognize that sex also creates more believers, which is usually seen as good for keeping up recruitment quotas. Sex that doesn't result in more adherents has no such side benefit and can safely be called sinful (as with anal sex, homosexuality, etc.). In places with a Puritan-style moral background, such as the US (and to a much lesser extent, Canada, and to an even lesser extent the UK), the concept of sex for pleasure equating sin is still quite strong. Matt Deres (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, it's something about "spilling your seed on the ground" being a sin. If that's the case, then probably 90% of men are sinners and the other 10% are liars (which is also a sin). Astronaut (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently criticized by a coworker because when leaving work at 6am I simply start my car and drive off. He claims that "you have to wait at least one minute" so that "the fluids can circulate". I think this is crap. Obviously if it's cold out, it makes sense to wait a bit - but if it's not cold, is there a point? Am I "damaging my engine" by not doing this?
For some background by "cold" I mean 4 Celcius and below.
flagitious 01:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
In general, even in cold weather, a modern vehicle (anything with electronic fuel injection, basically) needs no more that one minute – and often closer to 15 to 30 seconds – for an initial 'warmup': [35], [36]. The onboard computer will rev the engine a bit higher for a few seconds after you start to 'get the fluids moving', as it were. Once the revs drop back to regular idle, then you're good to go. Sitting any longer wastes fuel, increases wear and tear, and increases emissions. In warm weather, by the time you adjust your seatbelt, check your mirrors, fiddle with the radio, and check for traffic — you're good to go. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks so much, that's what I figured. In cold weather, I'll normally let the engine run a bit so that windows can defrost, the car can warm up etc. Although my co-worker still says that what you're saying, ten, is not "necessarily" true. flagitious 02:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It's true that modern engines are much better at this than engines of 20 or more years ago. The advice back then was indeed to let the engine idle at low RPM until the water got hot enough to cause the thermostat to open and allow water to circulate - which could take several minutes. Running the engine at high RPM while it was still cold would definitely wear it out prematurely. Modern cars are much better - but they still aren't perfect. It's considered advisable to avoid going above maybe 3000 to 4000 RPM for the first minute or so after starting the engine from cold. For most of us, that's enough to reverse out of the parking space/garage/driveway - to roll down a side street - and get to the nearest main road. By then, you can safely floor the gas pedal to get out into traffic if you need to. So 99% of the time, just behaving normally is enough to protect your engine - and the additional wear from the occasional 1% of the time when you do start the engine and immediately stomp on the pedal isn't going to make much difference. The thing to avoid is habitually starting the engine and immediately flooring the gas pedal...if you do it a lot, that will shorten your engine life, even with modern engine designs. SteveBaker (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" I should'nt be alive " on DVD ?
one epidsode i viewed about a man on vacation at some Island to water ski and fish alone. it rained that night as he sleeps in his sleeping bag when he has a visitor with him ( a snake ). when he moves it startels the snake and it bites him in the face and near his neck. finds his cell phone and runs to a light house for help but NO ONE LIVES THERE. when he gets a good phone signal, calls 911. and is saved by helicoptor hours later. IF anybody KNOWS where I can BUY this DVD... I would love to know. signed autotech7
How about the internet. Googling "i shouldn't be alive dvd" gives this: [37]. You can peruse the availible DVDs at your leisure. --Jayron3204:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the "World War II" section of Standard Oil, threats of an antitrust lawsuit caused plenty of panic among the companies that were created by the breakup of Standard Oil: "the top directors of many oil companies agreed to resign and oil industry stocks in molasses companies were sold off as part of a compromise worked out" with the US government. Why would oil companies be investing in molasses, and why would the feds care about oil companies owning shares in molasses companies? Most of the text of the section, including the molasses companies, was added in this edit, so it's not driveby vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually related to the sentance before it: "It also brought new evidence concerning complex price and marketing agreements between DuPont, a major investor in and producer of leaded gasoline, U.S. Industrial Alcohol Co. and their subsidiary, Cuba Distilling Co." Presumably, the Cuba Distilling Company and the U.S. Industrial Alcohol company were making industrial-grade ethanol, likely as a fuel (remember that the Model T originally ran on ethanol as a fuel). Given the connection to Cuba, such ethanol fuel was probably Sugarcane-based ethanol; and the syrup extracted from sugar cane in preparation for making rum and other distilled spirits is molasses. The Standard Oil trust was likely buying up molasses companies to either gain control of the ethanol-based fuel market OR they were buying them up to shut that market down, in favor of their own petroluem-based fuel market. --Jayron3204:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the 1919 Boston Molasses Disaster was caused by a rupture of a molasses tank from an industrial grade ethanol producer, Purity Distilling Company. So it was clearly being used as a industrial grade chemical at the time, and molasses appears to have been a primary feedstock in industrial grade ethanol production. --Jayron3204:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay; I had no idea that molasses was good for anything except human consumption, either as (1) pure molasses, or (2) an ingredient in baked goods. I definitely didn't expect that it could be converted for use as a vehicular fuel. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a plastic chair with 5 wheels. The 5-arm stand connecting the wheels to the seat has broken in two places (about halfway along two of the arms). I would like to repair it instead of getting a new chair and as it's a cheap chair I can't buy the stand separately.
So how can I repair the chair? Superglue failed instantly due to its low shear strength. Same case with plastic glue. Keep in mind this connection will need to support a 200 lb man. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've gone through many cheap office chairs which unfortunately I found impossible to repair, so I don't hold out much hope. They never cope well with anyone leaning back in them. I don't think any glue will accommodate the tensile stresses; you might have more luck with applying lots of duct tape round and round the length of the arms as a temporary fix.--Shantavira|feed me12:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will work better if the surfaces to which you attach the splints are flat. Put splints on every side of the broken arms. You might also want to do the same thing on the other arms, as a preventive measure, lest they break, too. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or you might just want to get a better chair, rather than spending a lot of time and effort on a ghetto solution that probably won't last a week anyway. :) FiggyBee (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mother-in-law wanted a favourite computer chair refurbished last week and had 3 quotes between £200 - £220 and £240. We took her to a local charity shop where she got one in really good condition, in green leather to match her carpet, delivered free-----for £25.92.30.100.139 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In the US, the Salvation Army runs such stores. My current computer monitor, microwave oven, toaster, and new shirt all came from there, for as little as 10% of the original prices. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greek economic recovery levers.
Please - this is not a question intended to promote a discussion as such - it is a serious question about what might be the best approach to dealing with the resurrection of the failing Greek economy?
I was in Rhodes last year and was amazed at the laissez-faire attitude of SOME locals (taxi-drivers, bus-drivers, toilet attendants, waiters/esses etc). When I asked why that might be (of a knowing hotel receptionist), she said that as Rhodes had been occupied by the Ottoman Empire for 700 years and were now a part of Greece enjoying its freedom and membership of the European Union, there was a general reluctance by Rhodians and most other Greeks to be answerable to foreign,or even domestic, rulers and their directives. If that truly is so, I was wondering what might their reaction be to having strict controls imposed by the EU bale-out funders and also those of the IMF. I am thinking particularly of tourism, a major economic element for Greece. My gut feeling is that they should take the hit and reduce all their tourist related prices so as to attract ever more tourists (like Cuba, where I was in January). But I also have this empirically based notion that the Greeks will not want to do that because it would mean working longer hours, giving better service, for lower wages and profits. Instead, I suspect they will naively INCREASE their tourism costs and consequently sink even further into the mire when tourists will take their Dollars and Euros etc., elsewhere for their holidays and vacations, paradoxically perhaps, to Turkey. 92.30.100.139 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The questions come up: "best for whom ?" and "over what time frame ?":
A) The best thing for Greece, in the short-term, and without concern for others, is if they get a massive injection of funds from other nations, which could be used to create a stimulus package with massive work programs, tax reductions, price subsidies, etc. However, over the long-term, this could result in dependency on foreign aid.
B) The best thing for all parties, over the long run, is probably the austerity program you mentioned.
Why are white people refered to medically as caucasian? I realize that the Causases are in europe but why not slovakian, as this is central where as the Caucuses are on the bridge between europe and Asia. Thanx
EU
Macedonia has been trying to join the EU, but has been blocked mostly by Greece who feel that Macedonia should be part of Greece. With the current headache that Greece is giving the EU, would this increase the chances of Macedonia becoming part of the EU, or how has it affected MAcedonia, if at all. Also why is MAcedonia rarely mentioned as a potentail member when it is so completely part of Europe while Turkey, is often bandied about as soon to become part. Turkey is Asia, and Islamic, which are not in line with European culture, nothing against Asians and Islamicism, bust that it is Asian rather than European. Or am I completely wrong in my views of Turkey Thanx
Resolved
![[14]](http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/public/news_images/4/42635_90780_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://blubbalips.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ziggy-stardust-david-bowie-5554079-350-467.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/ugotthelook/images/madonna.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_j_7mNrAbggY/SuhFeRU0e2I/AAAAAAAAAMA/ito_tMjFwGk/s400/Arachnia.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://anomaly.mushpark.com/images/cast/mekara.gif){kind=link}
![[19]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/a/af/RomulanCommander2268.jpg/789px-RomulanCommander2268.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](http://webmedia.news-record.com/unidrupal/files/imagecache/zoom_view/Images/got%20labelle_bw.bmp){kind=link}
![[21]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3322/3276341183_eb0ebefea2_m.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](http://www.woodminster.com/Webgraphics/Photos/WizardofOzphotos/newpubphotos/glindaLR.jpg){kind=link}
