Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:25, 18 May 2015

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

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.

May 13

Do many people drink alcohol every day?

Hi,

I've lived in several countries and I've also traveled a lot for short periods. This year, I went to the French part of Belgium for more than one month, which is an unusual long period of time. After so long, you get to see people in their day-to-day life. What shocked me the most was to see that almost everybody is drinking alcohol every day. They would have a beer every time a guest is coming home, or just after coming back from work or even in the car driving around (including the driver!) and I heard lots of stories about people having drinks at work with colleagues. I've never seen that anywhere else but maybe people do it as well but are less comfortable showing it. According to your experience, is it usual for people to drink every day for almost every occasion? Is it a big thread to their health? I went also to UK where people get really wasted (not unusual to see people lying on the street around bars on Saturday night) but I have no clue if they drink a lot during the week.

203.111.224.70 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the stats, here are the stats: [1] That there is the WHO's report for alcohol consumption for just about every country in the world, from Algeria to Zimbabwe and everything in between. I doubt you will find a better reference. Unfortunately, no one at this reference desk should answer your other question "according to your experience...", because this isn't the correct venue for that. But if you want to know the experiences of everybody in the world, on a by-country basis, read that WHO report. --Jayron 32 02:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, can you give the page (the pdf has 202 pages) on which they address actual every-day consumption? I googled the question, and the best I could find was "daily consumption" which was actually an average, and had nothing to do with each day independently. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the 202 pages has the same statistics, just for a different country. --Jayron 32 10:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Medeis' point is that the report you cite does not help to answer the OP's question, which was about the number of people who drink alcohol every day. Since the report you cite does not answer the question, it would have been preferable not to cite it. --Viennese Waltz 12:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The List of countries by alcohol consumption per capita may help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well (and this is all unsourced OR) Belgium is a bit of a unique proposition where alcohol is concerned, as beer is classed as "liquid bread" and as such, you don't need a licence to sell it. Couple that with the French love of wine with meals and yes, Belgians do drink a lot of alcohol every day in general. (One reason why I love that country so much!) --TammyMoet (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some data from the CDC, which only covers the USA [2]. They define "heavy drinking" as 15/week for men, 8/wk for women. Yes, it can be distributed unevenly, but there will be many in that group that drink daily. As of 2008, heavy drinking, as defined by the CDC, had an incidence rate of about 4% in the USA. Note that binge drinking (with a definition that can include heavy drinkers, and often does) is much higher, at about 15% SemanticMantis (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The table that Cookatoo linked suggests that adults in Belgium consume a mean of about 12 liters per month of beer and wine, total. That works out to about 3 liters per week, or nearly a pint a day. What the table does not indicate is the standard deviation for that mean. The mean for the United States is about two-thirds of the number for Belgium, but Semantic Mantis's data from the CDC shows that there is a large standard deviation here. That is, lots of people have little to no alcohol in a given week, while a smaller number of people have several drinks each day. We would need more evidence to know whether alcohol consumption is more or less universal among adults in Belgium, at a rate of a drink or two per day, or whether daily consumption varies widely among specific social subgroups, perhaps defined by age, ethnicity, income, education, or whatever. Marco polo (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A 2008 survey found that 22% of Belgians claim to never drink alcohol while 14% claim to drink alcohol daily.[3] But they were not on the extremes of European results for either answer. Rmhermen (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, about 7% of their study group and 9% of the drinkers in it drink daily. Or about 675,100 Ontarians. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

I am late to this discussion, but I think it is important to define what it means to "drink alcohol." From personal experience... When I was in Norway, the people I was with drank beer at each meal. However, they did not consider it "drinking alcohol" because the beer was less than 2% alcohol. They got beer from the local brewery (Makol if I remember correctly) which was 5% alcohol. Drinking that was drinking alcohol. Similarly, when I was in Italy, the people I was with had wine with every dinner, but that was not drinking alcohol. They lived in the Asti region and wine was everywhere, but it has nearly no alcohol in it. The "celebration wine" did have alcohol (between 8 and 10%) and that was considered "drinking alcohol." Again, in Kyoto, the people I was with did a shot of rice wine at the end of dinner each night, but it was highly diluted. It was more just hot water and less alcohol. On Sunday night, they got out the real wine and got drunk. That was drinking alcohol. So, from three completely different environments, I noticed that what people consider to be "drinking alcohol" can be different than "drinking a liquid that contains alcohol." Therefore, self-identification of alcohol consumption can have a lot of bias. 209.149.114.204 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for Ontario, drinking beer under 5% is still more something one reads about in the paper than makes a habit of. Safe to assume the study I linked meant at least one (maybe two) daily standard serving. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Some points:

1) I believe people who drink regularly develop a tolerance for alcohol, so that an equal amount has less effect on them.

2) Drinking a more-or-less constant amount each day but staying sober is less damaging than binges, where one gets seriously "drunk", perhaps passing out.

3) A low enough level of alcohol consumption actually has some health benefits.

4) The body does possess the ability to process a small amount of (grain) alcohol before it does damage, but how much people can process varies due to genetics, which in turn differs by ethnic group. In other words, some ethnic groups can better handle alcohol than others. The general tendency is that those ethnic groups who have been consuming alcohol for a long time have developed better ways to process it internally. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we name this flag please?

I saw a flag from the bus the other day which I had never seen before and can't recognize at all.Didn't have time to take a pic,but that's [4] a fairly good rendering of it. It's not a local flag or of any group I can think of. Any ideas? Lemon martini (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we assume from your use of the phrase "bits and bobs" on your userpage that you are located somewhere in the UK? It might help to have an even more precise location such as a city name. Was it part of an advertisement? Dismas|^(talk) 21:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons' 'flag by colour' tool reveals that it is the flag of the Berber people. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] This is the flag of Berberism, a North African nationalist movement. Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Exeter,UK. It was on a flagpole in someone's garden. Thanks for identifying it-it seems a rather unusual one to pop up in a Devon village,but there we are. Incidentally,the link is producing a error message-there's a bad title apparently... Lemon martini (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

Scared of ET the Extra-Terrestrial

Hi all,

I know some people might think it's funny but as a child, I spent many horrible nights having big dreams about ET. I had to wait to be a teenager to be able to watch the film alone. Thanks to internet, I realized I was not the only one. Actually, many people had the same problem. ET is really creepy with his ugly face, his way of moving and his sounds. Is there any chance you could mention it in this article that the movie was considered very scary for some people? Thanks a lot. 203.111.224.71 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there's a notable published source that mentions this. Of course, as kids grow into adults, they replace their fear of ET the Extra-Terrestrial with a fear of EC the Extra Cholesterol. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or the ECG, the Electro-Encephologram. Films are films, not meant to be a depiction of any kind of reality that we know of. They are merely 'what if....' scenarios. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ECG = electrocardiogram. Electroencephalogram is EEG. --180.149.192.133 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant EEG. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I've heard of or can recall any news stories about kids being frightened by E.T. Of course, the film is fairly intense at times, no matter what the creature looked like. Maybe you were a little too young for it. Kids have different levels of tolerance for intensity. I've read that a number of children were frightened when they went to see Disney's Snow White back in the 1930s, specifically by the witch. The witch in The Wizard of Oz was pretty scary too, and supposedly Maggie Hamilton, a kind-hearted sort in real life, never again played a witch, because she didn't want kids to think the Wicked Witch of the West had come back to life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a small child, I was scared of those flying monkeys (blimey, I wasn't expecting to find a WP article). Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you see it in high-def, observing that the distant shots of the monkeys carrying Dorothy away are just puppets, it kind of takes the edge off the anxiety. Not so evident when you're in single-digits watching on a small screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on the big screen actually. I think we were more easily taken-in by special effects in those days. Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the flying monkeys. Around age three I hid behind the couch, and peaked around the corner to watch. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Uncanny valley. "Things" that are sort of but not entirely human can evoke a feeling of "creepiness", horror, or revulsion. This perception varies from person to person. It mostly applies to characters or robots, but some people, e.g., one of my granddaughters, have that feeling with regard to particular hominid reconstructions in museums. (She says that some of them have "weird eyes", and they do, because they are humanoid but not human. ET is less human than most of the humanoids that evoke the uncanny valley, which just illustrates that it varies from person to person. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had never seen a nonhuman mammal, would a dog's face seem "human" enough to reach your uncanny valley? Pretend I didn't ask for speculation. —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine the snout is enough to let the brain confidently put Fido in the proper folder. He's still similar enough to elicit the creepy Rockwellian psychic staring effect, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources about some children being fearful of ET, they can go into the article, but discuss on the article talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Common Sense Media (something like the Ned Flanders of film review), "Parents need to know that Steven Spielberg's classic has some scenes of mild peril that may be too intense for younger children." Also junk food advertising, slight tipsiness, strong language ("by today's standards") and white people everywhere.

Not exactly nightmarish, but a bit spooky. Doesn't criticize his fugly face or gangly arms, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Though a user review (much less "reliable"), says: " As a three-year-old, I was summoned by my parents to the living room of our little apartment. They told me to look at the TV. I watched a boy offer Reese's Pieces to a figure shrouded in darkness. When the terrible head and neck were revealed, I was paralyzed in fear. I could not move. I could not speak. I wanted to scream and cry, but I couldn't."

You're not alone, OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Fear of clowns

My daughter has long been fearful of clowns. She has said that she has learned that she is not alone, that other people also are fearful of clowns. It occurs to me now that, because clowns have "weird faces", they may also be in the uncanny valley for some people, sufficiently not-quite-human-looking as to evoke creepiness. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a moderately decent, but short, article on Coulrophobia, the fear of clowns, which has references to further articles outside of Wikipedia that could provide some good basis for your research. Notably, the connection to the uncanny valley concept is noted there as well. --Jayron 32 03:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster Clown is definitely common. A little too common, I say. Many just fake it to fit in. Sort of like how it's cool to say bacon is tasty, or whatever the current thing is. But it's not all fake. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls the Monster Clown the evil clown. That's a bit rude. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy would be one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who can forget the film classic Killer Klowns from Outer Space, such a cinematic masterpiece that a 3D sequel is now in the works. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion many times, search the archives. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See? Clowns are done to death. And if they come back as zombie clowns, zombies are more overdone than bacon. Nothing to fear, citizens! Make like Paul Anka, and just don't look. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, continue paying no attention to the literal spine-tingling, gut-wrenching and blood-curdling daily true horror story that is bacon. Or, safer yet, laugh at it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Earthlings are the fucking scariest hairless, big-headed wrinkly aliens, but that has nothing to do with clowns. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Fear of large birds with fur and teeth

Anybody talking about that? Or even have a name for those things? Google seems to suggest by its silence that we're OK with this, which doesn't seem right. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe ornithodontodoraphobia is the proper term. Google did that much for me. But that doesn't explain much, and Googling it doesn't help. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

It just occured to me, thanks to the main section above, that a large bird with fur and teeth is essentially a flying monkey, so this fear is just a manifestation of that, not truly scary itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

What is a combined HDMI/DVI port?

I have a Samsung flatscreen TV that has 4 HDMI ports. Ports #2-4 are all labelled "HDMI," but Port #1 is labelled "HDMI/DVI". A casual visual inspection reveals that all 4 ports look the same. Can anyone tell me what the difference between Port #1 labeled HDMI/DVI is relative to the other 3 "HDMI-only" ports? If I want to plug in a Chromecast or Roku, does it matter which of the 4 ports I use? Acceptable (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See HDMI#Compatibility with DVI. An HDMI/DVI port would still need an adaptor to work with the Digital Visual Interface however, as the two connectors are different. --Jayron 32 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I don't have any DVI devices and want to use the "HDMI/DVI" port as a normal "HDMI-only" port, could I treat this HDMI/DVI port just like any other normal HDMI port? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try it. I'm pretty certain it won't explode and send shards of glass into your eyes. --Jayron 32 22:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But just in case, wear safety glasses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVI to HDMI cables are not unusual. If you have a computer with only DVI output, you need to get a DVI to HDMI cable. Then, the connector on the other end needs to have an HDMI/DVI connection. It auto-detects the DVI and just works. If your TV didn't have an HDMI/DVI connection, you'd need a DVI to HDMI converter. Basically, they are simply doing the conversion for you inside the TV. 209.149.114.204 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically wrong. HDMI to DVI adapters whether in the form of cables or plugs are completely passive. (Well except for some weird adapter for the Radeon 4xxx generation which appears to relate to something weird they chose to do.) They are simple connecting the right pins in HDMI to the right pins in DVI. At a basic level this should work together as stated below. The TV can't be substituting for the adapter if the port is still a HDMI port. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware (and our article doesn't contradict me on this), HDMI and DVI are always compatible (at least for DVI input to HDMI output - you lose audio going from HDMI to DVI). So unless the manufacturer is just trying to fool people who don't know HDMI and DVI are already compatible, I'm not sure what the difference could be. MChesterMC (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can surely treat the port as a normal HDMI port for most purposes, As to the differences it's hard to say. As was said by MChesterMC, HDMI and DVI are cross compatible due to a few modes required to be supported by both. HDMI depending on versions does have audio, CEC, ethernet and other stuff that standard DVI won't provide and there's no such thing as dual link HDMI and each has their own modes which the other won't support. (Also I believe HDMI has always required HDCP, whereas it was only introduced later to DVI.) None of this is really likely to be the difference. It's possible that the TV will let you reduce processing on the HDMI/DVI port but not the other ports, to reduce latency and avoid the possibility of strange effects with text etc. (However most commonly such ports are labelled gaming ports or whatever, particularly since they will often be used with consoles with native HDMI output.) If your TV has analog or perhaps non HDMI digital audio input, perhaps (or by default) the audio input is assigned to the HDMI/DVI port, or may be it's assigned if there's no audio on the HDMI and not assigned to the other ports (or may be when multiple lack audio on the HDMI input) [5]. Alternatively and probably most likely, there is no difference and they labelled the port to try and tell people it can be used for DVI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

air pollution in Beijing and Delhi

The WHO says Delhi has the worst air pollution of all monitored cities as measured by level of PM 2.5 particles. Beijing isn't in the top 20. But then why does Beijing have so much more smog--thicker and on more days--than Delhi? If the smog is a different kind of air pollution then why on the smoggiest of days is the PM 2.5 level also the highest?

[6]

Muzzleflash (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an extensive article on Smog. The simplest answer is that, while particulate matter is an important component of smog, the mechanism by which smog forms is not a simple one-to-one correlation with particulate matter, and because of that you can expect differences between the amount of particulate matter and the amount of smog. --Jayron 32 03:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your premise is wrong. Delhi actually has more and thicker smog than Beijing (though it is often talked about less). In both cases smog varies both day-to-day and season-to-season, with late fall and winter being worse than other seasons [7]. One can certainly find images of ridiculous pollution from either Delhi or Beijing. Dragons flight (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smog is a combination of smoke and fog (hence the name) - generally, the 'particulates' are smoke-like solids, and fog (water droplets condensing out of the air) wouldn't be factored into the pollution statistics because it's a natural phenomenon. However when there is an incipient fog - the solid particles can act as nucleation sites that help the fog to form. Hence, in naturally humid air, the presence of particulate pollution will dramatically worsen the foggy conditions. So it could easily be that a city with very dry air could have severe particulate pollution without suffering from visibly obvious smog.

Hence, the differences between the smog levels between these cities could easily be related to humidity and relatively unrelated to the exact amounts of particulates. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Door

What is the door mechanism on charity bins called? The one that allows stuff to go in but not to be pulled back out? Here's a picture http://www.wear2bank.co.uk/assets/Main%20images/Bank-donation.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.157.198.66 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you try to take something out? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Attached to the door at ~100degrees is a second plate of metal. You place your deposit between the door and the other plate then when you close the door your deposit slides in, same as a book return or a post box in Canada. 173.32.72.65 (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds something like the old US4176610, or "safe deposit apparatus". If not quite that, it may be one of the things in the Citations and Referenced By sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the same kind of trap-door mechanism used in some vending machines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably get the stuff out again by turning the container upside down, but I've never tried this. Dbfirs 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the design- On some of these systems, there is not an "open" position that allows throughput, i.e. a free path from outside to inside when the door is open. In that case, you'd have to hold it upside down, then repeatedly shake it whilst opening and closing the door. Here's an illustration for a design that does have a free path from inside to outside with the door open, but sadly no name for the design/part [8]. This product [9] has an "Anti-theft, gravity action door" - not very satisfying, but I think it would be a serviceable term for most purposes. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bugs wouldn't know this but this is the mechanism on bins in ladies' toilets for disposing of used sanitary towels. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Because you don't want anyone stealing those out of the bins. Dismas|^(talk) 10:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of pervy people wouldn't mind a sniff, that's men AND women included. 188.138.247.175 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Original Research? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

H.M.S. Osprey

Having spent two summers at the Naval Base as a Sea Cadet doing courses, I note that there is no mention in Wikepedia of the Prisoner of war cells for German fighter pilots that were on the bluff opposite the main gate. There were Nissan huts where we stayed, as well as other naval ratings. I remember going into the cells , which went many stories underground, but the lighting still worked so it was quite easy to see. There was also a large stone tablet at the top of the steps leading to the huts which was carved by the Luftwaffe Pilots who were held there as a mark of appreciation for the way they were treated. I can find no mention of these facilities in any reports of the early post war reports of the Base.

Regards, Bob Malcolm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.135.242 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are speaking of HMS Osprey, Portland. -- ToE 04:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add any information to an article without a valid reference to back it up. Usually, we can find something online but I have had a quick look at Google and can't see anything of use. I'm also wondering if a network of underground cells is more likely to be an old magazine rather than being purpose built for POWs? It seems to be rather an expensive way to accomodate those usually held in wooden huts. Portland was heavily fortified during the Victorian times - see Palmerston Forts, Portland. Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may help in searches to remember that the base at Portland was HMS Attack from 1941-46. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the East Weare Battery, which was within the area controlled by the Navy. In our article for the nearby Verne High Angle Battery, there is a photograph of one of the magazine tunnels; the magazines at East Weare would be similar. I can't find anything to suggest that they were used by POWs though. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supereggs ?

This newspaper flyer ad for Eggland's Best eggs makes some outrageous claims:

"Compared to ordinary eggs, Eggland's Best eggs have 4 times the Vitamin D, more than double the Omega 3, 10 times the Vitamin E, and 25 percent less saturated fat. Plus, EBs are a good source of Vitamin B5 and Riboflavin, contain only 60 calories, and stay fresh longer."

Their website says they do this with "special feed", but I'm skeptical that this alone would make so much difference. So:

1) Is this all true ?

2) If so, how do they do it ? Do they soak the eggs in a vitamin bath ?

3) What makes them stay fresh longer ?

StuRat (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the specific claims, but the chickens are fed a highly supplemented diet. For a crude analogy, if you want your feces to be full of corn kernels there're two ways to go about it, one of which doesn't involve manually adding the kernels to the finished product. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For vitamin D - probably true. This paper [10] demonstrates that feeding chickens diets high in vitamin D will cause the eggs laid by said chicken to have more vitamin D in the yolk. For vitamin E - also totally reasonable - this paper [11] reports finding on supplementing chicken diet with vitamin E and fish oil. It also mentions fatty acids increasing, but I don't really feel like reading the whole article. As for calories, a "regular" 50g egg has ~75 kcal, so they could easily get down to 60 calories by just selling slightly smaller eggs. Basically, "you are what you eat" applies to chickens too - if you pump them full of fatty acids and vitamins, their eggs will, to some extent, in some cases, also carry those substances. Research on chicken egg nutrition as a function of chicken diet is a huge field - plenty more like these refs can be easily found via google scholar. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the nutrition claims are regulated by the FDA, so they can't just make them up (at least not legally). They don't identify the "ordinary eggs" that they used and they could have shopped around for eggs that would look bad in the comparison. Both eggs in the comparison weigh 50g, but some of the differences, such as lower fat and cholesterol, could be explained by the Eggland's Best eggs having slightly smaller yolks, or thicker/heavier shells since I think the shell is included in the weight. Thicker-shelled eggs also stay fresh longer, according to random Internet people. -- BenRG (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard somewhere that in the USA, eggs are frequently washed, to improve their appearance. However, washing also removes a naturally-present protective film from the egg, which reduces the eggs' shelf-life. I don't know how true this is, and if the eggs the OP mentions are unwashed. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they legally must wash them in the US. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mother buys the brand, simply because they are usually the cheapest--she notices no difference in taste. The eggs are washed and stamped with a logo. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egg washing is mandatory in the US and illegal in the EU. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do they install little cameras over your kitchen sinks? μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Big Brother arrived years ago, disguised as a multitude of Little Siblings, in the form of human beings who record almost every moment of their waking lives on their devices and post pictures and videos on Youtube and Facebook etc, just before complaining of too much government intrusion into their privacy. If the government issued the devices to all households and mandated that everyone use them on themselves and their social groups, that might be a legitimate complaint. But people choose to buy their own, and choose to make sure they're always at the cutting edge of new technology, and choose to make this a higher priority than feeding their children, and then choose to spill the guts of their lives all over the internet. Is there something wrong with this picture? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Consolidate old user account with current account

How do I go about consolidating two user accounts? I previously edited under User:Jameyson72, contributing mainly on the Oxygen scavenger article. After that account fell into disuse, I forgot the login credentials and when I decided to start editing again, I simply created a new account. Is it possible to consolidate the two accounts? I'd really appreciate any help. Ormr2014 | Talk 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just read Deleting and merging accounts and see this isn't possible per Wikipedia policy. Ormr2014 | Talk 21:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:CHU. You can put {{user previous account}} on your user page to identify the old account. (This sort of question would be better on the Help Desk, incidentally). Tevildo (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

What are the best universities ( USA, Canada, Europe, Australia & New Zealand) for a Masters degree in telecommunications engineering?

What are the best universities ( USA, Canada, Europe, Australia & New Zealand) for; (a) A research Masters degree; (b) A theory Masters degree; in telecommunications engineering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlcd (talk • contribs) 13:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the best known school rankings are published by U.S. News and World Report. Telecommunications engineering is a subdiscipline of electrical engineering. Here is their rankings thereof. --Jayron 32 20:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean's runs the university ranking racket here. They'll give you a taste for free, but for that sort of detail, you'll have to buy the issue. Or subscribe to their website. Or find it ~~"pirated"~~ somewhere next year, after the proper owners have no use for it, and you have a fair use for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be suggesting our clients become accessories (whether after, during or before the fact) to serious offences. If we can't even give legal advice, we certainly can't aid and abet law breaking. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Are you suggesting we protect them from crime? Because that costs extra. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we give suggestions that would not involve our clients in piracy, not even passively. If they want to do that, they can think of it themselves and they won't need our help. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I thought you were talking about the ranking racket. Amended. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Question (How can I join this organization?)

Hi. How can I join this organization? (Sophie Concepcion (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

(Moved from Math Desk and title fixed.) StuRat (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You already did, when you registered. But, you made a few mistakes in posting this Q:

1) You put it on the Math Ref Desk. I moved it to Miscellaneous.

2) Your title is meaningless, as every post here is a question. I added to it to make it useful.

3) You posted your Q at the top, in it's own section, when it belongs at the bottom, under that day's date. The "Ready? Ask a new question" button at the top takes care of this part for you.

I will post a link to this new location to your talk page, so you can find it. Oh, and Welcome Aboard ! StuRat (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to join a WikiProject, which helps coordinate the editing of articles in one subject-area. There's a list of them linked from that page, or it's here WikiProject Directory. ---- LongHairedFop (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does a student who graduated from a lower-ranking school in a developing country be admitted to a graduate school in a western country?

Most colleges in developing countries are sub-par by western academic standards. In one developing country, for example, professors are not obliged by law or by their institutions to pursue a doctoral degree. Even worse, this country’s state colleges lack decent science and computer laboratories, affecting in turn the quality of learning experience. No doubt, higher institutions in improvised countries have much to invest in their facilities, research, and faculty.

Having said this, does a student who graduated from a lower-ranking university in a developing country have a chance to be admitted to a graduate school in a western country? Based on your experience, do graduate schools give much weight to the reputation of your undergraduate school? If your school is accredited in your country, will this help?

I've also read this article from New York Times. I wonder if graduate applicants who didn’t obtain a bachelor's degree from U.S. schools have no chance of getting admitted.Rja2015 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible for someone from an impoverished country to attend a Western graduate school. And yes, the admissions departments do care what school you went to. I went to a top-tier US graduate school in science, and I would guess that about a fourth to a third of the students were foreign, though mostly from developed countries. Most US graduate schools require some form of standardized admissions test such as the Graduate Record Exam, LSAT, MCAT, etc. I've spoken in the past to people on the admissions committee of my school, and they said they give the greatest weight to admission scores, followed by letters of recommendation, and only then transcripts. I suspect that a student from a developing country who could show exceptional test scores and excellent letters of recommendation would not find it that hard to gain entry to a US graduate program. Of course, the difficulty is in obtaining sufficient knowledge and skill to earn exceptional scores despite a background that may lack much of the preparation that students from other countries had access to. There is no easy answer to that. So the short answer is, yes it is possible, but no it's not easy. Dragons flight (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money can "grease the wheels", but the International Monetary Fund warned that may (in general) waste more time than it saves. It obviously isn't a great way to save money, either. Also illegal and unethical. But possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Quite a significant number of Pakistani and Bangladeshi taxi-drivers in New York City were Lawyers and Doctors back home. Since I didn't take names, I don't have a source, but I am sure it's available. I know a Cuban who worked as a medical doctor in the US. She did so by getting Spanish citizenship, and having her credits transferred to a Spanish University, then to the US. From what I have seen personally, though, most Cuban licenciaturas (bachelor) degrees would not rank as high an associates degree in a county college in the US.

Generalizing, however, doesn't work. My neighbor's son got his medical degree in St. Lucia very cheep, and as he passed whatever test was necessary he was admitted as an intern in the US, and now lives in a 72' yacht in NYC. This is the sort of thing where the OP, if he cares about his life, should contact a professional counselor, not random people on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

Official Goal of Wikipedia?

If I should be asking this somewhere else, please tell me.

Is there a stated official goal (or a mission statement) of Wikipedia?

Jimbo Wales had said in 2004, ″Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.″ and ″Our goal has always been Britannica or better quality.″ But is this official? 76.176.28.235 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia:Purpose. Dismas|^(talk) 00:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long, stupid war over Wikipedia:Prime objective once. I don't think we'll be certain what Wikipedia was for till all the dust settles. We're apparently not even close to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Typically, people finish a work (book, artwork, music, whatever) and only then discover what all their effort was for. If then. Since WP will never be finished, there's no need to know at this very early stage what we're all doing here. I'd rather not know anyway. Do drops of water in a raging river care about the river's purpose? All they know is that they're being dragged along by some huge external force over which they have no control, and they just sit back and enjoy the ride. I recommend it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The constant battles over "notability" run counter to Wales' vision about the "sum of all human knowledge." The "notability" restriction must have come up later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"All human knowledge" would be absurdly large, if taken literally. What were you doing on 19 April 2003 (to pick a date at random)? I'm sure there's some obscure record somewhere, and that is part of "human knowledge", but does anyone want to know? Even you? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "all human knowledge" and "shit someone just made up". At Wikipedia, we need to assure that what we publish is the former and not the latter. WP:N is one of those standards that makes that distinction for us, by requiring that what we publish is trustworthy and verifiable. --Jayron 32 03:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that automatically weeds out the information that is factually correct (such as what I had for dinner on my 37th birthday) from the stuff that is factually correct and noteworthy. Vast numbers of people know where JFK was on 22 November 1963, but very few know or care where he was on the same day in 1962. But if he happened do something notable on that earlier date, or even if some sleuth just needed to know where he was that day, it'll be available because every day of his presidency was recorded in detail. But nobody will ever publish my dinner menu for my 37th birthday, as there is an absence of interest in finding out, and an absence of any record to begin with. Hence, it will never appear in WP. But then, nobody in their right mind would ever expect it to, and that is the light in which Jimbo's talk of "all human knowledge" must be viewed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of verifiable information that we haven't included though. For example, I routinely turn to Wikia when I want to dive into the details of fictional works. They often do a much more comprehensive job than we do. We also don't go in for directory type knowledge. No where on Wikipedia would you find a list of all bakeries in Zurich, despite the fact that business listings are easily verified from many official sources. There are far more things in the universe that are verifiable than are Wikipedia notable. Personally, I think that is often a shame because I tend towards a more inclusive mindset, but others don't always agree. Dragons flight (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a very specific kind of reference work. It may be better to think of the two Jimbo galaxies, being Wikimedia (including Wikisource, Wikinews, Commons, and all the rest) and Wikia, as more comprehensively "all verifiable knowledge". Wikipedia itself is not "everything that anyone can verify, in a random blender, and spit out randomly". It is an encyclopedia that contains articles which are written to be both informative and engaging, and not merely random bits of unassociated facts, which we slam together merely because they are verifiable. There also needs to be a certain narrative within the articles, and should be well-written as such. I agree that Wikipedia does not contain every verifiable fact ever known, but I also don't think it should. There's an advantage to limiting the scope somewhat, quality and quantity are not necessarily identical. --Jayron 32 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you had for dinner that day is something that almost all of humanity don't know - it will not always be a part of human knowledge - it would be next to impossible to find solid references for it - so I really don't think it's a reasonable thing to record. Notability and verifiability are certainly tests we must care about.

But how about "How to change the exhaust system on a 2010 Mini Cooper?", or "How to install MineCraft under Linux using WINE?" (both things I've searched for online this week)? These are without doubt non-trivial pieces of human knowledge that ought to be considered both notable and verifiable. But "How To" guides are explicitly excluded by WP:NOT - so this kind of thing will never be a part of Wikipedia.

So clearly, Jimbo wasn't quite saying it right. What I think he may have intended to say was that these goals were a part of the Wikimedia Foundation goals...not just narrowly Wikipedia. WikiBooks/WikiSource/Wikiversity might well include information about how to change car exhaust systems or how to install various pieces of software. Those are all parts of the Wikimedia Foundation's collection of projects - but they are not a part of Wikipedia. SteveBaker (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information is not knowledge. Perhaps that is the confusion here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia were restricted to "knowledge", it would get a lot smaller. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto!--TMCk (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary seems to disagree - there are a lot of entries for "knowledge" - but the relevant ones appear to be:

The total of what is known; all information and products of learning.
Something that can be known; a branch of learning; a piece of information; a science.

In both cases, "knowledge" is defined more broadly than information - the implication being that all information is knowledge - but perhaps there is knowledge that is other than information. If you are aware of some alternative definition that might apply here, then that would probably be quite illuminating. (Sources please!) SteveBaker (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

76 Street Station on the IND Fulton Street Line

Is there such a station east of Euclid Avenue? Whether there is or not, there should be an article about it. --46.115.12.226 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to write an article about a station even if it doesn't exist? Our IND Fulton Street Line shows all the stations that exist, with articles for each. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of the 80th Street station? It's western-most entrance is on 77th Street. LongHairedFop (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean 76th Street Station, served from November 1948 to December 1948. It was east of Euclid Avenue under Pitkin Avenue. --176.2.45.41 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is an urban legend among New York subway fans to the effect that this station was built. Here's a New York Times piece about it from January 21, 2003, one of Randy Kennedy's columns about the subway that he was writing then. (Curiously, the column doesn't seem to be in Subwayland (ISBN 0-212-32434-0), the book that's a collection of the columns.) And here is an elaborate April Fool's joke pretending that the station actually existed and operated for the dates mentioned by the last poster. Does this make the urban legend notable enough to have an article about it? I say no, but opinions may vary.--174.88.135.200 (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The station is mentioned (along with the New York Times reference) in Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)#East of the station. This might be a potential redirect target if an entire new article isn't appropriate. Tevildo (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Athletic Prowess

I just watched some female track running. The majority of the runners who passed the finishing line quickest were black. Why is this?

Does merely the colour of ones skin attribute to sporting potential. One rumour has it that former colonies such as Jamaica produce exceptional athletes due to its dark past. It is said that during the times of slavery, the plantation owners performed eugenics to breed the best labourers. Any truth in this at all as an explanation to the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.213.137 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, you'd expect slave owners to want slaves that can't outrun them. Perhaps we should look at the reverse, why people who live closer to the poles are less adapted to running fast. For example, more fat would provide better insulation against the cold, but would also reduce sprinting speed. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so there are fewer fat people (of any colour) nearer the equator Stu? I don't think so. What about the Ethiopian marathon runners they are not very fast but hell they can last. Richard Avery (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the climate where each race's genes were historically selected, not necessarily where they live today, and this map seems to bear out my statement, with sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia showing a low incidence of obesity: [12]. However, where Europeans have colonized South Africa and South America, and Middle-Eastern people have colonized North Africa, the trend is reversed. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What about the Ethiopian marathon runners they are not very fast but hell they can last."

Sounds like what my wife says about me.

Ooh, you little bragger youRichard Avery (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of performance in some sports, see Race and sports#"Black athletic superiority". There's zero evidence and it's fairly unlikely it has anything to do with skin colour per se. In fact, while certain black people may tend to do well in a number of sports, and there may be a genetic factor, I would suggest it wouldn't even be accurate to say the performance is correlated with skin colour per se. How many pygmies have you seen winning a marathon or a 100m race? As our article explains, it's actually more complicated then even that. For example, at first glance it seems to be mostly people of West African descent who are the best sprinters and Nilotic peoples who are the best at marathon running, but that's also a simplification (but does emphasise why simplying saying 'black people' is problematic). Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skin colour is just one thing that comes with the race. By constantly calling these people black/Negro/coloured, it can seem like that's the main difference. But if you take the pigment out, you still have a person with a different body. That's how we know these albinos are black, despite being white.

Notwithstanding actual differences in muscle and bone, the skin itself does provide one illusory bonus: Muscle under dark skin has more clearly defined edges under bright lights, especially if shined up with oil. That's why Hulk Hogan stayed about as dark as (though oranger than) Butch Reed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of a kids' show about racism that was on MuchMusic years ago...one kid explained "I'm not good at basketball because I'm black, I'm good at basketball because I practise." So the question really is, why is it important (culturally, personally, etc) for these athletes (Jamaican track stars, Ethiopian marathoners, or whoever else) to be good at these sports? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question like this is usually regarded as a racist inquiry. I'm surprised it's gotten this far without someone calling the OP on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a massive load of bollocks. There is a clear difference between people of (West-)African descent and Caucasians in athletics. Racism has nothing whatsoever to do with it, biology does. Different muscle compositions etc.... Fgf10 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, oddly, with Fgf10; the leg shape of typical Africans and Europeans is very different. Anyone who's dated interracially knows this, let alone those who pay attention to mixed-race athletics teams, etc. There's also a significant scientific literature on sprinting and long-distance running and ethnicity. Racism consists of assigning moral judgments collectively to genetics or physical characteristics, not of recognizing measurable physical truths. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The racist angle on this is the notion that athletic prowess comes "naturally" to blacks, while whites have to "work at it" to succeed. Hence the undertone of white superiority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that as racist if you mean individual blacks shouldn't get credit for their own athletic accomplishments while individual whites should. Effort is a moral concept. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you don't tell us the proportion of black runners in the particular race you were watching. Are we to assume they were in the minority? If not, the results would hardly be surprising. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all the contestants were black, if there were qualifying races with a mixture of races, and only blacks qualified, that would be quite a result in itself. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm not affected by alcohol?

Hello,

I rarely drink alcoholic beverages, but when I do, it seems not to affect me at all - I don't feel dizzy, happy, sad, tired, uninhibited, etc. (albeit the largest amount I've ever drunk was about three glasses of wine). Are there any medical problems\conditions that are correlated with such a resistance to the alcohol's effect? (I thought that alcohol tolerance should exist only in heavy drinkers). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.245.196 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not answer requests for medical advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give medical advice, like guessing at what's wrong with your system. But we can say it's hard to guess if there's anything wrong with it at all, given your admittedly scant testing. If you had three glasses of wine over a few hours, it's not strange to hear you weren't drunk. If you had them in a row, I'd expect at least dizziness. Then again, some wines are basically juice.

I say take three shots of any medium-strength liquor and call us back in the morning. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

No harm in pointing you to this little self-help guide. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

While I cannot comment as to the OP's health, simple explanations than a medical condition would be that either:

anyone who has never had more than three glasses of unspecified wine ($5 wine cooler? $10 riesling? $50 brandy? what size glass?) over an unspecified period of time might not have consumed enough quickly enough to get drunk
anyone who rarely drinks will not have enough experience with inebriation to fully be aware of their inebriation. Heck, there are some borderline alcoholics who will insist while slobbering and unable to stand will insist to the designated driver that "Ah'm naht drunk! Yooo are!"

Weight, gender, and time are huge factors. Heavier people have a higher tolerance, and women have about half of the enzymes that process alcohol then men of the same size. For example, I'm a male who is about 220 lbs (or 100 kg). I can down a bottle of Moscato d'Asti or Liebfraumilch alongside a two-hour meal and score better on sobriety tests that do not check my breath or blood. I once got my then-girlfriend and her friends (most about half my weight) "I need to sit down" drunk off a couple of small glasses of plum wine (and since one of them was a lesbian and the other viewed me as a brother, no, they weren't drunk off me). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer is fraud on the part of the "wine" merchant, contact a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or contact Jorah Mormont. Less hassle. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Question of condom study

I have a question of this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012254/#!po=97.9167 page 16 says that out of 26 pregnancies, only 5 were because of condom related reasons what do they mean by that? does that mean only five occurred despite being used the right way? It doesn't seem clear what the other 21 pregnancies were because of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoami22 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most pregnancies are because of sexual activity ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Discontinuation" section it says:

Furthermore, among all pregnancies, 19.23% (n = 5/26) were because of condom breakage, 11.11% (n = 3/26) were due to forgetting to use a condom, 50% (13/26) were because of incorrect condom use, and 19.23% (n = 5/26) were due to the spouses’ dislike of condom use and other reasons.

Rojomoke (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"forgetting"?! Really?! That seems exceedingly unlikely. SteveBaker (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Call me old-fashioned, but I still say that pregnancy is a result of sexual intercourse. What the above is about is unwanted pregnancy, which is a sub-set of all pregnancy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soup Greens (Czech/Slovak Cuisine)

I have recipe from a Czechoslovak cookbook asking for "Soup Greens". I'm familiar with German Suppengrün, but is that the same thing in Czech/Slovak cooking? 73.149.42.231 (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the actual Slovak or a link, or can you give the title of the cookbook? μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

Are there Wikipedians who...?

Has anyone here met any Wikipedians who believe in either both or one of the following two?:

1. The abundance of B-class articles does not make Wikipedia a great resource, even though they know that an average readers (including me) are not left wanting after reading one (which means the B-class serves its purpose for people except for, maybe, experts who wouldn't have researched the topic in the first place).

2. Anything outside the scope of Encyclopedia Britannica (or a ″traditional″ encyclopedia) is unencyclopedic.

76.176.28.235 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]