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

November 13

Weird snippet of text on some licenses

When I was looking for some source code, I read the license from Oracle for Java applications, and there was this weird part of the license. It read:

"You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility."

What is this supposed to mean? Is it a joke? Why is it even there?

Longbyte1 (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be quite common. I assume it means they won't be held liable in the event of a meltdown because of one little bug in their code.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC with below) Personally I susect one of their lawyers was concerned if someone did use it in a nuclear facility, the producers of the source code could be considered to have violated some arms control or export control or similar legislation in the US (or perhaps some other country). Similar to the way a lot of software says you can't use it in North Korea, Cuba and other 'evil' countries. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Did a few searches but can't find any real useful comments. Some suggest it is a sort of indemnity/disclaimer but I don't see any real evidence other then assumptions. I doubt we'll ever know, the people who added it are probably long gone. A few people have commented on the specificity which I also note, I've read disclaimers before disavowing their use in a variety of mission critical systems like life-support systems, weapon control systems, aircraft navigation etc but Java doesn't have such limitations, only apparently on nuclear facilities. Evidentally MS still considers Java unsuitable for such purposes [1] [2]. Someone suggested (in the second ref) in 1996 Sun's Java did say you can't use it in such mission critical apps not just nuclear facilities. Perhaps over time people began to use Java in life support systems etc and they convinced Sun to remove the limitation? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah looking more I can confirm Sun did impose a wider restriction in the past. [3] seems to confirm that the MS restriction (including direct life-support systems and weapon systems) originated from Sun. I'm not sure when but by this 1.1 release they changed the restriction to only aircraft stuff and nuclear stuff [4]. Sometime between JDK 1.2 [5] (also see [6]) and 1.3 [7] they decided to only disallow the nuclear related stuff and don't seem to have changed since then. As stated earlier, perhaps they had people wanting to use Java in the earlier restricted activities. So if you do want to use Java in your nuclear facility you could try asking of they can remove it or licence it specifically for you without the restriction. Alternatively their lawyers may have decided there was no real legal risk to them even if people did use Java in weapon systems or direct life-support systems (whether because of a law change or re-evaluation of the legal risk) but there still was for the aircraft stuff and perhaps still is some perceived risk for the nuclear stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looks like they've already changed the nuclear facilities bit (probably Oracle re-evaluated all licences). If you compare the Binary Code Licence for J2SE 6 [8]/[9] and current/7 [10] you can see they've gone back to a broader disclaimer against any 'inherently dangerous application' and makes it clear if you do use it in such a case, your on your own. Also looking more carefully even the J2SE 6 licence doesn't forbid the usage in nuclear facilities, ditto for 5 (1.5) [11] and 4 (1.4) [12]. Note that as per the earlier ref and [13], the 1.3 and earlier licences did effectively forbid usage in nuclear facilities since it said it wasn't licenced for such purposes. So it changed sometime between 1.3 and 1.4. Some of the code still forbids you from using it in nuclear facilities (says it's not licenced for such purposes) [14] [15] but I think that's just that no one updated it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Licenses often have odd clauses like this in them. MS Office used to have some clause against using it to make nuclear weapons or something like that, as well.

These clauses aren't jokes, that's for sure. Whether they are added by lawyers to prevent against possible indemnity, or part of export control regulations, or part of some other form of gov't regulations, I don't know. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a theory that a lot of the seemingly unnecessary stuff we see on the Internet is there because lazy web designers just copy code from other web designers, without thinking or even reading it sometimes. It's one of the reasons why, when we're filling in an online form, the field "Title" (whether one is a Mr, Mrs, Sir, Dr, etc) is compulsory far too much of the time, when there is no logical reason for that to be the case. Wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happening here. Maybe it was a joke originally, and the code just got copied hundreds of times. HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I really doubt it is or ever was a joke. These licenses are considered (by the companies, anyway) as legally binding. There's boilerplate, to be sure, but none of it is just in there on a lark. Their legal departments are not paid the big bucks to joke around. They might look silly to you or me but they're in there for some reason that their lawyers find compelling. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's another amusing one. Among your prohibited activities with regards to iTunes, "You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."[16] Somebody ought to tell the guy on the right here that he'd better not be using an iPod... --Mr.98 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oracle's new Java licence actually has something similar. Actually I'm pretty sure he shouldn't even have an iPod [17] [18] even if he doesn't use iTunes since he's in Iran. But they shouldn't be using Windows [19] or Siemens machines in Iran either but Stuxnet reveals they are. These aren't just terms to make fun of though, I believe you can't activate Windows with an Iranian IP or I'm guessing if you set your location to Iran, nor can you use iTunes [20] with an Iranian IP. Although it seems you can now download Google Earth, Chrome and Picassa in Iran [21]). Interesting enough from the first ref I provided, it seems I can work on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on a iPad (like if I'm sent one to test the capactive touch screen) here in NZ, at least according to Apple (I'm not sure how the NZ government would feel about that). Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"The break of the leg" in garment measurement

In tailoring or garment measurement, what part of the body is "the break of the leg"? (For clarity, it would be helpful if the answer is phrased in human-anatomical terms.) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.10.12 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

From the diagram on this page, it looks as though "break of the leg" refers to the dividing line between the torso and the legs (where a fold appears when one sits down, for instance). Deor (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that picture, and a few web pages that contain the phrase. One web page says it's the crotch; another web page says it's the hip/leg joint. I don't know if, or which, one of them is the correct answer. That's why I asked the question and asked for an answer in anatomical terms. It seems that you're interpreting it as the hip/leg joint. --173.49.10.12 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

When talking about gentlemen's dress trousers, the "break" is the point at which the vertical fall of the cloth "breaks" and turns sharply outward due to the curvature of the top of the foot. The break is thus a few inches above the trouser leg cuff; there is no overt tailoring evident there (there's no seam or permanent crease) but the break is engineered to fall where desired by a good tailor, who understands the geometry of wearer, the characteristics of the cloth, and the desired effect. Depending on the fashion, the break can be deep or shallow, abrupt or gentle. Some fabrics, particularly stiffer or thicker fabrics like denim, may not break at all, or may do so in a rather haphazard manner. Some of the possible types of break are discussed here. I think tailors use the term "break" more generally as well, meaning any crease that forms in this way (due the the articulation of the wearer rather than the seaming of the garment) but it most commonly refers specifically to the one above the trouser cuff. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sump pump installation cost?

Resolved

How much should I expect to spend to install a sump pump in the basement of a 1913 house with a semi-finished floor in a fairly dry midwestern US locale? In particular, is it safe or reasonable to hire someone with experience digging fenceposts to dig the sump hole? How deep a sump hole is reasonable for less than 1 cm of water discovered over about 2 square meters after the first snowfall?

The basement is impervious to ordinary rain, we think, but there's no evidence of that after the first water was discovered. How do I figure out how the rain drains to storm sewers and clear that path if it needs to be? Do I need the municipality's help looking at the storm sewer path? How much should I expect to pay for that? 208.54.38.207 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

More info is needed here. What type of flooring is under the water ? A post-hole digger would only know how to dig through dirt. If this happens infrequently enough, you might want to just mop it up, then use some bleach, to kill any mold. A sump pump probably only needs to be a few inches deep if you will manually turn the pump on and off. You may need more room if you want to use a float to turn it on. Do you have a sewer drain in the basement ? If so, just put the discharge tube there. If that drain is clogged, you need a plumber to unclog it. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The wet area currently has plastic and linoleum over dirt. I plan to use a post hole digger to make it look professional as we are prepping the house for inspection, appraisal, and eventual sale. I think I should isolate the water inflow path, but I have a pretty good idea of that. If I use the same path to run a discharge hose to the storm sewer, I wonder if that will make the problem worse. I suppose I should do some more web searches and look at the home improvement and corresponding reference sections in the local public library for hints. I'm also pretty sure I should figure out the municipal official responsible for storm sewer drains and give them a call or a visit with pictures and diagrams. They might have a map of the block. 208.54.38.207 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that we addressed the "workaround", we should discuss the source of the problem. I see two problems:

1) Water is entering the basement. You may need to seal leaks in the walls and/or floor. This would mean removing the paneling, etc., first, to find the leak.

2) Water doesn't drain out of the basement. The spot where it accumulates must be lower than the drain or have a blockage between it and the drain. This needs to be fixed.

I'd expect to spend thousands of dollars to fix these two issues. Or, just continue to mop up as a workaround, pouring bleach in the area to kill any mold (leave the area after, to avoid the fumes). StuRat (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good advice; thank you, but it might be as easy as clearing the accumulated dead vegitation and dirt from a nearby basement window hole (pit?) just outside the sill. The basement walls are unfinished with the foundation's concrete exposed, but there is no water damage visible, just slight discoloration under the window. That could be painted, but I'd rather use a sealant first. I will follow up after the above if I am still at a loss, but further advice from others is also most welcome. 208.54.38.207 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Call in your local plumber to check the drain system (some even use video cameras nowdays). If you don't have drains or they have irreversibly failed, you can spend thousands to have new drains installed from the inside (or even more thousands having new drains installed from the outside) I had my basement floor cut up along the walls and new drains laid inside instead of excavating around the walls from the outside as my neighbor did. Adding a sump pump requires somewhere for the water to go to when it is pumped as well as a system to pull the water away from the foundation before it gets into the basement. You can run a hose out your basement window but your neighbors (and the code enforcement people) might not appreciate it. Besides mold, poor water handling can damage the basement walls and floors leading to larger problems. Rmhermen (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The local utilities will come and flag the locations of your underground systems if you warn them you are going to dig. Rmhermen (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good, yes; I'll ask a couple or three local plumbers for a quick appraisal and work quote after I have more information on storm drain locations. Thank you. 208.54.38.207 (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, water may be pooling around the house before it drains into the basement. When it rains, check to see if all the water is draining off the roof properly and being carried away from the house. Where does it currently go ? If you are planning on selling the house, then you probably either want to "do it right" or not at all. The "not at all" option would be to just mop it up and not let them know there's a problem (yes, that's a bit unethical). A sump pump would only give away that there's a problem, without actually fixing it.

BTW, why do you need to know where the sewers run ? Are you planning on adding a new drain ? If so, tapping into the sewer is a major operation which will likely require contractors and permits. If not, then you only need to know where the current drains are, not where the sewers run. If it's a fairly dry location, as you say, then a dry well might be a better and cheaper way to dispose of excess water, outside the house, when it rains or the snow melts. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this problem is fully isolated and will take $1 and 25 minutes to fix. The suspect basement window well became full and clogged with debris because its cover became detached and askew. All other window wells are still completely clear and still drain properly into the storm sewers, away from the foundation and sills. Based on the low level of leaf decomposition I am certain this problem arose within the past year. Pics on request. 208.54.38.207 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK then, just fix the window, mop up and use bleach to kill any mold. No sump pump is required as this problem isn't likely to recur. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Exiting the euro

Simon Wolfson has offered a substantial prize for anyone who can figure out a clean, efficient way for a country to drop the euro in case they need/want to. What's the big deal about finding a method for this?

"This prize aims to ensure that high quality economic thought is given to how the euro might be restructured into more stable currencies."

If the Euro is able to be exchanged for dollars, shekels or pounds, why is it any different to exchange it for an as of yet unestablished unit currency? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of how the members of the Eurozone could leave the Euro as their official currency, minimising any negative impacts on markets, economies, and practicalities. There has been extensive debate about how easily Greece, as probably the most likely example, could both physically and theoretically leave the single European currency. For example, there aren't physically any drachmas (or another Greek currency) to swap for. Also, theoretically, money would flood out of Greece because of a likely devaluation, and the ease of the Euro to move around European markets – it takes no time at all, if you are Greek, to move your money to Germany (this was the point, after all!). I name but a couple of things. Ultimately, there will be many more, some of which have been mentioned in previous RD threads. In any case, the prize is for avoiding the pitfalls of leaving what some consider to be a "doomed" currency. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Think about what will happen if, say, Greece exits the Euro. The Greek people have Euro banknotes in their houses. They have savings accounts in Euros. They've negotiated their wages in Euros. They have contracts denoted in Euros. They have debts to banks and other people denoted in Euros. What happens to all those accounts? Which ones switch over to the New Drachma? If a Greek citizen has a bank account in a French bank, will it be in Euros or Drachmas? What if it's the Athens branch of the bank? What if it's a German company with a contract to a French one to deliver supplies within Crete? - Even after you've determined all that, you're left with the question: given that Greece is effectively bankrupt, who actually wants New Drachmas anyway? (See this NPR/Planet Money story [22]) As soon a people get word that their accounts will be forcibly switched over to the New Drachma, they'll be transferring as many Euros as they can to German banks to avoid the conversion. People will horde Euro banknotes. Days after the change over there will be massive inflation as you will need to offer many more New Drachmas for their "equivalent" in Euros, as there's no reason anyone would want New Drachmas. - On the other hand, given the current economic climate, having Germany leave the Eurozone would be no problem. I'd wager that the German people would be queuing up around the corner to convert their Euro banknotes into New Marks. The trick in that case would be to keep people from converting Euros to New Marks. The problem is that the healthy economies aren't the ones who would be looking to leave the Euro. It's the failing ones like Greece. -- 71.35.99.151 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It will be a Gresham's law experiment of the worst kind. The fact that, in a modern economy, with electronic banking and all that entails, the government has no way to enforce the introduction of a less-stable currency for a more stable one. It can work in the reverse direction (see Plano Real for how Brazil dumped its crappy, worthless currency for a better one) but even that has mixed results and is quite complex and messy to pull off. Trying to replace a good currency with a worthless one is all but impossible. --Jayron32 02:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There would be nothing stopping Greece, Italy or any other country adopting another currency rather than reverting to its old one. I could see Greece maybe having the drachma as its official currency, but having US dollars as the de facto currency of commerce and trade. This is what happens in other countries after all. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but do you pay civil servants in dollars as well? If so, how do you get enough dollars? Do you ask the people to pay their taxes in dollars? --Lgriot (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there would be a lot of problems in Greece about going off the Euro. But there are a lot of problems in Greece caused by staying on the Euro. It makes the Eurozone states much less than sovereign countries, more like US states. And ruled by an unelected, undemocratic (and delusional) ECB, rather than an at least formally representative Congress. Many economists predicted that the Euro was unworkable when it was instituted - Wynne Godley, Charles Goodhart, many others. Their predictions proved entirely accurate. Probably the most important reason Greece is failing is because it is on the Euro, which prevents the government from spending to fully employ its resources & people. The Eurocrats - madmen or worse - demand expansionary fiscal austerity. Problem: never happened in the history of humanity. Demand for new drachmas would be driven, as demand for all money is, by payments to the state, in particular taxes, so they will not be worthless. Argentina is a recent example of a somewhat similar situation, with a basically successful default & unpegging from another currency. Germany leaving the Euro would be far better for everyone though. The German abandonment of their mark was again something shoved down their throat by nescient Eurocrats and would probably not have passed a referendum. A weakening Euro & a strengthening new Mark would benefit everyone.John Z (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The ECB is not an analogue to Congress. The European Parliament is the analogue to Congress. The ECB is the analogue to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve is not an elected institution in America anymore than the ECB is in Europe. No comment on the veracity of your criticisms of the Eurozone, but if you are going to make criticisms, you could at least base them on something resembling a fact... --Jayron32 13:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

John Z is also wrong about the Eurcrats forcing Germany to leave the Mark. Germans were mostly the more enthusiastic about the European integration, and a new currency was part of the deal. 88.8.67.30 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the German elites were enthusiastic about adopting the euro, but opinion polls in Germany at the time showed public opinion against it. So, it wasn't the Eurocrats in Brussels who forced Germany to leave the mark, it was the Bonzen in Bonn. (I can't think of a good English translation for that German derogatory slang word for government officials.) Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Bonzen in Bonn? Are you sure they were not already in Berlin? 88.8.67.30 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the German decision to join the euro was taken in the mid-1990s. The move to Berlin did not happen until 1999. Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The formal analogue of the ECB is the Fed. But in terms of actual, exercised power, it is more like Congress, which created & ultimately controls the Fed. The ECB is the ultimate source of "ready money" Euros, just as Congressionally authorized spending is the ultimate source of dollars. The ECB in effect rules the Eurozone, in conjunction with local "technocrats" that cycle between European, state & financial bureaucracies. Should this be surprising in a week that saw the replacement of two elected leaders by "technocrats"?John Z (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Congress does not "control" the Fed. It is an independent agency. The Fed's governors and Chairman are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress to long terms (I think ten years, but maybe longer); neither the President nor Congress has any influence beyond that in determining Fed policy. --Jayron32 01:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the original question, the "big deal" is that one or more countries may in fact have to exit the euro. Exiting the euro would be very complex and expensive, so finding a way to do it that minimizes the expense and economic damage would be very valuable. Actually, there is a fairly clear way for an individual country to exit the euro. The country wanting to exit needs to declare a bank holiday (all banks closed), accounts and debts need to be converted at a set rate to a new currency, euro notes would need to be stamped to indicate that they are no longer euros while a new currency is printed, probably banks would need to be nationalized because their external debts would render them insolvent, and the country would need to repudiate its external debt or force investors to accept a restructuring (partial default) of that debt allowing the country to service the debt. The country would need to impose capital controls sharply limiting the exchange of its currency for foreign currencies. (Residents, for example, would not be able to convert Greek drachmai to euros or would be limited to a purchase of, say, €800 in a given year.) All taxes would be payable in the new currency, and use of foreign currencies for domestic transactions would be outlawed. At the same time, the country would need to raise revenues and/or cut expenditures to the point where it had a budget surplus before debt service so that it is no longer reliant on external credit. An optional step would be to impose a tax on the sale of foreign currencies to purchase the new currency by residents and/or citizens of the country. (So that Greeks who had moved their euro assets to Germany before the bank holiday, for example, would be forced to share the cost of the devaluation when repatriating their funds.) What I have just described is the easy and obvious part. The hard part is limiting the harm to other euro-zone countries caused by the exit of any of its members through debt repudiation, asset deflation, and the risk of contagion. That risk could spike borrowing costs for shakier members of the euro zone if investors fear that they will face defaults if other members are forced to exit, perhaps precisely because their borrowing costs have risen to unsustainable levels. I suspect that the prize is meant for someone who can figure out a way for one country to exit with minimal harm to other euro zone members. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except for "At the same time, the country would need to raise revenues and/or cut expenditures to the point where it had a budget surplus before debt service so that it is no longer reliant on external credit." The reason for taxation, for Greece improving its tax system is to give value to the drachmas that the Greek government would be printing. No reason to have, or real likelihood of, a budget surplus, which would be the effect of an overeffective taxation program, and which would not free Greece from reliance on external credit. Defaulting on unpayable Euro debts & changing to the drachma would have already cut off external credit in the short term. The real problem is that Greece would have to export enough to pay for necessary imports. Preventing a Greek default from spreading to other countries is the responsibility of the ECB & the Eurocrats. Greece on the Euro, together with the ECB policies making things worse, granting loans only if suicidal austerity programs are undertaken which make these loans less payable, is causing these problems too - like the recent 50% haircut on banks holding Greek debt. The minimal harm to other Euromembers aim could be achieved by the ECB buying some bad debts, by keeping German & French banks afloat, not forcing them to take haircuts, which can just spread the contagion.John Z (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the need for Greece to be able to fund its imports, though an exit from the euro and devaluation would help immensely with that. Greece's labor costs could suddenly become competitive with those of Poland, for example, and manufacturers would want to set up plants in Greece. Likewise, Greek agricultural products would be able to compete more strongly against those of other Mediterranean nations, and Greece's tourism industry would experience a boom as millions of tourists could suddenly afford a bargain vacation/holiday among Greece's dazzling ruins and beaches. I completely agree that the eurocrats' prescription of austerity has worsened matters, in the short term anyway, but clearly some kind of restructuring is needed. Greece's problem is that, in a global or even continental economy, it is not competitive. Hence it cannot sustain itself, because its economy, as currently structured, is unable to grow without an ever-increasing supply of credit. Some adjustment is needed. Median living standards, having been supported by bad credit for years, have to fall to a sustainable level. An easy way to do this is devaluation, which requires an exit from the euro. The harder way to do it is austerity and a combination of higher taxes on the affluent and lower wages. This sets up the political struggle that we have seen between European financial backers, who want to limit aid as much as possible, and Greek recipients of financial aid, who will understandably fight for as much aid as possible and as little fall in living standards as possible. So the current arrangement may merely delay the inevitable adjustment.

Ultimately, Greece's issues are those of the entire developed world in a global economy. In a global labor market, the developed world's living standards are not competitive. Either the global market needs to be broken back down into tariff-protected national markets that protect higher national living standards in some nations, or median living standards need to move toward a global norm, dropping in the so-called developed world and rising in the so-called developing world. (There would still be some regional wage and cost differences connected to labor productivity and in turn to levels of education and capital investment. But there is no reason why Athenians should enjoy a much higher median standard of living than, say, residents of Shanghai or Bangalore.) Note that I am careful to use the word median because a political issue remains whether the drop in living standards is to be shared by all members of the society or whether the rich get to maintain lives of undisturbed comfort and privilege while people who work for a living are forced to sacrifice. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Marco, I usually agree with you. But the idea that there is some mystical economic force that makes the "developed world's living standards" uncompetitive is complete & utter nonsense. The spread of such ideas is a fond dream of those who want a future of a boot stamping on a human face forever. Funny how they never say things like the rewards for well-shod financiers and executives are uncompetitive, which is much truer. Of course there is no long run reason for Athenians to be richer than Shanghairen, but there is a short run reason. They are already richer - have higher productivity, education, capital investments etc. The developing world's standards should go up, and the developed world's as well, although slower. Absent some natural catastrophe, some real world constraint, there is no reason for anyone's standards to go down. The problem of Greece is that their government is much worse, understands economics much worse than China's. No sane government would have signed on to a weird experiment, a train-wreck waiting to happen like the Euro.

You are right that there are policies that nations can adopt to prevent living standards from declining, with the example of tarriffs. But one must realize that if they are declining, it is because policies have been consciously adopted, that governments have intervened to lower living standards for the 99%, to give the 1% of the 1% more power. But there is no reason for tarriffs, which are usually bad because of the classical arguments. What is needed, practically the only thing, is full employment at a decent wage. The core problem of the Euro is that it removes the power of each government to achieve this. Happily, history shows that this is very easy for truly sovereign governments to achieve. No government that has tried has ever failed. Unhappily, many, most of the economics profession for decades has worked hard to obscure this simple fact.John Z (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

November 14

Sharing bar soap; hygenic?

Is sharing bar soap, like in a public bathroom, hygienic? Does the bacteria from the previous user's hands get stuck on the soap and transferred to your own hands when you use it? Acceptable (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Soap suggests that the primary purpose of soap is to remove oils and grease from the skin. Some soaps contain metal particles that when rubbed against bacteria destroy the surface and, as a result, kills them. I would conclude that some bacteria does remain attached to the soap and that the metal particles do not successfully kill all the bacteria (and therefore would not recommend sharing a public bar of soap). TheGrimme (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To follow on the question...is it more hygienic to not use soap? I would (possibly incorrectly) assume that it's better to use used-soap than no soap at all? ny156uk (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's pretty much unheard of (at least in the UK) to find actual bars of soap in public facilities these days, possibly because of hygiene concerns, and also for practical reasons - what happens if the soap gets lost, falls on the floor, etc? It's soap dispensers everywhere. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you would find bar soap in public restrooms in the US, either, except maybe in vey old ma-and-pa kinds of establishments. I do think it would depend on the type of soap. I would trust an anti-bacterial soap more than other kinds, given the alcohol content which is supposed to kill the critters off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Antibacterial soap doesn't contain alcohol. Instead, it contains some nasty chlorinated compound, typically Triclosan in liquid soaps, and Trichlocarban in bar soaps. Buddy431 (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha, indeed it does. Whatever. As long as it kills the critters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

An article about the medical practices in the Us and Russia, several years ago, mentioned the likelihood of disease transmission by soap bars. Visiting US doctors were horrified to see the Russian doctors using a common bar of soap by a sink to wash their hands in the operating rooms, and a common towel to dry them. Not the article I read, but similar. Semmelweis, in the mid 18th century, wanted doctors to rinse hands in bleach solution, likely more effective than washing with soap. Edison (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bleach on the hands is rather nasty, and would destroy the skin in short order, leading to infections which could then be spread to others. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I expect the recommendation was to dilute the bleach to an acceptable level, but I agree that bleach is not kind to either bacteria or skin cells. Dbfirs 08:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Semmelweis apparently did use a diluted bleach solution. Such a solution is still used medically, as "Dakin's solution". See Henry Drysdale Dakin. I saw it used on bandages applied after surgery in the 1990's. Several other more harmful chemical solutions were regularly used in skin contact in the early 20th century. Edison (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Old competitor to Waldenbooks

I am trying to find the name of a company that used to compete with Waldenbooks in the 80s and 90s that I used to shop at. It was not Borders. Waldenbooks may or may not have bought them out before Borders in turn bought Waldenbooks. I have searched the web and not been successful. I want to say the store name had initials in it like J.C. Penney does, but I may be wrong on that. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 23:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Was it Books-A-Million? Their stores are sized and layed out much like Waldenbooks. If not, then maybe it was B. Dalton; which was of the same type of store, and has the "Initial + last name" thing like JC Penney. If not either of those, perhaps Category:Bookstores of the United States has some more leads. --Jayron32 23:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's got to be B. Dalton, which had the same format as Waldenbooks and was acquired by Barnes & Noble. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted in B. Dalton, the store began in the 1960s as a subsidiary of the Dayton's department stores based in Minneapolis. In the 1980s it was sold to Barnes & Noble, which slowly phased out the B. Dalton stores over time, closing the last remaining stores a couple of years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No initials, but the OP might also be thinking of a place like Brentano's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It was indeed B. Dalton that I was thinking of! RainbowOfLight ^Talk 07:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

November 15

US state secession

If it's apparently so difficult for Greece (or another country) to exit the eurozone, would such a complication of matters exist similarly for a US state that would entertain secession from the US? Presumably, an independent state would desire a non-US based currency. And moreover, in a non-hypothetical point of order, when Sudan split and other countries form/restructure, why isn't this cause for similar upheaval? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Because Sudan was already in a state of upheaval. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Going from the Sudanese pound to the South Sudanese pound is not nearly as much of a drop as would be going from the euro to a new drachma. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Greece leaving the Eurozone represents a single act: Changing of the Euro as a currency for a new currency. Greece still maintains much of its own sovereignty; it still has a military, a working government bureaucracy, a social welfare system, ambassadors, etc. etc. If say, Missouri, decides to withdraw from the U.S., it has to come up with ALL of that stuff on its own, in addition to the currency issue. Take the Greece situation and multiply it by, oh, a billion to arrive at the practical difficulties faces with a U.S. state formally seceding. With a case like South Sudan; you've basically got a region and a people which were marginalized by their former national government (which, on the balance, was on the "margins" anyways). With South Sudan, the people there were already in the basement; they didn't have far "down" to fall by declaring their independence; and given the way that the people there were treated, there is a good arguement that there was a huge upside to independence. The same could not be said for Greece or for a U.S. state, who have a LOT farther to fall if they undertook the same movement. --Jayron32 01:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Missouri seceding would be all that difficult:

1) They could probably just go right on using the US dollar. Other nations do, even if they have their own "official" currency.

2) US states have their own working government bureaucracy and social welfare systems, they just get a part of the funding from the Feds. They could just increase their tax rate to cover paying it all on their own.

3) I don't see why it would need a military. Who is going to attack a nation wholly inside the US ?

4) They might want ambassadors, but wouldn't really need them right away.

5) The bigger issues, I'd think, would be how to divide the current US national debt and what becomes of military equipment in the state (especially nuclear weapons). StuRat (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

U.S. States can't succeed secede because it's blatantly unconstitutional (Missouri kinda dabbled in that once before and it didn't turn out so well), and there was a war to prove it. The "secession" from various organizations depends entirely on the covenants that bind them in the first place, or to put it more bluntly, raw power. Britain was quite adamant that the U.S. didn't have the right to sovereignty but yet another war decided that one too. If you want a legal explanation look at the governing convention that creates the organization. If you want a realistic answer, look at power. Shadowjams (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And if you want clarity, don't write "succeed" where you mean "secede". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing secedes like success." :-) StuRat (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WELL EXCUSE MY MISSPELLING. Sheesh. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

They already have their own army and an air force: Missouri National Guard. As well a a nuke site near Kansas City (Whiteman Air Force Base). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A state cannot unilaterally secede, but nothing in the Constitution or Texas v. White (the relevant Supreme Court decision) prevents a mutually-agreed-upon secession. --Carnildo (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only does the U.S. constitution forbid secession, there is also no way a U.S. state could end up in a predicament similar to that of Greece that would lead to an interest in secession. The crucial differences between euro-zone members and U.S. states are the following: 1) There is some legal precedent for bankruptcy of a U.S. state. Arkansas defaulted on its debt in 1933. The federal government covered its budget for the next couple of years until the state regained fiscal stability. No exit from the dollar or the union was required. 2) This was so because hardly anyone in the United States questions the right of any state to federal support in an emergency. There is a shared national identity and a belief in mutual aid among states, unlike among the nations of Europe. On the other hand, there is also virtually no difference among states in retirement ages, eligibility for benefits, and so on, all of which are meager by European standards. Thus, there is not much room for resentments like those of the Germans over the ability of Greeks to retire at an earlier age. By contrast, for example, Americans really have no right to retire, though some manage to make arrangements for retirement. 3) No exit from the dollar would be required or desired because the openness and integration of the US labor market relieves the pressure for devaluation that exists in southern Europe. If a state's wages are uncompetitive, businesses will relocate to other states, as they can in the EU. However, the big difference is that workers can also relocate to where businesses are hiring or opportunities for self-employment exist. While this is theoretically true within the EU, cultural and linguistic barriers impede the migration of labor, unlike in the US. 4) For all of these reasons, a state in financial trouble would have no interest in secession. Likewise, there would probably be overwhelming support from residents other states for keeping the insolvent state in the union, both for sentimental patriotic reasons and (among the elites) as a result of a hardheaded calculation that the exit of a state from the integrated market of the United States and the likely resulting devaluation of assets in that state would cost more than supporting the state while it undertook fiscal reforms. Marco polo (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A few things... states may default on debt but they cannot declare bankruptcy. There's been discussion about creating such a procedure but it's fraught with constitutional problems. Second, there are other constitutional issues that make the States different than Greece. They cannot make their own currency, for instance, or impose tariffs or duties, or set immigration policy. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Where in the Constitution does it say that new states can join, but states can never leave? The Federalists said there was no leaving, but they approved secession of , initially 11 states from the Articles of Confederation, which called for "perpetual union" unlike the strict language of the Constitution. There is an 1869 Supreme Court ruling Texas v. White that says "no secession right",for unilaterally leaving the union, but lots of the Court's rulings like on Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson have been rejected by later courts. And that ruling allowed for the possibility of secession "through consent of the states." Many times in the last century parts of other countries have become independent or have affiliated with other countries, sometimes by military conquest, sometimes by revolution. Have there been cases since 1900 where part of a country seceded, and was there a law against it in the country, or at lease no constitutional provision explicitly allowing it, which I suspect is the case here? Did some of the original 13 colonies have explicit passages in their ratification documents claiming a right to secede? Edison (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, according to the supreme court, the part of the Constitution you seek is the phrase that says "In order to form a more perfect union,"

See Texas v. White for the details. APL (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no express prohibition in the constitution forbidding succession and in fact I've read that some of the first states did reserve some "right" to secede (although I can't find this in any mainstream history books I've been looking through). However today it's fairly well accepted that secession is unconstitutional, although there are those that disagree. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 29#Common currency, uncommon debt Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Alan Passaro

"In 1985, Passaro was found dead floating in the Anderson Reservoir with $10,000 in his pocket. Foul play was initially suspected but was never confirmed."

There is no way in hell that statement is true. Meredith Hunter's mother managed to get $10,000 out of the Rolling Stones. Her name is Altha May ANDERSON. Obviously if the statement is true then Passaro was murdered by someone who could afford to spend $10,000 on an ironic murder.

Can someone either:
a) Find a RELIABLE source for the statement, or.
b) Remove the statement.--EchetusXe 00:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I found this Houston Chronicle article verifying the Anderson Reservoir location, but the only sources I could find for the money were mirrors of Wikipedia, forum posts obviously sourcing from Wikipedia, and one dodgy amateur website. It sounds like someone's idea of a "wouldn't it have been cool if". 131.111.255.9 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That entry was posted 2 1/2 years ago,[23] by an IP and without anything resembling a citation. If there's a citation for the murder, it could be used as a citation, and the stuff about the money could be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, I guess it was just a coincidence and the $10,000 in his pocket (must have had pretty big pockets) was baloney. Thanks!--EchetusXe 10:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Go Train schedule

Is there schedule of the GO train like Toronto-Barrie, Toronto-Niagara Falls, Toronto-Windsor etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.140 (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this page help you any? Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't get to Windsor on a GO Train, you'd have to take VIA. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

READ!

Is it a good idea to make your own series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) ~Tailsman67~

How could you possibly expect an answer to such a vague question? Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

....perhaps with an equally vague answer? But you must admit, the OP was bold in asking it. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Still need an answer.~Tailsman67~

No. Staecker (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

NO!?~Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK then, yes. Staecker (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I say yes. If it gets your creative juices flowing, or if it gives you something to do when you're bored, then do it. Just have a realistic mindset about where it's going to go (probably nowhere, in terms of being picked up or published) before you set off. --McDoobAU93 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What sort of series? TV series? Anime? Graphic novel? Series of books? Video game series? World Series? Series of resistors? Ceres goddess of harvests? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's a good idea to read the guidelines at the top of the page regarding posting a question, and to read any warnings one might have received on one's talk page about potential blocks. But those are opinions and we don't do those here. --LarryMac | Talk 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks McDoob I already have a plan and a name.@ Colap:TV series, Anime, Graphic novel(if possible), Series of books(Manga), Video game series,and World Series.~Tailsman67~

Well what are you waiting for? You don't actually seem to need us. Go for it! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys,I wish I can tell you guys the storyline but they won't let me,Hero!~Tailsman67 of the Wikia~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and please read your talk page for some friendly suggestions. --McDoobAU93 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as it isn't a series of increasingly vague questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, I say go for it. TheGrimme (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope I covered that in my "friendly suggestions" to the IP. --McDoobAU93 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Purines and how to combat them in the human body.

I am interested in dealing with treating the food before it is to be consumed. Because all that is on the market is dealing with purines (Gout) in the body after the food is comsumed. Why not treat the food before it is consumed. It would stand to reason that if you eleminate the purines which cause Gout. A person would be far better off.

l ask this as l have been unable to chat directly with a food chemist. Maybe l could get someone in the industry interested in developing something that would either eleminate or drastically reduce the amount of purines in a food that a person would consume.

As l am only an Architect. I just do not know anything about chemistry and food. Hope you can help.

Greg Martin _{e-mail address removed} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.120.2 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would think the only way to remove purines would be to produce purine-free foods ... that is, artificial foods. Since some of the most common trigger foods for gout are natural (red meat and shellfish, among others), it would be difficult to remove the purines without totally altering them. I've spoken with doctors about it (original research, I know), and one of the easiest ways to control the intake of purines is to control the intake of foods containing them. --McDoobAU93 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that foods containing purines also tend to be unhealthy in other ways, like causing heart disease. So, if you remove the purines you may end up killing people who would have otherwise reformed their diet (when they contracted a painful gout condition), and thus would have avoided or postponed heart disease, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See All About Gout and Diet from the UK Gout Society. The notable exception to StuRat's comments above appears to be oily fish, which we are exhorted to eat on a regular basis[24] but is also a trigger for gout. Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

no more beef?

just curious, am I right in thinking that if no-one raised cattle (instead chickens, goats,sheep,pigs, etc.), the rate of global warming would be significantly reduced? Can anyone confirm if cows contribute more to global warming than all the cars in the world combined (or something like that, I can'tremember where I read this). Heck froze over (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I find such simplistic pronouncements to be almost universally wrong. The idea that cattle specifically and singularly are responsible for global warming (it's such an easy fix! Just stop eating hamburgers and start eating chicken sandwiches!) seems, on the face of it, silly. Which is not to say that raising cattle does not create its own environmental problems, but that doesn't mean that reducing the problems that cattle create to terse little solutions is wise either. --Jayron32 18:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheep, goats and pigs are nearly as bad as cattle in creating greenhouse gases. A total figure I've seen is 30% of greenhouse gases from grazing animals. Don't know about chooks. (Do birds burp and fart?) An added issue is the forest clearing to create grassland for grazing animals. Eating meat IS a greenhouse issue. But I like meat..... HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

While meat consumption has significant environmental impact in general, cattle is significantly worse than sheep, goats and pigs. The last figure I have seen is from the FAO, claims 18% of GHG emissions from the lifetock sector as a whole (not just grazing animals). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how much of that is incidental to raising cattle, and how much is directly caused by the cattle? In other words, does that 18% represent greenhouse emissions of cow farts, or does it represent the greenhouse gases emited by cars and trucks which transport meat, by factories which process meat, etc. etc. If it is the former, the OP may have a point. If it is primarly caused by transportation and processing, then the problem would go away if we converted to non-emiting energy sources. Without knowing what that 18% represents, it is meaningless to understanding the nature of this issue. --Jayron32 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about worldwide figures but you can see some NZ figures here which are detailed enough to seperate the various forms (as the refs show, agricultural includes stuff like fertiliser but not transport). [25] [26] NZ livestock are of course mostly grass fed. I'm pretty sure only a small percentage comes from cow farts, a much larger percentage is in burps. A big concern of course, as is perhaps exemplified by the NZ figures, they emit a lot of methane which is worse then carbox dioxide from a greenhouse perspective.Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Transportation costs are minimal. I have an old SciAm magazine with an article on the subject. Here are some numbers it gives. Producing a pound of beef in a feedlot generates the equivalent of 15 pounds of CO2. It would only take 4 ounces of CO2 to transport the same amount of food from Peru to the United States.

As to where the greenhouse gases come from, for U.S.-grown, non-organic feedlot beef, the composition is given as 32% direct emissions (farts/burps and decomposing manure), 14% fertilizer production, 14% "general farm production", 40% forgone absorption of greenhouse gases due to the production of feed crops.

What is "forgone absorption of greenhouse gases due to the production of feed crops" and why is it a positive term and not a negative one? -- 203.82.66.206 (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Undeveloped grasslands or forests act as carbon sinks. They absorb CO2, which turns into plant matter, and, when the plant dies, some of that carbon stays in the soil. High-quality grassland soil may be 25% carbon by weight to the depth of 1 meter. If you convert that grassland into a farm to grow corn (which will be fed to cows), levels of carbon go down. An undisturbed temperate grassland averages 240 tons of carbon per hectare. A typical cropland averages 80 tons per hectare.[27] With use, the amount of carbon keeps going further down due to erosion. I'm not sure if "forgone absorption" is the correct term to use here, but that's essentially what's meant by the statement. --Itinerant1 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd expect the figure to be higher for grass-fed beef. Raising cows on corn feed is more efficient than cutting down rainforests to make room for pasture. --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In reference to the alarming no more beef title, here's an article about growing meat from stem cells on an industrial scale: Grow your own meat.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides the gases cattle emit, there is the issue of land use. Land used to grow corn to feed to cattle in intensive feedlot operations could be used to grow food for the direct consumption of humans. A veggie bookwriter states that it takes 27 times the fuel to produce so many calories from cattle than from soybeans. Granted, the beef is far tastier for many consumers, and the protein is high quality, though with the burden of unhealthy fat. Edison (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Every time you add a new step in the food chain, your production efficiency goes down. Growing plants, feeding them to farm-raised animals, and then eating those animals is less efficient than eating plants directly. This is the reason why we don't grow any land-based predators on the industrial scale - they are often very tasty, but just too expensive to make sense economically. This is also why fish is expensive - most commercially exploited large species of fish are predators.

Our ancestors got out of this paradox because they either relied on wild-caught animals, or raised them on plants that they could not themselves eat. For example, raising grass-fed beef makes sense if you have a lot of grassland, you can't eat grass, and you don't have the technology to use that land to grow anything that you actually can eat. (Because the unique structure of the gastrointestinal tract of cattle allows them to extract calories from grass, while your own GI tract sees useless indigestible matter.) This is obviously no longer the case today.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Where I live, and in many other places in the world, this is still the case, sometimes because of lack of technology, but mainly where the altitude and rainfall dictate that land will grow little else other than grass. Dbfirs 00:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that your combination of cold climate and 100 inches of annual rainfall is quite unusual. In a warmer climate, you'd have excellent conditions for growing rice. It is much more common for the animal meat to be produced instead of crops because of the lack of institutions to support efficient high-tech agriculture. --Itinerant1 (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all that unusual for northern Europe, and it's certainly too cold for rice, but I agree with your statement about most meat and agriculture. Dbfirs 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Miracles

I've read that in order to be beatified, a person has to perform at least one miracle after their death. The thing I've always wondered is, when a miracle happens, how can people be so sure that it's because of this particular person, and not someone else? JIP | Talk 20:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Read Canonization#Roman_Catholic_procedure_since_1983. Basically, there's a process to get a virtuous person named a Venerable, which allows people to start praying to him or her for a miracle. People begin praying for a miracle, and when one happens (typically a miraculous cure of a sick person who has prayed to the Venerable) they can beatified (also, martyrs don't need a miracle attributed to them to be beatified. Everyone needs a couple miracles to be made a saint, though). Buddy431 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So the thing is, a miracle can be attributed to a specific person if there's evidence that it happened because of prayer to him/her, presumably by the miracle happening to the same people who prayed to the person and in quick succession of the prayer? JIP | Talk 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Catholic church may have the world's most elaborate and impressive protocol for committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously ignoring others flaws too, like being officially monotheistic but accepting that saints performing miracles. 88.8.67.30 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The saints are not considered to perform the miracle through their own innate power, but rather to intercede with God to have it performed by Him. 67.185.1.213 (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes and Saint#Roman Catholicism, Congregation for the Causes of Saints#Current process, Beatification, Intercession of saints#Roman Catholic views & the earlier linked Canonisation#Catholic Church, not surprisingly addresses all the technical details. It's perhaps worth remembering a saint is simply someone who is believed to be in heaven. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Some regard mere birth to be a miracle.--85.211.164.72 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And some regard Smokey Robinson to be a miracle. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What is so miraculous about birth, anyway? It has happened billions of times, and that's just for humans. There's almost nothing more mundane than birth. But anyway...that's getting far away from the original question... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people have a very low bar for the miraculous. I don't know whether to scorn them or envy them at this. How much more fun must their world be, when everything is divine? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted in EO,[28] the term "miracle" originates from "to wonder at". There are plenty of things to wonder at in the world, whether you believe in divine intervention or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

November 16

Prices on US Military Based and Rounding to the nearest 5 cents

Is it true that on US military based the prices are rounded to the nearest 5 cents? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Penny debate in the United States says Army and Air Force Exchange Service stores overseas round to the nearest 5 cents. Not sure about in the US (or whether other stores differ). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Obama and my Prime Minister have just announced the deployment of some US Marines to some northern Australian bases over the next few years. Since 5 cents is our smallest coin, those Marines had better get used to the concept. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh, now there's a question for you. On a U.S. base on foreign soil, does the PX require local currency? American currency? Both? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the point of what Colapeninsula said that they use US currency? You wouldn't round to the nearest 5 cents if using Japanese Yen. Or South Korean Won. Or Kuwaiti Dinar. The ref from the article actually says "It is important to note also that ad similar rounding technique is used at overseas US military bases" but while I guess it makes sense to round to 5 Japanese Yen or 50 Korean Won and 5 fils is necessary, but it seems quite unlikely that's what was meant. Anyway I think Eagle Cash makes it clear they do use US currency although not necessarily cash. (Which is interesting, I wonder whether they round even if you use the card, most stores don't do this for cards in NZ.) The use of US currency is mentioned here BTW [29] although admitedly only in relation to the food outlets. Evidentally some don't give coins but tokens [30]. This isn't really that surprising of course since they basically operate like US territory and the Americans there would be paid in US currency. I do wonder whether they will accept foreign currency, my guess is no, but there may be someplace for conversion in the larger bases. Nil Einne (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

3D fish formations

I remember how, in Finding Nemo, there was a school of fish which displayed flashy 3D formations just to show off. Does something similar happen in real life? Are there any fishes that are known to display 3D formations like to, say, ward off predators or something? 223.177.236.243 (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not as far as 3D shapes, no, but I believe there are fish with shiny sides which appear to flash when they all turn at once, reflecting sunlight into the predator's eyes. That has to be distracting. BTW, a 3D group of fish is sometimes called a ball of fish (not to be confused with a fish ball). StuRat (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Also known as a bait ball --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In case our article is difficult to visualize, see this video of a bait ball of anchovetas being attacked by bonitos, jacks, and yellowfin tuna. I highly recommend BBC's The Blue Planet documentary series, where that clip was from (I recommend anything narrated by David Attenborough really). Bait balls are featured prominently in the third episode ("Open Ocean").-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we have a redirect from ball of fish? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's used for fish ball as well. Might be better to create a disambiguation page instead.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Drinking only a part of a field bottle

I remember reading a G.I. Joe comic, where a new recruit took a sip of his field bottle during a patrol, and an older soldier said to him: "Hey! What do you think you're doing? A half-full bottle splashes around! The enemy can hear it! If you're going to drink, then drink the entire bottle in one go!" Does such a thing happen in real life? JIP | Talk 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a moot point, as most modern militaries use Camelbak style portable water solutions. Example article... This design is much easier to incorporate into the standard massive infantry backpack and also offers hands-free drinking, which is clearly a benefit if your hands are supposed to be holding a weapon... The Masked Booby (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd think you'd only prevent splashing if it was filled right to the top, as even a little air gap would allow it. Also, splashing isn't going to occur unless you're moving quickly, in which case the footsteps are likely to be heard, too. And it doesn't seem very practical to have to drink all your water at one sitting, in any case, due to the discomfort that would cause, the need to urinate soon, and the lack of water later on. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly a reliable source, but the movie Hamburger Hill has multiple references to FNGs running around with half full canteens making lots of racket. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edge Factory

While reviewing some family history, one of my relatives has some written history regarding ancestors who ran an "edge factory" in Kentucky sometime after 1810. This factory was located on a creek, so may have required running water to effect whatever entreprise this might be. Grist mill, blacksmithing? I can't find any reference on the net. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfHoosier (talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At Google book search, I could only find phrases like "made his debut at that gilt edge factory" or a factory belonging to someone named "Edge.". Maybe a misspelling of some other kind of factory, or "edge" as part of a personal or place name? Perhaps "River Edge Factory?" I suppose a factory might put edges on devices which need to be sharpened as part of the manufacture or maintenance. Dull tools and weapons are a nuisance. Nothing promising at Google, Google Maps, or USGS Geographic Names Information Service. If someone used the commonly bad spelling of the frontier, it could even have been "adze factory,"though I would have expected a factory to make axes, hatchets, froes, and plowshares as well rather, than being so specialized. Edison (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be interesting to know what directly precedes "edge". The OED refers to an edge-mill: "an ore-grinding or oil-mill in which the stones travel on their edges". And an oil-mill is defined as "a machine in which seeds, fruits, etc are crushed or pressed to extract oil; a factory where oil is expressed by such machines."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

November 17

Are the Wikipedians really serious about Userboxitis?

Are the Wikipedians really serious about Userboxitis, and what's so bad about them? I absolutely love Userboxes. Every one of them cracks me up with a smile on my face, and I wish I can use every single one of them on my Wiki user page. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The correct plural is Userboxen. If you forget this world-shatteringly important fact one more time, we may have to inform the Wikipedia Secret Police and increase your coffee intake.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1, 2, 3...This userbox is a test. Please tell this user if you don't see it.

HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. To give you an idea how old that basic joke is, at minimum, here's the second verse of the World War I song, "It's a Long Way to Tipperary": Paddy wrote a letter to his Irish Molly-o / Saying, should you not receive it, write and let me know / If I make mistakes in spelling, Molly dear, said he / Remember, it's the pen that's bad - don't lay the blame on me! That second part also sounds very familiar somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a question better suited for Wikipedia:Help Desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or anywhere else. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

about ways of donation

I am a Chinese user without a credit card or a paypal account. I wonder if it's possible to add Alipay as a means of donation. This would greatly facilitate would-be Chinese donors. Thank you.

BTW about Alipay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alipay#Alipay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.88.2.55 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are other methods of donation, including wire transfer and Moneybookers. See this page. Wikipedia:Contact us/Donations has more info, and you can contact donate@wikimedia.org with questions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, thank you for your interest in donating to keep Wikipedia running! Your support is appreciated. --Tango (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Diet Coke and Mentos

Just read the article, and was wondering what would happen if someone ingested Mentos shortly after drinking diet coke. Will they explode? Will the acid in their stomach neutralise the reaction? Also, is diet coke the only thing that works, or will normal coke do the trick too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.177.168.168 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You'd probably vomit violently. I don't suppose you would explode - the plastic coke bottles don't. In any case I wouldn't try it. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Or probably not. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article and references say that normal Coke produces a smaller reaction; they suspect aspartame in Diet Coke is partly responsible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you search YouTube for mentos+coke+mouth there are plenty of people doing this but they all seem to have the sense not to drink the coke before eating the mentos.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Coca-Cola claim you're safe to drink diet Coke and eat Mentos.To quote them:

Q. Can this same reaction occur if I eat Mentos and drink Diet Coke or Coke Zero at the same time?

A. No. Chewing the candy destroys its surface which is needed for the carbon dioxide bubbles to form.

Q. Will anything happen if I just swallow Mentos and then consume Diet Coke or Coke Zero?

A. No. The level of carbon dioxide and pressure generated in a 2 liter bottle of beverage is far greater than what can be produced in the stomach.

--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Snopes.com says it won't make you explode or kill you but it can still be rather unpleasant to consume mentos and diet soda; they suggest that the mixture will re-emerge from your mouth and cite YouTube videos as evidence.[31] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifying material in an entry on myself

The wiki entry on me – Brian Sibley – has a warning printed that the personal information may not be verified as no citations are given. How can I personally verify the correctness of information in the entry for readers?

Brian Sibley <EMAIL REMOVED> — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianSibley (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address.

All information on Wikipedia must come from reliable sources (e.g. newspaper articles, books), and should include a reference specifying the source. You can verify personal information by inserting references pointing to reliable sources that give the information in the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for what counts as a reliable source, and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for how to add references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article Brian Sibley, there is a lot of biographical information that doesn't have any sources referenced. This information in theory shouldn't be included unless it has been published in a reliable source (generally something that has been professionally edited in whatever media, or produced by a reputable publishing house, TV channel, or a website acknowledged as a good source of information, not something from a blog, wiki, fanpage, etc). It should be possible to find sources for some of this - e.g. there's a quote from the Daily Telegraph that must be traceable to an edition of the paper or its website, and IMDb or the BBC website may be suitable sources for information on works he has written (some IMDb material like biographies and trivia are crap written by random people and not trustworthy, but IMDb is commmonly used for filmographies). However, I'm not sure if suitable published sources exist for many of the details Sibley's life (unless there is a newspaper or magazine profile somewhere). None of the material looks controversial, so I don't think it should be removed, but it would be nice to have some more references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And finally, read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before editing the Wikipedia page about yourself: you should avoid making major changes or writing anything controversial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious, Brian (and we regular Wikipedians may sometimes be guilty of forgetting to spell this out), you have identified yourself in your message as the Brian Sibley in question, and you very probably are, but we cannot be certain of that, and cases of malicious impersonation do occur - impersonation is very easy on the internet. For that reason we have to restrict ourselves to already-published sources which would have been challenged on their publication if erroneous, and which anyone can refer to as a check. We also have to make it a general rule to avoid self-published sources (e.g. your own website if you have one, or your personal communications to us or third parties) because some people may be motivated to misrepresent themselves, and because such sources are difficult or impossible for others to check. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.145 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, your mug-shot was scanned in... Can you remember who the photographer was?--Aspro (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rare phenomenon

i was watching pirates of the carribean (at world's end) earlier and there is a scene in there where they discuss a natural phenomenon where a green light will shoot out from the sea to the sky, they say it is so rare that almost all men live out their lives not seeing the green light, so im am wondering, is there any natural phenomenon similar to this one that is so rare only a few people witnessed? im thinking of auroras.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arah18 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The phenomenon discussed in the movie is this: Green_flash thx1138 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

More generally, there are a number of rare meteorological or atmospheric phenomena that most people have never seen, including various kinds of upper-atmospheric lightning (sprites, elves, blue jets, blue starters) and cloud phenomena like glories and Brocken spectres. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Similar but not rare is the Naga fireballs. The article also links to St. Elmo's fire and Will-o'-the-wisp far more rare. --Aspro (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Wheels of Poseidon", [32] has been seen by few people. Note: The WP article Wheels of Poseidon makes sound as if it requires a ship – which it doesn't. The plankton can self generate the effect on their own on a large scale.--Aspro (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting guys, thanks. But is there any phenomenon that is almost considered as legendary for its rarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arah18 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ball lightning seems to fit - it's still still unknown what it is, if anything, since witness reports vary widely. There may be some phenomena in the "see also" section with a similar status.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You could check out some of the pages at Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena and related categories. The first thought I had was glories, Heiligenschein, and aureoles, but they are not that uncommon. Apparently the Kern arc is "extremely rare", with only six reported sightings, according to our page. Some natural phenomena are not rare but very hard to see, so few people have, like Gegenschein. The Fata Morgana mirage is rare and has a nice legend to go along with it (perhaps answering your second question to some degree). Also, I think the glory phenomenon (and perhaps related ones) played a role in the depiction of saints with aureola around their heads. Pfly (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're into this sort of thing, I might recommend a book called Handbook of Unusual Phenomena by William Corliss. It has a lot of odd stuff in it, much of which must be confused balderdash, but it all has some sort of documentation behind it (even if the documentation in question may itself be based on confused balderdash). It's available quite cheap used. It's entertaining at the very least. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Another good book on natural light and color phenomena (not all "unusual" phenomena, but some, and all described in great detail) is Light and Color in the Outdoors by Marcel Minnaert. In fact, I paged through it after seeing this thread. Likely not as cheap as the Corliss book though. I found a used copy. Pfly (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Akiza!

Where did Akiza go,when she left 5Ds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.131 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty vague again, Tailsman67. >_> Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems that Akiza#Akiza_Izinski answers this question. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean,where does she live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.131 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

She doesn't live. She's a fictional character. If the show didn't explain where she left for, how would we know? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Danmit.:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.131 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

CC and BCC

There are three windows in my Gmail account. A normal one (To) where I get to type in the addresses with commas, a CC window, and a BCC window. CC is for carbon copy, which means sending the same email to different people. Since I can already do that in the first window, with those commas, why has Gmail kept a separate CC window? Also, BCC forwards the same mail to different people, only now, they can't see who the other recipients of the mail are. So supposing I type one person's address in the first To window, and the other addresses in the BCC box, do the BCC recipients get to see the name of the person in the To box? 110.225.185.76 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Right they'd be able to see the people in the "To" "CC" and "From" fields. I don't really understand the point the "CC" field myself. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"CC" is meant to be just for people to have a copy of the mail and not do anything with it, while "To" is for somebody to reply or action. If you get a "CC" it is just for interest and you dont need to reply or do anything. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the usage of it. Some people may want a reply. Anyway, CC is just for aesthetics. It doesn't functionally mean anything different than "To". BCC actually does something different. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's just for aesthetics. If I CC someone on an email, it's essentially telling them why they are included on the email. That would be "I'm sending this for your own info but I don't expect a reply from you." It's communicating without having to spell out in the email "Hey John, this is for your info only. Don't feel the need to reply." Dismas|^(talk) 22:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that some people use CC when they should, logically, be using the "To" line, and also misuse it when, for privacy, they should be using BCC. I wouldn't expect a reply if I received only a carbon copy. I have collected lots of e-mail addresses from people who pass on their whole address book in CC, though I have no intention of mis-using these. Dbfirs 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To summarise points from several of the above answers and also to clear up some possible confusions, the following is what I was taught in a formal Business Administration course leading to an RSA Certificate, and also subsequently in IT Diploma courses given (mandatorily) to new recruits at two different global multinational firm I subsequently joined. (The courses all predated the creation of Gmail, but I'd be very surprised if Gmail's usages differ.)

The 'To:' field is for the recipient or recipients who are expected to take action on or need the information in the contents of the e-mail; they can see all of the other To and CC recipients.

The 'CC:' (from Carbon Copy) field is for further recipients who are not expected to take action on or use the contents, but whom you wish to be aware that the e-mail was sent; they also can see all of the other To and CC recipients.

The 'BCC:' (from Blind Carbon Copy) field is for people whom you want to receive the e-mail without the To or CC recipients knowing about it; a BCC recipient can see all of the To and CC recipients but not any other BCC recipients, but the To and CC recipients cannot see any of the BCC recipients. Hope that helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.145 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That explains it well, and it also raises an example that may not have been covered in a recent discussion about old-fashioned terms that are still used (such as "dialing" on the phone). "Carbon Copy" comes from a time when typists literally used carbon paper for making multiple copies. The need for carbon paper in that context pretty much disappeared as the xerox and the PC gained wide usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

November 18

when i am (legally) a finder?

if i 'find' somewhere a wallet, take it to look into it, and then replace it just where i 'found' it returning to my own buisness - am i legally a finder (with duty to report what i found)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.123.87 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So, this internet censorship thingy...

If, heaven forbid, it is enacted, would Wikipedia be a possible victim of this draconian legislation? 76.64.237.223 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)