Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 25

Who can buy land/property in Cuba?

With the current softening of relations between the US and Cuba - I believe it's still not legal for US Citizens to buy land or other property there - but what about people from other countries? I'm a British citizen - I don't think the UK government disallows it - but what about the Cubans? SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This explains some of the legalities.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't give legal advice here and this is an area where Caveat emptor means what is says. My barber bought a villa in Spain some years ago (we are all in the EU aren’t we?) only to find he didn’t own it! Same with Cuba. As the opportunities are really great for the early investor -so are the risks. One has to have both eyes open and WP is not the place to do your homework. Go up and visit the the Cuban Embassy in London. Stay clear of the sharks. Double check everything the embassy official tells you. Forget referring this to your family solicitor (he only understands normal house conveyancing), find one that understands overseas property purchase. Then go-for-it. If you have the odd £100,000 to spare, you can escape UK death duties and leave your dependents with some tangible assets that the taxman can't take away.--Aspro (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is little chance Steve will travel about 5000 miles to visit the UK Cuban embassy and sadly the Cuban embassy in Washington DC is not likely to be much help any day soon. Richard Avery (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point. What I was inferring, that when buying property over-seas one needs info from RS. These days, we have the benefit of instantaneous-world-wide-communications and if the OP has relatives in the south of the UK (which for US reader, is a small insignificant island community just off the coast of mainland Europe). Then, if the OP is anything like an entrepreneur ( and face, it he must be, to up-root to now live west of Watford). He should have no trouble in either contacting the UK Cuban Embassy directly by phone or asking a relative to pop-in to pick up the necessary paper work. This is where the sharks have the advantage. They convince the unwary that this is all so very difficult and complicated– and they 'only' can cut through all the red tape. What red tape? Cuba wants foreign investment. Sharks what easy money. So, the process require only the same caveat emptor caution as when buy some other high value item. For a long term investment (35-40 years plus) a better investment may be in the lower town districts of Havana. Just look at the lower town districts of San Francisco during the 1960's. Because, rents where cheap they only attracted beach-bum that wanted to surf and hippies (that wanted to do, whatever hippies wanted to do). Now these areas have regenerated and the owners are sitting on millions of dollars worth of property. The difference between those that retire on a meagre pensions and those that don't is sometimes to do with the Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas#Parable_of_the_Talents Parable of the Talents. Unless one sows, one can not reap. But one has to take the risk of breaking new ground first, so that ones seeds have fertile soil in which to grow.--Aspro (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Photography density

I read somewhere that considering all of humanity, there are now more photographs taken per minute than there were taken per year in the 19th century. Is this true? I also remember reading something about more photographs being taken now per minute (or at least per day) than there were taken during the entire 19th century. Is this true? I would imagine the total number of photographs taken during the 19th century must be at least several hundred, but probably less than one hundred thousand. Nowadays, people take many millions of photographs every single year. JIP | Talk 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you'd measure it, but there were certainly more than 100,000 photos taken in the 19th century. By the 1890s, photography studios were a thriving business, even in the small towns where many of my 19th century relatives had their pictures taken. I'm just one guy, and I have at least 100 family pictures dating to before 1900. I recall someone a few years ago, possibly Norm MacDonald, talking about how in the old days everyone had like one picture that they would carry around; and that today, everyone has hundreds or maybe even thousands that they can carry on their hand-held device. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

L'Idéal Cinéma at Aniche, opened on November 23, 1905, and claims to be the oldest still-active movie theater in the world.

Cinematography entails taking multiple photographs in sequence. 19th century: In 1873 motion picture pioneer Eadweard Muybridge would have needed weeks to capture as many as 24 images on glass-plate cameras. In 1882 Étienne-Jules Marey could shoot 12 (occasionally 60) consecutive frames a second. The 1888 Roundhay Garden Scene is the a rare surviving film from the time before routine availability of 35mm celluloid strip movie film. 20th century: Following the popularisations of Edison and Dickson's Kinetoscope in 1893 and the Lumière brothers' Cinematograph in 1895, the century began with Movie theaters in operation in western capitals and continued with virtually continuous production of new movies by increasing numbers of cinematographers. It is unlikely that there was ever a moment in the 20th century when a movie camera was not taking pictures somewhere at 16 to 24 frames per second, whose accumulation outpaces all still photography both in the 20th and, of course, the 19th centuries. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the original claim more likely referred to still photos alone. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems kinda meaningless to compare movie frames in the past to still pictures in the present - and if you include movies in the present, YouTube alone would overwhelm movie production in the past by a spectacular margin. SteveBaker (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

JIP, your original statement that "I would imagine the total number of photographs taken during the 19th century must be at least several hundred, but probably less than one hundred thousand" is a spectacular underestimate. Photography became widespead in 1839 and only gained in popularity during the remaining six decades of the 19th century. Local business directories published in the 1840s sometimes listed more daguerrotypists than dentists. By 1853, there were 86 photo portrait galleries in business in New York City. On page 34 of his book The Daguerrotype in America, the eminent historian of photography Beaumont Newhall wrote: "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts officially reported in 1855 that 403,626 daguerrotypes had been taken in the state during the past 12 months", and he also states that in 1860, the U.S. Census reported that 3,154 Americans were employed as photographers. The U.S. Civil War that began in 1861 led to a boom in photography, and the inexpensive Carte de visite photo portraits became ubiquitous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering this, I must have vastly underestimated the number. It must rank in several millions, at the least. Nevertheless, I think my point still stands, the photography density today is vastly greater than in the 19th century. "At least many millions per year" seems also a vast understatement. I myself have taken a quarter of a million photographs in five years, and that's just me. Professional photographers take even more photographs, and then there's the hordes of cellphone camera snapshot/selfie enthusiasts. I would imagine today humanity takes at least several million photographs per day. JIP | Talk 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, your estimates are low, JIP. According to this article in The Atlantic, well over 600 billion photos a year are uploaded, which is almost two billion a day. Including those that are not uploaded, the figure probably exceeds a trillion a year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 26

Intermarriage in israel

How do the majority of Israelis view intermarriage between members of their people with Arabs living in Israel? Do they think of it favourably or negatively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.84.225 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You may find your answer in Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism#Israeli_opposition_to_mixed_marriages_between_Jewish_women_and_Arab_men. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Are there any reasons for why more than half would oppose intermarriage between Israelis and Palestinians?108.51.116.34 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to ask them. --Jayron32 01:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Besides the link provided by User:Baseball Bugs above, the question as posed is impossible to answer without rewording. The Palestinian Arabs living in Israel (among them Muslims, Christians, and Druze) are Israeli citizens. If "intermarriage" refers to their marriage to non-Arabs and "Israelis" refers to Jews: the latter would be influenced by religious teachings if any, taking into account that the Israeli Jewish population is heterogeneous: secular, traditional, religiously observant, and the minority Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") which nevertheless has a great deal of influence on other groups due to its rejection of less strict observance. More to the point is that unmarried Jews and Arabs rarely have social contact: Cities, towns and villages are overwhelmingly exclusive to Jews or Arabs, and in the few "dual-population" cities (Jerusalem, Haifa, Acre (Akko),Jaffa, and Ramla-Lod, plus Nazareth/Upper Nazareth and Maalot-Tarshiha) integrated neighborhoods are extremely rare.; Jewish children attend schools in the Hebrew language and further separated according to secular, state-religious, and Haredi curricular content, while Arab children of all faiths attend a separate school system (or particularly for Christians, private schools by denomination) with instruction in Arabic. Traditional, rural Arab young women would be unlikely to meet any Jews at all. Marriage laws go according to formal religious affiliation and there is no civil marriage in the State of Israel, which does recognize marriages performed abroad. The Jewish religion doesn't solicit converts. Druze don't intermarry with non-Druze. So Arab/Jewish intermarriage is quite uncommon in Israel regardless of opinions and theoretical preferences. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Are the Aramaic - speaking Christians in Israel, i.e. Assyrians, Chaldeans, Jacobites, Maronites (I presume there are some) Arabs? I would have thought not. 78.149.118.97 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Jews and Arabs are the two largest population groups, not everyone is one or the other. Minorities in Israel are [self-]defined by various characteristics: religion, country of origin, ethnic-cultural background, and language. For example, see Circassians in Israel. Hebrew, for example, was only shared by religious Jews regardless of geographic origin; secular Jews spoke a local vernacular or several plus a Jewish national language by region: Yiddish, Ladino, and Judeo-Arabic languages for the Ashkenazi, Sephardim, and Mizrachim respectively, the latter called by some "Arab Jews". -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's kind of like how things used to be in the southern United States before the sixties.108.51.116.34 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, isn't it hypocritical that these same people helped in trying to push for the desegregation of blacks, and yet in their own country of Israel segregate themselves from Arabs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.116.34 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Marrying within one's faith or ethnic group has been a standard practice for as long as humanity has been around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March 27

Supernumerary urogenital numbering system

When it comes to human excretory functions, "number 1" is a euphemism for urination and "number 2" for defecation.

But what about other stuff? Could menstruation be "number 3", or ejaculation "number 4", or childbirth "number 5", or some such system? Has anyone ever used these extra numbers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a little-kid thing, and the average kid is not likely to be very aware of or care about those other biological functions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

if this isn't a 'trolling' question, nothing is..68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Jack is not a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, no you're not at troll, but we should not judge questions based on the username, in my opinion. If Jack had not been logged in and asked this as an IP, I'd hope we could treat the question in the same manner. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

he might not be but that question....I'd like to take a vote on that...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Jack often raises what could be called "whimsical" questions, about oddities that pop into his head randomly and which might not necessarily be so easy to research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What he said. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So can other people raise whimsical questions and not be called a troll? If not, why not? Who is to judge the excuse of whimsicallity? Either a post (not the poster) is trollish, or its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.96.35 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC) --178.111.96.35 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a slight comment on Jacks Q: Defecation is not a urogenital function. (At least not in this hemishere)--178.111.96.35 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)didn;t

Thanks. I didn't know an expression that covers all expressions of "matter" from the body. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Biological elimination waste products". StuRat (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of number 3... watch the first 20 seconds. (Clip from Home (film)) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Wiktionary's "Appendix:English toilet slang" assigns "number three" and "number four" to flatulence and vomiting, admitting that the both can be both, while "only numbers one and two are generally accepted as standard". Not referenced. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin.

Right, so that makes at least 7 ways of expelling stuff from the body. Is there a general term for them? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

On a Fluid balance chart, the general term is "output". I'm not sure that would cover childbirth, though. Tevildo (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There are other excretions such as tears, saliva, snot, sweat, earwax, and possibly pus or blood. Would you even count dead skin flaking off, or hair growing? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

In one of Bill Cosby's early recordings, he talked about elementary school, and how if you had to leave to go to the restroom, you would raise your hand and display 1 or 2 fingers. Presumably this would have been around the mid-1940s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OP might be fine in general but this "question" at least goes against the not a chatroom guideline...it's more of a proposal for the sake of amusement with goofy title to boot..the firt part of the "question" isn't a question at all: yes, of course anything could be called anything if one wanted to...and the second part of the "question" is: please try to find examples of my goofy proposal for my amusement...CLOSE/DELETE 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There was some comedy show where they went into numbers for all the various "outputs". StuRat (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I'll definitively answer this genuine "question": "could they be 3,4,5...?" Yes, nobody owns the rights to these numbers such that they couldn't be used by you or somebody else for such a purpose. "have they ever been used." Unknowable..but unlikely someone who is menstruating ever stated, "I just did a #5." or someone who is sweating stated, "I'm doing a #7." Hope that helps. Please let me know if I can be of more assistance.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Next time I have a whimsical query, you will be the very first person to whom I will trip lightly in search of instant illumination. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

John Varley's SF novel Golden Globe mentions a radio (or some future equivalent) show which challenges the reader to name the 36 substances which can come from a human body. You can find a discussion about it at straight dope.-gadfium 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating. They get up to 38 substances. I get queasy just thinking about it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Nothing human disgusts me, unless it's unkind." [1] :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Was that Terence "Nothing human is alien to me" Williams? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Jack, you might want to look up perineum and the cloaca from which it evolved, and for which monotremes are named. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The death of the Donald

What would happen to the caucuses, the Republican party and politics in the US period if Trump 'died'. Somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Read This. It should answer any question you have. --Jayron32 01:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't address the question of what happens if a candidate dies or withdraws after there have been primaries and caucuses, but before the party's national convention. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

At the convention, they would decide what to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For a historical precedent, see 1968 Democratic National Convention which took place after the assassination of candidate Robert F. Kennedy, who had won a number of primaries. It was messy, for all sorts of reasons. --Xuxl (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a campaign now to allow guns in the Republican convention, which is in Ohio, an open carry state. If this happens, combined with the hatred of Trump by many Republicans and the hatred of those Republican by Trump supporters, then the killing of one or more candidates seems like a real possibility. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Damn! Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

While I don't wish violence upon anyone, there would be a certain poetic justice if the party that demands everyone should be able to carry a gun anywhere suffer the consequences of their actions. But, my guess is that they are too smart to expose themselves to the dangers they expose the rest of the nation to. (Their position, of course, is that everyone having guns makes everyone safer, but they don't actually believe this, or they would have guns in their conventions. It's just a way to get support from the National Rifle Association.) StuRat (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In discussing the rival contenders' chances of winning the GOP presidential nomination a journalist makes reference to "a brokered convention". Can someone explain this term? 78.149.118.97 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

When nobody gets a majority they go back to the old way, where they wheel and deal and try to get each other's delegates by promising political favors. See brokered convention. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The 1968 DNC (cited above by Xuxl) really is the best example. The parties make their own rules, so it wouldn't play out the same way, but the gist of it is, Trump's delegates would all show up to the RNC as "unbound" delegates. The convention starts with the rules meeting. At that rules meeting, someone would bring up the RNC's peculiar, new eight-state rule, which requires someone to get the "support" of 8 states' delegations in order to even be nominated. If this rule were interpreted super-strictly, it could result in Ted Cruz being the only legal candidate. If it's interpreted in a way that lets the unbound delegates coordinate in advance to try to get 8-state coalitions, then we'd have a "brokered" convention, which means that the real action would happen in secret off of the convention floor. If the 8-state rule got weakened or eliminated, we'd have a "contested" or "open" convention, which means that the real action would happen live on the convention floor, because there would not be any rule that would let a "broker" force any delegate to coordinate with anyone else. --M@rēino 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 28

Dolomiti Direkt

Does the Dolomiti Direkt Bank belongs to Südtiroler Sparkasse? I can´t find the Bank in this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdtiroler_Sparkasse_%E2%80%93_Cassa_di_Risparmio_di_Bolzano but on the website of Dolomiti Bank Direkt there is the Logo of Südtiroler Sparkasse--Ip80.123 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be a brand of theirs. See the Sparkasse's corresponding page on direct banking: [2] (in German) or [3] (in Italian). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Is eating sweet corn really dangerous?

Apparently my body has a hard time digesting sweet corn. In fact, I wonder if I'm able to extract any nutrional value out of it at all. This got me wondering, what if I was stuck on a desert island where the only thing that grew was sweet corn? Wouldn't this be incredibly dangerous and kill me pretty quick. Much the same as swallowing beach pebbles would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.255.114 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

sweet corn is not dangerous at all, of course....unless you're allergic to it..it may not be as healthy as other things relatively speaking, however...according to the google nutritional display for sweet corn, you could get just about all your nutritional needs if you ate a dozen or so ears a day, including fiber, protein, vitamin C...you could live a very long time on this alone...the human body can withstand A LOT...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's one of the least healthy veggies, for several reasons. It has little protein, and it's nutritional completeness score is only 48/100: [4]. However, it can take people several months to starve to death when eating nothing, and babies can survive for years on human milk alone, which is even more nutritionally incomplete (29/100): [5]. So, I'd predict it might take years to actually die from a sweet corn-only diet. Lack of sodium might be one of the biggest problems. (We aren't used to thinking of sodium as being critical, but it really is, it's just that in our culture we get way too much.) Boiling the corn in seawater would solve that, provided you had a pot and way to build a fire. If not, you could just dip it in seawater and eat it raw, but that would subject you to microbes and parasites in the seawater, which could possibly kill you before starvation would have. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Things go bad on any single-ingredient diet. Corn has its own special problems though. See Nixtamalization. The indigenous Americans all knew to slake their corn, but when white Europeans showed up, they thought it was fine to eat it without any treatment. In the short term, and with an otherwise diverse diet, that is fine. However in the long term, if you subsist largely on un-slaked corn, you would likely get Pellagra. See the "history" section of that article for more details on how it affected Europeans in the Americas. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

bottom line though: if otherwise healthy you'll die in a matter of several weeks if you eat nothing at all...whereas eating just corn you'd live at least many, many months and possible many years...you'd be thanking the corn for all that it was providing you instead of dwelling on what is wasn't..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the "apparent assumption" is at least questionable. Very often, the shells of whole kernels are not digested and passed out again. It looks as if the kernel has not been digested at all, but in reality, the internals have all been consumed, leaving just the outer shell. There is a Naked Scientists discussion here and an article here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you swallow it without actually chewing :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In that case I would still assume stomach acids are able to dissolve the internals. See stomach acid. No references though. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that stomach acid takes time to dissolve the contents, and the less the surface area for the reaction, the longer it will take, and it's only in the stomach for a few hours. So, chewing helps to squish the contents out to where they can be digested and more acid can get inside the kernel to dissolve anything left in there. Also, slitting each kernel with a knife while on the cob can help to increase the surface area and thus make it more digestible. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Urine

This word confuses me.

What are the origins for it.

When I say it, it's like I'm saying "yer rine"

It's like I'm saying it's someones rine (rine is like germanic for rhine, the name of a river)

So Im saying its your river.

In effect when refurring to my pee, I should say myrine

I dont understand this language. what gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.206.39 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=urine68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The similarity in sound between urine and you is coincidental - urine is from the latin word urina, but the latin for you is vos or tu. Totally different. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, we Brits, for no apparent reason, generally pronounce it as "your-in", but the other way is heard sometimes too. Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The traditional British pronunciation is still /ˈjʊərɪn/ (you're in), Alan, but I agree that you southerners probably say /ˈjɔːrɪn/. It comes from Old twelfth-century French, by the way, from Latin ūrīna and related to Greek οὖρον. Many European languages have a similarly-derived word. Dbfirs 07:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 29

Cheek kissing

I've read over the cheek kissing article and it only alludes to the answer to my question. When people do the double cheek kiss in greeting or such (I see it mostly with celebrities such as Heidi Klum or Gordon Ramsey), are they just touching cheeks and making a kissing sound with their mouths?

As someone who thinks hand shakes are unnecessarily ceremonious, the length of time this greeting takes bothers me to even see it. To think that the kisses are simply produced for the sound effect... It's absolutely ridiculous!

Rant aside, are they just "air kisses"? Dismas|^(talk) 01:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Italians I met a couple months ago indicated that it is indeed just "air kissing" near the cheek in most instances instead of planting one. They did say this in response to someone who asked was overly excited at the prospect of having two strapping lads kiss her, but I recall hearing the same elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Handshakes too time-consuming? This must be a horror movie to you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think he's saying it's the "air kissing" that takes longer. And it's an old custom. I think of it as European, but in The Wizard of Oz when the Wizard awards the lion he medal, he gives him a couple of cheek kisses, though they might be actual kisses instead of air kisses. In the Tour de France, Tour of Spain, etc. the young woman presenters also go through a pair (or triple) of air kisses as part of the routine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point.[6] I need to get some sleep. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Having lived for some years in France, I think it is fair to see that the degree of physical contact involved in cheek kissing varies in line with the degree of intimacy between the people doing it. It can just be kissing the air - or it can be real lip to cheek kissing: the closer you are to someone, the more contact there is likely to be. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is the correct answer: it varies. I know an Italian academic. In the states, he will brush cheeks lightly with close friends of any gender, but not usually work associates. In Italy he does the cheek kiss with friends that are not as close, because they expect it and use it in their own culture. It just varies by comfort level, personal space expectations, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My ex- is French - and it was noticeable that there was a distinct regional difference as well as a depth-of-relationship difference and all kinds of gender differences. Some people were doing just a brief hug, others going with the single kiss (right-cheek to right-cheek), others double (right-then-left) and most of my ex's family going with quadruple (right/left/right/left). As already suggested, there is also a spectrum from air-only, cheek-touch only, brush-with-lips-on cheek to full *smooch* on cheek, depending on degree of relationship. You'd also get the "grab-head with both hands lips-to-cheek, wet smooch". Since it's inconvenient/impossible for both people to manage lips-on-cheek simultaneously, there seemed to be some unwritten rule about when one person would get lip contact and the other only air. It's definitely not a simple ritual.

To a rather reserved Englishman, for whom deciding whether or not to shake hands was the limit of the thing - this was all a bit overwhelming and confusing. Many times, I felt that I'd under-done it and the other person had gone over-the-top just to demonstrate how badly I'd done! Worse still, I have Asperger's syndrome and being touched at all by people I hardly know is uncomfortable...so this was not a fun thing! SteveBaker (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I find cheek kissing to be rather inconvenient. I mean who has time to drop your pants every time you greet somebody ? StuRat (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Chelyuskin

Is there any truth to reports that the Soviet icebreaker SS Chelyuskin was escorting a second ship which was carrying political prisoners to Zekistan (more specifically to Kolyma), and when the ships got stuck in ice several of these prisoners escaped and made their way to America? 2601:646:8E01:515D:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It would seem unlikely, as they would have to escape their captors, steal provisions and clothing, and find their way not only to land, but to somebody who would help them escape. They wouldn't survive for long if they just jumped ship in winter with no assistance or preparation. StuRat (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The reports claim that the prisoners launched an uprising, forced the guards to flee, then repaired an emergency radio and called the Americans for help. Don't know if it's true or not -- that's why I'm asking. 2601:646:8E01:515D:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just found out -- these reports have been completely debunked: http://evreimir.com/70/ 2601:646:8E01:515D:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

fu*k *hit *unt wank c0ck d1ck....etc

Why, in the English language do most prerogatives and swear words only have four letters? Tradition, historical context? I can think of no other language with such a quirk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.204.83.178 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We have an article Four-letter word, but it doesn't try to explain why. Staecker (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

i find it interesting however that dutch has "three-letter words", so this quirk is twice as common as previously thought ~Helicopter Llama~ 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, notably, the seven dirty words, two of the seven have more than 4 letters. So it isn't always four letters. I can come up with plenty of impolite words which have more or less than 4 letters. --Jayron32 12:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but please see prerogative - it doesn't mean what you appear to think it does. Perhaps you meant expletive? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

More probably pejorative, which is something of a euphemism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

One factor is that as English developed, the words derived from Latin, which tend to be longer, were considered to be refined and polite, while the Anglo-Saxon words were considered crude. For example, "urinate" is from Latin, while "piss" is from Anglo-Saxon. StuRat (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, "piss" is from Latin, via French. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, let me revise my example then, to "turd" versus "excrement". StuRat (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, consider the etymology of the word "vulgar", which just means "common", as in "the language of the people". When it was created, the Vulgate bible was written for the common people of the Western Roman Empire, and so written in their "vulgar" tongue. The modern usage of "vulgar" as a synonym of "obscene" is VERY recent, originally, saying speech was "vulgar" just meant the speech was used by everyday people, rather than by the nobility. In Medieval England, the common people spoke the Anglo-Saxon language while the nobility, mostly families who came over from Normandy with William the Conqueror spoke Norman French. I'm not exactly sure why some vulgar words also became obscene words (leading to the confusion between the terms) while others did not; after all we use some words, like child (vulgar Anglo-Saxon) and infant (noble Norman French) and neither is marked as obscene. However, the paring of shit (vulgar Anglo-Saxon) and feces (noble Norman French) does have a marked difference in obscenity. One word is obscene and one is not. I'd be interested in seeing why some words diverge that way, but others do not. --Jayron32 16:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sex with animals

Is zoophilia / besteality with animals just another normal sexual preference. Or is there something distinctly pathological and wrong about it?

I'm not advocating anything here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.204.83.178 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Most understood definitions of allowable sexual activities require active consent of all parties involved. Consent requires a level of cognitive processing not normally present in most animals. --Jayron32 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Which if consistently applied would of course preclude breeding animals in general. I'd say if e.g. a sheep cannot 'consent' to bestiality, then it cannot consent to any sexual activity, even with its own kind. - Lindert (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it only applies to human sexual relations. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Jayron32 12:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree animals cannot and are not required to give consent, but I fail to see why this consent must suddenly be required of all parties if one of them is human. That seems a rather arbitrary rule; must sex robots also consent? (Don't get me wrong, I do not approve of bestiality, but I find this kind of moral reasoning to be unsound) - Lindert (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The simple explaination is that humans are expected to follow human standards. And this is hardly unusual. For example, many countries legally restrict how animals particularly mammals can be treated by humans requiring some degree of humane treatment and limiting in some way intentional cruelty or intentional infliction of pain and distress. There's obviously no such requirement imposed on other animals doing the same to other animals. (There are those who argue only such standards should be applied to bestiality and therefore provided you don't appear to be causing pain or distress, it's acceptable but clearly many disagree.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

But these human standards are followed only to a limited extent when it comes to animals. Yes, we can't abuse animals, but we can kill and eat them, lock them up against their will and separate them from their families/children, use their products, make them do forced labor etc, all things we can't do to each other. My point originally was that I don't think 'consent' is a useful concept when it comes to our treatment of animals, because obviously they don't 'consent' to being killed either. - Lindert (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok I follow your critique of the argument. But that does raise the question: if consent is not a good line of reasoning here, why do you "not approve of bestiality"? If we throw out consent reasoning, and don't allow religious moral imperatives, then I'm fairly stumped as to why I would object to my neighbor having a good time with their seemingly enthusiastic dolphin friend, whatever that might mean to the two of them. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right: apart from finding the idea repulsive (which is subjective of course), I wouldn't be able to give a reason why bestiality is wrong if I disallowed 'religious moral imperatives', but I don't. - Lindert (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You initially said "I fail to see why this consent must suddenly be required of all parties if one of them is human. That seems a rather arbitrary rule; must sex robots also consent". The point of my reply is that we apply human standards to humans. Therefore the fact that non human animals don't really consent to sex with each other is irrelevant. What is relevant is the standards we set for human which you didn't really address in your initial reply. While you're right that our standards are in some ways contradictary and sometimes arbitary, the point is that whatever standards we set for humans are derived from our on moral views on what's right for humans to do, and we don't generally pay much heed to what non human animals to do each other. In other words, if people feel that sexual intercourse involving humans always requires the consent of all parties, you're not getting anywhere by saying they're wrong because non human animals do it to each other. You need to debate it from a human POV of what we expect from humans when non human animals are involved. For example, the question of why we allow humans to kill humanely kill animals in many circumstances, but we don't allow humans to have sex with animals, even when the animals don't appear to be in pain or distress or even seem interested in being involved is a relevant one (And which I slightly hinted at in my reply), but not something which your initial reply would lead to. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"The point of my reply is that we apply human standards to humans." - Exactly, and when you require consent from a non-human animal, you're applying a human standard to the animal. "whatever standards we set for humans are derived from our on moral views on what's right for humans to do" - Yes, I agree completely, and my moral view is that it is simply not right for humans to have sex with animals, regardless of consent. - Lindert (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"you're applying a human standard to the animal" Well firstly I never said you shouldn't apply a human standard to a non human animal. More importantly, you're not. You're requiring a human standard to a human namely that they need consent from any partners involved in sexual intercourse. The non human animal's POV is mostly irrelevant to this argument. Likewise, when we require humane treatment of animals, we're applying a human standard to humans. Most if not all non human animals have concepts of pain etc, but the concept of humane treatment is a human construct they don't understand but it's still something we apply to the humans in their interactions with non human animals.

You've obviously entitled to your POV on why bestiality is wrong, and many people share it. The point is that others may say that we expect humans to only have sex with organisms when they have their consent, and most if not all non humans animals can't consent. You may disagree that's the standard that should apply, but it's ultimately a standard others do apply because they believe we should apply human standards to humans, including in their interactions with non human animals, which may include that humans always need consent from their sexual partners including any non human animals. (N.B. Some may bring up parasites etc, but while they may incidentally be involved in sex, they aren't normally the object to have sex with. Still there are complexities particularly with invertebrates or other animal forms we generally regard as simple. Yet many of these arise even for many of those who reject bestiality for reasons such as yours anyway.) Note that bringing up killing is also not necessarily helpful since we may very well have different standards for different activities. For example, most people have very strong limitations on humans killing humans even when consent is involved.

P.S. I should clarify that some people may very well suggest what animals to do each other is relevant in deciding what standards we expect when humans interact with non human animals. The point isn't that this is an invalid POV since that's obviously. But rather for those who feel it's irrelevant, you're not getting anywhere by bringing it up since their POV is that's irrelevant since human morality is solely derived from what is considered acceptable conduct from humans in their interactions including with non human animals.

P.P.S. There are additional complexities with dead animals and other activities like necrophilia or as you mentioned robots. Ultimately it's difficult for consent to be the only consideration but this doesn't mean it can't be a considered in bestiality.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The usual purposes of sex are:

1) Reproduction.

2) Forming social bonds. This is most obvious in the case of bonobos.

Beastiality certainly doesn't qualify for #1, and #2 seems to only apply if consensual. And even in the case of consensual beastiality, I'm not sure if that forms a closer social bond than would exist without it. For example, people and their dogs already have a close bond. So, if there is no legit purpose for it, that would seem to put it in the realm of mental disorders. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Doesn't anyone know how to spell bestiality? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• We apparently don't have as much experience with the topic as you, Jack. StuRat (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you read our article on zoophilia? It's pretty good, and covers many perspectives, with reference. Probably far better to read that than our replies here :) You also might enjoy reading about paraphilia in general, as well as social norm. See specifically the section on Paraphilia#Typical_versus_atypical_interests. That mostly discusses this in terms of the DSM, so also understand that the DSM has many critics and perceived flaws, outlined at Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#Criticism. What is "wrong" depends on what morality, or at least what social more you consider the question within. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the comment that animals cannot consent to having sex with other animals. If you think that is the case, just watch how a ewe behaves when she isn't interested in being tupped by the ram! The triggers may be hormonal, but female animals are usually well able to reject a male if the timing is wrong. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That is true, what I should have written is that animals cannot give informed consent, i.e. the kind of consent that we require in human sexuality, where participants know what they're doing beyond purely following their instincts. Obviously animals can show when they're into an act, and this also includes cases of male animals actively participating in sex with humans. - Lindert (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Jayron32 already expressed it well in the first reply to the OP of this whole thread of what is meant by consent. Notably if you're applying a standard of sexual consent which includes the ram-ewe case as consent, you're saying a 6 year old can consent to sex with an adult, something considered extremely repugnant in nearly all of the modern world. (This doesn't mean that it's the same thing, there are obvious differences in particular the possible long term harm. The point is simply that when we talk about consent, we mean a specific thing which isn't the same as what appears to be happening in the ram-ewe case.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What about a dog jumping a person's leg? One could see it as a sign of consent so why not return the favor? :)) --TMCk (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not consent, it's instinct. Besides which, how would you go about humping a dog's leg? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

space exploration

I was reading about how theres plan to start colony on moon, mars. Why, when will men travel to sun, and also start colony here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.125.3 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

1) I am not aware of current plans to start colonies on the Moon or Mars, at least nothing that's been approved and scheduled. There is a long-term goal to visit the Moon again and Mars for the first time, though.

2) You can't have a colony very close to the Sun, as it would overheat and mass coronal ejections would destroy it. But you can have a space station in orbit around the Sun, close enough to get all the energy they need from the Sun, but far enough away to be safe. See Dyson ring for an eventual goal we might aim for (thousands of years from now). StuRat (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

coronal mass ejections Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't the colonists cool the atmosphere down using colonic irrigation? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sexual attraction in gays and lesbos

Sexual attraction for straight people seems very boring, generally we're told that if your a woman you must be blond,tall skinny and if your man you must be tall, dark, rich, What about for gays or lesbians, are there any sterotypes for them, or pressure to act / behave in certain ways as per the usual hetrosexual gender roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.11.194 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be polar opposites of attraction in both cases. For example, some gay women are attracted to feminine women while others are attracted to ultra-masculine women. The corresponding difference occurs in gay men. StuRat (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What a stereotyped straight male allegedly prefers in a woman is irrelevant. What matters is what you prefer. I myself don't much care for skinny blondes. And a lot of other men don't either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That comment is itself irrelevant here. The OP is specifically and explicity asking about stereotypes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

He stated a premise. I am challenging the premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, he said "generally we're told .....", and acknowledged that that is a stereotype. He was not agreeing with it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I challenge the notion that "we are told" such and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

human photosynthesis

why did humans never evolve like this, why did animal did not. We could survive without eating, no war. Like a tree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.12.52.177 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe there are some simple one-celled animals that do engage in photosynthesis. However, the amount of energy it provides is pathetically small. This is why plants don't have the energy to do much thinking, moving, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me of a question some months ago as to why land animals don't have gills. The answer is parallel to your answer about animals not having leaves. That is, the amount of oxygen we would pull in via gills would be woefully inadequate for our needs. Fish don't need nearly as much oxygen as we do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Stu, please don't just type in your first guesses. This is all wrong. Well mostly wrong, but you didn't even link to the paramecium you were probably thinking of. All plants move, and some of them even have memory and learning capabilities. Maybe you are just trying to teach us all about Cunningham's Law, by example? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you post some examples of intelligent plants? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Note I did not say intelligent. I said learning and memory, which are more specific claims and not as strong. Here's an example of that [7], a Mimosa species that also happens to be one that can be easily seen to move. More generally, Plant Neurobiology is an emerging field of research [8] - now that we know lots more about cell signalling and hormones and whatnot, we can start to see that some plants are doing things much like animals do with their brains. Here's [9] a whole journal that is devoted to research along these lines. There are also some critics [10], and we need to be careful about stretching the analogy too far. We have a somewhat relevant WP article at Plant perception_(physiology). SemanticMantis (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be intentional misinterpreting my answer, so as to set up a straw man. "Movement" in this context means due to muscles, and "think" in this context means with a brain. Yes, some plants can do rather limited movement, like a Venus flytrap, and mimic intelligence, using methods that require far less energy than animals, but that's all quite irrelevant to my point. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Only irrelevant when you move the goal posts. Also, when you don't actually link to any reliable sources, its easy to change what you said, or claim you never meant what you said. Instead, you could just direct people to read articles and let them think for themselves. --Jayron32 01:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Here [11] is an interesting list of "higher" animals that can use photosynthesis including a sea slug, a salamander, a hornet, and an aphid! Evolution doesn't doe so well with "why" questions, but there are at least some examples of non-protozoan, non-protist real honest animals that get some energy from photosynthesis. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

move to talk page

serious trolling in the misc desk lately...people asking when men plan on colonizing the sun...asking if possible to refer to ejaculation as a #5, and on and on...I'd say the last legit question was about number of photographs in 19th century...and why don't admins move posts that are clearly about science to the science or clearly about language to the language (not that many of these have been legit lately)..and a lot of regular ref desk people seem to feed the trolls like crazy....but it's pure silliness that's going to ruin the potential of the desk imo..68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The current approach seems to be to treat all but the most blatantly obvious trolling as sincere, and to answer with cold, hard facts where possible. I have to admit that a question about colonizing the sun is pretty funny. It's like the ancient joke about going to the sun. "We can't, it's too hot!" ... "So we'll go at night!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Folks, speaking of inappropriate questions on the Ref Desk, we have a whole page dedicated to discussions of this type. It's called Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's semi-protected, which is why the OP posted here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)