Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 3

Article help

Anyone have library or other access to the Chicago Tribune? I'd appreciate it if I could get this article emailed to me for article writing purposes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can buy access to the article (in PDF) from the web site for $3.95, with other price options if you want to access more than one article. Won't that do? --Anonymous, 03:05 UTC, July 3, 2010.

I strangely had a similar issue recently with the Tribune. Most libraries carry their recent archives, at least the past few decades. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ask nicely at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, someone who has access to the online archive will supply you with a copy of the article. I've found them very helpful. Deor (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Send me your e-mail address and I'll send it to you. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. Posted at Mr. 98's talk. I will definitely check out the exchange Deor, especially since I have many resources of my own to share.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Telephone interview times

An earlier question, and the conclusion that the OP should be ready for his job interview at 3.30 am, got me thinking. Do people who arrange phone interviews for international job applicants generally take into account the time zone differences so that the interview is at a convenient time for both parties? Astronaut (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but given the assymetric relationship between the interviewer and interviewee, that's unlikely to happen. There are almost always more applicants than availible positions, oftentimes grossly more applicants than open positions, meaning that the hiring company has no incentive to make anything at all convenient for the applicant. Rather, the since the applicant is often mostly indistinguisable from the multitude of other applicants, such requests can be a negative for the interviewee; if there are applicants willing to be interviewed at any time without raising any objection, then there's no need to reschedule any interviews for people who do ask for it. --Jayron32 03:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not asking about rescheduling or even the applicant requesting a particular time; after all, flexibility in such things might be an asset to the employer. I'm just wondering whether a hiring company would commonly and deliberately arrange the interview to be at an inconvenient time for the interviewee, or whether people just don't think about things like time zone differences at all? Astronaut (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not that HR is working to deliberately make it hard, its just that they don't have to give a shit. It is quite likely that HR doesn't even consider these things, because of the reason I explained above, it doesn't have to. From the HR's perspective, there's likely not "one" perfect candidate for a job, there are merely hundreds or thousands of roughly equivalent applicants. In a situation like that, HR is generally looking for applicants to "self-select" themselves out of the pool to make their job easier. It doesn't fear losing the "perfect" candidate because there isn't one. There's just a lot of work sorting out some random person who will be competant enough at the job not to make HR look bad in hiring them. By making yourself a pain in the ass, even a minor one, you make HR's job easier. Not every company works this way, but enough do. I have worked for some organizations with some pretty callous HR staff. --Jayron32 04:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a wild (and utterly unreasonable) generalization. The HR people where I work take recruiting very seriously and if we think someone's resume indicates that a phone interview is a good first step, we work quite hard to arrange a mutually suitable time. It's not just a matter of time-zones either - the person we're interviewing may have a job already and would find it difficult (to say the least!) if we called them while they were at work. So even when the time-zones match, it's still sometimes necessary to interview at a time that's rather inconvenient to us. We do actually want to recruit people (assuming they are any good, that is!) - and pissing them off at the outset isn't a good way to get the best people. Recruitment isn't always about having an embarrasingly large number of candidates, almost any of whom could do the job. Sometimes (as with us, right now) it can be quite hard to find enough really good people to do the work. SteveBaker (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've had several telephone interviews in the last year and every time I was either called to ask when would be convenient or asked to book a time online. Perhaps there is a difference depending on the job you are applying for. I was applying for new graduate jobs with a salary above the average for new graduates. Companies are very keen to get the right people for such jobs and will try to help applicants give an accurate impression; they would never reject you application just because you say you're unavailable at the time they want to give you a telephone interview. If you are applying for a minimum wage job then, as Jayron says, there will probably be hundreds or thousands of suitable applicants and it doesn't really matter which of them ends up getting the job, so they'll reject applications for all kinds of bad reasons just to narrow the field to something they can work with. --Tango (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

standard height of the roof

The average height of a story seems to be 10-12 feet for modern constructions in my part of the world. What are the factors that determine the height of the story? Isn't it quite a waste of material to construct a story that high since 7-8 feet would be enough for human beings to move about and live in comfortably? --117.204.93.114 (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My ego needs at least 14 feet. I'm sure others feel similarly. Shadowjams (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP is located in Kerala, India. A room with low ceiling height is difficult to illuminate evenly and an electric lamp will give unpleasant glare at eye level. It is difficult to ventilate sources of smoke or steam such as coal fires, cooking or candles. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how the hell you know where OP is located ? You psychic or something...or just kidding ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was neither kidding nor using my psychic gift. The article Whois explains the system for identifying the approximate location of IP address(es). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceiling heights below 7 feet seem oppressively close to the head, particularly for many adult men. Add to that the thickness required to raise the floor to allow power, phone and data to run whereever they are needed (1 foot); and the thickness required to insert air conditioning ducts in the ceiling (2 feet); and the thickness of the building's floor structure (2 feet). It is easy to see how the height of a storey in an office building can be 12 feet or more. Astronaut (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Historically A higher ceiling is a display of wealth - among other things it shows you can afford to build taller, it shows you can afford to 'waste' heat and it also works to give the impression of space (the same size room with lower ceilings will appear smaller than with a higher ceiling). Most modern homes will be build to consumer preference so whilst it might be less economically cost-wise if you can't ultimately sell the homes then the saving is worthless and it seems around 9 feet is probably as low as your average consumer likes (save for the quaintness of cottages and those that like them), with higher probably less common in average modern homes but more common in 'luxury' homes. As someone who has lived in a small apartment with 'standard' height ceilings (i think 9 feet) and now live in a victorian period house with (I think) 12 feet ceilings with similar size rooms I can definitely say that it gives a huge amount of feeling of 'space' and 'air-y-ness' - much nicer. ny156uk (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry just measured my ceilings - seems my sense of height is rubbish! My victorian period house has 9 feet ceilings, and so I can only assume my apartment with 'standard' height was around 7 foot like most people below have noted. Next time i'll check before I rely on my eyes for measuring things! ny156uk (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceiling heights are typically lower in coald climates to keep the warm air close to the occupants. In hot climates, a high ceiling is a low-technology way to keep heat away. Otherwise, prosperity tends to increase ceiling height, as does room size - a small room with a high ceiling feels like a chimney, while a large room with a low ceiling feels confining. I will point out that ceiling height and story height are not directly correlated. One needs space for structure, which will get deeper as the structural span increases, and in commercial space, room for utilities, which can take up a meter or so of space between the ceiling and the structure, so a story can be 50% higher than the ceiling height in many commercial applications. Acroterion _(talk) 16:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Until recently, standard ceiling heights in North American houses were around 8 feet, with 9 feet becoming popular in recent years. 9 feet is a fairly standard ceiling height for office space, with 10 feet in very large or higher-end office space. Acroterion _(talk) 16:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As somebody guessed here, I am from Kerala in India. We have hot sun for nine months of the year. Humidity is high for almost 11 months of the year. Flat concrete roof is the pre-dominant roofing here. Until a few decades back it was tiling or thatching. Flat concrete roof with no effective ventillation traps the hot air above anyway. The window height would be six or seven feet. If the window height is raised to the lowered ceiling height of say 8 or 9 feet, I think there is a better chance for hot air passing out. It is to be considered that there is no raised floor structure or false ceiling for air conditioning ducts. Only rich people can have air conditioning and when there is it is invariably wall-mounted with no need of ducts passing along the ceiling. Ceiling fans are ubiquitous and they will have to be converted in the prospect of a low-ceiling. But that is easy as wall-mounted fans will be more effective with a lowered ceiling. As such the current height of ceiling leaves much unused and unwanted space for dusty walls, cobweb, wastage of lighting, proneness to echo etc. In several respects it is a huge waste. For example, the walls would need a fresh coat of paint each year or in two years. Three feet less is considerable reduction in cost. I would like to know what other dissuasive factors could be there against a lowered height in ceiling.--117.204.80.10 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for assuming you were talking about tall multi-storey commercial buildings. Here in the UK, such high ceilings are very rare in modern residential property. When our labour costs, property costs (according to this page from the BBC the average house price in my town is nearly £250,000 - about 10 times the average yearly salary) and heating costs are very high, modern residental property tends to have quite low ceilings, and if a construction company can save money by using less construction materials, they can make more profit and claim the place is cheaper to heat in the winter. Of course, if you are rich and can afford to get a house built to your own specifications, you can have any ceiling height your want. In my case, the disadvantage of a low ceiling is it traps the heat; for example during the recent spell of hot weather, my apartment (with its ceiling height of just 2.25 metres (7.4 ft)) has been too hot from midday 'til midnight. IMHO, you are fortunate to have an archtectural style with high ceilings and I hope Keralan construction companies don't start thinking like ours and sell small pokey houses at high prices. Astronaut (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard floor to ceiling heights are 2.4 metres in the UK and 2.5 metres in France. Plasterboard sizes vary accordingly. 2.4 metres can feel quite low. The height of the whole storey is greater than 2.4 or 2.5 metres of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

numbers

can someone pick a random number for me, between 1 and 35? 80.47.187.29 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I just did. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

23 ny156uk (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

no, the 'correct' answer is 14. --Ludwigs2 15:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that without knowing how these numbers were generated, it's impossible to say whether they were random or not, and likely they are not. (Humans are very bad at making up "random numbers" in their head. They never pick "1", for instance.) If you want a random number, I suggest using a good random number generator. Random.org looks pretty good in terms of methodological rigor. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

strange, I wrote them all out in a rectangle and stabbed at it with a pen with my eyes closed a few times, they were all on or around 23. 80.47.187.29 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's because stabbing with a pen isn't a very random act. --Tango (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My brother, when asked to "Pick a number between one and ten", or something to that effect, always picks pi. The moral is to be clear what you're looking for. (e.g. do you want any number, or just integers?). By the way, Googling "online random number generator" gives a number of options. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And you should specific the probability distribution too - "random" doesn't automatically mean "uniformly distributed". When I first saw this question I was tempted to suggest the OP toss and coin and choose 1 for heads and 2 for tails. That would be a random number between 1 and 35. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

1 Edison (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The OP asks for a single random number that cannot in isolation represent any specific distribution. Your temptation to suggest a DIY binary sequence of coin tosses should be resisted because it would give a uniform random distribution of the range 0 to 31 or 0 to 63, neither of which fits the requested range. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh - I generated a random number programmatically in applescript (which uses a more-or-less uniform pseudorandom generator) and it came out to be 14. but in fact, since the OP only asked for a single number, any number will suffice (since randomness is an aggregate phenomenon, and aggregate phenomena have no bearing on singular events). I am (statistically speaking) correct on this. --Ludwigs2 05:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, "random" means "cannot be precisely predicted", so it applies to single numbers as much as to sequences of numbers. --Tango (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

42 52 3 47 20 Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In the UK in the 1960s, there was a huge computer called ERNIE (Electronic Random Number Indicating Equipment), that used generate random numbers to find Premium Bond winners. Perhaps we could find it and plug it back in for you? Alansplodge (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ERNIE is still going strong.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - but it's not (nor ever was) a computer. It's an electronic random number generator that relies on physical random noise rather than software algorithms (which can never be truly unpredictable). These days it probably uses a computer to collect the results - but the actual "ERNIE" part is specialized electronics. SteveBaker (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Deus vult! SteveBaker how can you deny that the source of ERNIE's numbers is the Will of God? Rev. 13:18. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I finally read my own link - the original ERNIE is now in the Science Museum (London). Please accept my apologies - it's obviously not a computer - would "gizmo" be a better description? Alansplodge (talk)

Groucho: Give me a number between 1 and 10.

Chico: 11.

Groucho: Right!

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Put 5 apples in a line on a table and ask someone 'how many apples are between the one on the left and the one on the right?' They will tell you there are three. This is why no-one picks 1 or 10 when you ask them to give you a number between 1 and 10. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

17⅓. Well,no-one said it had to be whole... 23:34, 7 July 2010 Lemon martini (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)(UTC)

Surface finish

4140 L80 - what should be the acceptable surface finish after turning inside and outside diameter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredparakkalcochin (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you expand on your question, as I have absolutely no idea what you are asking about? For example, what does "4140 L80" refer to? By "turning" do you mean some mechanical process to remove a material from a rough shape, using a lathe or milling machine for example? What would be your measure for acceptability of surface finish? Astronaut (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"AISI 4140" and "L80" appear to be standards for the composition of hardened steel. However, I don't see how we can discover what kind of surface finish is acceptable without understanding the application. We need more information from the questioner. SteveBaker (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rain forests

What are the 3 main tropical rainforests ??? if anyone knows , please tell me !!! it is urgent !!! i think one is the Amazon rainforest... please tell me if i am wrong !!! thnx !!! lol (-; 81.147.6.161 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC) (reposted here from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Delisted_content_RfC by –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Our article on Rainforests lists Tropical rainforests in: Southeast Asia (Myanmar to Philippines, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and northeastern Australia), Sri Lanka, Sub-Saharan Africa from Cameroon to the Congo (Congo Rainforest), South America (e.g. the Amazon Rainforest), Central America (e.g. Bosawás, southern Yucatán Peninsula-El Peten-Belize-Calakmul), and on many of the Pacific Islands (such as Hawaiʻi). Looking at the map from that article, I suppose the Amazon, the band of rainforest in Sub-Saharan Africa and the band that straddles Southeast Asia would be the three "main" rainforests. SteveBaker (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

July 4

What bridge is this?

It may be in Canada, I am not completely sure. [1] Thanks! Timeform (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking Burrard Bridge, at least vaguely. It is a steel trestle bridge, cherry blossoms are a common sight in Vancouver, the backdrop could be the north shore mountains. However it would be a very unusual camera angle, taken somewhere between Granville and Burrard Bridges; also the downward slope at the putative east side of the mountains doesn't look quite right. I'll be heading to the Granville Island market in the next few days so I can look for such a spot. I'm not sure there is such a place to get such a perspective. Franamax (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That picture could be of a huge number of bridges - it's a low resolution image of a conventional-design trestle bridge with a cherry tree in the foreground obscuring most of the detail. I could think of a dozen bridges from North Carolina to Delaware that would fit the bill, plus a half-dozen more bridges in California (assuming that there's a cherry tree planted somewhere nearby), and that's just from personal speculation. do you have a better image to go by? --Ludwigs2 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Or could you tell us where you got the image? Is there any context at all? Dismas|^(talk) 05:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the Akashi Kaikyō Bridge - see link here. Mikenorton (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

increasingly offtopic discussion collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's strange. Why would anyone take such a tiny and obscure snippet from an image? Astronaut (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Good question, apart from avoiding copying the 'Foto S.A.' bit. Mikenorton (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Blimey! How did you do that Mike? Caesar's Daddy (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC) A googleimages search on 'bridge cherry blossom', it was on page 7. Mikenorton (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Daddy your expletive is short for "May God blind me (if I tell a lie)". If you use a PC running Windows then one way you can snip a piece of an image is as follows. 1) Have the image on your screen. 2) Press Alt-PrtSc. That puts the image on your invisible clipboard. 2) Start PAINT. 3) Press ctrl-V. That pastes the clipboard on to PAINT. 4) Drag the Select tool over the snippet of the image that you want. 5) Click on Edit - Copy to... and name your file something like MySnippet.jpg. Please be careful to tell the truth for a while. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Cuddlyable, unless you are joking, I think you have misunderstood. I took Daddy's question to be "How did you identify that", which Mike then answered. And I don't know why you are offering us one possible etymology of a word that Daddy used. --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) @ColinFine I think your understanding of Daddy's question is correct. I don't know why Daddy prefaced his response with a Minced oath and I hope that does not become a habit. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC) It's a fairly common expression of amazement. Most people who use it are not aware of its origin, and do not intend it to be taken that way. Besides, oaths of the minced or unminced kind aren't exactly unknown around here ("Deus vult!" comes to mind ...). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC) I think it is interesting to note that the first two people responding mistakenly identified it as a trestle bridge. I read those two responses and I was in complete agreement that it was a trestle bridge. Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) @ Cuddlyable, in my part of the world, UK, "blimey" is a soft, everyday expletive used politely in any company for a surprising situation. I was surprised that Mike identified the cropped picture so (apparently) easily. Like so often in life the answer is right there - seeing it is the tricky bit. I certainly will be using "blimey" in the future, but only when I am amazed ;-)) Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Vulgarisms highlight the pretentious, showing people that lay unwarranted claim to social graces and education and attempt to inflate their status through the use of language they either cannot control or do not understand. Innocent examples of the former are some affected by Tourette syndrome and Hanlon's razor may be invoked for the latter. @Jack, Deus vult is Latin for God wills it and is a pious expression still current in the catholic church after nearly a millenium. It corresponds to Masha'Allah and אלוהים מבקש את זה in other major religions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC) 'swounds, I'm stunned that you are appropiating the use of a miced oath to pretentiousness, lack or social graces, education or just stupidity or neurological disorder. I doubt Shakespeare intended any of these characteristics when he had John of Gaunt make a minced oath. Oops wrong character. 87.102.23.18 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Ah, well, There's no pleasing everyone. If "BLIMEY" is offensive to your ears (or eyes in this case) then I present my apologies. But if you are indirectly implying that using "blimey" is a conceit you are wider of the mark than you could ever imagine. You seem to have an appropriate antonymic name. May your god bless you. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I was thinking of replying to Cuddlyable3, 'struth mate, keep your bleedin' 'air on', but thought that it would be unhelpful, but after the further discussion.... Mikenorton (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary Online

Where can I find a good dictionary online? Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia but sometimes I just need a dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.186.101 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're new to the internet - if not I'm sorry for appearing snide. Google excels at answering questions about where to find things on the internet. See below. --mboverload@ 08:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Try our list of online dictionaries.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

An even better answer! Sometimes I underestimate how helpful Wikipedia is. --mboverload@ 08:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Google will act as a dictionary if you type in "define: " before the word you're thinking of. Dismas|^(talk) 08:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course Wikimedia has a dictionary, Wikipedia's sister project Wiktionary.—msh210℠ 08:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is www.onelook.com. It gives a quick definition, checks loads of different dictionaries (including Wiktionary) and gives a link to the etymology of the word. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. I found Wiktionary is good but from the list of online dictionaries I found the Meriam Webster Online Dictionary even better. Thank you all again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.92.164 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The best, methinks, is Wordweb.com. Once downloaded (it's free) you can install it and use it even when you are offline  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Threat of deleting article

The article about me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Segedy ) has been footnoted properly with secondary sources but I'm receiving a delete threat. Why specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msegedy (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The note on your user talk page concerned deletion of a picture of you, not of the article about you. This has already been effected. It was (apparently) because there was not enough information attached to the picture about who owned the copyright on it, so no one knew whether Wikipedia had a right to keep it. If you uploaded it the first time and still have it, you can upload it again if you follow the instructions at special:upload.—msh210℠ 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire text of the description page was "Photo of author Michael segedy", so it was deleted both because it had no license and because it had no source. The article is now at AFD; you can find the discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What you call "footnoted properly with secondary sources" points to http://apartmentlimaperu.com/about_owner.shtml which seems to be some sort of commercial establishment run by your wife. The page has picture of the both of you, and a cat... Jon Ascton  (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the article in question has now been nominated for deletion here. If it is to remain, it urgently needs quality independent reliable sources that support the claim that you are notable, as roughly defined by WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Nothing in the article comes close to demonstrating that. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice cat. The kinds of sources you'll need would be newspaper articles about you, books that have been written about you... that sort of thing. Ideally, though, you shouldn't write about yourself at all- if you are notable, others will inevitably write about you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is considered highly dubious to edit an article about yourself. It doesn't help that the first version that you created was a rather blatant attempt to insert an advert for your book into the encyclopedia. You are not an independant witness to your own life - you truly cannot be trusted to write an unbiassed article. We would generally expect people in your position to restrict yourself to commenting on the article in the 'Discussion' page and not to edit the article directly. SteveBaker (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

More about walking in Stockholm

My question about how to walk all the way from the Viking Line terminal to the railway station in Stockholm, Sweden, without once walking along a motor vehicle or bicycle route (crossing them is allowed) was answered with directions about how to get from Gamla Stan to the railway station. How do I get from the Viking Line terminal to Gamla Stan then? It seems I have to cross Skeppsbron at this point. How can I do it without walking along (only across) bicycle routes? JIP | Talk 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have you studied the area around Skeppsbron in Google Maps, using street view and the photo viewer? As I said before, I suggest you stick close to the dockside at first. When you get close to Skeppsbron, it looks like you might be able to cross under the road in relative peace and cross a plaza with a statue of a general on a horse - see this picture (you can see part of the statue is on the extreme right of the photo); but I am not really sure if this is possible.

Thanks, I will have to try this. Although as far as I can remember, I have always needed to walk along a bicycle route at this point, but have always managed to do it without problems. Still, I'd like to know if there is a pedestrian-only route available. JIP | Talk 21:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find sv:Slussen interesting. Astronaut (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bicycle tunnel at Slussen.

Gula gången, apparently.

Yes, from the images I can see that this is indeed the part where I have previously felt I had to walk along a bicycle route. As far as I can remember, the exact place is pictured in the first photograph on the right. There is apparently something called "Gula gången" ("the yellow passageway") that is for pedestrians, I suppose that can be used to cross Skeppsbron to go from the dockside to Gamla Stan. Where is this "Gula gången" precisely located? JIP | Talk 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why _ What, and Who

Who cares anyway, and why do we imagine anyone does anyway? 92.30.198.131 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you care what the answer to your question is? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere, Art James is stirring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the most glorious answer I've ever seen, 202.--mboverload@ 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the IP OP has exactly the one post, there's a good chance that it doesn't care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mboverload. It just seemed the most obvious response. (202.142.129.66 =) Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP also could have asked, "Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See purpose of life. 81.131.65.36 (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Because being curious is fun. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It can also get you into lots of trouble,as my impending court case will testify ;) Lemon martini (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do we care about fun? ...And so on. 81.131.65.36 (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See apathy, altruism, philosophy, good faith, truth, self-reference, self-refuting idea, assumption, knowledge, To Save A Life and mamihlapinatapai. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Roman Republic

How did a Roman become a candidate for a magisterial position? I understand that a magistrate was elected by one of the Assemblies and that a magistrate was a member of the Senate, but how did he become a candidate? Was this voted on by the Roman Senate? Was there some sort of Primary? A fee involved? 98.17.117.169 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I removed all your extraneous signatures; second, which magisterial position? And third, you might want to ask on the Humanities desk. There was an age requirement for each position, so that is one criterion. Have you looked at cursus honorum? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ostensibly anyone of the correct age and social standing could be nominated and elected to the magisterial positions. In practice, during most of the republic, the Roman aristocratic families simply passed the offices around amongst themselves. All major offices (IIRC) were term limited, but that didn't stop the same person from hopping from office to office throughout their political career. --Jayron32 05:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The recent novel Imperium by Robert Harris, first in a trilogy narrating the career of the Roman lawyer and statesman Cicero, describes the electoral and other processes required to attain various such posts in considerable detail. Although fiction, it appears to be based on as much actual historical evidence as is available. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

July 5

AMC Germany Porcelain company

What details are known about AMC Germany china/porcelain company that existed in the 1930's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.114.107 (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

AMC seems to have been a tradename for certain products of Arzberg Pozellan in Bavaria / Upper Franconia. The company has a website (in English) here. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia dogkillers

Anyone know what the hell Philadelphia dogkillers is/was ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See Michael Vick. More specifically, Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation. Dismas|^(talk) 06:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the try. But it was far off the mark. What I'm talking about seems to be some sort black gang from mid 19th century. See reproduction of newspaper of that time→

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Well without any context, and Vick being in the news (semi-)recently, it made sense. Dismas|^(talk) 09:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In Europe the forerunners of dogcatchers was dogkillers. Instead of catching the dogs and taking then to pens they actually killed the dogs right on the street, usually using clubs, later also firearms. Because of the unappealing nature of the job they were usually manned by social outcasts, assistants of the hangman, garbage-collecters etc. Even though this custom seems to have started changing in numerous countries in favour of dogcatchers in Europe from around 1750-1800, perhaps this is the same thing? --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That certainly appears to be it; see for instance this letter from 1841 about dog-killers in New York. Warofdreams talk 20:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that that newspaper image also contains a notice about the much more famous Phineas Gage. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Adam, I caught this while reading the amazing Phineas Gage article, actually. Could not find any reference to 'Philadelphia dogkillers' anywhere on net, so asked here. Gage thing seems to be total bullshit to me, by the way !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, haha, that makes sense, and I see that the file name is "Phineas Gage" too. I don't know if what happened to Gage is bullshit, but most of the stuff written about him afterwards certainly is. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"The camera adds ten pounds"

Why do people sometimes look a bit fatter in photos? And what photographic techniques can be used to prevent this? 68.123.238.146 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

On a traditional 35mm (film) format camera, for example, the "normal lens" considered to give a perspective closest to the eye has a focal length of about 50mm. Lenses with shorter focal lengths are termed "wide angle" and those with longer focal lengths "telephoto." (For non-35mm film cameras and digital cameras different numbers apply but the broad principle holds.)

Many general purpose camera lenses are to a degree 'wide angle' which gives good results when photographing landscapes, etc but, when used to photograph someone fairly close up, exaggerate the front-to-back perspective which amongst other things make people's noses (the closest point of the face to the lens) look bigger.

Another factor is that we have two eyes spaced quite widely in comparison to the diameter of a typical lens, so we normally see people from two slightly converging directions (which our brains integrate), whereas a single lens has a single viewpoint that slightly diverges, making people appear slightly 'spread out.'

For these reasons, knowlegeable photographers generally try to photograph people with lenses that are moderately telephoto; for 35mm format the classic indoor "portrait" lens is, if I recall correctly, 85mm in focal length. Using 'longer' lenses necessitates standing further away from the subject, which flattens the perspective and reduces the 'big nose' effect, and also reduces the slight divergence of the single viewpoint, while their magnifying effect restores the desired size of the subject in the picture.

In summary: stand further away and use more zoom. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody...

perhaps a drilling machine?

...know which construction machine this is (image on the right)? Thanks for helping. Feel free to use the Commons File talk page for discussion edit the image directly. --High Contrast (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a Gattling Gun to me.--85.211.149.175 (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a gattling gun. It looks like some sort of pipe threading machine to me. Dismas|^(talk) 06:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks an awful lot like a boring/drilling machine to me. --mboverload@ 06:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See Directional boring. I could not find any images on Google which match the machine, but that is a possibility. Edison (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Boring, certainly--85.211.149.175 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

HC, do you know any more information about the location? Was this in a basement of a skyscraper, or a near a tunnel for a road? Googlemeister (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Very boring, yes. 217.44.131.106 (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

this sort of thing drills horizontal holes under roads and footpaths, so that they don't have to be dug up and rebuilt. Councils have been cracking down on the shoddy reconstruction after digging up roads, so gas pipe or communication ducts under areas that are not dirt use this sort of drilling. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ankerbohrgeraet

Commons has a picture (at right) of an "Ankerbohrgeraet", or anchor boring machine, which is used to drill tie-backs into a vertical foundation excavation to secure the eventual vertical wall. It employs much the same technology as horizontal boring, but with larger-diameter holes that receive an anchor and cable or tendon, which is grouted in place to resist lateral pressure. with the free end embedded in the foundation wall. The picture in question is in a foundation excavation. Directional boring rigs can be used similarly, but drill smaller, but longer holes. The caption is "Anchor drilling equipment (anchor boring rig) with linkage magazine for boring the holes for setting of grout anchors." Acroterion _(talk) 01:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting white-collar jobs for non-graduates

Are there any interesting, and hopefully well paid, white-collar jobs that a non-graduate can do? I'm an undergraduate distance learning student, so I need to work while I study, and I won't graduate until at least 2013. I've tried being a salesperson, which I am rubbish at, and I can't think of any other jobs open to me (yet) which are in any way interesting, exciting or prestigious, not to mention decently paid. I know there are lots of cool things I could do as a skilled tradesperson, but the process of becoming one (in all the disciplines I've looked at) would take longer than my degree course. Do I need to resign myself to being a minimum wage photocopier jockey, and focus on doing fun stuff outside work, or is there a better way to earn a living? Cod Lover Oil (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I know non-degreed people who are working as a bank teller and an insurance something-or-other-er, both of whom are reasonably content. I worked my way through college in data entry, which is easy, but doesn't pay that great, and also on a factory assembly line, which ended up being one of those life experiences you're ultimately glad you had. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the factory job :-) and I've done data entry temp work too. But I literally could not face being a junior something-or-other at a bank or an insurance firm... just the thought gives me a headache. That's exactly the sort of horrible photocopier jockey job I'm trying to avoid, with a big dose of high-pressure sales work on top. Sorry if that sounds rude to your friends, and I know plenty of people must be okay with jobs like that, but I couldn't stick it. Wouldn't fancy applying to either firm even after graduation for a job with some prospects. Thanks though. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably I should give a bit more info about myself... I wrote the question in a bit of a rush after a frustrating read through some job boards. I'm a political science student aged 29, at the Open University, and I live in England. I've worked as a receptionist, a bartender, a shop cashier, a door-to-door salesman, a coffee barista, a labeller on an assembly line, and a couple of temp jobs. Because I left it quite late to start studying, my mates mostly have degree-level jobs so none of them really give me useful examples. Even if what they do is fun, a non-graduate in the same place would have a menial, depressing time. My favourite jobs out of those I've tried were the bar and coffeeshop ones, because I spent so much time talking to the customers. But those really don't pay enough to keep up with my graduate girlfriend... and more corporate types of job have a horrible overcontrolled culture and for a non-graduate, they still pay badly and have no excitement or challenges. Anyone know what my dream job should be, please? :-) Cod Lover Oil (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What are your skills? --mboverload@ 22:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've often sorted out damaged/neglected bikes, and set up computers for quite a few family & friends, but I'm very far from knowing everything about bicycles or computers. I really don't know if either skill is worth anything. The only skills I've ever been paid for are the ones I picked up while working, and I think I got those jobs by smiling confidently in interviews and showing a flexible attitude. Do you manage or hire staff - what skills would you look for that might make up for an incomplete education? Cod Lover Oil (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to teach yourself something like computer programming. There are lots of books out there that will help you. Whether you can actually get the job, without the degree, is another question, but it's quite possible that you can make yourself capable of doing the job. Maybe by volunteering in an open-source coding effort, and getting your name on some significant project, you might be able to convince an employer of your skills.

I don't want to suggest that this path is easy or guaranteed, particularly given that there are plenty of applicants for the same jobs who do have degrees. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be starting from scratch - I know my way round Windows and can change computer parts, but I've never coded anything - but I will look into it. Hate to write things off without trying. Is there somewhere to give it a first try for free? Cod Lover Oil (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm -- lots of places, I imagine, but I'm not sure where to point you offhand. I'll get back to you if I come across something while this thread is still open. If you want to stick with Windows, I understand that you can download a version of Microsoft Visual C++ for free, though you probably can't sell a product off of that (e.g. because you might not have a license to redistribute certain DLL files and stuff like that). But just to build your skills, that should be fine.

The open-source path I suggested tends to be kind of Linux-oriented, rather than Windows, though there is certainly FLOSS for Windows. If you like setting stuff up, another possibility is to learn systems administration for both Linux and Windows; there are lots of businesses that for one reason or another need to run both, and if you can handle both of them it could make you valuable. I don't know what the competition is like for these jobs.

Then again, coding incorporates a lot of different disciplines; I don't know whether you want to go the route of languages like C++, which are for general-purpose computing. It's possible that you could focus on some more focused skill-set, such as MySQL for databases, or PHP or something for web coding. I don't know all that much about those.

I don't know how helpful these remarks really are, nor how realistic the prospects would be. But it's possible in principle. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you will struggle to get much above the UK minimum wage - the only way to improve on that is to work unsociable hours on a shift rota, where you will get extra for the shift work (maybe £2-3K a year on top of the standard pay). Also overtime can have it's uses, but it really cuts down the non work hours. If you have a driving license, you could consider taxi / private hire (not taxi in London - different rules to rest of UK) driver, again it tends to get into unsociable hours.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This was basically what I feared. Driving a cab would mean buying and insuring it first, which probably requires savings I don't have. I can drive, tho I'm a bit rusty, but running a car has proved too expensive so far. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd try something computer-related and something you can do out of home. If the British market is anything like the Polish market, there is now a huge demand for graphics designers (for graphics like for websites, logos, designs for corporate stationery, flyers, posters and the like). I'll also second the Linux systems administrator hint. Another direction is to work in the general field of what you are studying (info on which I failed to find in the above) so as to provide yourself with experience needed in future work. This is what I did myself. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, great idea! I did a few posters and flyers for a youth club that I helped at last year. They were no great shakes to look at, but I know how to use GIMP now. I'll look for charities or campaign groups that need some volunteer design work. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest working for a charity? There are paid positions available, although volunteering is also a good way to get valuable experience. jobs.guardian.uk will give you an idea as to what's available. By the way, I'm a graduate and my husband isn't, and it never affects anything we do. Worth is not measured by letters after one's name, you know. If you enjoy talking to people, you might like fundraising, although for me it's too much like sales and marketing, but who knows? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Air traffic control <--- Pretty sweet and prestigious gig, you don't have to relocate, they're looking for employees. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But, you have to have the right kind of personality for that, an ability to handle a lot of data quickly and make decisions fast. This is tested for if you apply. Worth trying, you may have the abilities they're looking for, but almost impossible to tell in advance. Mikenorton (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Market research interviewer, but only approach reputable companies in the Market Research Association because otherwise it will be sales/scam and you will hate. Or see if they are recruiting for the 2011 Census or other public surveys. Will look good on your CV with your politics degree. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know how to do anything useful, there is always politics. Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL :-)) Cod Lover Oil (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can always aim for the top... :-) Newsbiscuit - Nick Clegg to play with tiny steering wheel during Prime Minister’s Questions Cod Lover Oil (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on the subject of air traffic control, it's true you have to be the right kind of person, but I know first hand of a case of my friend's fiancee, who having no real air-related background, passed the initial test (one person in 36), got sent to Italy for three months paid training, passed the test after the training and is now in effect an air traffic controller. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are in the UK then I suggest joining the Civil Service or some other large quality employer such as a bank. I believe the larger the organisation, the better the pay and the better the chances for promotion. The Civil Service used to, and probably still does, internally train their staff in specialised roles, so if you have several GCSEs you are unlikely to be doing photocopying. The training can take years. Jobs are probably easiest to get in Central London since people do not like the commuting and high cost of housing. As far as I recall the infamous Nick Leeson is a non-graduate promoted by his bank into playing with millions or billions. Getting a job with the right department of the Customs could be more interesting, especially if you like crawling through bilges. I found office work unbearably boring when I did it, but I expect factory work must be a lot worse. 92.29.125.22 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

July 6

Hyphenated last names

If Jane Brown marries Bob Smith-Jones what does her surname become? Jane Smith-Jones? Jane Smith? Jane Jones? Jane Brown-Smith-Jones?? What about the children's surnames? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it doesn't happen automatically. She can decide on what she will be named (she may choose any variant, I think except Brown-Smith-Jones, and even the husband may take the wife's surname!), and they both can decide the surnames of the children. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This may depend on what country they are in. In the UK, I agree that they can choose a variant - Brown-Smith-Jones would be unusual but not impossible. But, usually, the woman would choose either to keep the name Brown, or use the name Smith-Jones, or indeed use both names in different circumstances (for example, continuing to use the name Brown if already well-known in her career with that name). I don't believe there is a legal obligation - see this article for some guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no restrictions that I know of in the US. She could change it to whatever she likes. And the children will go by whatever their parents decide. Dismas|^(talk) 06:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer certainly varies from country to country...between matters of custom and matters of law, there are wide variations. We could provide a better answer if our OP would tell us where this is happening. SteveBaker (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In the UK at least, three or even four hyphenated surnames are not unknown. Karenjc 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it's only fair to point out that they are rare, and almost exclusively confined to the old aristocracy - and even where they exist they are almost never used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I know someone who married a man with a double-barreled last name and now goes by a name like Jane Smith-Jones Thompson, where "Smith" is her maiden name (those aren't her real names). It seems she decided one hyphen was enough. One of her husband's relatives apparently now goes by a name along the lines of Sarah Jones-Thompson Anderson (again, not her actual name). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When my sister divorced her husband and re-married (this was in the UK), she tacked her new husband's surname with a hyphen onto her previous surname - which (of course) she got from her first husband. That seems weird to me - but there you go. SteveBaker (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have always wanted to meet someone whose name was Bernadette Pushpakumara-Proskuryakov Googlemeister (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Things man was not meant to know

I want to learn some of the things man was not meant to know. Where's a good place to start? While we're at it, what was man meant to know? 67.188.234.85 (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A good place to start would be, where did you get the notion that there is anything man is not meant to know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's worthing pointing out that the OP's only other entry[2] was an even sillier question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think man was meant to know a troll when he sees one. Richard Avery (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you speak to this man [3], he claims to know what we don't know, and various combinations of knowing and not knowing. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I never understood all the quipping over "unknown unknowns". I thought that it was one of the most honest and profound statements to come out of that administration. -- 58.147.52.176 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a deliberately abstruse way of saying simply, "we don't know the answers, and we don't even know the questions". --Sean 17:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is to Donald Rumsfeld's credit that he gave a briefing in Epistemology without dumbing it down for the masses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times had a very interesting series of blog posts on this subject recently, part 1 is here. --LarryMac | Talk 13:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The concept of there being things we're not meant to know is entirely one of religion. When you ask your religious leader difficult questions that seriously challenge the belief system ("Why does god let little children die of leukemia?", "Why did god make the Ebola virus when he created all living things in the garden of Eden?") - then a convenient pat answer is "There are some things that man is not meant to know." - although this is about as useful as a parent using the "Because I say so" answer to a small bothersome child who won't stop asking "Why?". Without religion, there is nothing we cannot at least aspire to know if we wish to do so. After all - who is it but some supernatural entity who could decide what it is that we aren't 'meant' to know? Someone would have to mean that...someone with some kind of right to make rules beyond and above what humans know...in short, a god...hence religion again.

Of course, there are plenty of things that we fundamentally cannot know. Godel's theorem says that we cannot know whether some particular mathematical theorems are true or false. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle places firm limits on our ability to know both the momentum and position of a particle. The 'halting problem' in computer science says that we can't know for sure whether any arbitary computer program will eventually stop running or not. We can never know what's going on inside the event horizon of a black hole. Chaos theory ensures that we can't predict the weather with accuracy very far into the future. There are plenty of things we 'cannot' know.

So the answer for our OP is: If you are an atheist - you can try to know whatever you want - but the laws of physics may place some restrictions on that. If you are some kind of religious nut - then it depends on what particular brand of nonsense you subscribe to.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At present we cannot know those things, but we may discover a way to measure them. We didn't know what the speed of light was, for example, until a method was devised to measure it. As for "not meant to know", that implies divine intelligence, whose existence or non-existence is obviously a matter of opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

One is not meant to know in advance an exam question, who has won an Academy Award or what your Poker hand is.... Bugs, is it your opinion that divine intelligence is at work here? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cute. The students are not meant to know them in advance, but the portion of "man" (i.e. humankind) that's writing the test certainly is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a difference between "not meant to know" and "not meant to know yet" - which is what is happening in those three examples. SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bugs—just a digression on the uncertainty principle. Bohr and Heisenberg said that UP implied that measuring certain types of information to certain degrees of precision was meaningless. Einstein said, "Nah, it just means you don't know how to measure it, but the info is out there somewhere, even if only God knows it." Bohr and Heisenberg say, "whatevah," and the issue was held to just be a philosophical difference for a long time after both were dead. But then this smart cat, John Bell, actually came up with a very clever (but hard to explain in plain terms) experiment that could actually distinguish between the different positions. These have since been run many times (see Bell test experiments), and the tentative answer so far is that Einstein was definitely wrong in this instance. There are a number of possible interpretations of what the results say positively, but negatively they come down pretty hard on Einstein. This is still pretty cutting edge stuff, but I just want to point out that it's entirely plausible—in fact the evidence as it stands points towards it—that the information is just not actually out there to know in the case of uncertainty principle. Which would put it in a very different category than "stuff we just don't know how to measure" (like your example of the speed of light... even though that was not too hard to measure to a reasonable degree once people thought up that they would like to measure it). Godel's theorem falls into the same category: it says something very fundamental about what truth itself even means in a real sense, and not just as the rough approximation that we usually mean when we say it. If Godel is right, then there are hard limits as to what truth can be implied in an ultimate (not just a human-centric) sense. Which is interesting, no? --Mr.98 (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Godels' theorem is actually quite easy to understand (as mathematical theorems go) - I strongly recommend the book: "Gödel, Escher, Bach - The Eternal Golden Braid" which leads you gently through the proof and is definitely one of the five or six greatest books I've ever read. The first half of the book explains the theorem, the second half explores the consequences. It's pretty clear that there is no "if" Godel is right. He's right - mathematically. SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You all are talking current theory. Prior to Einstein, everyone assumed time was absolute; and prior to Galileo, everyone thought that objects weighing X and 2X would fall at rates Y and 2Y. Whatever the thinking is "now" is not necessarily the "ultimate" truth, it's just all we know or can hypothesize at present. Scientific inquiry is not cast in stone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bugs—Godel is only wrong if basically all of math is wrong. It's pure logic. There's not a whole lot of a way out of it. And surely you can recognize the difference between a theory which describes behavior, and one that describes how the universe itself works. That's the point I was trying to make. If the theories that describe how the universe itself work are in fact true, it implies that the information is simply not there. I'm not arguing for or against quantum theory, but pointing out that if it is right, that has profound implications on what is inherently knowable. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Never say never" where science is concerned. As soon as you think you've got it all figured out... you're wrong. There's always something else out there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(Logic and science are not the same thing.) And again, I think you're either intentionally missing the point I was trying to convey, or unintentionally missing it. Take your pick. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Gödel's theorems are impossible to avoid, granted the (quite mild) assumptions used to prove them. However they do not say exactly what is being claimed here. They do not impose limits on knowledge per se, but only on what can be accomplished by formal proof in fixed first-order theories. (Or to put it another way, on truths enumerable by a fixed computer program.)

There is no particular mathematical question that, as a consequence of the Gödel theorems directly, we can guarantee we will never know the answer to. What the theorems give us is a way, given a particular consistent formal theory (satisfying certain stipulations I won't go into), of finding a question that that particular theory cannot answer. That is not the same thing at all as saying the answer cannot be known.

The question of whether there exist mathematical questions whose answer cannot be known at all is an interesting one, and Peter Koellner has written a fascinating paper about it, called On the Question of Absolute Undecidability. You can find it easily on Google if you're interested. But I want to state again, the Gödel theorems do not imply that there are any such questions. --Trovatore (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

---

The idea seems to come from Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Or a variant of Pandora's Box Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Necronomicon was never meant for the world of the living. I would start there. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Females have (so I am told) weird stuff that men aren't meant to know all about.[4][5][6][7][8].Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

...and vice versa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See Secret Women's Business. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think this is purely the province of religion, then see Haldane's Law. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes any of you think that we're actually meant to know anything? --Ludwigs2 00:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the question is a kōan.—Wavelength (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See also the article about abstract art.—Wavelength (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about the meaning of life and philosophy of philosophy? ~AH1^(TCU) 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A good place to start learning the value of pi is 3.14...... but man is not meant to know its actual value. And it gets worse. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The original post is ambiguous. The statement "I want to learn some of the things man was not meant to know." can refer to learning certain questions, but it can also refer to learning the answers to those questions. It was with the second interpretation in mind that I made my two previous replies.—Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The original post was philosophical trolling (better than many forms of trolling, mind you, but still...). --Ludwigs2 16:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Time

If an American show starts at "9/8c" what time is that in GMT? 82.43.90.93 (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

9 eastern time is normally UTC - 5, right? Except that this time of year it's UTC - 4, due to American clocks being set ahead an hour for daylight saving time. UTC doesn't use DST. So the depends on what time of year it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which I just confirmed by comparing the posted UTC with my computer clock. During daylight saving, as now, the eastern zone is UTC - 4 and the central zone is UTC - 5. During standard time, eastern zone would be UTC - 5 and central zone UTC - 6. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So to answer the OP's question, during the summer a show at 9/8c would be on at 1 in the morning UTC (which is functionally the same as GMT, right?) and during the winter it would be at 2 in the morning UTC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If the OP really means to ask, "What time will the show start in the UK?", then he or she has to take into account British Summer Time (BST), which is in effect this month (as is its equivalent, daylight saving time, in the United States). So if the question is "What time will the show start in the UK?", the answer would be 2 in the morning during both summer and winter. (It would also be 2 in the morning most of the spring and autumn, except for the third and fourth weeks of March and the first week of November, when daylight saving time is in effect in the United States but summer time is not in effect in the UK. During those three weeks, the same show would come on at 1 in the morning in the UK.) Marco polo (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify one other detail, a U.S. show that starts at "9/8 Central" would start at 1:00 (a.m.) on the following calendar date, GMT/UTC. So if the U.S. show starts on a Tuesday evening, it will start very early Wednesday morning GMT. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So far people have assumed that "9/8c" means 9:00 pm ET, 8:00 pm CT. There are two unjustified assumptions in that. First, the times could be AM. Then the UT time would be 13:00 or 14:00 (depending on the time of year as above).

Second and more important, it is common for the US networks to feed shows twice, once for the Eastern and Central time zones, and again 3 hours later for Pacific Time. "9/8c" usually means 9:00 ET or PT, 8:00 CT. So if it's summer and the show is at 9:00 PM ET, or 01:00 UT the next day, then it will typically be broadcast again for the Pacific time zone 3 hours later, at 9:00 PM PT or 04:00 UT. (The reason they don't advertise any time for the Mountain time zone, which is in between Central and Pacific, is that in that time zone practice varies from place to place and possibly from show to show.) --Anonymous, 18:56 UTC, July 6, 2010.

Standard practice on American TV would indicate 9 eastern and 8 central. It could be AM or PM, yes. And when it's on in the UK depends on what it is. If it's live coverage of the World Cup or something, then it would be on at 6 pacific, and 1 (am or pm) UTC. If it's a rebroadcast, all bets are off as regards UK coverage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Live coverage, that's different. "9/8c" is commonly used for other shows with the meaning I indicated. Nobody was asking about "when it's on in the UK". UK time isn't UTC during summer time anyway. --Anon, 7e/6c or 23:00 UTC, July 6, 2010.

The original question was, "If an American show starts at "9/8c" what time is that in GMT?" Assuming we can equate UTC to GMT, the answer is, "In summer, it's either 13:00 that same day, or 01:00 the next day, depending on whether 9/8c A.M. or P.M. is meant. In winter, it would be 14:00 that same day, or 02:00 the next day." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you are assuming that 9 means 9 Eastern. As I have explained, it usually means 9 Eastern or Pacific. --Anon, 05:44 UTC, July 7, 2010.

I've been watching American TV for decades, and in the Midwest at least, 9/8c always means "9 eastern, 8 central", which means they are actually on at the same absolute time. They seldom announce Pacific except when it's a live event: "9 eastern, 8 central, 6 pacific". They generally never announce mountain, for reasons discussed earlier. And if you're already in the pacific zone, there's no reason to list the central time schedule. "9/8c" meaning "9 pacific, 8 central", would be useless information on the west coast. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point, which is that the ad or announcement of "9, 8 Central" goes to the whole country and you're expected to just disregard the part that doesn't apply to you. You, instead, are misinterpreting it as implying ET. Similarly in Canada, shows may be announced as "8:00, 8:30 in Newfoundland". That means 8:00 AT, ET, CT, MT, and PT (five separate feeds), but Newfoundland gets the AT feet so it's 8:30 NT. It does not mean "8:00 AT, 8:30 NT" with everyone else ignored. --Anonymous, 23:49 UTC, July 7, 2010.

Given that theory, there are two different answers to the OP's question, since the UTC time for 9 eastern is 3 hours different from 9 pacific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Maximum height for a cat flap

We have a cat, who sleeps in the garage and has a cat flap so she can go outside. At night we shut the door from the garage to the house, but during the day it is usually left open for her to come upstairs. I'd like to put another cat flap in it, so the door can be shut in the winter. Trouble is, that door meets an 18cm step on the inside. The cat flap on the garage side would have to be 18cm off the ground. Is that too high for an adult cat to push open? Cod Lover Oil (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, so long as the cat has something to stand on in order to push the cat-flap open, you can have the flap anywhere, theoretically. If you can, why not attach a wooden step to the bottom of the door on the garage-side, enabling the cat to reach higher? 18cm is not very high, in my opinion, but it would depend on the size of your cat. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Even an elderly cat can climb stairs, and the rise from one step to the next is more than 18 cm. She'd have no problem with a cat door that far off the ground. --Anonymous, 18:58 UTC, July 6, 2010.

Where is this?

Where is this? Reticuli88 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cape Town and Table Mountain. Mikenorton (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is also an astonishing 360-degree panorama for anyone who likes to take a look. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty damn cool, is what that is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a pretty freaking amazing find! To be precise it looks likes the picture was taken from Signal Hill (since Table Mountain is actually in the image). You might also want to check out The highest definition picture of Cape Town ever taken. Zunaid 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to view this image in work due to system restrictions, but if it's as good as it sounds is it worth someone uploading it to wikipedia with the owner's permission, and maybe even presenting it to VPC of even FPC? Just a thought... Gazhiley (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's as good an excuse to install Flash as I've ever seen. Really quite amazing, and it can make you dizzy! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I found something just as brilliant: 360° panoramas of all the World Cup stadia. Zunaid 10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant indeed! The clarity is amazing. The ability to zoom in across the stadium and actually see people in the seats with such definition is great. 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a gardener in the house?

Dear all. We're both massive fans of gooseberries. We love those sour little beasties! I was raised on gooseberry jam, and introduced Wanda to the phenomenon that is the gooseberry on our first date. We've been growing two gooseberry bushes for the past three years - they're like a pet to me! Except not as noisy as one of those little flat-faced dogs. They've only started to bear fruit in this third season. However, one of our bushes has been struck by the dreaded gooseberry sawfly, who've eaten all the leaves off one bush, and are attacking the other. I'm distraught! I've only got a very old Readers Digest gardening book, which recommends I spray them with some kind of pesticide to kill the little blighters. I couldn't do that. We're sticking to organic principles in our garden, and neither of us could bring outselves to poison a caterpillar - I perhaps could if it has committed a horrible crime. So, is there any organic way we can remove the sawfly from our beloved bushes? Yours, Artie and Wanda (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Again but slowly please Artie. What have little flat-faced dogs started to do? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Spraying your bushes with urine might work, if that conforms to your organic principles. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that urine is a deterrent to most insects, though, diluted and poured around the base of the plant, it can be a good fertilizer. However, there are ways to control pests organically. Have a look at this article, for example. There is also a useful article at the ehow dot com domain. After typing "http://www dot ehow dot com" (substituting actual dots for the words and deleting the spaces) insert the following text: "/how_4392945_control-sawflies-organically.html". (I have to give you the URL this way because Wikipedia has blacklisted the entire ehow domain, though this article seems worthy to me.) Both articles refer to nematodes, a type of tiny worm, which you can breed and which will attack and kill the caterpillars. Ultimately, you may have to choose between the caterpillars and the gooseberries. The second article mentions techniques that will help prevent the caterpillars from threatening your bushes in the first place. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We live in an environment where all living things are striving to survive. They do this by eating and mating (slight oversimplification) The sawflies on your gooseberries are competing with you for that lovely vegetative resource. The sawflies operate at a pretty low intellectual level, like they'll keep eating until something or somebody removes them and/or kills them (or they move on to the next development stage). They probably think you planted the bushes for them. That is nature! You will have to remove them to stop them eating your gooseberry bushes and you can do this by several methods. First, ask them politely to leave. If that doesn't work then pick them off one by one, and transfer them to another gooseberry bush some mile or two hence. If that does not appeal to you then apply some larvacidal dust or liquid to kill them. Killing resource opponents is quite natural and occurs widely in nature. If you think that you are going to share your gooseberries with the sawflies then you will be disappointed - sawflies don't do sharing!! They'll eat all the leaves and let you have the underdeveloped fruit. I advise you to get a grip and deal with the little b*****ds. They are not a threatened species. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Encouraging insect eating birds, like sparrows, great tits and starlings to live and breed in your garden by setting up birdboxes may be beneficial, although of course it is too late in your current situation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Watch out, some bird like berries too. Googlemeister (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Will ladybugs eat sawfly larvae? They're amazing little critters. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, contract killing you mean? 86.4.183.90 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In a way, yes. I know they're good for aphids. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

wut do the other countries think of american football!!!!

Hi please. I would like to know please what the other countrys that play football (which is also called soccer) think of the American version of football. I woul espeially liek to read a funny essay by a british man or maybe from some other country who writes about a foreigner perception of football in a very humorous manner! If u know about an article or essay i can read about this thing I will be happy indeed thanks.--69.114.214.58 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Our article on American Football includes a section on its presence outside the United States. As for non-US commentary, the BBC runs a weekly NFL column. Its archives may be found here. — Lomn 20:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

One advantage of American football is that the spectators and players actually know how much time is left in the game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the above joke. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless they've changed the rules (I don't watch soccer unless I need to catch a nap), the only ones in the stadium who know the actual amount of time left in the period are the officials. It used to be that way in the NFL too. The NFL switched to using the stadium clock in 1970 or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The World Cup stadia do not display the score or the time remaining in the game, which was a bone of contention in this week's Monday Morning Quarterback column. And yeah, Bugs is (more relevantly) correct about the indefinite game duration, too. — Lomn 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Football_(soccer)#Duration_and_tie-breaking_methods may help. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The contempt shown toward the fans, by refusing to inform them of the time remaining, is one reason to dislike soccer. Corrupt officiating is another. That's above and beyond how boring the game itself is, but the latter is obviously a matter of personal taste. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Knowing how much time left is, at least in the World Cup tournament, trivially easy for anyone with a wristwatch and a brain. Each half lasts 45 minutes plus added time for injury and stoppages, which is always a round number of minutes, rarely more that 5. The added time is both displayed by the Fourth Official and announced over the tannoy (stadium PA) at the end of the 45 minutes. The nature and scale of the game and pitch mean that, unlike some other sports such as Basketball, the exact number of seconds remaining to the whistle is rarely critical. The only significant uncertainty might be any extra added time the Referee decides to add for further injuries and stoppages during the added time itself, again rare. Where's the problem? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of some British commentator saying that American football was just rugby for wimps (all that padding, you know), but I can't place it for the life of me. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There's this - but, in general, I'm not sure that anyone outside the US really cares enough to make jokes about it. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly almost no one in the U.S. cares enough about soccer to make jokes out of it. What I said elsewhere here pretty much summarizes the situation. It's boring and corrupt, so why care? In any case, I think of Rugby as an improvement on soccer, and American Football as an improvement on Rugby. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is Bugs...soccer is the single most popular field sport in the entire world...and not by some small measure. Your complaints may or may not be valid - but something like 99% of the world disagrees with you! I suspect that part of the reason is that any random group of kids with any kind of a ball (or even an empty soda can or a scrunched up sheet of newspaper) can play it. You can use two piles of rocks or two piles of coats for a goal - the game is fun with as few as 5 and as many as 20 players on each side and a 5 minute game is as much fun as an hour long game. You don't need any equipment to play - so even the poorest kids play it. And it's safe for kids of all ages - very few kids get hurt playing knock-around-soccer. When everyone grows up playing it - it becomes something you remain interested in into adulthood. SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, it should be obvious that the USA has 5% of the population, so 99% does not disagree. Googlemeister (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't question that soccer is a great game for kids to play. They can run around all day, and they don't have to be any particular size. And what you're describing is how the kids of the Dominican Republic play baseball when they have minimal equipment - they improvise with what they have or can find. I just don't find soccer interesting to watch, I don't like the clock mystery, and I don't understand the game's appeal in general, especially that shootout to determine a winner, which is about as "sissy" a way to determine a winner as I can imagine. But the game is slowly growing in popularity in the U.S. Cricket, on the other hand, is an excellent sport and is to India what soccer is to a lot of other countries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This compares American Football with Rugby, which is the usual approach when someone in Britain says anything about American Football. See also, this article which I'm sure I've seen better formatted somewhere. Here's someone allegedly explaining American Football, which might be the sort of thing you're after. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Google searching should be able to find plenty of examples in forums and the like. There was a column on the Telegraph newspaper's website by a 20-something writer the paper had apparently hired to seem "down with the kids" that, in a very unintellectual way, derided the big American sports. Generally, if you scout the Internet for foreign views of American football, you find two major complaints: 1) The players are sissies because they wear all that padding, whereas rugby players don't and 2) The game is tedious because most of the time, the ball is not in play. The first criticism is, of course, absurd to anyone who is actually familiar with the game, which is perhaps the most brutal team sport on earth in terms of the physical pounding its players receive. The second attack on the sport is a logical response from someone used to watching sports like soccer or rugby where the action is continuous and has no idea what he's seeing when he turns on an NFL game and sees the players standing around in a huddle. What someone coming to the game with no context might not understand is that American football is made up of discrete segments called "plays" or "downs," which take place 25-40 seconds apart -- any faster and there would be no time to make substitutions and choose a play for the next down. This is intuitive to Americans who have grown up watching the sport, but you can imagine that if you come to it with no prior knowledge of the game, it would seem odd. And of course, NFL games have a ridiculous amount of commercial breaks, which are annoying even for Americans, but must be especially aggravating to a European used to watching sports with no ads except at halftime. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

American Football is, in some sense, the perfect sport for network television. You get fairly regularly spaced commercial breaks, and you've got a gazillion cameras covering everything so you can have 27 different replays of the guy "breaking the plane" or breaking someone's head. It's interesting to go to an NFL game "live" and observe it from the fan perspective instead of the TV perspective. It's not just a game, it's an event. And as with soccer, the fans are rowdy, at least by American standards. And as noted, we know how much time is left in the game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In Australia soccer is not football either, as the real football is Australian rules football or may be Rugby League or Rugby Union but the American football occasionally appears on TV, treated as a strange foreign sport. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It always amuses me the fact that they call American "football" a sport that would be more aptly named American "handmelon". --Belchman (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

American football used to be more of a kicking game than it is now. Before they started producing quarterbacks that could throw 80-yard rainbows (i.e. before they slimmed down the ball to make forward passing easier), kicking to advance the ball downfield was a more common strategy, and scoring by dropkick was not so unusual. You'll see strategic kicking sometimes nowadays, too, for example with what they call a "pooch punt", although kicks on anything other than fourth down or end-of-half are quite rare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

However, field goal and extra point kicking are still very important. In fact, the typical leading scorers in a given season are kickers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Thanks! --Belchman (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, if we think about it at all (which we don't, much) we're deeply unimpressed. It's really just like Rugby football but with wussy helmets and lots more padding! Watch a really good pair of teams play Rugby - it's a VASTLY more dynamic, interesting game. The biggest issue with US football is that it's designed around TV adverts - so there are lots of stop-start plays, lots of standing around waiting for people to sell people stuff.

This seems to be a problem for almost all American sports. Basketball is just "netball" which 12 year old girls play in school in the UK. Baseball is just 'rounders' (which, again is predominantly a girls game in the UK). Even seemingly macho things like Nascar racing is just a boring oval track designed such as to allow the maximum paying audience to get the minimum amount of excitement - and it sucks all of the joy out of motorsports like rally driving, formula one and saloon car racing. Watching a bunch of wildly mismatched MINIs, Porsches and BMW's zip around Brand's hatch is incredibly exciting. Monster truck shows are...puzzling...going to one of them is well worth the experience, everyone needs to do that once - but I can't imagine wanting to see it twice. More accessible games are just as bad. Pool is just like Snooker and Billiards - but dumbed down with all of the cunning intellectual parts sucked out of it. My biggest disappointment is with my favorite sport "Air racing"...but sadly, US air racing has been deemed too dangerous so the airplanes fly around the course one at a time against the clock with restrictions on every manouver - rather than the swooping mad chaos it's supposed to be.

I suppose golf and tennis translate reasonably well.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We think it's funny you guys get so worked up about a sport we consider to be a game for women and children. :) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This reference desk is deteriorating into a discussion forum!!!! The OP was invalid!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar's Daddy (talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the time remaining in the game is so important to Bugs. There really is no great mystery as to the length of the game. The injury time (almost always less than 5 minutes) is well notified to the TV and live audiences towards the end of each half. Some competitions such as the World Cup have extra time and a penalty shootout to resolve tied scores for important games. Otherwise, a draw is a perfectly valid result; a result which gains fewer points than a win - the points are accumulated for position in the league.

As for american football, it amazes me that the clock is stopped after each play, such that it can take 3 hours to play a game of 4 x 15 minute quarters, and play is halted so suit TV advert schedules (what do the stadium crowd do while the ads are on TV?). Equally surprising the entire team can be swapped out, so the game is not really affected by fatigued players (extra time in football means playing on with the same players, and tiredness can become a large factor in the result). Astronaut (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, as long as we're correcting one another on the rules, the clock is not stopped on every play. The clock is stopped on an incomplete forward pass, or when the ball goes out of bounds, and in a few rarer circumstances. When the ball carrier is brought down inside the field of play, the clock ordinarily continues running.

I do kind of agree on the substitution thing. My father "played both sides of the ball" in high school, as did everyone; at that time a player who was substituted for could not come back in the same quarter, or maybe the same half; not exactly sure. Would be cool to see a return of the legendary "sixty-minute man".

As for the reason the time remaining in a soccer game is so important to Bugs, I can't speak for him, but for me it feels very fishy — what if the time runs out during a scoring chance? I have heard that they will ordinarily not stop the game in the middle of a strong chance, but that seems awfully subjective for such an enormous determining factor. --Trovatore (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you've just revealed what's really going on, and why they keep the time to themselves, and it is indeed contemptuous. It's got to do with how the officials control the game. The players and the fans are at the mercy of the officials' whims. By not letting the fans and players know precisely what's going on with the clock, they maintain their power - as well as leaving the door open for corruption, as we've seen. That might be the core problem with soccer in the USA - that referees are supposed to uphold the rules, not make up the rules as they go along. Being at the mercy of a "king" may be just fine in countries that love soccer, but in the USA it doesn't cut it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're trading nationalisms here, I'll permit myself to say that in my opinion American football is the greatest spectator sport ever invented. Emphasis on "spectator", because if I'm actually going to play, I'd rather play almost anything else.

The reason it's such a fascinating spectator sport is the concept of the "drive", which as far as I know does not exist in any other sport. A drive is a sustained effort towards a goal, that can last ten minutes or more with lots of mini-dramas inside it, but that can end at any moment in triumph (breaking through for a touchdown) or disaster (a turnover going for six the other way). Emotionally, football is a novel, whereas basketball or soccer (opposite ends of the scoring spectrum but similar in lengths of possessions) are collections of short stories. (In the case of soccer, most of the short stories don't really go anywhere.)

There are some sports that manage to get something similar to the profile of tension and catharsis provided by football by artifices of the scoring (tennis, volleyball with side-out scoring). Baseball has men on base attempting to steal, which has some of the same flavor, but just doesn't happen that often. Football really stands alone at the top of the heap in this regard. --Trovatore (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As other editors have commented, what you're looking for is rugby football (either rugby union or rugby league), which combines the physical contact and "drive" aspects of American football - and quite frequent scoring - with an absence of physical padding and helmets, and an absence of advertising breaks. The downside may be that, once a significant lead has been established in a match, much of the tension of wondering who will win drains away. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rugby has drives? I don't think so. As I understand it, once you're stopped in rugby, you have to give up the ball. How can you have a drive in those conditions? --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into arcane questions of rules, it depends on which side has caused the play to be stopped (for instance, for foul play). In practice, pressure is often maintained in the same part of the field for periods of several minutes, despite technical stoppages - but if the attacking team infringes the rules, the pressure is indeed immediately relieved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You are mistaken. The player tackled has to give up the ball, but the resulting ruck almost always leaves the ball back in the hands of the attacking team. Tackles leading to turnovers aren't much more common than in american football. (That's in Union; in League it's more formalized, with the ball being returned to the attacking team after each tackle until the sixth, when there's a turnover) Algebraist 09:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps. I haven't really watched enough rugby to know.

Just the same, the division into discrete plays is also an advantage of football. It gives punctuation to the game and makes it more strategic, or at least makes it feel more strategic. And it gives you a chance to get up and get another beer, or hit the head. --Trovatore (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you to everyone who answer my question, especialy ppl who gave some quotes and links & things of this nature. [personal attack redacted] (u can delete this if it is to much incivility thx). I like the referene desk a lot. :-D --69.114.214.58 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this little discussion, while probably inappropriate for the Reference Desk, demonstrates what I said above. British people turn on American football, they think they're seeing an equivalent to rugby, because that's what they're used to. They see the constant stopping of plays and all the padding and think, "This is stupid. Anyone would know in a second that rugby is a far superior sport." What they don't understand is that while American football evolved from rugby, it turned into a completely different type of sport. You can't watch it with a rugby mindset. American football is all about the play-calling by the coaching staffs -- it's kind of like a combination between rugby and chess. If people talk after an American football game, they're more likely to talk about the play-calling than the action on the field. "What a brilliant move to call an onside kick to open the second half!" "How they be so stupid as to call a screen pass when the other team hadn't blitzed all day!" "I told you they should have punted on fourth-and-1!" Etc. An American who came upon rugby on the TV (unlikely unless he was traveling) would probably say, "This is so stupid! They're all just running around without direction! Where's the strategy?" He would have to learn not to watch the game with an American-football mindset. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, nicely put. Though I do think it's a bit unfortunate that play-calling and strategy is now openly done by the staff rather than the players. When my father played, it was a player on the field, usually but not always the quarterback, who handled that. In fact, when you subbed in, you couldn't talk to anyone for one play, to make sure you weren't carrying strategy in from the coaches. (My dad played end, but sometimes was the play caller, because of the coach's respect for his strategic sense.)

There's a saying that to play football, you have to be smart enough to play the game, but not so smart as to realize that it's a bad idea. It is certainly one of the worst sports to take up if your goal is to be walking around pain-free at the age of 55. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate soapbox forum, with no effect but to elicit taunts of "My country's sport is better than your country's sport!" This thread should be collapsed so there is more room for appropriate threads. Edison (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: What needs to be done to clean up the Gulf?

It appears that there is a lot of stalling going on Reticuli88 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the billion-dollar question. Reality suggests that nobody actually knows the answer at this point, the blathering of pundits aside. I find very little reason to think that a complete affordable workable solution would be known but not be put into action at this point; thus, I conclude that nobody has a complete affordable workable solution. Note that there may be "solutions" that are complete but not affordable, or affordable but not workable, etc, etc. Certainly we're seeing many things that are affordable and workable but far from complete. — Lomn 22:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The long-term solution is straightforward—nature will eventually clean itself; dilution overpowers all (with the exception of run-away problems). It's the question about what short-term things one wants to do, and what one can do that would have any significant effect. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to agree with our OP - but when I searched for evidence, I found that it's not true. Let's break this down to the various stages of the process:

• When the oil is on the water, you can skim it off, burn it, or use chemical dispersants. Dispersants are pretty damaging to the sub-sea wildlife. Burning it produces thick black choking smoke - and doesn't work when the oil has be floating around for a while - or in high seas. Skimming is the best answer and they have something like 1000 ships in the area doing one or the other of those things - but the spill currently covers 2500 square miles - and new oil is still spewing out - so that's a gigantic task and no amount of effort will get it all. Most of those ships are converted fishing boats - which helps to keep the boat crews working - but means that the actual amount of oil they can scoop is somewhat limited.
• To try to stop oil from reaching the beaches and estuaries, you can deploy booms - there isn't enough boom in the entire world to cover the roughly 800 miles of coastline. BP bought and deployed every available section of boom that was for sale - and they are paying the companies that make boom to buy more machinery to quadruple their production - but that's not something that can happen quickly. They have three factories out in Florida repairing damaged boom - which is a full-time job because booms are liable to be damaged in 6' waves. People who claimed that BP had piles of boom that wasn't being deployed were seeing damaged boom that was stacked waiting for repair. However, all the boom in the world won't stop the oil in 6' seas - so this is too is only a partial solution.
• They have crews out on the ocean inspecting every incoming ship to see if it's oil fouled and they are spraying the oil off of those that are and doing more complicated decontamination procedures for more serious cases. That stops oil from incoming ships from getting closer to the shores...but adds yet more nasty chemicals into the ocean.
• When the oil hits the beaches, it's pretty much a manual job to clean the stuff up - as of mid-June there were over 20,000 people employed on that task and they are evidently still recruiting. There are about 1000 people employed and another 1000 volunteers cleaning birds and turtles - but I've heard that they don't have enough work to keep them all busy because more birds are coming in dead than alive.
• When oil hits the wetlands, marshes and everglades, there is very little (if anything) that can be done. It's widely agreed that going in there with boats, machinery or even just a lot of people will do more harm than good, dispersants will kill the plants for 100% sure, so that won't work. The idea of making sand burms to block the oil was initially thought to be a smart idea - but with high seas they are ineffective - and in any case there is concern that constructing them causes yet more destruction by undermining the ocean bottoms and stopping the tidal waters from getting nutrients into these places. Basically the best thing you can do is nothing at all.

You need to recalibrate your expectations.

If we look at the history of this kind of thing, getting it shut off in 6 months would be an utter miracle given that the underwater gusher in the Ixtoc I oil spill took the Pemex oil company 9 months to shut off - and that was a much smaller flow at lower pressures and in just 120' of water!

The cleanup is going to take a decade or more. The Exxon Valdez oil spill - which was much less oil and in an equally environmentally sensitive area. That happened in 1989 and despite an army of cleaners, the amount of oil on the beaches declined by only 4% per year.

The fisheries may never recover. A study done 20 years after Exxon Valdez concluded that it would take another 30 years for the area to recover fully. However, that was entirely a surface spill - this one is characterized by layers of sub-surface oil propagating along at depth...we have literally no idea what that will do. We know that some species of deep-water algae will prosper by consuming the oil - but will consume most of the oxygen in the water as a consequence and then be poisonous to animals that eat algae. That suggests a much worse situation than the Exxon spill.

The bottom line is that the only thing that could have been done to substantively improve this situation would have been to not have the disaster in the first place - or to have pre-drilled relief wells on a "just in case" basis - or any number of things that seem obvious with 20/20 hindsight. Given that it's too late for any of those things, we're basically screwed.

But claiming that not enough is being done is a bit of a stretch I think. I recommend going into this with an open mind and reading [9]

SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious here: Why was the site of the sunken rig not surrounded with booms and the skimmer ships sent in, back in April (within a week or so of the initial explosion)? If they has done that the slick wouldn't have spread to 2500 sq miles, it wouldn't be threatening 800 miles of coastline, and they wouldn't have had to order the boom makers to step up production 4-fold. While it might not have caught all the oil, or the layers of sub-surface oil, but it would certainly made it much easier to begin to clean it up. Astronaut (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The oil is coming up from a mile underwater. By the time it eventually reaches the surface, the current and tides have spread it out over a very large area. Plus, boom only works in calm water - and that far out at sea, it's rarely calm enough for the boom to be effective. SteveBaker (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are currently three major problems or risks posed by the oil spill. One is that in the event of a hurricane passing through the area, which is rather likely this season, BP will have to evacuate its premises, causing 2.5 million gallons of crude oil to spill into the Gulf every day. At this rate, numerous dead zones would be created in the Gulf, creating the risk for red tides and explosive blooms in the population of jellyfish. Another problem is the build-up of methane, and in fact 40% of the matter being released from the oil well is methane, which would be a powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and may contribute to the methane clathrate problem. One final issue is that ocean currents could carry the oil into the Gulf Stream, where the spill would be much more difficult to control, and dispersants would do more harm than good. Once the oil leaves the Gulf, it will be dilute but has the potential to spread worldwide very quickly. I recently suggested here the use of piston valves to control more of the oil flowing out, but the matter of fact is that BP is simply not reacting to new ideas suggested by the public. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the clathrate gun theory applies here. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that enough gas will be released to measurably raise the temperature of the Earth via greenhouse effects, which is not reasonable in my opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with ideas from the general public is that they just aren't very good. The situation out there, 5,000' below the surface of the sea is a really alien environment and things happen that 'common sense' just isn't prepared for. SteveBaker (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There certainly is some stalling going on, contrary to what the essay above claims. Last Thursday an article in the Wall Street Journal listed a handful of things that could have been done but weren't, and even a few that still could be done but have been prohibited. Two notable ones from that list are:

• The EPA has a limit of 15ppm of oil in discharged water. In normal times, this rule controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. Some of the skimmers and tankers could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, but not enough to meet 15ppm -- and so far the EPA has been unwilling to relax this restriction, even temporarily.
• The Jones Act restricts foreign ships from operating in US coastal waters. Many foreign contries have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the US has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.

The Taiwanese-owned "A Whale" (the 10-story high ship which can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total so far), as of last week was steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives. It will not be able to do the job it was designed for without relaxing rules 1 and 2.

The link, from last week: http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/109983/why-is-the-gulf-cleanup-so-slow?mod=bb-budgeting

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is some confusion around the Jones Act. Here Thad Allen seems to say the Jones act hasn't impacted anything, but as has been pointed out the WSJ reported that the act was indeed stalling aid. TastyCakes (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Steve: everything within reason that can be done is being done. I think it's pretty likely that there will be new rules come out of this requiring the drilling of relief wells simultaneously with any deep water drilling. The public will demand change, but an outright ban is likely not on the table and there don't seem to be any other ways to add another layer of protection against such a blowout/BOP failure. TastyCakes (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I think we need to carefully examine the whole business of pre-drilled relief wells and having blow-out-preventers that actually work - and taking other measures such as adequate fire extinguishing capability on the rigs themselves. But none of that helps the present situation. The problem is that this kind of thing really doesn't happen very often and it's highly likely that we'd be writing a law to protect ourselves from something that will never happen again anyway. If you look back through List of oil spills, you'll see that almost all of them are either failed land-based pipelines or problems with ships colliding or running aground...the risk of another Exxon Valdiz is much greater than that of another deep water well disaster. Realistically, that's the issue we should be most concerned about.

As a general principle, we need to stop using fossil fuels anyway - I'd rather that the government spend it's efforts into attacking the problem at source rather than messing around with laws about relief wells and blowout preventers. After all, the pollution in the gulf covers maybe 5,000 square kilometers of Earth's 361 million square kilometer ocean surface. Globally speaking, it's utterly negligable. However, the damage done by fossil fuels due to global climate change affects every single square kilometer of both land and ocean - and it's a lot harder to clean up once you've screwed up the upper atmosphere. SteveBaker (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon

How tall was Napoleon? --138.110.206.99 (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

He was 5'7, not really short at all (especially given that people were generally shorter back then due to poor nutrition). See Napoleon#Image. He did become very fat later in his career, which will have made him appear shorter. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

5'7"? That's the same height as Empoleon... --138.110.206.99 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I once read he was 5'2" or 62 inches. However, if one takes 62 French pouces (each 2.71 cm compared to the 2.54 cm long British inches), you get 1.68 m (about 5'7" in British and US measures). Astronaut (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fail-deadly systems outside the military

Are there any real situations outside the military (and other armed security forces) where some technology or procedure is designed to fail-deadly, imposing an automatic punishment on whoever is likely to have caused the failure? Not necessarily something that would hurt anyone or physically destroy stuff, but something that would have an obvious negative effect on the (perceived) guilty party. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about those dye packs they put in bags of money at banks to spray blue stuff over whoever steals them? Maybe the snake nut can as punishment for people who try to eat your nuts? SteveBaker (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Security measures at banks are arranged by armed security forces so do not qualify. Any non-lethal non-military Booby trap such as some Practical joke devices sets up a situation where an easily lured person causes a negative effect on themself. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Several years back (in the nineties) when I was in primary school, there was this plague of kids peeing in swimming pools. The authorities responded with some chemical mixed with the water that was supposed to colour the urine or water around the culprit red once they had started peeing. At that time (I was half the age I am now) we were awed and it was heavily discussed, however, having never seen the actual effect with my eyes, I cannot say whether this was actually implemented. The stuff Steve mentions is/was (supposed to be) used with postmen bearing larger sums of money (it is still commonplace here for postmen to deliver i. e. old age benefit money to the elderly on a monthly basis, as many, many people don't have a bank account), but from what I discovered (by asking) this is usually not the case. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Snopes says nopes to there being any reality to the pool pee chemicals. Just a story told to scare kids. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For me the essence of "fail deadly" is the not that it is a booby trap but that it is a mechanism by which the presumed absence of something puts into effect negative consequences. The only example I can think of in a civilian sector at the moment is in the transport of nuclear materials. At least in the 1970s (I assume there is something similar today), if you were transporting an armored car full of plutonium from a reprocessing plant to somewhere else, a guard on the truck had to call in every two hours on a schedule to say that they hadn't been hijacked. The goal of this was that if the van was hijacked, they'd miss their call, and they'd know that something was up and send out a million cops. That's "fail-deadly" in the classic sense. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't used for other, similarly valuable cargo as well, especially in days when long-range, persistent communications were difficult. (Today you'd just use cell phones or satellite communications, I'd imagine).

Going from that example, the other thing that comes to mine are various forms of software licensing control. I use programs through my university which need to "phone home" periodically to make sure that I am still properly licensed to use them. (It has to do with the way the university bulk-licenses the software.) Presumably if the software can't phone home at the right time, it'll close itself down. That's fairly "fail-deadly" as well.

The classic movie example is the cop or spy or criminal saying, "If they don't hear from me in an hour, they kill the hostage/rush in with guns/say disparaging things about your mother."

I see this kind of distinction as important and quite different than a regular booby trap or just imposed set of consequences. "Fail-deadly" is about a system that is supposed to operate in a specific way and if it fails to operate, negative consequences start into motion. So not like most booby traps or snake nut cans at all (which are just deliberate traps). The goal of a "fail-deadly" system is to keep functioning in the non-failing state, ideally. The punishment is a secondary effect. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've more commonly heard the term "Dead man's switch" used for what you've described. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but generally a dead man's switch is meant to be fail-safe, not fail-deadly. So if I'm driving a train and I have a heart attack, in a fail-safe system, the train would stop. In a fail-deadly system, the train would purposefully explode and kill everyone on it. :-) In the context of nuclear war/military things, fail-deadly systems are, as far as I can tell, always dead man switches of some sort. (The classic case being the Soviet's Perimeter, which is not quite the Doomsday Machine it is often taken to be, but does have a fail-deadly component.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jenga? Googlemeister (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

First thing that comes to mind are satellite launches with built-in self destruct mechanisms. If the rocket goes off course it destroys itself. I'm not sure how common these are, but I know at least some non-military launches have them. (Ariane 5 Flight 501 for example.)

On the more consumer side, there are flash drives that destroy themselves after a certain number of failed password attempts. [10] APL (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are both pretty good suggestions that don't incorporate obvious dead man switches. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - something like a watchdog timer in mission-critical computer software - which is a hardware timer that counts down over several seconds and then reboots the computer (thereby "killing" and restarting the software). When the software is working correctly, it resets the timer (say) 100 times a second so the computer isn't ever reset...but if something goes wrong and the software doesn't make the deadline, it's killed and restarted completely automatically. SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is fail-deadly for the fault condition but fail safe for the system. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

July 7

accomodation for post-grad in Philadelphia PA, Ithaca NY and Northampton MA

My partner (Germany based) is planning to do some post-graduate research in Philadelphia, Ithaca and Northampton for a couple of months. Our problem is that we do not know how and where to find an accomodation, like a students' dorm or whatever there is. Does anyone know if there are colleges/universities that offer accomodation for foreign post-grad students or if there would be another possibility at a reasonable price, like pensions whose rent can be afforded for some weeks? I've never been to the US, so I'm kind of clueless where to start searching. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.196.55 (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would expect each university to have an office that supports international students or researchers; I suggest starting with them, because they probably deal with people in your situation all the time. For example, assuming that the Ithaca institution is Cornell, there's an International Students and Scholars Office. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky thing—there generally aren't easy accommodations that rent by the week. You can always check Craigslist—or even post your request there—but it's a real shot in the dark. What you want to ask is if someone would be willing to sublet the place to you for the dates in question, and what the price would be. The hope would be that you'll find someone who is going to be out of town anyway and has already decided that their rent money is a "loss", and will want to recover some of it for that period.

The universities might have ways of renting rooms for that amount of time but they won't be cheap at all. In general, when a US student or postdoc needs to go somewhere to do research, they have to explicitly budget hotel costs into their grant request, sublet or rent an apartment (renting is hard because leases are almost always yearly, not monthly or weekly), or stay with a friend. For short trips, I have found AirBnB.com to be an excellent resource in finding reasonable accommodations at lower-than-hotel prices in university towns. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In Philadelphia, I suggest contacting International House. It is a residential facility for students from outside the U.S. attending or doing work at area universities, such as Penn, Drexel, Temple and others. I don't know what they minimum length of stay is, but it's worth a check. — Michael J 13:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What do the other countries think about Germans?

I would really like to know. I have read so many articles portraying them as Nazis, which to my mind (I am mixed-race, Eurasian, so I think I qualify for an opion about this; however I never went to the regions that are known to be "Nazi-Regions", not sure if they exist or if this just is an urban myth, but better not try to find that out) they are not.

Our teachers told us, that people from other nations in many cases think persons from Germany would be impolite, because we have what is called "negative politeness". So if Germans think that something is what other people would call "superb, outstanding, great", they just say "it is not bad". Let's assume a persons just won a competition and he tells his friends about it, they say "Oh, not bad", that could actually be the highest price. However I was told that if I ever would tell an American so, he would be deeply offended. We were strongly adviced not to use this "not bad" when around persons, who did not grew up in Germany, because they would not get it. Do you think Germans are impolite?-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From the US here--I don't think Americans tend to think of Germans as impolite. For some reason the French tend to get tagged that way much more than Germans. Stereotypes aside, the Germans I have met, and the Americans I know who have many more German friends than I, seem to find Germans interesting, at least as polite as Americans (which might not be saying a lot!)...and perhaps, stereotypically again, focused, innovative, careful, and maybe even terse, maybe a bit odd. Perhaps I'm biased by knowing odd people who have made friends who odd Germans, but the ones I've met are friendly, happy, and a bit weird, in a good way. Certainly not Nazis. I'm sure there are neo-Nazis in Germany, but we have them here too in the US, home-grown. I doubt many Americans think of modern Germany as having much to do with World War II Nazi Germany. Same with Japan, for what it's worth. An enemy in World War Two, but today a fascinating place and culture. As for the phrase "oh, not bad", I can see how that might not come off well in English, depending on tone. An obvious alternative would be to say "good!" instead of "not bad". Pfly (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Having never really met anyone from Germany (other than my Grandmother...i'll leave her out of this) i can only describe what i see as a stereotype. In the films that i have seen that have a "German" character, most are portrayed as being either harsh, rude, short-tempered, they lack sympathy, or bascially show no signs of human emotion other than anger. I don't believe most Americans actually believe this to be true. I frequently hear the saying "not bad" in compliments so i don't think anyone from America would be offended by that saying. Drummerdavid (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost on your "not bad" story. So, I'll just try to answer the title question and your last question about politeness. I'm in the US. Americans have a stereotype about Germans being focused (fixated possibly) on matters of protocol. Which I can understand. I don't feel they're impolite though. Maybe a bit stoic which may come off as being impolite to some people. FYI, my brother lives in Germany and married a German. I've been there a few times. I do have one friend who is a Jew and refuses to ever visit Germany because of the Nazis. She's in her 20s and is able to realize that she's stereotyping modern Germans harshly but is also not willing to set aside her quirk. Dismas|^(talk) 10:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Aside from the fact that I believe this is not a Reference Desk question, I can throw in my two cents. Over here one will find several dissonant portrayals of Germans: a people ready to undertake new ventures and carry them out with order, a nation who is responsible of destroying the lives of at least one generation, a people who are despised because they play football too well... well, I must say, as a person who had travelled the length and width of Germany, and who had met many Germans young and old, and had lived there for a while - they really are ready to undertake obligations, they really do know how to maintain order in their ranks, but on the other hand they know how to make the rules a bit loose and have fun from time to time. They know how to plan out their work exactly and will follow their plan through to the letter, in an orderly, if not always efficient manner. They make great beer and are usually proud of this. There are some who avoid discussing history, still others I have met are more than eager to talk about it with foreigners like myself. They definitely are not impolite, maybe sometimes harsh and terse, but this is to be related rather to their efficiency than unkindness. Most are skilled at what they do and understand that one needs work to earn bread, and to earn better bread - one must be more skilled than average. They are also not easily impressed - but when impressed, they will show respect for you. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. I would add that (1) "Not bad" is very commonly heard, especially in the American midwest, and is considered a compliment; people will even solicit compliments by saying of something they did, "Not bad, eh?" (2) Germany is slowly extricating itself from its Nazi stereotype. Despite that stereotype, I don't think most Americans really believe it, it's just kind of a joke. Nearly all Germans I've run into are quite nice and amiable - especially from the point of view of us Midwesterners, who are typically from Northern European stock also and generally have a closer cultural connection with "efficient" Germans than with "touchy-feely" French and other Latins. (How's that for some stereotyping?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just an answer for pfly, as the other answers were not there when I started answering. Anyway, thanks for so many answers. Our teacher told us, that our "not bad" or "quite nice" would translate the "great" or "fantastic" or "outstanding" in america. As a person raised in Germany somehow I have always trouble calling something "great", it is just a word we do not use very often.

Same goes for words such as "horrible", "desaster" and so on. We have been told by our teachers that if we complained that we have been treated "not very nice" people just would not get it, we should always tell that we received "horrible treatment" in that case.

Also we were told that we always must call other grown-ups "Sir" or "Ma'am", which is not too common in Germany and that we should always "beg another persons pardon", when we wanted to talk with him... so if you want to aks an american you don't know something always start the conversation with "I am begging, your pardon, Sir, but could you tell me..." or "Good day, Sir, begging your pardon, but could you tell me... , Sir", while in Germany that would be "Excuse me, could you tell me..." and if another person would ever "beg my pardon", I would think he was kidding me (unless of course if he was English or American, because I have been told they do so all the time). Actually the only times when I beg peoples pardon when talking German is when I want to offend them (that however does not mean all Germans act like this, some really mean it if they beg your pardon).

A little bit odd. May be we are. That reminds me of something that happened back when I was in school. We had an american student joining us for a year... and he never could tell when we were joking. One day I made an "invention". I put some marsmellows on my marmelade bread, calling it the marshmellow-marmelade-bread. My classmates (who wanted to tease me) called me a "scientist of genius" for inventing great things like that and I said I was sure I would be awarded the nobel-prize one day. That american boy somehow thought that I was being serious and started complaining how stuck up I was to believe that I would be awarded the nobel-prize and when a class-mate said "Oh, I really really think he was being serious" that confused him even more.

I don't know, may be he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer or americans just don't get the fact that Germans sometimes say the opposite of what they mean + Germans often make jokes while putting on a straight face (would spoil the joke if they would laugh all the time is what they think) and I realized a lot of people (especially souther europeans) never get this. Seems not to be very common in their culture.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is somewhat of a generational thing going on in America. In my (older) generation, "not bad" means "good". "Great" or "fantastic" or "outstanding" seem excessive, even though I'll admit to using those terms more than I should. They're like sales hype, and are overused. It's like when a ballplayer makes a better-than-average play, and some announcer says, "Unbelievable!" Gimme a break! The "beg your pardon, sir/ma'am", or just "sir/ma'am", when trying to get someone's attention seems to still be in fashion here, and has been for a long time. It's a way to get their attention, possibly interrupting what they're doing while also conveying an intent to be polite, laying some positive groundwork - as opposed to, "Hey, you!" which is not very polite among strangers. In regard to your last point, Americans (in my generation, at least) fully understand irony. Don't rule out the possibly that he was yanking your chain at the same time you were yanking his. (Although don't rule out that he was indeed a dim bulb.) This gets back to cultural commonality between Northern Europeans and the USA - or at least the Northern part of the USA. Don't forget there is a strong cultural divide between North and South still. JFK was reported to have said, "Washington DC is a city of northern charm and southern efficiency." And there you have a good American ironic joke in the German tradition. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As for "not bad," it's not at all uncommon for other languages/cultures to feel that being too enthusiastic about things is a problem, and that Americans go really overboard. I know that in my Russian language classes we were generally told that if someone says, "how are you doing?" the proper (expected) response is, "Normal." If you say, "I'm great!", you'd better have a good story behind it, or you are inviting trouble. If you say, "Not good," then your mother better have just died. In the USA, we expect everyone to be "fine, thanks," and if someone doesn't say our food is the "best damned thing they ever put in my mouth" then we're hurt and shocked.

I generally only interact with Germans abroad in academic settings and they are universally polite, soft-spoken, and articulate. This is obviously a selection issue—some kind of acceptable academic behavior. Japanese here (USA) have a reputation for being quiet, polite, and exceptionally excited about tourism and technology. Again, there must be a lot more variety than that. In Germany itself, it is clear that German society looks, at least superficially (who is walking around on the street) about as heterogeneous as most of American society, these days. (In Southern Germany I saw people of all colors and all religions happily mulling about in public squares, chattering on in German, Turkish, you name it.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, we still have quite a strong Nazi stereotype of Germans. Most people do know that it's not true anymore, but it's still what we tend to think of. However we also see Germans as well-educated, polite, efficient and hardworking, but (again, unfairly from what I've seen) a bit short of a sense of humour. Oh, and annoyingly good at football :-) Cod Lover Oil (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in the UK, the "Nazi stereotyping" is still true only of those who still remember WWII (not many left), and a proportion of those who have never met any actual Germans. (Of course, the media still like to play on those stereotypes, and the stereotypes of ruthless efficiency, etc., but usually for comic effect rather than to reflect real opinions.) Those of us in the UK who have met German people, in more recent times, generally find them polite, humane and articulate, as others have said. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for everyone's amusement and education, I recommend this ca.1965 recording [11] which was only 20 years after WWII and fear of Germany was still very much current. A few things have changed since then, but the stereotype has not totally gone away. (Never mind that, given his surname, Tom Lehrer himself might well be of German ancestry.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I don't think fear of Germans was very current in the mid-1960s. Apprehensions about giving Germans nuclear weapons certainly existed, and that is what Lehrer is invoking specifically. In fact the entire humor of Lehrer is based on the fact that we suddenly became great friends with the Germans after WWII, even though the Nazi thing was still fairly recent. (Another relevant Lehrer song is his one about Wernher von Braun.) The fact that we actually contemplated giving Germans (via NATO) control over nuclear arms in Europe speaks legions at how little they were feared, in fact. It would not have been politically viable in the least if they were still considered Nazis. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be difficult sometimes to tell what Lehrer is actually satirizing. This version includes his introduction [12] in which he refers to "our current friends, like France, and our traditional friends, like Germany." Even now, that comment has validity. As you note, the almost-overnight conversion of enemies to allies and vice-versa after the end of WWII was startling, and it was also satirized in 1984, as I recall. I should point out that I always thought his von Braun song, though funny, was kind of unfair. But that's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There was an excellent comedy program back in the 1970s here in the UK, about an English language school in London. It was centred on a single class, full of students from all different corners of the earth, complete with extremely stereotypical personalities for each nationality. I seem to remember there being a German student in the group, too. If you're interested in stereotypes on TV (slightly different from stereotypes in real life, which again are different from actual real life), then you may want to check it out. The TV program was called Mind Your Language. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

...just so long as people realise that it was made over 30 years ago, was regarded by many as embarrassingly outdated even then, and was extremely unfunny (and certainly anything but "excellent" - was that irony?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have emphasised that it was made in the 1970s, and maybe should have added that it did in fact cause a public outcry with some people regarding it as racist (even though it was hugely popular overseas, and in many of the countries the students were supposedly from - some countries even made their own versions). It would never be shown in today's Britain. As for 'excellent' (this is off-topic, so I'm writing it small), well, admittedly I was seven years old at the time, but I have watched all three series since (two years ago), and I liked it for different reasons - actually because comedy was like that in the 1970s and the fact that things are different now (take a look at the Carry On (film series), and numerous others) It was all comedy, and not indicative of how individual people actually felt every day, but then so is a lot of comedy - this is why it's on TV. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I liked (some of) the Carry On films, and certainly loved the stereotyping in 'Allo 'Allo!, but Mind Your Language just felt wrong and unwatchable to me, even then (but I was older than you, and, indeed, probably still am). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate that Nazi stereotype stigma that is still around. Some people at my school are like that, and I hate it. Personally I think Germans are very polite and respectful and they respect their environment, which I like. Chevymontecarlo 16:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

and they make some pretty respectable cars too. Googlemeister (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In Italy, we have usually a generally positive view of Germans (or, I believe, better than those of Poles, Frenchs and so on). Italians usually think that Germany is an efficent, respectable and serious nation, and is often taken as a good example regarding political or economical issues. Obviously, for us the typical German is stiff, rigid, not very friendly and a little Nazi. Italians also show a particular predilection for women from Germany (and other Northern nations) and there is a strong "positive" stereotype about female German tourist being attractive and available (don't know if it's the right word in English...). Oh, and they have nasty food, that's for sure! Italians have also a positive view of Spain (they are perceived as very similar in language and culture) but have a little dislike for France (like everyone on the planet) for their apparently sense of superiority. Generally Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Austria fall in the spectrum of Germany. Everything east is usually not known or considered gypsies, barbarians, here be dragons...--151.51.41.94 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Having been stationed in Germany with the US military, it seemed pretty obvious to me that Germans don't believe in forming lines, or "queuing up". It's every German for him/herself. I went to a concert one time where the gates were not opened till just before the show time, and we literally were in fear for our lives because the mob at the gates kept pushing back and forth so that those of us in the middle were afraid that if we lost our footing, we would be trampled. One Fourth of July, the base I was stationed at opened its gates to the German general public for an air show, fireworks, and American food sales. There were no lines to buy those hot dogs, you had to fight your way to the front of the line. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the early 70s, German singer-songwriter Reinhard Mey wrote a song about this behaviour: "Die heiße Schlacht am kalten Buffet" ("The heated battle at the cold buffet"). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A recent Gallup poll of U.S. adults found 80% of respondents had a favorable view of Germany. Only Canada and the U.K. ranked higher. (Iran and North Korea were at the bottom.) Many Americans would say Germans are efficient people who make quality products (especially cars and beer). Also, keep in mind more Americans claim German ancestry than any other heritage. Of course, Germans are also easy to make fun of with their history and language. Because you can make fun of Germans without being labeled a racist (as you would be if you made fun of Japanese people, for example), you see a lot of jokes about Germans in the media; for example, it's pretty easy to guess that when Family Guy characters Stewie and Brian wind up in Munich that their tour guide is going to wind up to be a Nazi. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On "not bad" for "fantastic" or "great", I think it would depend on the situation as well as the tone of voice. Also it should be fine for relatively ordinary good things but less so for really really good things. If your spouse came home all excited about a bonus at work or some such, "so we can take that vacation to Yellowstone after all!" Responding with dull "not bad" might be taken as uncaring. Then again, if said with the right tone of voice it would be fine. I'd be more likely to respond "oh that's great!", and probably not with "fantastic", but there's different styles of speaking all over. In general, "great" just means "very good". For "not very nice" and "horrible", it's basically the same. A friend comes to you upset and says "I was just robbed in the street by scary guy with a gun!" Responding "that's not very nice" might sound uncaring. But again, tone of voice could make it work. "That's horrible" would probably be better.

Calling people "sir" or "ma'am" is fine, but not required, except perhaps ceratin job-related situations or formal events. If you're just asking a stranger on the street for directions, for example, it wouldn't be wrong or weird to say "I beg your pardon, Sir, but could you tell me...", but it's fine to just say "Excuse me, could you tell me...", or "Excuse me, Sir, ..." The phrase "I beg your pardon" sounds stilted and old-fashioned to me. Then again, it's hard to go wrong by being overly polite. Pfly (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, exaggerated politeness can readily be taken as irony, mind you. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Surprising that no-one has yet mentioned the ongoing issues over beach towels - see also here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what's wrong with removing said beachtowel if the owner doesn't return within a reasonable amount of time (say 20 mins)? Astronaut (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing - apart from the obvious fact that, whatever is done, it is often a cause of tension for one nationality or another, potentially spoiling a nice holiday. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

poems for a school child to recite

Hi, Can you please name a few poems that a child of 12/13 can recite for a competition? It shouldn't be too old like Shakespeare or too new like Auden (not even Eliot) nor should it be Lewis Carrol or Lear. It should be brief as it will have to be memorised. The more rhythmic the better. It is also for a child who learns English as second language. Can you please list a few? --117.204.93.27 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember a book, Committed to Memory: 100 Best Poems to Memorize, that I thought was chock-full of good choices. The comments section at the amazon page seems to name-check a lot of the good choices. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a poem that begins "Tell me not in mournful number/"Life is but a waking dream"/For the soul is dead that slumbers/And things are not what they seem", which is my favourite poem, and which I think this child would appreciate. I can't find it online though!--TammyMoet (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC) WHAAOE! A Psalm of Life --TammyMoet (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is good (and bad) poetry to be found in Popular music. Many works by Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan are outstandingly suitable for recitation but I shall not presume to know what counts as popular to the child you mention. Reciting a song can have advantages that it is easy to memorise and has inevitably a rhythmic structure that is easy to scan. I expect that the competition judges will be more impressed by a contestant's confident declamation than a simple feat of memory. In short: "The speaker should convey the message in a sincere, honest and realistic attempt to recreate the spirit of the original presentation." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno; a lot of those comments seem to imply the editor used good poets, but picked poor poems. YMMV, of course. Matt Deres (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In case the questioner doesn't know it, I recommend this site, which has hundreds of thousands of poems, discussion forums and so forth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd urge the OP not to insist too strongly on "brief;" there's both added value and added interest in a longer poem. Works like The Highwayman, The Charge of the Light Brigade, and Mending Wall have stories, internal rhythms, and structures to attract interest and help sustain memory, even when the child is using a non-native language. Keep in mind that memorization is better fostered by short, spaced practice than by longer, less frequent effort. (One trick is to memorize verses starting with the last -- e.g., memorize verse 6, then versus 5 and 6, then 4, 5, and 6 -- each new verse serves as a trigger for recalling the later, more familiar one that follows it.) Another possible resource is the Poetry Out Loud project. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Shel Silverstein too recent? Dismas|^(talk) 16:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always enjoyed Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening - it's not too long or short, not too old or recent. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is funny to hear Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening sung to the tune of Hernando's Hideaway. One great poem to memorize and recite in Kubla Khan by Coleridge. A fine poem which is shorter is Ozymandias by Shelly. In an era when youngsters are swooning over the macabre "Twilight" series, perhaps Poe's "Annabel Lee" would work. Or a longer one by Poe, "The Raven". Edison (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

When We Were Very Young, Now We Are Six et al. Also Spike Milligan (or is that too new?) -- SGBailey (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew a guy who memorized "The Raven" as a teenager. It was extremely impressive- but since it's all rhyming, regular rhythm, and tells a story, maybe not quite as hard as it seemed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the trick is to offer poems that the kids will actually want to memorize - otherwise it's mindless drudgery that you can be sure they'll resent. When they get a taste for it, you can weigh in with the heavier, more uplifting stuff. I strongly recommend Beastly Boys and Ghastly Girls by William Cole. Although the book was published in the 1960's (which is when my parents read it to me) - most of the poems are Victorian. I always liked the ones about Willie and the troubles he had with his (many) sisters. 50 years later, I can still remember nearly all of them (guess how much Shakespeare and Wordsworth I remember!):

Willie,with a thirst for gore,

nailed his sister to the door.

His mother said, with humor, quaint:

"Willie dear, don't scratch the paint."

...and...

Into the family drinking well,

Willie pushed his sister Nell.

She's still there, cause it killed her.

...now we have to buy a filter.

...and...

Willie, in a fit of glee

put radium in grandma's tea.

Now he thinks it quite a lark

to see her glowing in the dark.

The one I can't quite remember is about the little boy who wants plutonium for Xmas. Each of his parents secretly decides to buy him sub-critical masses of the stuff...with predictable consequences for the Christmas Tree. You might also try (a little more modern) "Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes", but to my tastes, they don't quite reach the pinnacle of Beastly Boys & Ghastly Girls. SteveBaker (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In similar vein are the wonderful ditties by Hilaire Belloc, such as "Cautionary Tales" and "The Bad Child's Book of Beasts". My long-time favourite is "Matilda, Who Told Lies and Was Burnt to Death". Highly suitable for young children. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If— although that article, crazily, does not let you see the text. Try http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm On second thoughts, probably too long and complex for your purpose. 92.28.250.159 (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not crazy. It tells you that the text of "If" is here at Wikisource. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The link is hiden away in a logo at the bottom right - I had to look at the page several times before spotting it. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit (discustingly) patriotic and suggest some Banjo Patterson in particular the man from snowy river. It is rhythmic and exciting! If you want something a but funnier perhaps the man from ironbark. Telling a good old colonial yarn might well attract the judges' attention. :p Jabberwalkee (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Jabberwocky for its interesting words, but that's by Carroll. How about The Tyger by William Blake? Astronaut (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

bastard strip

in English law what was a bastard strip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.47.46 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? I can't find anything on Google etc for 'bastard strip'. -- Jack?! 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Only that one entry by the IP OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're referring to a bastard stripe, which I think is a term for a "bend sinister", which is a reverse bend (heraldry), that is to say a stripe on a shield running from top right to bottom left. In A Complete Guide to Heraldry [13] it explains what one of these means, although I don't entirely understand the explanation: probably it means the owner of the shield (or rather the coat of arms) was an illegitimate child, but there may be nuances I'm not getting. (Does illegitimate mean "born to unmarried parents", or does it mean a more general "not going to inherit"?) Such a mark on a shield indicating that you're somebody's child is called a cadency, although the article doesn't mention bends or illegitimate children. And the "bend" article doesn't say anywhere what they signify, only what shape they are and what shapes they might be combined with. I'm glad the article traffic signs isn't written in that manner. 213.122.29.196 (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

July 8

Freeway problem

If i was traveling on the freeway, and I blew a seal, could I get arrested for not being in full control of the vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.91.80 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If a vehicle incurs a mechanical failure, then issues arising from that would be beyond the driver's reasonable control. But the driver is responsible for making sure their vehicle is in roadworthy condition, and may be criminally responsible if it is unroadworthy. Plenty of people have been convicted of manslaughter (or the equivalent) for not making duly diligent repairs to machines like cars. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I searched Google for "blew a seal" and only found bad jokes. Edison (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's illegal to drive a car with an uncaged wild animal in any event, regardless of what activities you and it might be engaged in. --Ludwigs2 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

hahaha best answer ever. Shadowjams (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of one the Challenger jokes that was circulating in 1986. What did the Challenger have in common with a sea lion? They were both looking for a tight seal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

For the OP, see mens rea. Shadowjams (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP possibly located near Milton Keynes, UK is currently blocked[14] for long-term abuse. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Up and down company hierarchies

Can you go up and down in them? I never hear of anyone going down. Perhaps, because you just get fired instead of going down?--Mr.K. (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In my (long) experience there are two movements within a hierarchy: upwards and sideways. Also, of course, exit. It is sometimes prudent to move a person sideways, out of the main career path, when that person has topped out, but is still valuable to the organisation. Sometimes, of course, a sideways move results in a resignation.Froggie34 (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been observed (by Parkinson?) that a bureaucrat gets promoted to the level of his/her incompetence. This provides employment security in a large organisation where there are plenty of positions for which he/she is incompetent. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's actually the Peter principle.--Quest09 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Yes and thanks. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If their incompetence is uncovered, i.e. if it is found to cost the company big bucks for no benefit, they may be dumped, albeit with a golden (or at least silver) parachute. Although I'm reminded of the Jack Benny Christmas show in which he asks the department store's rude floorwalker, Frank Nelson, if he's working his way up the organization: "Not exactly. I started as Vice President!" In real life, they usually get moved laterally or jettisoned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Demotion would be the term for it. The example that springs to mind is not in companies but in governments, when a Cabinet reshuffle might result in a disloyal minister being sent to a less prestigious department, or when the party leadership changes; William Hague used to be party leader, but is now Foreign Secretary; Gordon Brown used to be the British PM and is now not even in the shadow cabinet. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But governments do not have hierarchies. There is no climbing steadily up. Instead appointments are made by the Prime Minister - always with the political imperative acting on the decision. Civil Servants have clear structure, lines of advancement but not politicians.Froggie34 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Governments do not have hierarchies" is laughably false. You might be able to get away with saying that "government hierarchies are not like corporate hierarchies", but I'm not sure that even holds up. I think, at best, you could claim that movement within government hierarchies isn't like movement within corporate hierarchies.

Now back to the original question: downward movement within a corporate hierarchy can certainly happen voluntarily: my supervisor realized that a VP role wasn't for him and so he returned to where he could do actual work for which he's professionally trained. I have no idea how common this is, but I expect it happens from time to time at most places. — Lomn 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

David Petraeus was recently demoted, but not for poor performance. --Sean 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In a goverment's Diplomatic service there is an arcane heirarchy where a posting, say, to the New York embassy rates higher than to the Icelandic embassy. Since ambassadors are temporary posts, promotions and demotions occur fluidly. See the article Diplomatic rank. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem while editing own talkpage

When I edit my own talkpage and hit preview all text shows up centered although after saving everything is fine. This goes on for several weeks now and while it is not a "huge" problem, it is somehow annoying as I can't see the final format before saving. Not sure if some centered text at the top of my page is causing this. So if someone would be so kind and take a look at it and fix it for me I would be much appreciated for the effort.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with this message:

Please do not leave me a talkback notice unless an immediate response from my side is essential. If I've left you a message, I've already added you to my watchlist and will respond at your talkpage.|}

Perhaps those stray characters at the end are hosing things up? --Sean 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)