Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 22

Fairies

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, has written a serious treatise about existence of fairies. Other serious writers, Colin Wilson etc. have also written at length about them. I want to know that are there any proofs about existence of these mysterious creatures in West today ? I would like to know if any people reading my words have any firsthand experience ( or any of yours friends or relatives ). Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We still have the same evidence that convinced Doyle. See Cottingley Fairies.

APL (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a question as to how one would detect he was in the presence of a fairy. Edison (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you realize how this question begs for some smart-aleck answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Bugs, the point is actually this - why there is so much fuss over something that does not exist ! I won't mind if it were something limited to kid-talk, but such great writers making such claims...

Explain how fairies and ghosts are things that "clearly" do not exist, while millions of true believers have no problem believing in angels or even a "God" and a "Devil?" Why is one "nonsense" while the other is highly respected "faith?" Edison (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That was over a century ago. A great scientist of that era thought he saw canals on Mars, too. (Maybe they were dug by those fairies.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Martian canals were a combination of low-quality telescope optics and a tendency for the human vision system to see straight lines in low-quality images. --Carnildo (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

He was delusional. He had had a dinner of capybara, mistaking it for fish. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Faeries. And I highly recommend an excellent short story in the New Yorker a year or two back about a Faery King and Queen and the human boy they want to keep: A Tiny Feast, Chris Adrian, April 20, 2009. WikiDao ☯ 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WikiDao. Read the story. "...vanished even before their eyes could register them..." Well, now I know why I don't see 'em !

It's not so much the fact that an eminent novelist believed in them that fascinates me. It's the belief across Europe, at least, of mythical small creatures visible only to certain people at certain times. Pixies, faeries, goblins, dwarves, leprechauns... what is the original myth for these? Why is it so widespread? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And why we never hear about them in India ?

Maybe the polytheistic nature of Hinduism circumvents any cultural "need" for these little immortal creatures in a supposedly monotheistic culture? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In the late 19th and early 20th century, there were many very clever people who were spiritualists, Conan Doyle being one of them. For Conan Doyle, spiritualism held out an alternative to a harshly materialist world. Keep in mind that all of this is happening in the context of the late Victorian industrial revolution, of the debates about Darwinism, in the discussions of Marxism, and the professionalization of the scientific community.

In hindsight, Conan Doyle looks rather foolish. The Cottingley Fairies are obvious fakes, and looking at them today it's hard to see why anyone intelligent would have found them compelling. Consider though that photography was still a pretty new medium, and people were not as savvy about photographic fakery as they are in the age of Photoshop. And even today, there are people who are astonished to find out that people will baldly lie about things for publicity or just for fun. For Doyle in particular it is hard not to hard a large dollop of "I want to believe". And indeed, I think UFO conspiracy theories are probably our century's spiritualism — in 100 years, people will look back on all that blurry footage and say, "why did they find this compelling, exactly?" --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What would a shy, undressed woman cover first?

I'm curious as to what women instinctively cover when they find themselves undressed in front of strangers.

In certain pictures I've seen displayed in art galleries, the sitter covers her pubes with her hands. In certain others, she covers her breasts with one arm, and her pubes with the other.

But outside the art world, things seem different. In several pictures from the Holocaust (World War II) undressed prisoners are all shown covering their breasts with their hands—seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes. (This is alluded to, albeit fictionally, in a scene from the movie Schindler's list).

Has anybody ever conducted any kind of reliable survey of (non-exhibitionist) women? Would the typical shy woman just want to ensure that her breasts are securely covered, and not really care about who sees her pubes? Pine (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The posting of this question is discussed at the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Read somewhere that an Arab woman, under such condition would rather cover her face ( and won't bother about breast or pubes... Jon Ascton  (talk)

I've also heard that. Never seen a survey on the subject, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I read this story as an anecdote about the woman in a sorority house who was leaving the shower with a towel too small to cover everything, and was surprised by a male walking through the hallway. Thinking quickly, she covered up her head in order to anonymize herself. This was several decades ago and I would have said I read this in Reader's Digest, but the average age of a Reader's Digest reader is about 300, and 300-year-olds' heads explode when reading about nudity, so it may have been somewhere else. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This illustration[1] doesn't answer the question definitively, but it relates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would a sitting woman cover her pubes? Surely they are not visible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.187.76 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pubes (singular, two syllables) is the Latin name for the pubic area; you seem to be confusing it with the identically-spelt monosyllabic word which is the plural of the English word "pube", short for "pubic hair". Marnanel (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean pubis. And this question should IMHO have been deleted, see the discussion here. --Viennese Waltz 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And yes. Two of us tried, but objections were raised, so here it sits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Between here and the talk page, at least 4 editors (me included) agree that this section should be zapped. Or rather re-re-zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading that centuries ago, some far eastern women would cover their knees. 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If the question is sincere, the OP could start with Modesty and see where it leads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a complete answer by any means, but we learn from National Geographic Magazine that not all cultures require women to cover their breasts. So if there's an instinctive urge to do so, it can't be too strong. APL (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The person posting the question has shown a previous instance of setting up a question that probes the area of the joining of the legs of the female human. It is just my opinion but I don't think such questions have to be addressed. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then don't address it. Warofdreams talk 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Or remove it. Isn't removing it to be considered? Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good detective work. It confirms the trolling. And removing it would indeed "address" (or "undress") the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And here, and here. I didn't do much "detective work". I went to "Earliest contributions" for the account. These are obvious. I have to admit I learned something about the existence of that Greek holiday celebrating womanhood. That is interesting. I think English Wikipedia needs an article on Gynaikokratia. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with exploring subjects of a sexual nature. But I find problematic the scholarly tone when there is no hope of anything scholarly ejaculating from the topic of discussion. This question does seem acceptable to me. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the best you're going to do here is some sort of sociology text. Skimming through the The Evolution of Modesty ((I'll choose this older, and possibly obsolete, text because it's free on Project Gutenberg)) by Havelock Ellis (Check out his portrait. Guy looks intense.) it seems like the recurring theme is that ladies will instinctively cover whatever they think is getting unseemly attention. So the answer is that not only does it vary from culture to culture, but even from situation to situation. APL (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

According to cracked.com (yeah, I know: What a Reliable Source!) in the old days, a shy Chinese woman with bound feet would first cover up her scarred and gangrenous feet if a man she didn't know saw her naked. But American women today love to wear sandals so go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.203.80.27 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As suggested on the talk page, the OP's basic premise, if sincere, is seriously flawed. The folks in those holocaust photos are not likely covering their chests from modesty - but from self-protectiveness, hostility, defiance, etc. or reaction to cold temperatures for that matter. Although not sourced in Body language, it's a well-known element of body language. Their folding their arms was not out of modesty, it was a reaction to their perilous situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I see now that the issue is more complicated than I first thought. (I'd also like to apologize if my WWII reference seemed cold or insensitive—that certainly was unintentional on my part.)

I'm definitely going to read the book Sex and Sex Worship (1922) as well as Ellis's The Evolution of Modesty, and see where the topic leads from there!

———"The folks in those holocaust photos are not likely covering their chests from modesty - but from self-protectiveness, hostility, defiance, etc. or reaction to cold temperatures for that matter. Although not sourced in Body language, it's a well-known element of body language. Their folding their arms was not out of modesty, it was a reaction to their perilous situation."———

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Bugs. Now honestly, was that so difficult? Pine (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Pine—is this the sort of photo you had in mind? If so, does it look to you as though they are "…covering their breasts with their hands—seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes." Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not now that Baseball Bugs has cleared it up for me. (In case you missed my saying as much, it's just two posts above. BTW, this thread is now resolved, in case you missed that as well :) ). Pine (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pine—you say up above, to Baseball Bugs, "…was that so difficult?" I think the problem was not so much in the difficulty of the question but rather the impropriety of it.

Let me just say that there is this related discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk if you wish to weigh in with your thoughts there. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the first world live in luxury by keeping the third world down?

After travelling overseas last year I have been troubled by the massive amount of poverty in the third world. I understand that most of the third world's problems were brought about by Western imperialist meddling in the past, but is there more to it than that? Is the fact that only about 10 or 20% of the people in the world live in really wealthy, healthy countries a coincidence, or do we keep ourselves up there by keeping others down? For example, the computer I am writing this on was probably manufactured in China by a guy working in a sweatshop for a dollar an hour. Would it be theoretically possible, economically speaking, for everybody in the world to have a first-world standard of living? 123.243.54.85 (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in World Systems Theory, as well as Fair trade. Also, consider the ecological footprint if everyone in the world started to drive as many miles as Americans currently do. Nevertheless, many people believe that it is possible to Make poverty history. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here in Europe it is well known that the US consumes far more of its per capita share of natural resources than the rest of the world. So it would be impossible to have everyone in the world consuming the same per capita amount of resources as the US - you'd need several earths to supply it. But with more efficient technology it may be possible to raise the safety-net (or at least provide one in the first place) below which nobody should fall. 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

7 billion humans already consume more than one planet's worth of resources. Even if the population stopped growing and we lived within our means, a more equitable sharing of the Earth's resources would result in a massive drop in living standards in the first world. Rather than making poverty history it would mean lowering everyone into poverty. So no, it would not be possible for everybody in the world to have a first-world standard of living, unless there were dramatically fewer of us. Astronaut (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all right, in the rest of the world it is well known that Europe consumes far more than its per capita share of natural resources as well. I don't see any EU countries to the left of the vertical line in File:Human welfare and ecological footprint.jpg, do you? You should also be very careful in looking at tables like List of countries by energy consumption per capita. To take one example, Iceland's in second place on the list not because it is tremendously wasteful (though it is dark and cold and thinly populated, and this does have energy costs) but because of extensive natural resource extraction projects. Mining and smelting aluminum is particularly energy intensive and contributes heavily to Iceland's energy budget, even though the embodied energy in the finished product is shipped overseas. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason the USA and Europe consume "more than their share" of resources is because they can. As large populations such as India and China become more prosperous, their ability to consume more resources will increase, and pressure on the world's resources will become much more significant. At that point, trouble may arise. Of course, by then the Americans and Europeans who decided to build up those countries' economies will be long gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor countries are not poor because there are rich countries. If the rich countries stopped all trade and other interaction with the poor countries then almost everybody on both sides would become poorer. Many of the resources in the poor countries would not go to the poor instead of the rich. They would no longer be exploited because they wouldn't be worth exploiting without rich buyers and technology from rich countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the poverty-stricken countries around the world, I expect you'll find that most of them are dictatorships or cults of personality. The more prosperous countries appear to have a system of government rather than one-man rule. The question is, Which factor drives the other? Or is it a bit of both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1) China is getting rich off that $1 a day an hour the workers there get paid to assemble your computer. It may not sound like much to you, but that's a dramatic improvement for many there. As time passes, wages will rise, until they no longer have a competitive advantage due to lower wages.

Average factory wages are closer to US$15 a day, plus room and board. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

2) I won't say that democracy is necessary for prosperity, but some form of stable government is, as is capitalism. China didn't qualify as capitalist under Mao, but does now.

3) For the most part, poor nations were always poor. It's not like their wealth has been stolen by Western nations, unless you consider this to include "unrealized wealth", which existed as minerals, petroleum, etc. Unfortunately, the power structure in most of those nations means that any money paid for extracting those resources goes to the ruling class and doesn't filter down to the general population. Western companies could do more, though, to ensure that at least some of the money does make it all the way down. For example, they could build and staff schools for the locals. This could be a good PR move and hopefully also prevent them from being targets of rebels dissatisfied with their treatment by these companies.

4) Well-meaning but misguided charities seem to have contributed to the economic problems of the Third World. For example, in Haiti, following their massive earthquake, charities provided food, which they brought in, for free. This has the effect of destroying the local food production and distribution channels, as nobody will pay for Haiti-grown food when they can get it for free from the charities. A better approach would have been to give vouchers to Haitians, which they could then use to "buy" food from local merchants, who would then be reimbursed in cash. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Compassion sometimes overrides practical sense. The history of Haiti is a horror story. They were robbed both by empirialists and by their own "leaders", the Duvalier father-and-son team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued that the developed world's relative affluence is directly related to the relative poverty of the less developed world. Historically, that affluence is partly a consequence of poverty elsewhere. The affluence of Europe and the United States was originally built partly on the expropriation and enslavement of other parts of the world. The United States benefited enormously from the land and resources formerly occupied by the native American peoples, who were violently expelled and in some cases killed off. It also benefited greatly during its first century from the unpaid labor of enslaved Africans and their descendants. Europeans likewise benefited from the land, expropriated resources, and forced labor of conquered peoples in Africa and Asia. (Later Japan, for several decades, pursued a similar strategy in parts of Asia as well.) These processes contributed to the vast stock of capital that European nations and the United States accumulated. This stock of capital allowed Europe and the United States (and to a lesser extent Japan) to become the creditors of Latin America during the 19th century and of the rest of the less developed world when it gained independence in the 20th century. Right up until the last decade or so, the developed countries have enjoyed a steady stream of income from their investments in the less developed world, investments partly made possible by earlier expropriation and exploitation, and investments that generate a yield by siphoning off income from poorer countries. Meanwhile, colonial development policies and a shortage of capital in the less developed world forced many of those countries into relying on exports of resources and agricultural produce. Because five sixths of the world's population were competing to sell natural resources and crops to one sixth, this intense competition kept prices down and allowed the rich world to enjoy cheap food and industrial inputs. At the same time, those low prices kept incomes low in the poor world and made it difficult for the poor world to build up its own stock of capital, since any net income often had to be devoted to debt service. This cycle of debt dependency up until the past few years enriched the rich world at the direct cost of the poor world.

However, the world is changing. The growth of China and to a lesser extent India, along with other Asian and Latin American countries, is directly linked to a process of globalization in which firms based in the rich world have increasingly shifted capital to the developing world, in many cases reversing the trade balance, and enriching developing countries. In many of these countries, the bulk of the new money flows to a small elite, and globalization continues to rely on depressed labor costs for the much larger working classes of these countries. (These labor costs can be kept low by political repression such as in China, where the state prevents the formation of independent labor unions and violently opposes worker demands.) However, competition with the developing world is driving down relative incomes for working people in the rich world as well. As others have said, the Earth has a finite supply of resources, which is one reason why energy and commodity prices have been soaring in recent years. I think that a strong case can be made that the old world, in which exploitation had a substantial geographic dimension, is giving way to a new world in which exploitation is global and much more based on class than geography. In this new world, the lifestyle that we in the rich world have come to take for granted will likely increasingly be affordable only to those in a multinational global elite, while people who are not part of that elite will see their living standards fall to levels similar to those of Chinese workers. Marco polo (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another way to visualize this problem, is what would happen to Third World nations if they existed alone ? In a world where Haiti was alone on a giant planet-wide ocean, would it then become rich ? I'm rather skeptical. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Haiti is an interesting case. Before the arrival of Europeans, Haiti and the rest of Hispaniola were one of the most densely populated parts of the Americas. According to most Spanish accounts, its people were healthy, and although their technology was more or less neolithic, reasonably well off, in the sense that they did not seem to suffer want or famine. No doubt, life expectancies were low by our standards. There is no reason to think that this picture would have changed much if Hispaniola (or western Hispaniola) were cut off from the rest of the world. It probably would not have become rich, by our standards, but nor would its people be likely to face the kind of desperation Haitians face today. I would argue that their desperation today has everything to do with the processes I have described above. Of course, if you took present-day Haiti and isolated it from the rest of the world, you could expect dire results, but that's not an argument that its present state is unconnected to the enrichment of Europe and North America. Marco polo (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the title of this Q is "Does the first world live in luxury by keeping the third world down?". That seems to ask about current economic harm done to Third World nations, not harm done in the past. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess the answer is, at this very moment, not so much. My point was, however, that you can't understand the relative wealth disparity without understanding the history. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, with neolithic technology, wouldn't overpopulation still be a problem, leading to war, disease, starvation, deforestation, etc., since birth control would be unknown ? StuRat (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this seems not to have been such a problem. Neolithic populations seem to have been fairly stable. One reason was that women nursed children up until age 4 in many societies, and fertility is much suppressed in nursing women, lowering the birth rate. Another unfortunate reason for the stability of populations was infant mortality. Finally, sadly, the evidence suggests that infanticide was quite common in premodern societies. If a person felt they would have trouble feeding the baby, they might have quickly dispatched it. Intermittent warfare also kept the population down. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It still doesn't sound like a much better life than they have now. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the recent revolt, power vacuum, earthquake, flooding, and cholera epidemic, what desperation are you referring to? (Those things must all be excluded since they could have equally well happened hundreds of years ago, and can't be blamed on past contact with Europeans, except the cholera, but it could have been some other disease.) 213.122.28.108 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Im quite sure this is not the answer u wanted, but i just wanted to share how this could happen on a smaller scale. I am from a state in Malaysian Borneo. My state is relatively poorer in terms of per capita GDP as well as having a higher poverty rate compared to the rest of Malaysia. The main and largest port in Malaysia is Port Klang, located just about 30km out of Kuala Lumpur, the capital and, by far, the largest city in Malaysia. Undoubtedly, KL is a primate city with its inhabitants enjoying higher wages and better standard of living due to economic development in the capital. For about 27 years we have a policy called the cabotage policy which permits international ships carrying imported goods to enter the country via Port Klang only. The reason for this policy is to protect the interest of local shipping businesses and also to promote Port Klang into a premier southeast asian shipping hub. (i might be wrong about the 2nd part though). Due to this policy, international ships are either not allowed to dock at any east Malaysian ports or are subject to very expensive tax (duties, levies or whatever its called). As a result, the poorer people of east Malaysia have to pay more than their more affluent counterparts in KL or other parts of west Malaysia for imported goods. IMO, this problem can be remedied by abolishing this cabotage policy, perhaps at the expense of local shipping merchants. So it all boils down to political movements by interested parties. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think that pre-colonial Africa/Asia/America was some kind of bucolic paradise, may I suggest some movies and books to clear up that misconception. Last of the Mohicans (the 1992 film), Apocalypto, and in the way of books, White Slaves of Maquinna and Things Fall Apart. To summarize in two words: tribal warfare. Barbarism. Human sacrifice. Cannibalism (disputed). Headhunting. Rape. Massacres. Not quite the Arcadian ideal you may envision. Vranak (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The author of The Undercover Economist says that poor countries stay poor due to corruption. Corruption, suggests the author, has two bad effects. 1) it means donated money ends up with the rich, not into development as intended. 2) Time and money is wasted accomodating corruption, for example corrupt traffic police obtaining bribes means people prefer to travel when the roads are most crowded, etc etc.

My original research theory, based on my personal observation, is that bad organisations suppress or forbid feedback, in particular bad news. So the malfunctioning or non-working things never get put right. The worst operate within the realm of lip-service only, manipulating and rewarding people for maintaining the fiction or bubble of what those in power want to be said, including rewarding and promoting dishonest but syncophantic people (or sometimes just the deluded, misled, or complacent who believe in loyalty and kinship) to positions of power, and conversely punishing or discrediting the honest. The solution is to encourage loyalty to ethical and other standards, rather than to a person, and to have objective independent reports and MBWA to see things at first hand. As with bad organisationms, so with bad countries. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Does the first world live in luxury by keeping the third world down?" If you believe the world economy is a zero-sum game, then your answer is "Yes." If you don't, then the answer can be "No." DOR (HK) (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Another reason may be that the smart able people gravitate to countries with the best living conditions, and stear clear of the worst countries with all their problems. 92.15.14.4 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

American Chemical Society Accreditation

Is Carnegie Mellon accredited, with respect to undergraduate degrees? It's not listed on the American Chemical Society website, so I'm wondering, but it is a prestigious school (so I would think it would be accredited), and such accreditation is (I think) mentioned on the Carnegie Mellon website. 202.45.54.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Carnegie Mellon is a very well respected institution. [2] [3] should be quite sufficient. Collect (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Carnegie Mellon is perfectly accredited (by other agencies, but perhaps not ACS).See Council_for_Higher_Education_Accreditation, and List_of_recognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning#United_States. Basically, accreditation from a field-specific academic society such as ACS is not always a feature of a well-respected institution. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ACS acredited undergraduate degrees, IIRC (and it has been a few years) requires the institution to, among other things, teach a certain curriculum and students must pass ACS created standardized tests. I have a chemistry degree from an ACS-certified department (the University of Delaware) but there are, as noted, several well-respected departments which are not necessarily ACS accredited. This page has the requirments for a chemistry program to become ACS Approved program, as well as a list of them. I would say that, while ACS acreditation is a sign of quality, the lack of accreditation is not automatically a sign of a lack of quality. As noted, CMU is regularly cited as one of the best univeristies in the country, especially with regards to science and technology, so I can't see where a chemistry degree from CMU would be devalued merely for lacking ACS accreditation. --Jayron32 01:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "Is the chemistry program accredited?". Sorry for the confusion. 202.45.54.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

I don't know if it's still the case, but when I was in school some of my classmates in organic chemistry chose to take ACS standardized exams at the end of the year. This was wholly apart from our regular curriculum, an independent effort on their part. I presume (?) that doing so successfully, for some minimum collection of required exams, would give one individual certification by the ACS when one graduated from a four-year program. Our chemistry department was not, itself, ACS accredited, as far as I know.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this page, one can either choose to graduate with an accredited B.S. or an unaccredited B.A. NW (Talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, at my school they made all of the final exams the ACS-standardized tests, for wherever they were availible, so all chemistry department degrees were ACS-accredited BS degrees. --Jayron32 18:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a requirement per se that the ACS standardized examinations must be used. For example, MIT's chemistry degree, which is ACS-accredited, requires the student to take 5.111, Principles of Chemical Science, what I believe is analogous to general chemistry elsewhere. As taught in Fall 2008, it used entirely instructor written exams[4]. NW (Talk) 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

MIT has a number of required courses for a Chemistry degree - it is one of the most rigorous schools for any science, and the courses exceed ACS requirements by quite a bit. Collect (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

March 23

Mobile internet

this question is moved by the original poster toe the Computer ref. desk.

birthdays

My wife and I are over 60. I was born in June on a Thur., she in July on a Sat. How is it that now, our birthdays occur on the same weekday?198.50.63.15 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This can't happen - I think there must be a mixup concerning dates somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC),

I think the poster means that in 2011 (or any other year used for both birthdays) the two birthdays fall on the same weekday. This will happen whenever the number of days between them within the same year is a multiple of 7, for example June 30 and July 7, so there is a whole number of weeks between them. The weekday for a birthdate changes from year to year, because 7 doesn't divide 365 or 366. You must have been born in different years. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! On second thoughts, yes it can. As PrimeHunter states, if you were born in different years, for your birthday to fall on the same day now, your birthdays must have been on the same day of the week in the year the younger of you was born. (Unless I've got it wrong again...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it can easily happen if they were born in different years. It would have been helpful if the OP had given the actual dates and years, then the answer would have been obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether the poster was quoting a puzzle and not actually talking about himself. By the way, we have an article about calculating the day of the week. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

He could also use this nifty website,[5] which will produce a calendar for any year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that while the weekdays may have been different when they were born, the birthdays occurred on the same day of the week when (and since) the younger one was born Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow the first part of that, Nil Einne. It's only been since the birth of the younger person that there have been two birthdays to compare. But you're right: the two birthdays have always fallen on the same day of the week. It's a different day each successive year, but always the same different day for both birthdays. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant that while they may have been born on different days of the week, they have fallen on the same week day every year since the younger one was born (or if you want since there have been two birthdays as you said). In other words if the OP thinks about it, there's nothing really surprising here. Even without bringing two birthdays in to it, most people who recognise it in any way must know their birthday (or other consistent dates, anniversaries, holidays that fall on a defined date such as Christmas etc) doesn't fall on the same day of the week every year. So it follows that even if someone's birthday is the same day of the week as yours it doesn't mean you were both born on the same day of the week (unless you were born on the same year presuming your birthdays don't cross the February-March/leap day boundary). Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Red doors on churches

What is the significance of red doors on many churches, regardless of denomination?198.50.63.15 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did quite an extensive research here. There are a number of theories. The most common answer being that the color represents the blood of Christ which is the key to salvation for Christians. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

...or it's a replay of the blood-smeared doorposts of the Passover. Or the blood drinking ritual. There are plenty of bloody biblical references to choose from. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Or could it be that red paint was available and cheap?Froggie34 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This answer is so facile it disgusts me. If you're going to take the trouble to build a church, you are going to choose the right color -- especially for the door. 10 square feet? 20? Economics are not going to be a serious concern here. Gah! Vranak (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You assume that there is a "right color". Unless there is, I'd guess that whoever chooses the colour would pick it primarily for being cheaply available, and in line with their personal aesthetic preferences. Warofdreams talk 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's be reality. No one paints a door red for purely economic reasons. White or black or brown sure, but red? Just no. It has obvious religio-spiritual-emotional connotations. Vranak (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that supposition? Warofdreams talk 15:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about you go look at a red wall for ten seconds and see what you feel. There's your evidence. And if you can't find one, could it be because no one paints something red haphazardly, which is the original idea that I was so offended by. Vranak (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at google images, the percentage appears to be around 20%. Around the same percentage as for house doors. Synagogue doors appear about 10% red, mosques also about 20%. The unscientific sample does show that mosques are far more likely to have yellow doors (also around 20%) but the overall impression is that church doors are not especially likely to be a given color, meaning the null hypothesis holds - that the color is pretty irrelevant. Collect (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps connected with barns often being painted red in some countries: Falu red, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010_December_16#Why_are_barns_red.3F 92.24.179.207 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in another survey which took denomination (and country) into account. Some denominations are far more prone to keeping up traditions than others. Marnanel (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Popular on Episcopalian churches, due to association with England: [6], as well as Christ's blood. An Episcopal ref which mentions the red paint on barns: [7]. Episcopal red door: symbol of sanctuary, of Christ's blood, of the blood of the Passover Lamb: [8]. Again Episcopal: "If we paint the door red, people will be curious and come inside":[9]. An Episcopal church door, "red to keep the Devil out:" [10]. At the Cathedral of Notre Dame, in Victor Hugo's "The Hunchback," a red door led from the church to the cloisters: [11]. An Episcopal reference which says the door is red for the martyrdom of the Saints:[12]. There is an old joke about a visiting preacher who was mulling over what to preach on, when he noticed the church had a red door. He prepared a fine sermon about the red door tradition, the martyrdom of saints, the Blood of the Lamb, etc. Just before he was to give his fine sermon, the local church treasurer stood up and said "I'm sure you all noticed that I painted the church door red yesterday. And red it's going to stay until we raise enough offerings to make the mortgage payment. Now our guest preacher..." Edison (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the association with England. I've visited hundreds of English churches and I can't remember seeing one that was painted at all. English oak is the usual material for church doors over here - years ago there probably wasn't much else available to make a big door with. Church doors are often decorated with elaborate iron hinge-straps and fancy knockers and handles, but oak-coloured oak is de-riguer over here on churches ancient and modern[13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By coincidence I walked past a red-door UK church on my way home. The paint looked new. I think it was a church built in Victorian times so the door may have been pine rather than oak. I think pine used to be regarded as being inferior, so that may be why it was painted. A few days ago I noticed that another church had painted its notice-board red. It used to be some other colour. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of language translations of a book

Is there a database anywhere online which records the number a languages a book has been translated into? ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 02:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt it. Publishing databases are maintained by the ISBN agency responsible for each country or region. Although these databases are combined to form an international database, each language edition has its own ISBN, and in most cases a different title and a different publisher as well, so it's almost impossible to link them. However, the original publisher will usually keep records of the allocation of foreign language rights, so the information should be on their database. If you have a particular title in mind it would be best to ask them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, books are not required to have an ISBN or be registered in any sense. Self-published books, some small press books, older books, etc. can be ISBN-less. I've run across unauthorized translations of books as well, e.g., an online, Bulgarian translation of Barry Hughart's Bridge of Birds. This is something I've pursued as a researcher for specific titles, and so far the only way to find translations is to be stubborn and use a lot of different tools, such as OCLC's WorldCat. I usually search for everything by an author (including variants of the author's name if relevant) and browse through ALL titles listed. Even then, as large as WorldCat is, it's still an incomplete registry of what's available. Are you looking for translations of a single author or translations of a single work? Which specific author and/or which specific title? Knowing that I might be able to direct you to the appropriate available tools to answer that question. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Actually I am just looking for a general database for a nerdy purpose of compiling a list of books with the most number of language translations. Perhaps create a new article here, something along the lines of List of best-selling books or The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written (book). But im not sure if its practical, useful or notable enough for wikipedia. Otherwise i'll just be using such data for personal satisfaction. Worldcat seems like the best place to find such data, so far. Goodreads doesnt seem very complete and its a wiki so it might not be very reliable. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Length of the West Seattle Bridge

I a working on List of Seattle bridges and cannot find a length for the West Seattle Bridge. Any help would be great. Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for a rough estimate, it looks to be about 1200 feet from shore to shore, including the span over the island. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The West Seattle Herald published another article about the renaming of the bridge where it says the length is 2,607ft. It doesn't seem to be on their website, but is in the Nexis database (West Seattle Bridge honors Jeanette Williams, West Seattle Herald staff, 30 October 2009). It looks to be based on wire copy from the State News Service; I can send you a copy if you need it.--Kateshortforbob _talk 12:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God you rock. If you have the article you can shoot it to me through my email in the tool box it would be awesome. Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done :) --Kateshortforbob _talk 10:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tax and marriage

Hi, i just read the article Tax bracket and it seems like in the USA, married couples pay tax on their combined income that an individual making that total would pay. as a result, getting married inevitably puts you both in a higher tax bracket and makes you pay more. I always thought getting married was supposed to make you pay less, and you often even here of people getting married just to reduce taxes through some loophole. I even heard of obsurd scenarios where buisness partners try to pretend to be gay and get married in some places as a tax loophole. so how is this possible if getting married effectively cuts ur tax-exempt income in half and puts you in a higher bracket? one other question, if i did infact understand it correctly, doesnt getting married become a major tax burden that would make people AVOID getting married? whats the rational behind that anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto75780 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot give any tax advice here. The US tax laws have varied over the past few decades. Internal Revenue Service publication 501 for 2010 taxes says: "Married Filing Jointly: You can choose married filing jointly as your filing status if you are married and both you and your spouse agree to file a joint return. On a joint return, you report your combined income and deduct your combined allowable expenses. You can file a joint return even if one of you had no income or deductions. If you and your spouse decide to file a joint return, your tax may be lower than your combined tax for the other filing statuses. Also, your standard deduction (if you do not itemize deductions) may be higher, and you may qualify for tax benefits that do not apply to other filing statuses. If you and your spouse each have income, you may want to figure your tax both on a joint return and on separate returns (using the filing status of married filing separately). You can choose the method that gives the two of you the lower combined tax." Consult a qualified tax adviser, accountant, or tax attorney for any specific advice on your situation. Edison (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If only one of you is working, or only one is making a substantial income, there's an obvious advantage in that you get more personal exemptions from about the same income. Having children makes for even more deductions. That might have been the original rationale. If you're both working and making good money, it can still come out better than single, but it depends. The best advice is to figure it out both ways (joint vs. separate) and see which one works out better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is a fundamental conflict in combining the "business partnership" aspect of marriage with the religious aspects, by law. Thus you will get the situations you described. Marriage should be viewed as a purely social/religious affair, with no legal implications, so as to avoid the government deciding who can and can't get married. If the government then wants to grant the right to any pair of people to form a "business partnership", then they can do that. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Income tax in the United States doesn't really answer the question, but it has a number of links which might. Also note that certain aspects of the tax laws (capital gains, for example) are enormously advantageous to be married filing jointly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We actually have an article about this: Marriage penalty. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on tax brackets does not state that married couples filing jointly in the United States pay the same tax rate as a single individual with the same income. In fact, if you look at the brackets listed, you can see that married couples are taxed at about half the rate of individuals making the same income. The so-called marriage penalty is in fact an advantage for most couples. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Holding up trousers

Hi all, I have these pair of trousers that are slightly too loose at the waist for me. They don't have any bits of fabric to support a belt (think jogging trousers/sweatpants) and they are not elasticated so can't be pulled in. They also can't be tailored to take in the waist as the waist part of the trouser would be ruined. As I'm writing this, I did think of braces/suspenders, but I feel I am too young to wear these haha. Any idea? Thanks! --86.174.137.130 (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Exhange them for a pair that fits, or donate them to your local thrift shop, and buy a new pair that fits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)If you get suspenders, have the tailor or someone sew in buttons, rather than wearing the clip-on suspenders. Much cooler. What other fashion is a bit out of the ordinary, and favored by corporate executives, cartoon characters, rural geezers, mimes and clowns? Edison (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And doctors. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, you're in fashion already: [18]. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

1) Save them for if you gain weight.

2) Wear them around the house where you won't be self-conscious if they droop a bit.

3) Sew a shirt to them at the back, so the shirt will act like suspenders.

4) Wear them with thick long underwear, and/or over another pair of pants, in winter. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Or have the tailor add belt loops, or perhaps a cloth "channel" and a drawstring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had your problem! Swap you for mine? 92.4.35.114 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts: firstly, if the waistband is fastened with a button and buttonhole then simply move the button to the correct place. Also, if it fastens with a hook and eye, or press studs, then move one part to the correct place. Another thought: if there is no waistband (a style referred to I think as "grown-on"), you could take in the side seams. Just pinch in each of the sides by about a quarter inch and sew them up. Nobody is going to notice that - who's going to look in that detail at your waist? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving the button doesn't work very well, as it makes it fasten "off-center" and causes bunching below the button. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If that offends your aesthetic sense, then take the side seams in! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to be more seemly. StuRat (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Health and safety

I have recently quit smoking and would like to start living a healthier life style. I have not run anywhere in over 10 years, my fitness level must be zero. I would like to start swimming or running as I was quite a good swimmer in my teenage years. However I do not want to go to the local public swimming pool as I probably cant even do one length without passing out from exaustion, lol. I would like to run but probably cant run to the end of the street. How can I build up my fitness level gradually from home so that when I go to the gym and swim, I dont look like a fool that cant even get to the other side without gasping for air. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.144.75 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in the same position so have begun walking and cycling to build up my initial fitness and also my self esteem. Also do a few home exercises using say a Wii Fit Machine - Brilliant, and a Body Ball and Trunk Curler - quite cheap all of them. And do a bit of easy reserach on the internet and take advantage of all the free info. thereon. And then, join a club if you can afford it. You will be amazed at how far in front you are of the many other out-of-condition folk you will meet, and how friendly and supportive everyone is. Go for it and good luck. I joined 9 months ago and so far have gained 5 pounds!. 92.4.35.114 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the best thing would be for you to start by going for daily walks as a form of exercise. Every couple of days increase the distance and/or speed of your walk. On weekends, plan a longer walk, if possible involving a hill or two. Aim to keep up a good speed. If you have a bicycle, you can alternate walks with bicycle trips. If you can walk a mile (1.6 km) at a brisk pace, you will have the ability to swim several laps at a pool, if you know how to swim. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To address the "safety" side of your question's title, you should always consult a doctor before starting any type of exercise program. Good luck. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's something from the NHS which says it will get you from being a couch potato to running 5km or for half an hour in nine weeks. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/c25k/Pages/get-running-with-couch-to-5k.aspx What puts me off doing it is looking silly running along, particularly at the start. I hope the link and podcasts work outside the UK. 92.24.188.210 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

about.com has a similar 8 week programme to get you running. Those sorts of programmes work well if you're committed to doing it, reduce chances of injury or discomfort or disillusionment by doing too much too quickly, lack the 'embarrassment factor' of gyms...and are free. If you can't complete one week's goals...then repeat it the next. Good luck with it. Gwinva (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Today's British Budget

I watched the Chancellor, George Osborne, delivering his Budget today in the House of Commons. It took him about an hour to reveal the Coalition Government's revenue-raising and spending plans for the foreseeable future, including a few well-leaked tasty bits and not a few surprises, such as the fuel revenues. Immediately upon taking his seat, and following a few procedural remarks by the Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition Ed Milliband, rose to his feet and began an amazing attack on the Government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Budget, and even an ex-Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, who left office several governments and years ago. But the most amazing fact (to me) was that during his attack, he was reading from copious notes (about 21 pages of A4 carefully prepared and detailed notes) that left no doubt that he had seen a copy of the Budget document and had been given the opportunity for him and his advisors and analysts to reply and respond in the way that he did. So is it the case that the Leader(s) of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are given access to the detail of the Government's Budget Proposals before they are delivered in the House of Commons, and thus to the electorate, so as to allow them the chance to pre-prepare such an immediate and detailed response? If so, and maybe I am being somewhat naive here, such practices are disgraceful and would clearly lead to insider information being leaked to the big players in the money markets, to the ultimate detriment of the government's tax-raising plans. 92.4.35.114 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question directly, but I can make a few points. Australia inherited the Westminster system from the UK, and it operates a Budget Lock-up on the day of the Budget, in advance of the Budget Speech, which is always delivered at 7:30 pm. Certain journos are permitted access in order to prepare their post-Budget stories for later-night TV and the next morning's newspapers. There is no access for any politicians, and particularly not for members of the opposition.

Budget leaks are not unknown, but for an opposition to be reading from prepared notes to criticise government measures he's only just heard about is not a surprising political development, and we don't need to assume any sort of leak or privileged access for that.

I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in Australia these days many features of the forthcoming budget are announced by the government in advance. By the time the Budget Speech is actually delivered, there's usually little of any headline-grabbing interest left for the Treasurer to announce - it's all detail. It's a very far cry from the celebrated incident when a UK Chancellor of the Exchequer waved a sheaf of budget papers to waiting media while on his way in to the House of Commons chamber to deliver his budget speech: even though none of the media could possibly have seen what was in the papers, the Chancellor lost his job over it, on the grounds of breaching Budget confidentiality. Boy, they were tough in those days; but they've gone way too far in the other direction these days, in my view. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US it is standard procedure for legislators to be given copies of important documents before they are released. There is nothing underhand about this, it is simply recognized as the only way to allow people to respond intelligently to events. There is of course an agreement (not always respected) that the contents will not be leaked before the official event. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's very unlikely Miliband was given access to the text of the budget in advance. It's a famous thing in Westminster that one of the hardest tasks faced by the Leader of the Opposition is to respond to the budget on the spot without having seen it. The notes he was reading from would have been worked up by his advisors and consisted of their responses to the most likely scenarios. --Viennese Waltz 20:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That difficulty is recognised in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition gets his right of reply two nights later, when he's had time to digest the detailed contents of the Budget Papers. He will still usually criticise whatever he would have before he actually saw the papers, though. That's politics. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If Milliband didn't have any response at all then the Shadow Chancellor would have been accused of not doing his job. Nanonic (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, having worked opposite these Conservative MPs and followed the news continuously for the last few years, Mr Milliband and his associates would have already had a reasonable idea of the direction the government was leaning in. Meanwhile, perhaps the copious amount of notes refered to simply represents answers to a range of different proposals, and he was searching through to find those that were still relevant. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty much exactly what I already said above. --Viennese Waltz 10:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that if he had been following the news continuously for the last few years, he would be extraordinarily tired now, and allowances should be made.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I follow the news continuously, except that I take a nap when they have fluff news or sports or traffic or tell me about upcoming shows or celebrity gossip. I get plenty of sleep. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Continuously, except ...". That's like saying "Except for this very long list of failings, I'm perfect".  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

March 24

What was a "martin box" ?

Hello, referents ! I see on some old (circa 1910) photos taken in some remote parts of USA  : a box (about 10x10x15 in.) standing on the top of a pole which I think may be a telephone or telegraph pole. The legend of the photo, somewhat sibylline, says that "it is a martin box". What was that box ? (WP sends back to "Martin Bax" , your archives don't know it...). Thanks a lot for your answer 90.52.66.62 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Google tells me that these are just bird boxes for Purple Martins. There are a number of examples of the various box types on Commons and on the wider internet. Nanonic (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This result from Google Books suggests it is a bird box of some kind. DuncanHill (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

More information here. Googling suggests that they were (or are) encouraged in order to reduce the numbers of mosquitoes, which they eat. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What an excellent idea - if Massachusetts were free of mosquitoes it would be almost fit for human habitation! DuncanHill (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, it is an urban myth that they eat mosquitoes. CS Miller (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

They do eat mosquitos, but not as much as advertisers of martin houses would claim. Here's reliable source of 13 interesting 'unique' things about martins: [19] , which says

" The numerous studies that have been conducted on martin diet reveal that it prefers larger, more energetically-rewarding, insects such as dragonflies, damselflies, butterflies, moths, grasshoppers, katydids, mayflies, cicadas, beetles, flies, wasps, midges, and flying ants. In most of these diet studies, not even a single mosquito was found in the martins' stomachs. But when they were found, they comprised less than 3% of the martin's diet"

Note that martins will eat many insect pest species, but also some beneficial ones. If your goal is mosquito management, there are better ways to do it. But martins can put a serious dent in the insect population of the area, which can benefit your garden, and provide much entertainment and beauty for your yard. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything that is pretty and eats flies, wasps, midges and flying ants is a Good Thing. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

...except that they still poop. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's good luck when a bird craps on your head. DuncanHill (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

One factor to keep in mind is the balance of nature theory. Specifically, the predators won't eradicate the prey, they'll merely keep its numbers down somewhat. If the predators eradicated the prey, they would either starve to death or move elsewhere. If you're interested in eradication, try a bug zapper. Don't try it on me though; I'm resistent to charge. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But, to extend the theory further, anything which threatened the species with eradication would put extreme evolutionary pressure on it to adapt to survive. Thus, if bug zappers ever wiped out a significant portion of the insect population, they would learn evolve an instinct to avoid them. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To extend the theory far too much, if human intelligence threatens an insect species with extinction, they will evolve the ability to out-think us. 213.122.21.4 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. A defense need not be the same as the attack. For example, reproducing quickly is an effective defense against many attacks. StuRat (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Careful, StuRat - statements like that are easily misinterpreted as teleological. If something threatened a species with eradication, either it would be eradicated, or some individuals would escape. If their escape was in any way connected with some particular trait they had (as opposed to pure chance) then their escape would itself be selection for that trait, and the species would evolve. "Learning" probably does not come into the picture. --ColinFine (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like the word "learn", we can say "evolve an instinct" instead. Change has been made. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not teleological but lamarkist. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They can't really evolve something they don't have. But if some small percentage of the mosquitoes had a tendency not to be attracted to bug zappers, eventually the only mosquitoes left in the neighborhood would be the ones that tend to avoid them, thanks to the humans having inadvertently implemented Artificial Selection. (All the better for birds that like them fresh rather than fried.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing can evolve anything it doesn't already have, then I suppose you and I are both still single-celled organisms. :-)

I assume you meant that it can't quickly evolve a new trait, in which case, I agree. However, an extremely rare trait, perhaps one that only occurs due to an occasional mutation, can quickly become the majority trait, when a species is under extreme pressure. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. True on all counts. It's in no small part, a function of the reproductive cycle's frequency. We've seen how quickly new strains of viruses and bacteria come along. Your average elephant species, though, can't evolve overnight to adapt to a radically changed environment. And your typical squirrel still has not figured out that it can't outrun a car. Insects reproduce quickly, but if they don't already have some genetic capability for some desirable trait (desirable for them, not necessarily for us), then acquiring that trait could take quite awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, Bugs: introduction of natural predators is unlikely to eradicate prey. However, fair warning-- the 'balance of nature' concept is simplistic and vague at best, and often misleading or wrong, depending on the system. Note the many criticisms described in our article. In short, modern empirical findings, theoretical ecology and population dynamics find very little evidence of the 'balance of nature' (i.e. in terms of stable equilibria) that our article describes. See e.g. succession_(ecology) for a wide class of example systems that are clearly not at equilibrium. This thread is pretty far off-topic by now, so if anyone wants to further discuss 'the balance of nature', please start a new question or drop by my talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No question that "balance of nature" is simplistic. Nature is never "stable". Stability would be more like an "average" situation, for example some sort of approximate ratio between prey and predators. The practical effect of artificial selection is seen in, for example, the American deer population. A deer hunting season is not only a recreational sport, it's necessary for keeping the deer in check, thanks at least in part to humans having eradicated natural predators such as wolves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If humans didn't hunt them, the population would be controlled by starvation, disease, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why they're allowed to be hunted. In effect, humans have replaced the natural predators. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hair Dryer power

While shopping for a new one recently, I noticed that all models among all manufacturers have the same power rating: 1875 watts. Is there something magical about that figure? I looked at about 20 different models in a variety of stores, and found no model with higher or lower wattage. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1875 watts is (near enough) 15 amps at 125 volts; in other words, it's the maximum current that the hair dryer can draw on an ordinary household circuit with a 15-amp circuit breaker or fuse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But what about the UK where we have 240 volts and 13 Amp Fuses on most of our appliances (except lower wattage ones of course)? Hence I can use a 3 Kilowatt heater with no danger. 92.4.46.33 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The OP doesn't live in the UK? No one said 1875W hair dryers were the norm in the UK. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The original poster identifies himself as living in the United States on his user page (I checked before I replied), so I used values appropriate for U.S. household wiring. As the IP notes, household appliances in the UK can draw more power from standard outlets; among other things, the UK consequently enjoys faster-boiling electric kettles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Overpowered hair dryers get lawsuits from people without common sense. 3Kw would fry your head fairly quickly. Collect (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediums and Psychics

Why are these con artists not prosecuted for taking money off people under false pretences? Mo ainm~Talk 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The usual justification is that they are "just entertainment", and not presenting themselves as really knowing the future. At least that's what they claim when the authorities come for a look. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never been to see one but is that what they claim it is for entertainment? Mo ainm~Talk 23:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been very entertained by them. I am sure there are people who take them all seriously, but there are people who take all conspiracy theories seriously, too. Bielle (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, like with professional wrestling and with newspaper horoscopes, which are both humbugs also. Or weather forecasters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen ads for their "services" and never a disclaimer that it is just for entertainment. Mo ainm~Talk 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Even true believer Hans Holzer once displayed a well-done sense of humor by admitting that, "Good mediums are rare." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In the UK all TV and theatre shows purporting to show 'real' mediums or psychics doing their thing will have a disclaimer to avoid prosecution. This stems from the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 (which incidentally repealed the Witchcraft Act). Nanonic (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

...and was (as the link tells) itself repealed in 2008. Under the applicable EU consumer protection legislation, a purported witch is exonerated if she demonstrates that she really can fly a broomstick. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

_{Oh please. Why use the Ref Desk to display your ignorance?} --TammyMoet (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I dated a witch once. She turned me into a newt! :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly a trap. EU has no provisions for unlicensed ultra-light aircraft like USA does. The witch would obviously be nabbed for flying without proper license and registration. APL (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a sweeping statement about a brush with the law. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I bristled when I read that pun. BTW, if a dwarf psychic is given a large gift from a client, would that be a "small medium with a largess" ? StuRat (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, any midget fortune tellers who have been prosecuted and escaped would become "Small mediums at large" Worm^TT · (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And the boy gets a cigar! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See Cassadaga, Florida Collect (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your date Bugs, I hope the spell wears off real soon. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I eventually got better. And I got revenge. She failed the duck test. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, and I'm no believer in these things, that a lot of people go to mediums and psychics to feel better (that their dead parent doesn't hate them, for example, or that nothing bad is going to happen in the future). In this regard, they are quite successful, and not at all frauds. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But what happens when something bad does inevitably happen to them down the track? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's where this rather unsettling Chinese fortune cookie item comes in: "A psychic will lead detectives to your grave." :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They find excuses for it, and probably don't feel any worse, in fact, they probably turn to their trusty medium or physic psychic in this time of need. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that physic is a medicine or drug, especially a cathartic or purgative; or the art or profession of healing disease; medicine. Somewhat different from psychic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo, yeah. I meant Psychics, obviously. Too much physics.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

March 25

Which country offers the easiest scholarships

I would like to study abroad that's why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.129.82 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For understanding "abroad" here, the OP is located in the USA. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The US Army and Navy have study programs, though their visits abroad are not exactly holidays. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By "easiest", do you mean least work, or least academically challenging ? StuRat (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Both. The least work and least academically challenging —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.24 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would reccomend a place where at least you are fluent in their language, which might narrow the list down a little. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You should look for U.S. universities with strong "study abroad" or student exchange programs. The University of Delaware, where I went to school, has one of the oldest and most extensive study abroad programs in the United States, there are literally dozens of groups placed in univeristies around the world at any one time, either during regular school semesters or during the University's summer or winter break. My wife did one in Bayreuth over a winter one year, and it was easily one of her best experiences in college. Many UD students will, if they can afford it, do multiple study abroad sessions over their college careers; while many of the programs are focused on the language and culture of the place where they are located (my wife, a German minor, studied german literature while in Bayreuth), there are many others which have science and technology, or social science, or just about any focus you want. There are many other colleges and universities which offer similar programs; check around and do some research; I am only really familiar with the UD one, but you can likely find many others. --Jayron32 17:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

At what level do you wish to study? Do you want to study for a degree? Or something less advanced? --Tango (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A Masters degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.24 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you actually want to enroll in a degree program outside the U.S. and receive funding for your study outside the U.S., then you will need to choose a country in whose language you are proficient and, more importantly, you will need to be a stellar applicant, because in most countries financial support is largely or entirely reserved for citizens. Funding may be available for very strong external applicants. Do you speak any languages other than English? I ask because graduate programs in other English-speaking countries are typically as rigorous as those in the United States (which of course vary greatly in rigor). Marco polo (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note the comment on language isn't entirely true. A number of countries where English is not the native language offer some postgraduate programmes where the language of instruction is entirely in English (so proficiency in the local language is not required). I know there are some in Japan [20] [21] and South Korea [22] [23] [24] and China [25]. This is quite common for MBAs and similar as you may notice but I believe (and as shown in some of the refs) also for some of the sciences. I believe some European countries also have postgraduate programmes in English e.g. Sweden [26]. And of course in some/many? former Commonwealth countries even though the native language/s and language of instruction in schools is not English often have most postgraduate programmes in English. I know this is the case in Malaysia (where actually most undergraduate programmes are in English too) but I believe it's the same for India and probably Nigeria and others as well. Of course not all of these have necessarily set up for export education so you may still have difficulty (in Malaysia even most public universities are now targetting the export education market to some extent so I presume you will generall be fine with only English). (I'm not including Singapore because the main language of instruction even in most schools there is English.) Not commonwealth but Saudi Arabia also has their King Saud University where I believe English is used in most subjects. and I've seen them advertising for students in New Scientist. I think some of the other Arab or 'Middle Eastern' countries are similar e.g. the UAE. (Whether you want to go to any of them at the current time may be a different matter.) Note that I'm not suggesting this as a course of action. For example how well you will be able to survive in said countries without any understanding of the native language will depend on several things including what country. Also I do concur with one of Marco polo's other points, in many countries getting a scholarship if you aren't a local is difficult, particularly for Masters where from my experience scholarships (particularly full fee paying with living expenses ones tend to be rarer (compard to PhD ones) anyway. Although it sounds like the OP was more interested in easy scholarships than easy degrees I would note while it may be easier to get a Masters in some institutions the merit of a Masters, if no one recognises it and if you wrote a thesis anyone reading it will laugh, is questionable.... Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you already have an undergraduate degree or you have taken any courses in the pursuit of one, then you should visit your school's counseling office to talk with a counselor about scholarships they know of that you can apply for, and what you should do to prepare for doing so. The guidance of an expert will get you much better information than we can give you here. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The classic answer is a Master's program in the Nordic countries. Norway, Finland, and Iceland still provide tuition free graduate programs in English to any foreign student who is admitted. I believe work permits are also issued.

Mailingliste (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Don Pedro

We do not seem to haave an article on Don Pedro, a dessert drink that I often have ion South Africa, it is made from ice cream and liqure of some sort I would like to know how to make these and any other info, please help. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Typing "South African Don Pedro recipe" into Google gets you like 100 hits. See here: [27]. --Jayron32 17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lavender oil and hydrosol

I've given up, I've scoured the internet and I can't really find the answer to this. Even going through conversions to try and get pounds to gallons... (nope) I've been doing research on how lavender is distilled, and I'm trying to figure out how much of both oil and hydrosol I would produce if, say, I started with one hundred pounds of prepared flowers. The best hint I can find is 3ml of oil from 1.5l of hydrosol - how accurate is this as a benchmark? Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The article on lavender (lavande: [28]) in the French wikipedia has some figures. The percentage of oil obtained varies from 1.8% to 0.2% depending on the species of lavender used. There's a more complete table in this article: [29] --Xuxl (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that 2% of a gallon? The tables more look like what molecules the oil constitutes of... Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, the second link is about chemical composition. But the percentages in the first one are the mass-to-mass ratio you can obtain. Ie for 1 kg of lavender you'll get 10 to 2g of oil depending on the species of lavender used. Pleclown (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

March 26

chemisrty

what is the density of mercury if a 25.0 mL sample has a mass of 338.35g ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.199.217 (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just divide the mass by the volume, to get the answer in g/mL. Did you want it in some other units ? StuRat (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

13,534 g/L or 13.543 g/mL. --ImitationIsSuicide (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Do Europeans round differently ? StuRat (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The second value is misprinted by ImitationIsSuicide. It should be 13.534 g/mL. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Should be 13.5 anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I got 1,148,422,883,210,000 trillion terratons per cubic lightyear. Googlemeister (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dishwasher

I didn't realize that one of my little darlings, in a sincere effort to help, put regular dish soap into the dishwasher before I turned it on. Now it's filled with soap suds and doesn't appear to be draining. How big of a problem is this and what should I do? I don't know how much soap was put in. Any suggestions?InspectorSands (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have to do a few rinses to get out all that froth. If you use normal soap as well you will likely make the froth disappear. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the results of a Google search say to empty the machine, remove as much of the suds as you can, put in some salt and vinegar, and run a rinse cycle. Open and repeat. Dismas|^(talk) 04:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2Perhaps put down a tarp on the floor and open the door. That should keep the mess conatained, if it really isn't draining. If it does not look right after being cleaned up a bit, you may want to to call a dishwasher repairman, to come and look at it. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll run it run through one or two times, then try the salt and vinegar. Why do I want fish and chips all of a sudden?InspectorSands (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think those are supposed to reduce the suds so they can drain out. If there's a cycle that only drains without stirring things up so much, that would help too. Perhaps you can use that drain cycle, then pour fresh water in yourself, then repeat the drain cycle, until the suds clear. Of course, remove all the suds you can with a bucket first. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Or a wet vac. Dismas|^(talk) 06:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Help to find missing CNN or BBC News animation

A couple of days ago i was watching a very well explained online animation which summarized radiation health risks and ways how radioactive contamination can happen, whether ingested or inhaled, all of this to be easier to understand for the average guy.

The animation also included a brief explanation regarding contanimation on soil and water. However i lost the link. Do anyone has seen it as well?. I can't remember where i seen it, if it was made by CNN or BBC News.

Anyone who can help me? where to find this animation?. Is there any way to get an older version of this page?. Before March 22 [30], it has been updated recently, but maybe the animation was taken out some days ago to expand the text. Have anyone noticed it? HappyApple (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested on my issue. I found the animation i was talking about.

THE animation is not from CBS neither BBC, but AP associated press, under the title of Japan disasters: No quick fix at nuclear complex. And it can be seen on CBS News website. [31] at the bottom of the page.

I tried to find a copy of that story on AP website but its no where to be found. Anyone could give me a hand on this?. HappyApple (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Eliots of Saint Germans and Eliots of Lostwithiel

What if any is the relationship between the The ELIOTS of Port Eliot and the ELIOTS of Lostwithiel, in Cornwall.Christopher Mark Eliot (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the reference to "Saint Germans" in the header about? You didn't ask about that place in your question. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Port Eliot in St Germans, Cornwall, is the seat of the Eliot family.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - Port Eliot is the manor house of St Germans. It's in the middle of the village - local knowledge, my father was born about 5 miles away. Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Me again. As Lostwithiel is only 20 miles away by road, it's possible that they are one and the same family. A quick scan through the 1841 Census for Lostwithiel (Enumeration Districts 4 & 5) fails to show any Eliots or Elliots living in the town at the time - perhaps they were all in their nice house at St Germans? Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are twin size beds (USA) called "twin" size?

Why are twin size beds (USA) called "twin" size? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Originally "twin" meant a matching pair of single beds. Now each one is frequently (mis) called a "twin bed". This is true in Canada, as well as in the U.S. Bielle (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can have a single twin (person), why not a single twin bed ? StuRat (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good logic. As Victor Borge used to say "My children are twins - both of them". But it was always a bit silly to call inanimate objects "twins". It wasn't as if they they had the same parents - whatever the "parent" of a bed could possibly be. One could spend some time considering whether a pair of "twin beds" were identical or fraternal, but it wouldn't be a particularly good use of one's time. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a common term for matched inanimate objects, such as "twin bookends". StuRat (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You could have a single twin bed, assuming it had once been half of a matching pair. I haven't heard the usage "twin bookend", however, for just one visible piece of furniture. Usually, the word just refers to what is better termed a "single" bed. And for Jack, the parent of a twin bed is clearly la cama matrimonial, sometimes shortened to la matrimonial in the Mijas area of southern Spain. Bielle (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That would have worked back in the 1950s and '60s, when, at least according to Hollywood, married couples slept chastely in separate beds, albeit in the same room. There were 2 parental beds in that case. Very proper; we're constantly being told children need both a father figure and a mother figure. But now, there's only one parental bed. So these twin beds obviously come from broken homes because they can name only one of their parents. Very likely the parents weren't married either, so we have lots of bastard twin beds. How dreadfully our standards have slipped.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There are triplets in music. For the words twin and triplet, there is this question: Which came first, the general meaning "one of a set of [two; three] similar items", or the genetic meaning "one of a set of [two; three] offspring born together"?

—Wavelength (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, music has triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets and so on - but not twins. They're called duplets. There must have been some notable composers who had twins, and I wonder if they called them "twins" or "duplets". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The earliest citation in the OED for "triplet" is from 1656, meaning tercet. The musical and multiple-birth meanings appear in 1786 and 1787, respectively. Quadruplet appears first for multiple-births, in 1781, in more general use as a set of four things in 1795, and not in musical use until much later. Quintuplet appears in 1795 for a set of five things, then for multiple births in 1860, and in music in 1873. In short - for triplets, the set meaning came first; the others arose by generalisation from that and entered use in different orders. Warofdreams talk 13:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

franklin wordmaster help

I bought a franklin wordmaster wm-1200 many years ago. It's now wearing out, I need to know if there is somewhere I can send it to have it repaired. I am 67 and not to use to a computer. I thought I could just look up Franklin computer corp. and find out this easy question, but I'm not even sure this is where I should be asking this question. Could you please help me in this matter. I have used the Language Master all these years to try and help me keep my mind sharp and for many hours of fun doing crossword puzzles and other puzzles, and looking up how to spell words that I now forget as I get older. There are other types out there, but they are to small for me, this one is large. Besides I can't afford the new types of hand held gadgets, and I doubt I could figure out how to use them.

If I somehow do get an answer from you, I hope I can find it, this has been so confusing just to find a place that might help me.

Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.166.72 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's really an antique nowadays (dating from around 1988), and even if you can get it repaired, it is likely to cost you quite a bit of money. You probably will have better luck getting a replacement. If you don't want to buy a newer model, you can always look for used ones at online auction sites -- I notice for example that there is currently one up for bid on Ebay, at this page. There is always some risk in buying things on Ebay, but I think it is the only reasonable approach here. (This situation is sort of like asking how you can replace a 1961 Ford Mustang that is wearing out -- it requires a bit of initiative.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And, in case you are willing to try new things (which also helps in keeping the mind sharp), it's easy to use a computer to check spelling. Here's two ways:

1) In a web browser, like the one you are using to edit here, go to Google (type in www.google.com at the top), then type "define XXX", without the quotations, where XXX is the best you can do to spell the word you want. If you're right, the definition should pop right up. If that's the definition for another word, try something else. If it says "Did you mean..." near the top, with a different spelling, then pick on that suggested spelling to see if the definition for that matches. It might also automatically correct what you spelled.

2) Go to a word processing program, like Microsoft Word, type in the word the best you can, then hit the spellchecker button. It's usually something like ABC with a check mark. If you didn't spell it right, it should list similar words to the one you mispelled. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in similar equipment on offer by Amazon (click here). They all seem to have proper keyboard layouts and not the A to Z sequential keys you have become used to. Prices vary significantly, as they come with a wide variety of functions, most of which may not be useful to you. Click here to go to the website of Franklins. It allows you to find a retailer in your area. There are some 6 shops in Corona, CA, so one of these may be in your vicinity. Good luck. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Olympics

Roughly, about how wide would a typical Olympic stadium be? Perhaps one designed to hold around 80-100,000 people. I can't seem to find the measurement in the related articles. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Stadium (London) says that the exterior diameter of the 2012 stadium (80,000 seats) is 900 metres. Depending on the exact shape, I suppose that means a width of about 250 metres and a length approaching 400 metres. Maybe - maths is not my strong point!. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean interior dimensions (length and width) ? StuRat (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article says the exterior circumference is 900 m. So the length would be nearer to 200-250 m. Sussexonian (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite right - my apologies. However, if it were circular, that would make the width (diameter) 286 metres (900 / 3.142). As it's a sort of elipse, the width would be less than 286m and the length would be more, wouldn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the map the London stadium is about 250 x 200 metres. But the BBC page here (which repeats the 900m circumference detail) has a good image of the stadium showing it is wider at the top than at ground level — so the two may not be incompatible. Anyway for the OP's question maybe someone can look at Beijing or an earlier one. Sussexonian (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea - the Beijing National Stadium or "Bird's Nest" is 330m long by 220m wide. So about the same as the London one, but it seats 91,000. Alansplodge (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Crop circle size

Also, related question, what sort of size would be considered particularly large for an American crop circle? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The size[32] can vary from circles of just a foot or so across ('grapeshot'), to designs covering many hundreds of feet.A crop circle researcher writes that they have increased in size, some occupying areas as large as 200,000 sq ft. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Smelting ..

Is Smelting A Furnace For Melting Ore In Order To Get Metal Out Of It . HarryPotterNot (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for the definition of smelting ? See smelting. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Owner Financing a Home

What are the risks associated for the BUYER when purchasing a home where the seller finances? For example, what happens if the seller were to file bankruptcy? Could the property somehow be repossessed since it is an asset owned free and clear by seller? Could any other type of failed financial relationship allow the subject property to be placed under lien? **I should note am not seeking legal advice in any way. This is simply a hypothetical question stemmed from an entirely hypothetical scenario I just made up in my head.** Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.160.89 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two ways to sell a home, whether owner financed or bank-financed:

1) The house is sold immediately to the buyer, who then owes any unpaid portion to the mortgage holder. This is the most common arrangement, by far. In this case, the financial obligations of the seller are irrelevant, except that they may sell the mortgage to somebody more ruthless in foreclosing on properties in default. But, still, the buyer would have to fail to pay to lose the house.

2) The house isn't sold up-front, but rather only after all (or many) payments have been made. In this case, the financial circumstances of the seller are far more important, as their bankruptcy would result in the house being split up among creditors, you included. So, you may get it, or some value from it when it's sold, but probably not 100% of what you paid.

However, in either case, it may be more important for the buyer to have good records of payments made, as a private seller might be more likely to lose their records and/or deny a payment was made, in court. So, no payments in cash with just a handshake. Also note that there could be pluses to owner-financed mortgages. If, for example, the seller dies and their heirs (if any) don't bother to collect, you may get a bargain. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you elaborate a little on WHY the "financial circumstances of the seller are irrelevant" in option one? Is this simply because the property has been sold and is therefore no longer theirs, aside from owning the mortgage against it? When filing bankruptcy wouldn't then the mortgage be seized by the powers that be? Sorry if I'm missing the big picture here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.160.89 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the mortgage would need to be sold to help pay their financial obligations, but that just means that the buyer would have to pay somebody else, they would still own the home, as before. Since the seller no longer has any legal claim to the home, except for the mortgage, they can't sell it to pay their debts, and neither can the courts. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I take it this is a US hypothetical scenario. because it wouldn't apply in the UK.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What's different there ? StuRat (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the seller providing the financing for a house sale in the UK. We go to banks for our mortgages. I can't see the advantage of the seller providing the loan. --Tango (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are "vendor take back" mortgages in Canada. However, as with any mortgage in Ontario, the title changes hands at the closing date of the sale. The mortgage, whether held by a bank or a private person, is a financial agreement with the real property as the surety for repayment of the purchase loan. The only instance in which a mortgagee can repossess the real property is if the purchaser defaults on the mortgage payments (given notices, time to cure, and all that). So, if the vendor holds the mortgage and itself goes bankrupt, the purchaser's only obligation is to continue to make the agreed payments to whomever the trustee in bankruptcy directs. The advantage to the seller in providing the loan is that the sale may not close without it. If the purchases is someone who cannot otherwise qualify for a bank mortgage (age, newcomer to Canada, lack of regular, provable income), but the seller knows the risk of default is small (newcomer has substantial, provable assets offshore, purchaser's youth is offset by seller's knowledge of her family, purchaser is an entrepreneur with a hot, new business). The seller may also have a need for the down-payment cash now, and is prepared to take some risk on the rest to ensure an early closing. Bielle (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March 27

slumdog millionaire scene location

In the movie slumdog millionaire, there is a scene where there are 3 toilet shacks placed on the edge of what seems like a cliff with a scenic view in the background which looks like a sea and river delta. This was just before when young Jamal jumped into the shit to catch amitabh bachchan. Does anyone know exactly or approximately which part of mumbai the shot was taken? ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 07:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

English words starting with Q but not qu

Is there any non-proper word in the English language starting with q but not qu (besides "Q")? Albacore (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What does "non-proper" mean? You'll also have to think about just what counts as an "English word". Many words borrowed from Arabic are spelled without the u, like qanat. Staecker (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the words listed on Wiktionary, yes.--Michig (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See also our article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

proper adj. (grammar) Used to designate a particular person, place, or thing. Proper words are usually written with an initial capital letter. [from 14th c.] Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect Albacore means a word that isn't a proper noun. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's a tuna fish. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Inuktitut often has initial "q" without "u", so a good Canadian dictionary might help. The first word that comes to mind is "qiviut", wool made from muskox down. --NellieBly (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If the answer must comply with Scrabble(c) rules, then QABALA (occult or secret doctrine, variation of CABALA); QABALAH (variation of CABALA, QABALA); QABALAS (plural of QABALA); QABALAHS (plural of QABALAH); QADI (Islamic judge); QADIS (plural of QADI); QAID (a Muslim tribal chief or senior official); QAIDS (plural of QAID); QANAT (gently sloping underground tunnel for irrigation); QANATS (plural of QANAT)' QAT (leaf of the shrub Catha edulis); QATS (plural of QAT); QI (a circulating life energy in Chinese philosophy); QIS (plural of QI); QINDAR (Albanian currency, variation of QINTAR); QINDARKA (plural of QINDAR); QINDARS (plural of QINDAR); QINTAR (Albanian currency); QINTARS (plural of QINTAR); QIVIUT (musk-ox wool); QIVIUTS (plural of QIVIUT); QOPH (19th letter of the Hebrew alphabet); QOPHS (plural of QOPH); QWERTY (the traditional configuration of computer keyboard keys); and QWERTYS (plural of QWERTY). DOR (HK) (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Smelter ..

Is Smelter Like Smelting .. HarryPotterNot (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As we said before, see our article on smelting. Your question doesn't make sense. If you're not a native speaker of English, you might want to browse through the list here to find a language you're more comfortable with; some of them also have desks where you can ask questions. Matt Deres (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No It Is Okay But Thank You . I AM A Native Speaker Born In Canada. You May Well Say I Am In Grade 6. HarryPotterNot (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And a "smelter" is used in "smelting", yes. StuRat (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you learn to start every single word with a capital letter? That only applies with the titles of songs or movies or books, and even then there are exceptions. In normal writing, the only places capitals are required are:

• the first word of a sentence
• proper nouns, like Canada
• the pronoun I. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget O, used as a marker for the vocative case. You might reasonably say that that's not "normal writing", at least not normal contemporary writing, but it was explicitly included in a text I used in high school. --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, O Master. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a simple article about metallurgy that explains the purpose of smelting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

'Smeltings' is a fictional school in the Harry Potter books. The word is almost certainly taken from the metal-processing term smelting, which involves smelters. This is one of the ways J.K. Rowling suggests that the school is boring (unlike the creative magic of Hogwarts), is linked to Mr Dursley (who sells drill bits, which are made of metal that will have needed smelting), and perhaps reflects the old idea of a public school (an old private school where children generally stayed and boarded, like Harry does at Hogwarts) as completely changing and processing the child into a fine, upstanding adult. This process was generally harsh, reflected in the 'smelting' metaphor. 86.164.69.241 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The OP is a block-evading sock of 173.178.93.250. Or at least was. He's now blocked also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Data entry

Hi. Are temporary data entry-based employment positions typically offered on gender preference, ie. the position is usually taken by females, or vice versa? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, that would illegal. I think the same in true in most western coutries (I don't know about the rest of the world). --Tango (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean whether they use gender profiling formally. I'm asking whether data entry is usually a female-centric job. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

3 foods that don't go together

I was given a puzzle that I can't solve. The challenge is to find 3 foods, none of which go together. For example, everyone knows that ice cream and roast chicken together does not work. Now I must find one food that does not go with roast chicken, neither with ice cream. Can anyone else think of three examples of such food? --Porelmundo (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a tomato soup and ice-cream sandwich? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What happens if you eat one right after another anyway? Do you puke like if you drank Bourbon with Vodka? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that most of the pairs you think of are on either side of the sweet/savory divide. Since generally sweet things are considered not to go with savory things, it's easy to come up with such parings. (Note that not all such combinations are considered bad - some are even classics, like sweet and sour pork or American turkey and cranberry sauce.) Once you have three items, you have to find an additional opposition to split, so that each pair falls on either side of some dividing line. I might suggest strong flavored versus delicate. So you might have blue cheese (strong & savory), oysters (delicate & savory) and chocolate syrup (sweet). - Now that I say that, though, there will probably be someone who points out some restaurant which serves a marvelous gorgonzola and chocolate oyster gratin. -- 174.24.203.209 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Taste is incredibly subjective, and varies a lot not only from culture to culture, but also from individual to individual, so there is really not any conclusive answer to the OPs question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The question would appear to be not exactly unanswerable, but just that there could be many possible answers. For example, I recall a Flintstones joke about "ice cream and ketchup". 174 gives some hints as to what could be a basis for coming up with examples. This might connect also to why meals are separated into "courses". Ice cream and roast chicken wouldn't "mix" very well, but as separate courses they're fine. The OP just needs to use his imagination a bit. I was thinking of liver, onions and jalepenos. All three are wretched separately (by my taste), so combining them would be triply wretched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just goes to show how much tastes are individual (and, perhaps, culturally conditioned). In the UK, liver and onions is a very traditional and popular dish, featured regularly on school and canteen menus in my experience, and one of my favourites. Porelmundo might like to contemplate Heston Blumenthal and his menus at The Fat Duck. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To add some references to the debate here is a post on a molecular gastronomy blog which discusses flavor parings and reveals, "the good, the bad, and the ugly"-style, the results of a taste test. There's a triple ugly cycle of malt, caviar and blue cheese. However, such results should be taken with a grain of salt, as it also points out that some of the bad and ugly pairing (such as anise & garlic or basil & caviar) were listed as good pairings by other flavor pairing resources. It says this "... is a good reminder that binary mixtures are not actually food and this real life is more complex." -- 174.24.203.209 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dizzy spells when calling psychics.

What can you tell me about the story behind dizzy spells when calling psychics? One time, I tried calling one when I was 13, and got dizzy so I hung up. Then there was a psychic hotline infomercial that gave the advantages about calling them. One of them was "no dizzy spells."

Why would psychics give dizzy spells to callers? How do they? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the psychic would say it's because they're tapping into your energy field which would make you feel disorientated. I've never heard of this phenomenon, however _{(and I'm one of those strange ones round here)}. Maybe a psychological explanation would be that, at some level, you feel consulting a psychic is "wrong" and you are experiencing an extreme form of cognitive dissonance. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Had you heard before you called that you might get dizzy spells? If you are expecting something like that to happen, that can be enough to cause it to happen. It's a bit like a reverse placebo effect. Psychic hotlines are a complete con. There has never been any reliable study that has shown their predictions to be any better than random chance. That means you are no more likely to get dizzy spells while on the phone to them as when on the phone to your grandmother. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had to be dizzy to call a psychic. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

True, the OP may simply have the cause and effect the wrong way around! --Tango (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you were slightly nervous calling them about whatever it was, I find that can make me feel a little strange, perhaps dizzy, at times. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if you believe in psychics, you shouldn't believe in telephone psychics. They're just a call-center of ordinary minimum-wage people reading from scripts.

"No dizzy spells" is just another way for their advertisement to pretend that they're actually doing something special. APL (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask the so-called phone psychic to tell you what the name was of your first pet or first car. If they answer correctly, you might want to make some revisions to your online bank account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable person(s) or subject matter excluded

Why would a famous American actor be excluded from, or not found, in Wikipedia?Fjh3cherokee (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're not spelling the name correctly. Who are you looking for? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If they famous, they certainly could have an article written about them. It is possible that nobody has gotten around to writing one writing one yet, though. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps there was an article, but it was recently discovered that the whole thing was cut+pasted from somewhere else and was deleted as a copyright violation (and no-one has gotten around to recreating it). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking for American actor Timothy Scott (b.1937 - d.1995).Fjh3cherokee (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not exactly a household name, but looking over his credits, he might squeak in. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

He's definitely notable. It's also possible that nobody got around to writing an article about him yet. I don't want to do that, myself, but did at least add him to the disambiguation page for Tim Scott. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Shagbag! Looie496 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

shagbag Noun. A sexually amenable or available woman. Derog. How is this slang expression appropriate here? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

data

finding census info

Just wondering, is there any way of seeing the results of the recent census, not the actual information people filled in, I know that is private, but the resultant numbers? Hypothetically, could I look up the precise number of people that, for example, claimed to be members of a particular religion?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the 2010 Census of the United States. Our article has some preliminary results and here is the official website. --Thomprod (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the official date of the 2011 UK Census is today, so the results aren't ... um ... all in yet.--ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a more useful subtitle. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

How did it happen that the British censuses all seem to occur in years ending in 1? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because they started in 1810 1801, Census in the United Kingdom, as opposed to the US that started in 1790, United States Census. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. (1801, actually, not 1810). The article doesn't exactly say, but it seems like maybe 1801 was the earliest they could get it accomplished, and of course they've done it every 10 years since. It was done in the USA for the purpose of apportioning representatives. Without having headcounts, how could Parliament proportionally represent the people? Or maybe it didn't?. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Census in the United Kingdom#History for the 12 reasons to do a census. Nothing to do with representing anybody. See Elections in the United Kingdom#History and Representation of the People Act 1918 for the when the general population was allowed to vote. I'm betting that neither the UK or the US used any of the early census results for proportional representation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Rotten and pocket boroughs regarding disproportional representation in the UK. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question, the numbercrunching will take a few years and you should be able to see the numbers in a few years time. I've had a look on the census websites and couldn't find a clear date for this. The actual personal data is embargoed for 100 years, and your great-great-grandchildren will be able to see your details (and be driven mad by the questions they wish to ask you!). --TammyMoet (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For the UK census the first outputs are due September 2012. These will be in the form of tables. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Hello everyone. I am currently conducting a study into the effects of alcohol on the brain, during which I was presented with a very perplexing question that I am not quite sure how to answer. A friend of mine, a recovering alcoholic, recently went to an AA session but he had to give his name. Why is this? --92.29.142.213 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

He probably only had to give a first name, and could give a fake, if he wanted, as they don't check your ID. Thus, he can maintain whatever level of anonymity he's comfortable with. They do, however, need some "name" so they can call on him to speak. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So he doesn't actually have to use his real name then? He will be delighted to hear that. I am still slightly confused as to why it would be called Alcoholics Anonymous, as you really are not anonymous if you give a name. In fact, does the very principle of the program not rely on people being open and honest? Furthermore, does it mean I could attend one of these meetings and say my name is "Pete" when in actual fact it is "Bob?" --92.29.142.213 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What people who attend are worried about is everyone in town knowing they are an alcoholic, and losing their job, etc., as a result. For comparison, when people in the US military seek psychiatric treatment, this tends to destroy their careers because it goes on their record. So, the AA treatments are designed not to do that. Of course, there's always the chance that somebody there will recognize him and tell others, but then that person (who presumably is also an alcoholic) would be subject to the same treatment. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine went to an AA meeting just the other day and was told he must show proof of I.D. Suffice to say, he was put off by the whole experience and is back on the drink.--109.153.32.31 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That is odd. Have they changed their policies ? StuRat (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The 12th of Alcoholics Anonymous's "12 Traditions" states that anonymity is its founding principle. I'd be astonished if there were any requirement for formal identification in any AA program run in the US or Canada. I know nothing about other countries or cultures. Bielle (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's odd. I went to a meeting with a friend a few years ago and there was no ID check. Maybe they check IDs if AA is court assigned and your friend just got caught up by some over-zealous AA representative. Dismas|^(talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The 11th "tradition" declares "we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films." expanded to "Our names and pictures as A.A. members ought not be broadcast, filmed, or publicly printed.". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are encouraged to be open and honest but that doesn't mean that you have to give out your real name. At the most basic level, a name is just something to call someone. If you want to go by Pete, then that's what you go by. They (AA) realize that not everyone is going to be absolutely comfortable with giving their real name to a collection of strangers and talk about a potentially embarrassing part of their life. Dismas|^(talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But why does it have "anonymous" in the title? --92.29.142.213 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, except for the one case above, it is. You don't have to use your real name. But it's still nice for people to be able to call you something rather than just "Hey you". Dismas|^(talk) 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, in the format of the shared-experience AA meetings, any one who wishes to speak introduces himself as "Hello. My name is Bielle, and I am an alcoholic." The meeting responds, "Hello Bielle." And after that, Bielle tells her own story. Bielle (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hi, my name is Noyfb, and ...". StuRat (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a neat irony that all the responders to this question are using names but they are all anonymous. well, apart from me! Richard Avery (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It must be confusing when everyone introduces themself as Bielle. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All together now...I am Spartacus and I am an alcoholic... Lemon martini (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that even though you might not be completely anonymous to people *in* the meeting, there is a strong tradition of being anonymous with respect to people *outside* the meeting. That is, one is not identified as a member of AA if one does not want to be, and there is a strong tradition of respecting the privacy of the others in the meeting. It is considered bad form to repeat the (sometimes very personal) information which is shared during the meetings. Substance abuse (and even seeking treatment for it) is and has been stigmatized, and the (partial) anonymity is there so that people would be willing to come, and more importantly, talk about their problem without fear of stigmatization. "Alcoholics confidential" might have been slightly more accurate, but at the cost of being much less alliterative. -- 174.24.203.209 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that your friend was required to attend AA as the result of a court order and produced ID in order to prove compliance with the order? John M Baker (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they should call it "Alcoholics Pseudonymous"? Qrsdogg (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

March 28

How far does land ownership extend?

If I own a plot of land do I own everything underground all the way down to the center of the earth?--109.153.32.31 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This depends on the legal jurisdiction. In some places "mineral rights" are owned by others. I doubt if any jurisdiction actually specifies that you own everything down to the center of the Earth, but it may be left undefined, in which case it's yours as far down as you can go. However, such rights could be taken away by courts and/or later legislation. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting explanation of the ownership rights in land as defined in by the Government of Alberta, Canada. They would be similar across the country. Bielle (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So if I was to say, create a underground superstructure, would the government be able to take it from me should the relevant legislation be amended? I only ask because I am planning on construction my own underground bunker to house my collection of AMRAAM/ASRAAMs. I've managed to build up quite a collection now, including the AIM-9 sidewinder and AIM-132, but it is just getting to big to store in my home. Any help with my dilemma would be appreciated.--109.153.32.31 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're storing missiles on your property, mineral rights questions are the least of your worries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They came with the manual so I think I know what I'm doing thanks for your concern though.--109.153.32.31 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Since handguns are illegal in the UK, I guess you had to settle for missiles, eh? Oh, that reminds me... Scotland Yard might be paying you a friendly little visit. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, do you happen to have the AIM-54 Phoenix LRM and would you be willing to trade it for my Exocet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.142.213 (talk)

When I bought land in Victoria, Australia 40 years ago the title said I owned it down to 50 feet below the surface. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you drilled down far enough, the old saw is that you might strike oil. But forgetting that, if you drilled down far enough, might you end up with a volcano in your back yard? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes, but the reality is that the drill bit would melt or break when it got too hot. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect there's some way around that little problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has linked to our article on the subject, Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, which has been confirmed as a principle of English law. (The OP's IP geolocates to England.) Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting article, but it has limited validity even here in the UK. The crown hold gold and silver mining rights, and I think mining rights for coal are held by the government and administered by the "coal Authority", and ownership of oil and gas within the land area of Great Britain was vested in the Crown by the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934.

Hwy 80

When I was on Tybee Island,Ga. last month,I noticed an information sign on Hwy 80. It said something about the missing 600 or something to that effect. I am curious as to what that refers to. Can anyone help? Thank you in advance for calming my brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryssie1956 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See Selma to Montgomery marches. Nanonic (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Nanonic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryssie1956 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Cure for Zombie bite

If a Zombie bites me, is there any cure for it? 212.169.188.25 (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be the same treatment as if you got bit by Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, lil' aspie. I reformulate: If a fictional zombie bites a fictional human, what can the human do to cure himself?.212.169.188.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC).

If you get bit by an aspie, now that's serious trouble. But given your scenario, the answer is simple: the fictional human goes to a fictional doctor and gets a fictional treatment. If that's insufficient, perhaps the Zombie article will have some useful info? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant aspie not aspie. The article Zombie doesn't seem to have any useful information. Anyway, you apparently don't know of any real fictional treatment. Could it be that no author ever considered it? 212.169.188.25 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you maybe thinking of vampire bites? In any case, the Bite article alludes to risks that human bites can cause, which can be useful for so-called "zombies" of the Haitian variety. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The film article on Night of the Living Dead has links to some other articles that might be more useful than the Zombies article is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of becoming a vampire. I just don't want to become a zombie. 212.169.188.25 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You won't become a zombie if you take precautions. For example, try to avoid meetings with insurance salesmen, and don't watch infomercials.

One advantage to being a vampire is that your odds are much better than a zombie's are, for picking up chicks.

Anyway, one of the links in NOTLG is something about "zombies in popular culture", which might give some info. But is there anything that explains why a zombie bite should be fatal? Or is it just that it's a human bite? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of reasons zombie bites are fatal. The primary reason, of course, is that the zombies are trying to eat you, so zombie bites are going to involve chunks of flesh being removed. The secondary reason (not always applicable) is that some zombie infestations are caused by viruses that spread through bites, blood, and other close contact. If that's the kind of zombie you're dealing with, a bite is all but a death warrant. Finally, even when no Z-Virus is involved, zombie bites tend to get infected quickly. Probably because the mouth of a rotting corpse is full of germs. APL (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Old-time real-life mad scientist Pasteur injected rabies into an animal's tail, then amputated it soon after, and the rabies did not spread to cause a fatal infection. The following is only a fictional speculation and not medical advice: If a Zombie bit your appendage, is it possible that prompt amputation would prevent Zombieism? Has this been used as a fictional treatment? Edison (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was tried in the "Walking Dead" comic books, I don't recall if it was effective. It was attempted in the webcomic "Dead Winter" without success. (Ref:Dead Winter #384).

In some older movies, like "Night of the Living Dead", all recently dead individuals become zombies though an unknown mechanism (even those buried before the zombie event occurred.), and zombie bites have no special power. In those movies, a zombie bite should be treated as you would treat any other animal bite.

In newer movies, zombies are usually the result of a virus. It's often described as similar to a very fast-acting variant of rabies. (ref:World War Z) Once you're infected by the Z-Virus, you're in tough shape, though, as noted, chopping off a limb at least give you hope. However, don't panic, some people seem to be naturally resistant to the Z-Virus (Ref:Left 4 Dead). So if you're bitten take appropriate precautions and isolate yourself from other survivors, but don't kill yourself, or place yourself in a position where you'd be trapped if your companions became infected but you didn't.

Finally, for an isolated case with access to advanced medical facilities, you might try the Milwaukee protocol. However, that has a low success rate for rabies, so I wouldn't put much faith in it's chances against the Z-Virus. Probably what would happen is that he patient would appear to be cured, but after he was brought out of it he would bit one of the doctors who would foolishly not tell anyone he'd been bitten out of fear of being quarantined. The end of civilization would come no more than two weeks later.

Hope this helps. For more information along these lines I recommend the books written by Max Brooks.

APL (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Zombie. Zombies are fictional but some people put on zombie makeup. If one of them bites you, I would be inclined to bite it back. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See Living_Dead#Infection --Reference Desker (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Solar Power

In the UK there is a company called 'Green-Sun' wanting to sell me roof mounted solar panels to generate electricity. Has anyone any experience of this company that they might care to share with me please?--85.211.237.136 (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a reference desk. GreenSun Energy is a relatively new company delivering a relatively new technology, so it is unlikely that anyone here has first-hand experience of them. You would be better off asking in a specialized forum or using a search engine to find impartial advice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO investing in something so expensive requires a broader look at the market, beyond one company that attracts your attention. See this site for some general things to think about. You will also see on this site that a survey showed that 10 out of 14 solar energy companies exaggerated the gains of their product. Additionally the govenment has renegued on its previous agreement to Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) payment rates [33]. I know this doesn't directly answer your question but may help your overview. Richard Avery (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Green Sun is suddenly a popular name. I found companies using the name in Arizona, Jerusalem and Egypt. This is the website of Green Sun Ltd. in Farnborough, UK. I have no experience of their service but you can ring their free number and ask whether they will name any perevious customers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When buying anything as expensive as this, shop around and get quotes to compare. And, yes, do ask each company to name a previous customer you can talk to - it's standard practice and if they won't do it you should worry. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Slow combustion fireplaces

Where can I find a list of slow combustion fireplaces which are approved according to European standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.213.20.222 (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Of Formula 1 drivers in the US and drinking

The legal age for drinking in the US is 21. Although it hasn't happened yet,there is a distinct possibility that a driver under 21 could finish on the podium at the US Grand Prix-where they are given the usual bottles of champagne-so what would happen then? Would they have to be given something different or would the laws regarding supplying alcohol to a minor be disregarded in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemon martini (talk • contribs) 11:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

While all U.S. states prohibit the purchase of alcoholic beverages by individuals under the age of 21, there is a patchwork of rules regarding whether or not those individuals may consume alcohol. Many states carve out exceptions for underage individuals who are in the family home, or who are drinking in the presence of their parents or guardians. For example, in Texas (this is just the first example where I could find the statute), under the Alcoholic Beverage Code, Section 106.04. Consumption of Alcohol by a Minor, part (b):

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the alcoholic beverage was consumed in the visible presence of the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse.

Regardless of legality, I suspect that the event (and its sponsors) would be unlikely to supply alcohol to an underage individual, simply because it's one of those things that provokes needless and ridiculous moral outrage from a very small but extremely noisy subset of the U.S. population.

In a related situation, I recall that I caught the end of a World Poker Tour event on television a few years ago. The events are (or were, at the time) sponsored by a large U.S.-based brewery, and it was traditional for the final table participants to all raise a bottle and toast the sponsor right before the closing credits. The event I saw was taking place somewhere sunny and warm, outside the United States—maybe the Caribbean, but definitely somewhere with a legal drinking age well below that of the U.S. One of the contestants was of legal age to participate in the competition, but only nineteen or twenty years old. During the closing sequence, all of the other players duly received their bottle of beer and raised it for the camera; the young guy was left there with his arms at his sides looking awkward. (If there's a better inadvertent advertisement for "Drinking will help you fit in with the cool, older, smarter, richer folks", I haven't seen it.) If he had received his perfectly-legal bottle of beer, I'm sure that there would have been complaints to the FCC about how the World Poker Tour encouraged underage drinking—never mind that the kid was old enough to risk thousands of dollars in professional poker tournaments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And then there's the Indianapolis 500 option: give the winners a bottle of milk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated laws vary by state. In Michigan, the hypothetical driver could be charged as a "minor in possession" if he had a blood alcohol level of 0.02 (you know, internal posssesion of alcohol) - and would lose his driver's license, even if he was at a party nowhere near a car, much less driving.[34] It used to be popular for young Michiganders to drive over to Ontario for the lower drinking age before this law and the 9/11 border restrictions. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As sponsor of 10 of the about 45 drivers in NASCAR, Coca Cola is often drunk after wins in that racing series. Any non-alcoholic drink sponsors in F1? Rmhermen (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They already use a non-alcoholic drink in places like Bahrain where it is banned. For nob-alcoholic drinks sponsors there is Red Bull with Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso and there is a large list that I didn't go through at Formula One sponsorship liveries. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Harrods electric lorries

When I lived on Sloane Ave just off Brompton Road in the mid sixties I would often see green delivery vans painted in Harrods livery. They were almost silent because they were electric. The neighbors said the garage was right nearby pointing towards Harrods. Where was that garage? and where are those vans now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesquepedalia (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Harrods' garaging has been on Brompton Place for many years (see, e.g. [35]). However, the store's depository was at 60 Sloane Avenue ([36]), which would explain why you saw so many of its vans. Apparently the vans were withdrawn in 1967, but there is one in the Science Museum, and another at the National Motor Museum. Warofdreams talk 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

insurance

Also, is it possible to get insurance against being murdered by a 'sex dwarf'?Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have always heard that Lloyds of London will insure almost any risk.Chief41074 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a particularly pressing concern to you at the moment? Lemon martini (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The OP might be the same guy who was worried about being bitten by a zombie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't regular life insurance work? Why would one need to be insured against a specific cause of death? Qrsdogg (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What the hell's a "sex dwarf"? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC) (And I'll verily smite the first person who tells me we have an article on everything.)

New to me too. Some hints here, not sure if those are related to what the OP trying to say. --Reference Desker (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)