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

April 14

A phantom in the Ala Napoleonica

Re: Wikimedia Wikipedia Commons Photo 3/3c Piazza San Marco

In this black and white photo we are facing the Ala Napoleonica at the end of the Piazza. Now look on the right side of the upper, top level within the second archway from the right end – a semi-vanishing man seems to appear and disappear on the balcony.

best to you all and many thanks, Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.91.168 (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a stitched-together panorama or a high-dynamic-range photo. Either way, the photographer took several photos of the Piazza and merged them together in a computer. If the man walked across the balcony between the first and the last picture - then he'll appear separately in each of the original photos which were then blended together...the blending is the cause of the 'vanishing'. SteveBaker (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP per capita (nominal) from 1999

[1]

I'm amazed that the world has changed so much in 10 years. If I compared that list the latest data, it would seem decades have passed.

I'm particularly impressed by the performance of Spain and Greece. Greece in particular seems to be a miracle, growing 3x+ in 10 years. How did it manage to pull that off? I mean it was already at a high middle income level so rapid growth at that level seems impossible.

Is anyone else shocked how fast gdp can change?

Clashbash (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably in the way the data are gathered. Spain and Greece have both adopted the Euro since 1999, and it's probably revalued their GDP upward in dollar terms. I don't, however, have either the data in the local currency, or the comparable exchange rates. Failing this, it may be including something new - both countries have sizable banking systems, so it's possible that the way they take into account foreign assets has changed, for example. We had a question with a similar answer a couple of weeks ago - try searching the archives. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

having looked into it slightly, the Euro option seems less likely as a primary factor, possibly helping; they use the term 'GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy' so I'm guessing it has a lot down to resident businesses - for example Banco Santander in Spain. Less sure now though. I'd also point out that while GDP has risen a lot, the rank of the country has only increased slightly over the same period - so presumably time series graphs do not account for local inflation; that is why there is a rank system. 92.8.9.95 (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's actually me again. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Clashbash, on the right of the data source you cite is a link to a time series. From that, I note that in 2001-06, Greece's GDP per capita rose over 15% a year in nominal US dollar terms. Considering that the dollar was weakening, it isn't difficult to estimate 10% nominal GDP growth -- which might well be 2% real growth and 8% inflation. Just a hypothesis. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The league table using purchasing power parity is going to be different from merely exchange rates, which fluctuate. See List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. 89.240.60.225 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Salary of US Soldiers

What is the yearly salary for a US soldier?--Amore Mio (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here (http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money.jsp) would be a good place to look. http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money_basic_pay.jsp - it states entry at around $17,000 going up to $32,500 for an experienced Staff Sergeant. Officers get much more - from around $32,000 up to $60,000 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that include benefits such as housing and food allowances? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Just curious though, have you got any information about their bonus payments?--Amore Mio (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Strike, I found it [2], my bad :P.--Amore Mio (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Arms of Zara and Peter Phillips

James, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise will probably not have a coat of arms by their parents' wishes, but they are not yet at an age at which they'd usually recieve them anyway. But what about Zara and Peter Phillips? Princess Anne always wanted them to be outside Royal life (they are untitled) but do they have coats of arms - their pages make no mention of them, but that doesn't actually mean they don't have any. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All of these royal grandchildren are entitled to appropriately differenced versions of the royal arms. Existing practice for the children of the Prince of Wales and Duke of York would suggest that they would be likely to choose the arms to be differenced by means of labels with additional charges on the points. I can't remember off-hand whether Peter and Zara's father was an armiger; if so, they would both carry his arms impaled or quartered with those of the Princess Royal, differenced either with normal cadency marks (A label and a crescent respectively, I think), or with 'tagged' labels as above. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2009 (UT

Lady Wessex's coat of arms. (She has a brother, so her children will not quarter her arms.)

Mark Phillips bears Per chevron azure and Or, in chief a horse courant argent and in base (some kind of plant with blue flowers) proper, according to Lines of Succession by Jiří Louda. Peter would bear this with a label. Zara would bear it undifferenced but not transmit it to her children. I guess they have the option to quarter it with Anne's arms (Mary of Teck and Philip of Greece both quartered the arms of British princesses who were not heraldic heiresses). —Tamfang (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I figured all the grandchildren of the queen would have the right to arms - interesting to know what they would be. Does anyone actually know if they [Zara and Peter] use them at all (I'm invisioning stationery, etc.)? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Entitled" is too strong imho; in medieval times (when every person of rank needed to display a coat of arms), the royal arms were routinely differenced in the same ways as others, but now the royal arms are considered special and each member of the family is specially granted arms (typically at majority). A case could be made that Edward and his children are entitled to an appropriately differenced version of his father's arms (and perhaps of the ancestral Oldenburg arms!) —Tamfang (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Attraction

Is a man attracted more to a woman's looks or is a woman attracted more to a man's looks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.174.130 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Men are more attracted to a woman's looks than women are attracted to a man's looks, on average.--droptone (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What? I'd like to see a source for that please. SN0WKITT3N 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See Billy Bob Thornton's three year marriage to Angelina Jolie ;) TastyCakes (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ha ha very funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be a dick. TastyCakes (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'll remind you of wp:civil please don't call me a dick. The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as “a dick” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No excuse me, for construing your sarcasm as the dickishness I still believe it was. TastyCakes (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I come here to answer questions, to try and be helpful. I have worked so hard over the last few months to become a better person than I was. I dislike being called a dick. I am not a dick I don't even have one. I'm sorry if you construed something from my post, it was a little sarcastic yes, because I honestly didn't find your joke funny. But I had no malicious intentions or trying to make you angry. I'm truly sorry that I've apparently caused anger from a simply off comment that I didn't even think about when posting. Please can we now stop this meta discussion and get back on topic of answering questions :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm sorry I called you a dick and for being overly touchy today. TastyCakes (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See Attraction and also there's an article somewhere about Symmetry in human faces being apparently linked to attractiveness. I don't really buy into the idea that men are more attracted to a woman's looks than women are to men. It would seem, from my admittedly original life research, that women have a wider-range of what they define as attractive than men. E.g. Just because the man isn't "traditionally" attractive isn't reason to believe the woman with him doesn't care about his looks. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• This will surely depend on the four individuals involved. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no straightforward reliable answer to this question; whilst hack reporters may claim otherwise, no reputable social scientist or behavioural psychologist would be likely to do so. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Alex is right, but the article on physical attractiveness starts out with "Despite the existence of universally agreed upon signs of beauty in both genders, both heterosexual and homosexual men tend to place significantly higher value on physical appearance in a partner than women do." and cites The Evolution of Desire by David Buss (2003), pp. 57, 58, 60–63, as its reference. I think Professor Buss considers himself a reputable evolutionary psychologist (but I didn't read what, exactly, he wrote in his book). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Either you're playing semantics with "reputable social scientist" or you are unaware (or unimpressed) of the discipline of evolutionary psychology. If you dismiss the findings of evolutionary psychology, then be explicit because otherwise your claim that no reputable social scientist endorses the claim that men care more about looks in their mates than women is outright false. Even ignoring the questionable findings of people like Satoshi Kanazawa, there are numerous, plausible findings that support the claim. David Buss' The evolution of desire deals with this topic explicitly, and here (pdf) is a brief paper by Buss that outlines his general findings. If 121.246.174.130 wants a more detailed explanation (like percentages or breakdowns based on short-term and long-term mating strategies) then they can ask follow-up questions.--droptone (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's all interesting stuff, but obviously only applies to some people. Personally I think any research that attempts to strictly define and categorize psychological issues should be taken as a guide only. Got any links for same sex attractions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Most generalizations "only apply to some people"; doesn't mean they're worthless. —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was both being quite semantically picky and implying my lack of confidence in evolutionary psychology. I'm not sure how one would devise a research programme which would measure the relevant factors in an unbiased way. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Over-winding a watch?

I have a mechanical watch from the 1960s or so. I have read on a number of sites that winding your watch throughout the day, rather than just once in the morning or so, is not great because it will affect how well the watch keeps time throughout the day by some small amount. But for my purposes it's not usually a big problem if the watch gets to be a minute off or so every few days—I use it mostly ornamentally, and get my more accurate timekeeping from other sources around me throughout the day (e.g. my laptop, cell phone, etc.). Are there any other reasons not to wind the watch more than once a day or so? That is, will it break or anything like that? I'm not over-winding it in the sense of winding it past its resistance point. I just like winding it! But I don't want to damage it. This is not a request for horological advice. --18.51.6.232 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Best ask a seasoned watchmaker who is familiar with older watches. I would expect it to run a bit faster when full wound all the time, despite the efforts of the balance wheel to tick at a constant speed. You said that is not a problem. If you are constantly winding it, like 12 times a day, then there might be greater wear to the stem and the case near the stem than if it were wound once a day, so that a 10 year old watch might have the wear in that area of a 120 year old watch, in addition to the increased likelihood of overwinding. Popular Science in 1924 said "Regularity in winding your watch is essential if it is to keep correct time. A watch should be wound every 24 hours, and at the same time each day." But they were talking about older watches than yours, and they only reference accurate timekeeping, on which you placed relatively low importance. Edison (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that having the mainspring under maximum tension pretty much all the time would impose more load on the components connected to it. Left to run normally, the watch would only have that much load for a relatively short time until it winds down a bit. Most (if not all) bearings and mechanically rubbing parts will wear out faster if there is more load on them. So, yeah - I think it's pretty certain that you are shortening the life of your watch by doing this. But without understanding the detailed mechanics and metallergy of the system, it's going to be almost impossible to predict whether this will cause it to fail prematurely by a day, a month or a decade. I would be surprised if winding it more often made a difference to time-keeping because any long-term error caused by this (compared to daily winding) will be a constant amount per day - and that can be adjusted-out (assuming you know how to adjust your watch). The thing that would almost certainly cause it to be inaccurate would be if you randomly wound it obsessively on weekdays then let it run down "normally" on the weekends (or whatever). SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, your laptop is probably less accurate than your watch. I'm not sure about how cell phones keep their time, but I just checked mine and it's only 10 seconds slow, so maybe they are fairly relaible.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My laptop is extremely accurate, because it's constantly resynced with an atomic clock. This is the norm for Linux and Mac computers (not sure about Windows). 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - and your cellphone gets it's clock from the cellular network - which should be pretty much spot-on too. Any device that only uses an internal mechanism to keep time is going to gradually drift. Devices like cellphones and (not-Windows) computers that have Internet connectivity and use the Network Time Protocol to keep time should be within a few seconds of perfect time-keeping because they are frequently being re-synchronized to some atomic clock someplace. The won't be 100% perfect because there is variable amounts of latency in the networks they use...but they should certainly be better than even the best watches over long periods. http://free.timeanddate.com is a web site that lets you put a high-precision clock onto your web page with a simple link...this is way to get near-perfect timing if you have Internet access - even on a Windows computer. SteveBaker (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On my Windows computer, the time is resynced daily with Microsoft's servers... Actually, I can see your point. 99.224.117.66 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, most GSM mobile phones don't synchronise their clocks with the mobile networks. At least I've never had one that does. Also as 99 mentions, Windows computers since IIRC 2k have been capable and I believe usually have it enabled by default of using NTP or SNTP [3] to synchronise the time. The servers they use may be MS ones by default (but I always switch to a local NZ server, probably nz.pool.ntp.org), but these should still be highly accurate as they are no different from other NTP servers and get their time from higher level NTP servers, probably Stratum 1, (which is how all NTP servers are supposed to work, it's generally not recommended that you actually sync with a stratum 1 server, these are supposed to be for other servers to use not for end users). It's been a while since I've looked in to it but I believe accuracy of syncronisation of NTP (but not SNTP) is generally better then 1 second (our article says 10ms) since there are ways to try and counteract the effect of latency although according to our article MS doesn't guarantee accuracy to more then 1 or 2 seconds (which doesn't mean it is less accurate) although this appears to be talking about the server not the client anyway. Obviously your clock may drift out over time, the default on Windows is to resynchronise every week I believe. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

cummins n 14 celect plus

can anyone tell me the engine specs of the "cummins n 14 celect plus",or some links that can help me.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.46.43 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 15

Do I have cancer?

(question and answers removed)

RefDesk doesn't give medical advice, anyway. Doctors do that, rather than someone you have never met and can 'give advice' whilst hiding behind total anonymity, like in the first answer to your question. The only medical advice we can give is to recommend you see a doctor, if it is something that really concerns you. Good luck. --KageTora (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

Discussion here. --Scray (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Greatest martial art

Which is the world's greatest and most powerful martial art?Can a kickboxer really defeat a Kung Fu master? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.174.130 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering archery is also a martial art, I would say that being able to stick an arrow between your opponent's eyes before he got within 100 metres of you would make it a pretty powerful martial art. --KageTora (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously he's asking about unarmed combat, and I think it's a fair question. Who would win in a fight, an expert in karate or an expert in kung fu, for example? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I did understand, that, Richard, but his facetious comment in the previous post led me to be pedantic.--KageTora (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's about the skills of the practitioners. The actual "art" is just a tool. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from watching MMA matches, who wins a given fight is a matter of combining any number of components - depth of training in a particular style, breadth of training over a number of disciplines, innate balance, cardio training, strength, resilience, flexibility, mental attitude, preparation for or studying of your opponent, and of course, good old luck. Back in the old days before everyone cross-trained in multiple disciplines, the winners of those matches were almost always Brazilian ju-jitsu guys (i.e. Royce Gracie). If I had to pick a particular martial art to face off against any other art, and cross-training wasn't involved, that is the one I would pick based solely on the historical record. Oddly enough, the disciplines Westerners often think of when it comes to "martial arts" (karate, kung fu, ninjas, etc) did very poorly in those competitions; the biggest Gracie fighter of all, Kazushi Sakuraba, although Japanese didn't use those techniques at all - he also was a wrestler. Matt Deres (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A saw a TV program (no, I don't remember it, sorry) that firmly stated there was no best martial art. I think Ninjitsu got pretty highly rated, though. Not sure why. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was National Geographic; they have done two such specials, though I haven't seen the second one. They did indeed rate the ninja as the highest, mainly due to the techniques they learn to maintain balance, but also for the literally heart-stopping punch they can perform on a downed opponent. It was an interesting episode, and it was nice to actually get some data on the strength of various punches and kicks, etc., but all that stuff was literally taken out of context; like saying so-and-so must be the best soldier because he was the best skeet-shooter or something. Matt Deres (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from watching MMA matches, it depends on the rules. If you're not allowed to kill or cripple your opponent, the most effective blows of most styles have been eliminated. --Carnildo (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to people actually fighting for real, a lot of the time the winner is the person who hesitates less and is more willing to do serious damage to their opponent. Most of the time, I don't think the actual martial art in question is the deciding factor between two skilled fighters. Which is not to say that it doesn't matter at all -- obviously, if someone is trained as a classical boxer and he goes up against someone with a far more versatile skill set, the other guy is probably going to have the advantage. But in most cases, I think discussions about the "best" martial art aren't really about an objective appraisal, they're generally about ego and bravado. I don't think the belief that one martial art is objectively better and more powerful than any other has a lot of basis in reality -- the combatant's physical condition, training regime, experience, drive and willingness to be a complete bastard probably count for a lot more than the choice between, say, kickboxing and kung fu. Being lucky probably doesn't hurt, either. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would disagree with any of that. I do think there are a couple of ways to answer the question properly, though. If you're talking about a literal streetfight, the question of martial arts is largely moot, simply because the guy with the semiautomatic is the one who's going to win most of the time. As soon as you decide there are going to be limitations (i.e. no weapons or no killing or whatever), then there are going to be martial arts that reach those limitations to varying degrees. Matt Deres (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As a practioner of various martial arts for 30 years, my opinion matches one of the responders above: it is more about the individual fighter than the actual art form. I have met many street fighters who have had no formal martial arts training that were simply as tough as nails and could probably beat most martial artists I have ever seen (even the great Bruce Lee!). Also, it is important to remember that the various martial arts were each developed over time within specific cultural environments (e.g. in ancient Okinawa, peasants were not permitted to carry weapons so needed to utilize modified farm impliments leading to the development of the bo staff, tonfa, sai and, most famously, the nanchuku; likewise, aikido (a recent martial art) grew out of ju jutisu and so on).

Granny Smith apples

Just wondering whether Granny Smith apples are commonly available and known as "granny smiths" outside Australia and New Zealand --203.22.236.14 (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They are pretty ubiquitous in the UK under that name. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And in France as <Grannies>.86.197.46.24 (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)DT

According to the article Granny Smith, the Beatles used it as their symbol for Apple Records.--KageTora (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I always heard them referred to as "Granny Smith" apples in a small rural town in Northeastern North Carolina, in the US.--droptone (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also commonly known by that name, and planted in my back yard, in Alabama (US). — Lomn 13:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also in Canada (well, Ontario at least). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So, that's a Yes! then. Richard Avery (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've bought them in Illinois and California. Woodchuck Cider (from Vermont) has a GS version. —Tamfang (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How many grannies could a Granny Smith grant if a Granny Smith could grant grannies?--KageTora (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen apples labelled "Granny Smith" in Texas too - they are probably everywhere these days. SteveBaker (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a very commonplace variety here in Finland as well, and probably one of the most popular ones, at least judging by how well-represented they are in stores. "Granny Smith" is the name of the cultivar, and therefore it's what they're called here. Love 'em myself. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cooking apples

When I was a kid, my Mum would often send me out to buy some groceries (and no, we didn't have child slavery. It wasn't a fortnight's worth for a family of 10, but just a few things light enough for a little kid to carry home in a string bag - remember them?). More than once, I came home with what looked to me like Granny Smiths, but was told they weren't GSs but "cooking apples". The distinction in her mind was that GSs are for eating directly, but cooking apples are used solely in pies etc. I was later shown an alleged "cooking apple". It was indistinguishable in appearance from a GS and, to me, they're both as uneatably tart as each other. I do have a fairly sweet tooth, though, and apples in particular have to be sweet, sweet, sweet; tart ones are OK in pies, but never on their own - I go all shuddery even thinking about it. So maybe my ability to discern scrotum-shrinkingly tart from even more extreme tartness is not well developed. Not that such a skill would be of any use in telling them apart on appearance alone. I cannot remember the last time I ever saw "cooking apples" on display in any shop or market; certainly not in the last 35 years. Do such things actually exist as something distinct from GSs, or was this a figment of my mother's imagination? Do Americans use any special variety of apple in their stereotypical apple pies, or just whatever comes out of the can? (No offence; we have canned "pie apple" in Australia too). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Both Granny Smith and Cooking apple note that Granny Smiths are often used for cooking. I too recall seeing things that looked like large Granny Smiths described as 'cooking apples'. Algebraist 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not America, but where I'm from (Northern Ireland), the Bramley seems to be considered the definitive "cooking apple" and is often labelled as such in greengrocers. While I would happily eat a Granny Smith, I wouldn't even consider eating a Bramley raw (some people I know even find them inedibly tart when cooked and sugar added). There also seems to be less emphasis on the fruit having a uniform shape/colour, presumably because it's going to end up in a crumble, rather than in the fruit bowl. --Kateshortforbob 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The all-green Nottinghamshire Bramley in the photo looks exactly what I mistook for a Granny Smith. They'd be very easy to confuse if they weren't labelled. I rest my case. (Vindication at last! I hope you're reading this, Mum. :) Thanks, folks. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My grandmother called the apples she used for cooking "greenings". In our case, they were small, hard and very bright green. Then she would add a snow apple [4] or two to add a bit of pink to the colour. The crimson near the skin would bleed into the apple mixture.) A ripe Granny Smith is also a bright green, but nowhere near as hard as a unripe green apple of any variety, and you don't have to squeeze much (not enough to bruise the fruit) to be aware of the difference in feel. I am amazed that there are people who think Granny Smith apples are tart. Greenings may give you a belly ache if eaten in quantity, and, to be edible raw, should be sprinkled with salt. I didn't see a Granny Smith in Toronto greengrocers until I was a young adult. // BL \\ (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a Rhode Island Greening. Rmhermen (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Granny Smiths not tart? Do we live on the same planet, Bielle? I dunno, maybe the original Australian variety is tarter than the varieties available elsewhere. To me, a GS is the quintessential tart apple, which is why I never, but never, eat them. They have much the same effect on my mouth as an onion, a lemon or a raw potato. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No - Bielle's right. Granny Smiths are tart compared to most 'eating apples' - but the Bramleys are MUCH more tart than that. My mother also liked to add wild Crab-apples into her apple pies. The idea is that the sharper the apple you use, the more sugar you can add to make the pie more glutinous without making it so sugary as to be fairly inedible. Raw wild crab apples make even Bramleys seem edible! SteveBaker (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I baked my first apple pie when my then inlaws came to our apartment for dinner for the first time in the early 70s. The greenings were hard to find, but I was successful and then used the pastry recipe of my aunt (from Manchester) with the golden touch for pastry. My pastry came out like sheets of leather and I forgot the sugar in the apple mix. My father-in-law asked for seconds. It was either the only kind act in his entire curmudgeonly life or he had materially damaged taste buds. I love tart; I even eat lemon slices just sprinkled with a little sugar, but I couldn't eat that pie. // BL \\ (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bielle's right, but so is Jack; when apples get more tart than GS's, they're not typically eaten out of hand. I note, for example, that a link to sour apple is a redirect to Jack's least-favourite eating fruit. GS's are my favourite apple (and, yeah, I also eat lemon straight up, as does my daughter), but they're not purely sour, they also have quite a bit of sugar in them. In fact, I'm not sure (WP:OR, but it seems to me that apples much more sour than GS's aren't actually "more sour", but rather, "less sweet" (i.e. simply have less sugar in them).

To me, "cooking apple" is simply a term to describe any apple used for cooking, as opposed to "baking apples" and "out-of-hand apples"; I can't speak for Jack's maternal unit, but I wonder if she was calling them cooking apples simply because that's what they were bought for, just as I might buy a half-bushel of GS's and refer to some as eating apples and some as baking apples. Matt Deres (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Pippins are "cooking apples" in my part of the US. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My mother used to use cooking apples that she bought from the shops - huge ones that if you eat raw would give you a stomachache simply because of how sour they are. She stopped doing that after our next-door neighbours (on two sides) planted apple trees and she now gets them from the branches that overhang into her garden (this, by the way, is legal in the UK!).--KageTora (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At a slight tangent: the feature which distinguishes cooking from eating apples is tartness. The feature which makes Bramleys desirable as cooking apples is the way they quickly go to mush. This is great if you want to make applesauce or fruit crumble, but not if you need cohesive pieces for visual appeal, as in open-faced tarts. So "cooking apple" is not always interchangeable with "Bramley". BrainyBabe (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In the US they sell maybe a half-dozen varieties of apples at the typical grocery store. Unfortunately, they give the name of each, but don't say whether it's for cooking. Not being able to keep them all straight, I just go with the bright, shiny red apples I know to be directly edible (without any witchcraft required). I also have learned to NEVER buy apples that come in plastic bags, as they are always year-old mush not even suitable for horses. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, I (as a person with rather poorly-trained tastebuds, but still...) can't tell the difference between apples which come loose, apples which come in bags and apples which come in punnets. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't tell? Either our apple baggers here are awful, or you should see a... oh wait. The Ref Desk doesn't give medical advice... 99.224.117.66 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Added a "</small>" tag to the end of the preceding post; it made a lot more things small than it was supposed to. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. a popular apple for making aple pie is the Rome beauty. It is a tart and firm red apple. Its firmness means that it works well in an apple peeler-corer-slicer. If a restaurant wishes to bake 12 apple pies, it would be tedious to peel and core and slice the apples by hand, and soft apples just do not work in the machines, because the peeler would take off 1/2 inch of apple with the peel. The Rome is tasty but dos not turn to mush. Granny Smith originally sold her apples as "cooking apples" and only secondarily were they marked originally for eating.Edison (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

F1 in Books by Sven Hassel

A poster above was mentioning a mark in his passport called an 'F1', and although entirely unrelated but for the name, this reminded me of the usage of the term 'F1' in books by Sven Hassel. I believe it is meant for 'condom', as it is almost entirely used in the context of bedding women on some raucous night out either on leave or taking a break during a mission. Can anyone confirm this? Also, as I read these books in translation into English from the original Danish or German, can anyone confirm if this was Danish, German, or English slang of the period? --KageTora (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My internet is running crazy slow so can't verify but my instant assumption would be that 'F1' was a reference to 'pulling a fast one' which would be shortened to F1 as a reference to the motor-sport Formula One. The saying pulling a fast one is used to describe someone trying to hook-up with somebody for a short amount of time (not really used hugely today though) and so would fit with the above description. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I doubt it is that. These books are about German soldiers in WW2. The phrases used are 'I asked [character] for an F1 because I didn't bring one,' and such like. Good guess, though.--KageTora (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Could it be the F1 grenade? Tempshill (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! If it is, then I've been reading the books upside down! It seems plausible, though, being a WW2 weapon, but he only mentions it during these scenes where they are 'getting down to business' with women. This is bizarre.... --KageTora (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

PS, this is the only terminology in the whole series of books that I have not been able to understand. It's not a fixation with the sex scenes. Believe me! :)--KageTora (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As a side-note, it's interesting to see from the Wikipedia article, that you can only throw that grenade to a distance which would still include yourself in the blast-radius. No wonder it was discontinued.--KageTora (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Grenades aren't really open-battlefield weapons though - you chuck them over walls and into buildings where the structure offers you some protection from the blast. SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As an interesting side-side-note (OK - it's off-topic - I admit it) - I was talking to some army guys about the performance of various weapons - and the distance a typical soldier can throw a grenade came up in conversation. They claim that if you take a dummy grenade and ask a soldier to throw it as far as he can - it only goes about 90% of the distance he can throw a live grenade...even though they have the same casings and are carefully weighted exactly the same way! I guess fear and determination equals 10% more range! SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late, but I'd like to defend the "condom" reading: the colloquial name for condoms in Germany up until WWII was "Fromm", after the biggest manufacturer. It's a pretty short distance from "Fromm" to something like "F1", as a jocular "army issue" designation.--Rallette (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so my suspicions were correct! For a moment then, I wondered what all this grenade business in 'bedding-scenes' was all about. Thanks!!! That has cleared up an age-old mystery for me!--KageTora (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See Julius Fromm. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Railroad schedules

Given some random town in the U.S. that does not have a railroad stop, but has railroad lines going through it, is there an online listing of times that will allow you to estimate when trains will be passing through the town? Assuming that you must estimate by looking at times for stops on each side of the town, is there anything similar to flight times for trains (including cargo trains)? -- kainaw™ 13:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For passenger trains, Amtrak has all of its schedules on its website, including some handy interactive maps. You might be able to extrapolate from that. As far as freight railroads, from WP:OR I can tell you they do have schedules, but they are very fluid and can change from day to day, depending on the cargo manifests. And railroad officials are reluctant to release these to the public. — Michael J 13:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean interpolate. —Tamfang (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the following is original research.

Having used Amtrak, I have never seen a train run on time (delays running from 1 hour to 13 hours), so take their printed schedules with a couple of tons of salt. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A few years back I went to the station in Atlanta to catch the train to Miami. Actually I got on to yesterday's train running 22 hours late. Have things improved, I wonder?86.197.46.24 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)DT

I suspect many people have similar stories. I know I do. My train was about 18-24 hours late. One of my friends missed the first night game at Wrigley Field due to the delay. Dismas|^(talk) 05:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cargo train schedules may be hard to find due to reasons covered in this article: [5]. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an oldie: A guy lives in a rural house not far from a railroad track. Every night at midnight a train roars by, but he always sleeps through it. One night the train doesn't come. He awakens at midnight and says, "What was that?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Open Source and Piracy Keywords

What search terms should I use on Google to find info about open source community's opinion on piracy of closed source software and whether they believe in it or condemn. Not lloking for anything that would say "don't do piracy just use open source" or something like that? --Melab±1 ☎ 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What you have termed as 'closed source' is also generally called 'proprietary' so see if that helps.--KageTora (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is here.--KageTora (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Stallman wrote that the term "piracy" should not be used in this meaning [6]. I do not remember exactly where he wrote that illegal copying of software is morally right although should not be done since it is illegal. MTM (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think most people in the OpenSource community are much more attentive to licensing issues than (for example) typical Windows users. Part of the reason for that is that we can afford to be! When everything is free - why would you steal stuff? But the other part of it is that only the terms of the various OpenSource licenses actually keep this stuff "Open". When someone violates the GPL - OpenSource fanatics howl like scalded cats and set the lawyers loose with just as much vigor as (say) Microsoft would. Whilst the software is free (as in zero cost) and free (in that you can copy it and give it to people legally) - it's not "free of restrictions". One major restriction with many OpenSource license is that people who give away binary copies of software MUST offer to provide the source code that goes along with it. This prevents unscrupulous companies from using the embrace/extend/extinguish approach to beating OpenSource by first adopting some package - then providing some nice closed source extensions to the original package such that everyone wants to use it - then, when their version of the package has market dominance - locking away the source code and charging a fortune for it. The requirement that they ALSO publish their extensions as OpenSource under the same license as the original code means that this is a much tougher thing to accomplish. Hence OpenSource advocates are VERY attuned to the terms of licenses. SteveBaker (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd second what Steve says. I'd also point out that if you're trying to search for stuff you might want to try alternatives to the word "piracy". Piracy is the crime of armed robbery on the high seas, and only its metaphorical use in a letter Bill Gates wrote in the '70s links it to the illicit copying of software. Open Source people are usually technical people, and hence often somewhat precise in their use of language. You might get further looking for copyright infringement than piracy. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Piracy" in the sense of stealing intellectual property goes back much further than the 1970s. The OED gives references for piracy describing such activity in the printing trade going back to 1700. --79.71.235.22 (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New Yankee Stadium Satellite Photo

I was messing around with Google maps' satellite feature and zoomed in to Yankee Stadium and all there is next door is a big vacant spot. I guess it takes a while for Google to update their satellite images, so I started looking around for more up-to-date images but I haven't found any. Does anyone know where I can find an aerial view of the new stadium, preferrably one with the old stadium visable as well? Tex (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if someone can find such a photo of the OLD Old Yankee Stadium and/or the Polo Grounds, that would be something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Polo Grounds. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent photo. Not a straight-overhead view, though. :) And I can think of just one straight-overhead view of Yankee Stadium: one of the clips used in the prelude to the film version of West Side Story, which also had straight-overhead views of the Empire State Building and other New York landmarks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that most images from Google Earth are copyrighted and are thus unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning on using it on wikipedia, I just want to see what the new stadium looks like. Tex (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This link, from WCBS in New York, has a lot of aerial photos of the new ballparks and the old Yankee Stadium: [7] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The book Take Me Out to the Ballpark: An Illustrated Tour of Baseball Parks Past and Present contains a striking aerial photo of Yankee Stadium and The Polo Grounds in the same frame. The book is about 10 years old, but for fans of Ballparks it is a MUST OWN. That book may be one of the favorite books in my entire sports book collection, and that particular photo is indeed one of my favorite photos in it. I know its not directly related to the New Yankee stadium, but again, it seemed related to Baseball Bugs question, and given his username, I thought he should own it. Amazon is advertising new copies from $7.84 and used copies from $4.24. I can recommend no other book more than this one on this topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your thinking of me. In fact, I do have it, or at least one edition of it. Mine says 2000, and the cover features St. Paul's Midway Stadium. The one on Amazon says it's a revised edition. In my copy, on page 24 is a small print of that aerial photo of the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium. If you look closely at the Stadium, it's in the late 1930s, after they rebuilt the bleachers, but before they extended the second and third decks into right field.
One thing I've been waiting patiently for, is for someone to ask me how one would manage to get a good satellite photo of the Polo Grounds, which was demolished in 1964. Some things are just too subtle. Or too obvious. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Once we've perfected the flux capacitor, it should be trivial to obtain such a photo... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just have Capt Kirk get one the next time the future needs some whales. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that. That Captain Kirk is a good guy. I might go so far as to say he's a prince. A prince of whales. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's possible there are high-altitude aerial photos somewhere. I was pleased recently to run across a series of such photos of San Franciso and Oakland, taken in 1931, in connection with surveying for the Bay Bridge. It was fortuitous, because it afforded straight-overhead views (albeit small ones) of the just-abandoned Recreation Park and the brand-new Seals Stadium [8] as well as Oaks Park across the bay [9]. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Any idea what the stadium in the upper left hand corner of the SF photo is? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Recreation Park, as I had said above. Unless you're talking about something else that I'm not seeing. Recreation Park was the immediate predecessor to Seals Stadium. It was made of wood, so after 25 years of exposure to the elements it was probably about ready for someone's fireplace. It's worth pointing out that the orientation of the photo is misleading. The streets behind third base at Rec Park (15th), and right field at Seals Stadium (16th), were essentially straight east-west. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I can't read. Sorry about that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I can't write. My secretary does all my work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you need a paperless office on a PDA. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A sticky situation

Sticky substance liquified marshmellow?)on cloth car seat--how to remove??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralfie3 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Marshmallow, they are made of sugar or corn syrup, water, gelatin and dextrose. Since all of those things dissolve in water - you should be able to simply dilute it with lots of warm, soapy water and lift off the liquid with kitchen towels or something as you go along. Sugar dissolves faster in warm water than cold - the detergent makes the water "wetter" and more able to get into the fibres of the cloth. It might take lots of goes to get it out altogether. The worst thing is possibly that perhaps that any coloring in the marshmallow might be insoluble in water and stain the cloth...but no matter what - the stickyness should go away. I think warm soapy water blotted up with lots and lots of kitchen towels so the seat doesn't get too sodden wet is your best/simplest chance. Good luck! SteveBaker (talk)

One concern using Steve's method: If some of the sugar-water produced soaks through to the padding, and it stays wet for a long time, you could get nasty stuff growing down there. If the cloth part of the seat is removable, you might want to remove it for cleaning. If not, just be sure to dry the seat after, by leaving the car windows down on a dry, hot day or by using a hair dryer, if it's cold or wet outside. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

April 16

Why do the phrases 'fat chance' and 'slim chance' both mean 'little chance'?

It seems like a bit of a linguistic contradiction. Perhaps the first phrase is said sarcastically, however.--In the midst of a dream (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. You're onto it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bu NBXCNKZHBVGXCJKZBHBJKzSBHxdJgsaMJHVZJTCF6MHAD6TQ7YGH23UK67AUYUI6A7STRG6 ATY3NFGA&^s&FDGHAVZSXCRTYUAUXDYCRA WSEIRSLFIYSAT7WEIVuisadhaWJDBWQGHDAGTIRAGRJVADJCFLA3GHRUI

gs|carrots]] 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any sarcasm involved. If there was, it would be possible to use 'fat chance' nonsarcastically to mean a large chance, but no such usage exists. Algebraist 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps such non-sarcastic usage is lost or archaic, and all that remains is the sarcastic usage? It wouldn't be the first orphaned phrase in our language. This is pure, 100%, unfounded speculation, however. APL (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely on that basis slim-chance is the 'real' saying and 'fat chance' is the sarcastic version of it? That's how i'd have read it anyways. ny156uk (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Try the language desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The OED says this use of fat started as a fat lot, meaning a lot, but always used ironically with the first quote A fat lot I care (i.e. I don't care) from 1892. Fat chance is first recorded in 1906. Slim has been used figuratively to mean slight or poor since the 1670s in the phrase slim benefit (i.e. very little benefit) and they quote a 1862 letter with the sentence The chances of your getting this [letter] are slim. meltBanana 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article, on the Massachusetts Negative Positive implies that similar usages, where one uses the negative to mean the positive in a completely non-ironic way, are common in certain dialects. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cf "I could care less" and flammable. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I right to assume that you intentionally messed that up, since the correct phrase is, "I couldn't care less"? --Scray (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote what I intended to. The phrase makes logical sense with "couldn't" but is very common with "could". (2.1 million google hits v 1.3m ghits.) Likewise, "flammable" and "inflammable" are used interchangeably. (6.3m v 5.6m) Prescriptivists can argue "correctness" as much as you wish; linguists tend to be descriptivists, and as such track usage. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been hearing "I could care less" to stand for "I couldn't care less" since the 1960s, and it didn't make sense then either. "Flammable" is a fake word made up to help those who confuse "Inflammable" with "Non-flammable". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Words which are used that commonly aren't "fake". Every word has to start somewhere, and once it has become part of the common lexicon, it doesn't really matter where it came from. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Coined" is probably the better term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In what way is the word fake? The online dictionaries I consulted say the known uses of the word goes back to (at least) 1813. 173.49.18.189 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Flammable and Inflammable were never opposites and one was not 'made up' to avoid confusion. The root words that make them up each have different meanings. You might say that the infected insect bite on your arm was "inflamed" - you'd never say it was "flamed". The difficulty is that the 'in' prefix has more than one sense. "Incompressible" means "Not compressible" but "Invigorated" doesn't mean "Not Vigorated", it means "Having Vigor"...which is why "Inflammable" means "Having Flammability" and not "Not Flammable" as some people naively expect. Certainly it's unfortunate - but that's what you get from having a language with so much richness and complexity that derives from so many other linguistic traditions. SteveBaker (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Although it's not made up, the word inflammable is generally discouraged when marking items etc to avoid confusion Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To invigorate is to put vigor in; inflammable means something can be enflamed. The problem is that Latin has two prefixes īn– (cognate to English un–) and ĭn–, not distinguished in English. A fallible test is whether or not you can think of a cognate with en-, because high short vowels become mid vowels in Romance. —Tamfang (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Longest discussion page

Sometimes I enjoy reading the discussion page more than the article itself. Which Wikipedia article has the longest discussion page?83.104.128.107 (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records, Talk:Jesus has the "most archives of one Article talk page" (currently at 107 archived talk pages). But I don't claim this to be the final answer. The records page doesn't seem to be updated that frequently. The discipline "Biggest use of Article talk page" doesn't have an entry, currently. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The technical answer (i.e. the longest individual talk page) is Talk:Spanish Empire (646199 bytes) (or Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army/Archive 02 (1534002 bytes) including archives themselves). I can't load that page at the moment, but I'm assuming that it's because that page has never been archived. I know, useless stats, but there you go. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Disraeli didn't go far enough. What he should have said was: There are four kinds of lies - lies, damned lies, statistics, and useless statistics.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical value of sterling

Does anybody know how much £3,500 in 1974, would be worth in today's sterling value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.50.3 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This site (http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/result.php?use%5B%5D=CPI&use%5B%5D=NOMINALEARN&year_late=1974&typeamount=3500&amount=3500&year_source=1974&year_result=2009) Suggests that £3,500 in 1974 is the equivilent of around £26,000 (using Retail Price Index) and £42,000 (using Average earnings). ny156uk (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gunshot wounds

Are there places on the body where you be shot with minimal effect (blood loss, organ damage)? Also, what is the record number of gunshot wounds that a victim has survived? I'm not planning to shoot anyone, if that's what you're thinking. This question was inspired by Sydney Bristow being shot on Alias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.28.57 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's true that YOU are not about to use any information gathered here to shoot anyone - BUT - how can we - or YOU - be sure that there isn't a nutter out there who might use such information at some time in the future? Maybe you should just experiment on yourself and tell us what happened?92.23.148.223 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

92.23. Wikiepdia's reference desk is about distributing already existing information. The danger you describe does not exist. There is no reason not to answer this person's question. APL (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Amy Winehouse's beehive count?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Guzman survived either 16 or 19 shots in the Sean Bell shooting incident. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a brief article on the topic. Not exactly what you were asking, but I hope it helps. APL (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It would also depend how you define "gunshot wound". When Dick Cheney peppered Harry Whittington he inflicted something on the order of 200 wounds, but that's nothing compared to the nine wounds inflicted on 50 Cent. LANTZY^TALK 18:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is true, there is going to be a major difference in the amount of blood drawn between getting hit with a .22 used to shoot rabbits vs a .50 cal in the same spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Though there is a lot more to it than calibre. A .22 MIGHT leave a small hole, hit no organs, and go right in and out. OR it might travel along your bones, unable to escape your body, and tear you all up inside. In which case some larger calibre weapons might actually do less damage, as they'll just punch a simple hole in you. Anyway... bullet wounds are fairly complicated. There are elaborate forensic anthropology books that describe all of the many ways in which you can die from them quite well. At the same time there are those rare people who manage to get a dozen bullets inside them but survive anyway, and those people who get shot from some stray, low-power .22 and are dead on the spot. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in relation to energy. A .50cal is going about 3x faster then the .22 and is a lot more weight, so the energy is at least an order of magnitude higher. All else being equal, You are better off getting hit with less energy. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Safer places to be shot would be in the hair, or toenail, at least some part of the body that is dead (like an artificial leg) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting an immense sense of dejavu with this answer... ;-) Gosh darn it someone removed the duplicate post making my comment look silly now... grrrrr hehe Gazhiley (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the foot the traditional place to shoot yourself if you want to get out of a draft? Of course you might be permanently damaged by such an act. As a semi-related question, what is the penalty for a mother, say, shooting her son in the foot on purpose to get him out of a war? If the son didn't know she was going to do it? Is the mother guilty of cowardice or whatever the charge is? TastyCakes (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assault would be the charge, but I believe that in most jurisdictions the son would have to make a complaint. Perhaps the Humanities desk would know if there was a specific wartime crime for "doing something to keep someone else out of the war". I'm sure some jurisdiction had such a rule. By the way the chief advantage of the foot as one's target was that it could plausibly be an accident, and it was disabling. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I know of a possible record for surviving gunshot wounds - Wenseslao Moguel see [10] was supposedly shot ten times (including in the head) by a firing squad but survived. There's a good song about him too. Smartse (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting case of a woman who was shot in the head with a moderate sized round (.380) the other day. An excellent example of the truly random nature of gunshots. Tobyc75 (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Burden had someone shoot him in the left arm, which seems like a good place if you are just trying to get shot FOR ART and not be disabled or anything. Recury (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Which state has the most boats?

Which state, in the USA, has the most boats? - Vikramkr (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As of 2002, the answer was Michigan, if you're counting registered recreational vessels. It is the only state with more than a million. Listed below are the top twenty states ranked by number of boats registered in 2002. Some surprising things about this list: Pennsylvania and Tennessee are in the top twenty, but no New England state is. A list of all oceangoing vessels or all merchant vessels would probably look a lot different, but I can't find such a list.

1. Michigan 1,003,947

2. California 957,463

3. Florida 902,964

4. Minnesota 826,048

5. Texas 621,244

6. Wisconsin 575,920

7. New York 526,190

8. Ohio 414,658

9. South Carolina 382,072

10. Illinois 369,626

11. Pennsylvania 359,525

12. North Carolina 353,560

13. Missouri 335,521

14. Georgia 327,026

15. Louisiana 322,779

16. Mississippi 300,970

17. Alabama 262,016

18. Washington 260,335

19. Tennessee 256,670

20. Virginia 240,509

These statistics come from the National Marine Manufacturers Association, via this news article. LANTZY^TALK 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can Cubans legally emigrate from Cuba?

Does Cuba allow its citizens to legally leave the country? - Vikramkr (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Our article: Human rights in Cuba says that not only is emigration illegal in Cuba - but even discussing emigration will land you in jail for six months. Hence the people taking phenomenal risks to get to the US on tiny little rafts, etc, etc. SteveBaker (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wet feet, dry feet policy discusses a 20,000 per year quota admitted into the U.S. and mentions U.S. negotiations with Cuba over the matter. The article isn't very clear on who these 20,000 a year are or if Cuba actively participates. Rmhermen (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also see Mariel boatlift. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Weren't a lot of those folks criminals that Cuba was cynically sending our way just so they wouldn't have to deal with them anymore? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sending our way"? Does Wikipedia now accept immigrants? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the servers are based in Florida, so the rafts are in a sense floating in our direction. LANTZY^TALK 13:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, many of them went on to become system engineers here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The servers were moved to San Fransisco a while back, if I recall correctly. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

April 17

Technology - most important factor in determining the outcome of war?

This is a homework question but the guidelines say I can ask for help with a specific point I'm unsure of. Well basically I'd like to know what was more important for determining the outcome of world war one; science, medicine and technology such as tanks and penicillin - or something else like strategy or morale of the soldiers. Thanks for your help

That's a pretty broad point, not a specific one, and in effect you are asking us to speculate on your behalf, because obviously many factors played a role. Have you at least read World War I and a few articles branching off from there? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that and some of the links in the "see also" section. I really just asking if you think it would be best to argue that technology was the most important factor or not. I guess it doesn't really matter since I can argue either way and still get the grade, though I'd like to select the side that has the most secondary resources that I can use to back up my argument.

Suggest you can make a good argument based on morale (civilians, servicemen and politicans) but backed up with the economic strength to provide the needed hardware. But the one ingredient that can never be ignored is luck. There are numerous examples of how an expected outcome has been negated by sheer good/bad fortune.86.194.123.148 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)DT

By the way, there was no penicillin during World War I, so I wouldn't make much mention of it in your homework. Deor (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how much time you have before your paper is due, but I would strongly recommend Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August if you want to get a very thorough (but still quite accessible) narrative introduction to the outbreak of World War I. The book picked up a Pulitzer prize, and I would say it's an absolutely essential read for anyone with an interest in military history.

It would certainly offer a great deal of grist for your mill, whichever side of the technology/human factors divide you choose to take. The Germans won the Battle of Liège in twelve days after attacking fortresses previously assumed virtually unassailable using their new 'Big Bertha' artillery pieces. Russian mobilization and opening of the second, Eastern front of the war was delayed by limitations of the Russian railway and logisitical systems. French military doctrine presumed that the best defense was a strong offense, and thousands of French casualties resulted from ill-advised infantry assaults on entrenched German machine guns. (The Germans started the war with far more, and heavier, artillery and mchine guns than did the French.) French troops wore red uniform trousers, while the Germans had adoped the much harder to see gray uniforms. Meanwhile, the British Expeditionary Force was both smaller than promised and late to the party for an assortment of political reasons. Poor communications all across Europe hindered both sides' forces. You've pretty much got your pick of technological and human factors if you'd like to take either side (or a combination thereof). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the American Civil War, for example, I think you'll find that the factors there were resources, competence, and commitment. The North had plenty of the first one and a shortage of the other two. The South was like the reverse. Once the North fully committed, and found some competent leadership, the South was doomed. The far trickier problem, though, is maintaining once "major combat operations" are done. We did it the right way once - in Europe following WWII. We've done it the wrong way all too often. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also argue that "outcome" was a lot more than who won and who lost...which makes this answer doubly difficult. Invention of penicillin may be as much an outcome as a cause - and (arguably) with more long-lasting consequences. SteveBaker (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette on use of letters after your name

Hi, Can anyone advise on the proper business etiquette regarding the use of professional qualifications/professional bodies letters after your name (eg ACII, FIA, etc). Specifically in relation to use in the UK and in the order you display them (eg university qualifications 1st, professional qualifications, highest to lowest) and whether it is ok to use 2 professional qualifications from the same body where one is at a higher level than the other (eg Dip CII & ACII) or whether this is frowned upon. The letters I'm trying to find the correct way to use are: MA (hons), ACII, Dip CII, CITIP. Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a look at our article on Post-nominal letters? It appears to address at least some of the questions you've raised. Karenjc 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever grants the qualifications that entitle you to those letters will probably specify conditions of how to use them, especially how to use multiple from the same organisation. --Tango (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't check 'post-nomial letters' as I couldn't think what they could be called other than letters after your name. AllanHainey (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Entire office in a PDA?

In a business video I saw recently, one guy claimed that he ran his business from PDA. He went so far to say that the PDA is his office. Is it really possible?. If yes, what sort of PDA can do that trick?. 131.220.46.25 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC) dattenfe

What sort of business was the man in? Some forms of business are conducted almost entirely on the phone, in that case your computer needs might be completely satisfied even by an old Palm Pilot.

Even if your business is a little more typical, you could conceivably do a lot with a PDA. I know that there are office suites available for PalmOS[11], I assume that WindowsCE also has similar offerings. For many businessmen an office suite and an email program would be enough.

I'm not sure why anyone would do this, however. PDAs are great for jotting down quick notes or reminding you of appointments, and managing ToDo lists, but doing serious work on them seems like it would be uncomfortable.

(On the other hand, in College I did a lot of class work and note-taking on my PalmIII.) APL (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One might assume that there's a bit of hyperbole in his statement, as well. Tomdobb (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One might also assume that his business involves selling PDA's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that he could print receipts or contracts on it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Only e-mail. A truly paperless office. With shredding at the touch of a button, in case you get audited. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to use your PDA with a network printer. APL (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - and you also can't run your company website off a PDA - your corporate email has to arrive at some server before it goes to your PDA...there are all sorts of other things you absolutely can't do. If you have a small/simple business and are prepared to kinda ignore "external" things like printers and web servers...then yes, you can slowly and inefficiently use your PDA. But is that a GOOD way to run your business? Probably not. You can't type as fast on a PDA as on a laptop - so you're wasting more time responding to emails/whatever than you otherwise would. The PDA's memory has to be backed up onto external storage or else your entire company records will be lost if your PDA is stolen/broken/misplaced - that requires an external computer of some kind (I bet the guy in the video doesn't do that!). So, while (with careful ignoring of reality) you might CLAIM to be able to do this...whether you SHOULD do this is much more problematic. SteveBaker (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice answers. I now suspect that the guy actually sells PDAs for a living. Because he refered to the brand instead of referring to it as PDA. For the sake of my curiosity, can you please list all business tasks that a laptop can do that a PDA cannot?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.24 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

car speed

Which car in production has the highest top speed? Not looking for concept cars or cars people install a jet engine into. Just something from the factory with no special aftermarket modifications. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List_of_automotive_superlatives#Performance has an alleged answer. Don't know if it's still accurate- this is the kind of thing that could easily change when some new supercar comes out. Friday (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That listed the SSC Ultimate Aero TT, however as the "production run" was 25 it only technically makes it. How about I more specifically define the question in that the car must have production of 1,000 or more. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you scroll to the bottom of SSC Aero, you'll see it's listed as the incumbent speed holder; it also lists the previous holder as the Bugatti Veyron. If that doesn't satisfy you for whatever reason, just keep going back (all top-speed-holders have this template) until you find one that does. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fastest production car Livewireo (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fastest in a straight line is a lot different from fastest around a track - which is a lot different from fastest on in a standing quarter-mile drag race. The Bugatti Veyron is usually awarded the title - but it gets a little tricky when you try to delimit what is a legal street car that's actually in reasonably large-scale production because there a lot of tiny little companies who turn out just a handful of cars each year - maybe mainly for track use - maybe just borderline street-legal. I've always lusted after an Ariel Atom (by no means the fastest car on the planet - but perhaps the most fun of the borderline-affordable cars) - and they are street-legal in many countries - but not here in Texas. Would something like that count? That's why this is always a topic for debate. SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Atom...*drools* Vimescarrot (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I get a list of ACTUAL American made/designed military aircraft?

Can I get a list of ACTUAL American made/designed military aircraft? Nothing that was designed nor made from other countries, such as England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.4.87 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be much shorter to list US military planes that were not designed and built in the US. Frankly only the AV8B springs to mind. Most are US born and bred. The United Kingdom (the sovereign state of which England is a part) has built maybe three military planes in the last twenty years, all in coooperation with other European countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of military aircraft of the United States is the place to start. In most cases, that article clearly designates when a craft came from another nation. Most aircraft listed there have their own articles where you can read about the history of design and production. If you want the exhaustive reference, try Jane's All the World's Aircraft. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be much harder to find a military plane where none of its parts were made outside the US. But if you discount that, I'd pretty much agree - the AV8B (Known as the "Harrier" in the UK, where it was designed and originally built) is really the only one I can recall that wasn't US made - and even then, the design was licensed for manufacture in the US. There has been talk of using Airbus for the next generation of in-flight refuelling tankers...but it's just talk right now. The politics of military spending makes it virtually impossible to buy stuff from overseas - no matter the merits. When I worked in flight simulation, the company I worked for ("Rediffusion" - a UK company) had to set up a US-based subsidiary to make simulators for the US military market because there was simply no way to sell them otherwise. There are half-hearted justifications related to the risk of not being able to get spare parts in time of war if a foreign country were sourcing those parts - but that's a pretty unrealistic concern in the case of British planes. In the end, it has nothing to do with the technical merits and everything to do with the way US politicians get votes. SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar up for grabs!

I'll give a barnstar to anyone who can name the spider in the photograph on the right-hand side. Jolly Ω Janner 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is a Daddy long legs spider (Pholcus phalangioides). See also here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I name him Octavius. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Hmm.. seems he's been wounded in battle - missing a leg. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean Septavius as he only has seven (sept) legs? Jolly Ω Janner 00:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another barnstar is up for grabs if you can name the next photograph! Jolly Ω Janner 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be Tegenaria domestica, hard to tell at this resolution. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, followed the link to the high-res version. Still looks like Tegenaria domestica ::) --Dr Dima (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Second thought: Tegenaria atrica is a more likely identification. Sorry about that. --Dr Dima (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actualy, I think it's the first one, the "common" house spider. I've seen many of them in my lifetime, so I think they are indeed "common" spiders. Thank you very much! Jolly Ω Janner 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

April 18

us federal grants

are there any federal grants available to privite business owners for the building of residential housing for low to moderant income seniors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.142.191 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Google found me this link: [12] in less time that it probably took for you to wait for me to find the link for you. If you search google with the phrase of the thing you are looking for, you may find more than this one as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

dessert

I am try to find the name of an australian pastry that has two different coloured creams on top . It start with N, 7 letters and the second word is tart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.211.186 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Neenish tart. LANTZY^TALK 03:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to do crosswords? Is this common on the Ref Desk? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where it is forbidden. It isn't really homework or medical advice, now is it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's common. I cannot recall another question that was openly a crossword clue. Algebraist 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I can. There was a spate of them a while back. We've had posters giving us multiple clues in the same post. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So now we need a 'dyoc' template? SteveBaker (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Discoverer" of values of chess pieces

Chess players know the rule of thumb: a bishop or knight is worth 3 pawns, a rook is worth 5 pawns, and a queen is worth 9 pawns. This rule seems to be common knowledge among chess players. Who came up with this rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.158.58 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Chess piece relative value mentions some of the history. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth bearing in mind that the relative values concept is widely held, but players may differ as to the precise values allocated. Furthermore, the relative values can vary in a game. For instance, a pair of knights on a congested board are worth far more than a pair of bishops, especially if one bishop is hemmed in by pawns on same-coloured squares. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• On the other hand. On wide open boards, a bishop pair is more valuable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole concept is rather vague, but it is a useful tool, especially for a beginner. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Did/do librarians get as many weird questions as you guys?

Seeing how the reference desk here often gets weird queries, I'm just wondering if any library reference desk workers have written books or otherwise talked about all the stragne queries they've gotten.

Now, granted, the anonymity of the Internet has to have added some - I doubt that people ever called librarians asking about genitals and such - but some of the others on here, and some of the medical and legal advice asked, is the kind of stuff I imagine they could have gotten in bygone days. And, some of those dummies who call 911 with routine things.

Speaking of which, if you have a concern that is not life-threatening and doesn't require the police, PLEASE use Wikipedia or your local library, so those in more need get help they need. Pass it on.209.244.30.221 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

On LibraryThing there are discussion thread detailing funny requests from patrons and creepy requests. Also intriguing is odd things found in the library and strange bookmarks. meltBanana 12:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't imagine there's anything that a veteran librarian hasn't been asked! [Former NYC public librarian here.] Telephone reference librarians are particularly susceptible to the sex question. I remember giving out definitions to some heavy-breathing questioners ... But my favorite was the genial fellow who came up to the desk, hands cupped in front of him, and asked, "Can you tell me what's wrong with this [large, live] bird?" (We couldn't.) Catrionak (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you think is weird. I came across a website about a village, run by one person (who presumably lives there). One page is entitled "strangest requests", and many of them don't seem all that weird to me. [13]. Maybe he doesn't know the answers, but that doens't make the questioner wrong for asking. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My sister works in a library, sometimes at the reference desk. She says they routinely get calls for driving directions. So far I've only seen that once on Wikipedia. Pfly (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of the name of that old movie about reference desk people (I think at a newspaper) who get replaced by a computer...It's old enough that they still called the computer "an electronic brain". There were lots of examples of silly/impossible questions in there (which, needless to say, the humans get right). I think it's instructive. SteveBaker (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking of Desk Set. —D. Monack ^talk 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to identify a plant.

Hey everyone, just wondering if anyone has any idea what this plant is? It's some sort of succulent or cactus, with a fleshy, triangular stem with a row of thorns and small leaves on each corner. I've had it about two years and the main stem is 38" from soil to tip, with a lot of smaller substems coming off it. As far as I'm aware, it hasn't flowered.

Mystery Plant

• File:Mystery Plant 1.JPG
• File:Mystery Plant 2.JPG
• File:Mystery Plant 3.JPG

Any ideas would be gratefully received! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been identified as Euphorbia trigona by a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

When I got mine like this it was called dragon bone plant. I have seen it grow to about 5 meters high, a small tree, but not in a flower pot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do I enjoy smelling my own farts?

Few people i guess would admit it, but i think most of us secretly enjoy smelling our own farts. Why is that exactly? I am trying to understand the psychology behind it. Does it have something to do with the fact that we are pleased to have removed this gas from our bodies or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.186.6 (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate smelling my own farts, it's horrible. I just despise the smell of any fart/fecal related substance. Now petrol, there's a nice smell that I can't get enough of.--Deceit from wherevermore (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's an evolutionary adaptation to allow us to check how our digestion is going? TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You may find the answers to these similar questions helpful [14] [15] 8I.24.07.715 ^talk 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings- the Hobbits

How did the producers of the films make the actors playing the hobbits appear so short? There are times when the faces of the actors are clearly visible with other characters in the movie, and they still appear short in comparison. How?130.127.99.54 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you get the DVDs, they explain a lot of the tricks they used. Quite a bit of it is done by putting certain people in holes or others on top of crates to get the heights right. Also, a lot of forced perspective was used. Dismas|^(talk) 16:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a section on this at Special_effects_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy#Scale which mentions forced perspective as Dismas notes. I think a bigger problem was that the guy who acted as Gimli was one of the tallest actors in the movie. Apparently kneeling was an effective tool. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides the stuff in the article, the DVD commentaries also mention that they used extremely tall people in some scenes to make hobbits seem smaller (as they enter the Prancing Pony, the guy who cuts in front of them was some basketball player or something). They also used midgets. Peter Jackson said (again, in the DVD) that it was important to use as many different methods as they could; using only forced-perspective, say, or midgets, would eventually lead to people seeing through the trick. Along that same line, they also tried to use the "wrong" method for a particular scene. For example, in the scene where Frodo and Gandalf are riding on his cart, they used Elijah and a very large man for the embrace, but switched to forced perspective on the moving cart, which was extremely difficult to do. But, because people would probably expect a differently sized double or maybe a computer simulation, it was important to not do that and so appear more realistic. Matt Deres (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's useful stuff. You should consider adding to the article (you can use {{Cite video}}) if the DVD commentary counts as a secondary source. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The 4chan meme "dat ass", who is it parodying?

If you go to Encyclopedia Dramatica and search for "dat ass" you will see a page about this 4chan meme, generally involving variations on a black guy with sunglasses, probably a rapper or something, and I suspect that 'dat ass' is like a lyric in a song... can you tell me please where it comes from and what exactly is the parody reference? Thanks.--Deceit from wherevermore (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The original seems to be this, and the term "dat ass" is pretty common place. I don't recall seeing this since before about July 08, probably there is no more back story to it than that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely who is the man in that picture you just linked me to?--Deceit from wherevermore (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If I was forced to guess, I'd go with Jamie Foxx.--droptone (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd recommend trying 4chan's request board.--droptone (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

April 19

Getting a water resistant watch battery replaced in Cambridge, MA

Does anyone know of an inexpensive place to get a water-resistant (200m) watch's battery replaced and then water-sealed? I've called around and couldn't find any place that would do it for less than $35. Thanks. --VectorField (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful to find a place that will guarantee the watch will remain water resistant. The place I went just tore the water proof ring to shreds getting the watch open and tossed it out. So now I have a non-water resistant watch with a new battery. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Colin/Pollock

According to the Wikipedia article Pollock: On Monday 13th of April 2009 Sainsburys announced it would now refer to Pollock as "Colin" so as to save customers embarrassment. Colin is the English Translation of the French word "Pollack", literally pronounced "Col-an" What's embarrassing about Pollock? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Pollock" pronounced "PAH-luck" is a fish. "Pollock" prounced "POLE-lock" is a durrogatory term for people from Poland. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that when Jay says "PAH-luck" he means "POL-uck". Many American accents don't distinguish the AH vowel from the short O. --Anonymous, 05:52 UTC, April 19, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.104.133 (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note that when Jay says "POLE-lock", he means "Polack". Also note that it's "derogatory", not "durrogatory". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be pronounced "Po-lack". DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

According to The Sunday Times, people were embarrassed to ask the fishmonger if he’s got any pollocks and could they see them?-gadfium 06:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"We just got a fresh load of pollocks in." Yeah, that could cause an uncomfortable social situation. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to finally clarify, the possible embarassment factor is because "pollock" sounds similar to "bollock", not because it sounds similar to "Polack", which is not a widely used term in England anyway. Sainsburys appear to assume their customers have the sense of humour and sophistication of an 8 year old. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe they're the first major shopping outlet to realise this. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can believe anyone would see this as anything more than press release from the marketing department of a major retailer to get them some free advertising over an entirely spurious issue. While a large proportion of shoppers probably did not know there was a white fish called a pollock those that did know I doubt would be all that embarrassed and mostly just mildly amused. It does have a serious side as overfishing of cod means people are encouraged to eat other species in their fish and chips that they might be initially reluctant to try. On an almost unrelated note I know someone who caught pollock on cucumber which sounds a lot more embarrassing than it was. meltBanana 14:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct culinary term for the item is prairie oyster. I am not the first to remark that, correctly prepared, it is the piece of cod that passeth understanding. (Not to be confused with a codpiece. I knew there was something fishy going on.) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard this news story but I never made the connection with bollock, I'd assumed it was because it sounded a bit like pillock, a derogotory name for an idiot. AllanHainey (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a non-derogatory name for an idiot? DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Person with learning difficulties" is the politically correct term, you can decide for yourself if that is derogatory or not. --Tango (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we're using idiot in a different way - when I call someone an idiot it's usually because they think that calling a fish "Colin" will make more people eat it (or some such nonsense, renaming the Post Office "Oblivia" or whatever it was, or buying a house next to a farm and then complaining that it's noisy at 5 in the morning when the farmer starts work), not because of any learning difficulty they may have. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We used to catch pollock off West Wales as kids, before most people had heard of it. Yes, we used to make pollock/bollock jokes, but that's because we were kids. Sainsbury's renaming it is absurd. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How odd about Sainsburys.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Colin" nonsense was introduced without a citation by an IP editor who has made no other edits. I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I did hear this information on the BBC World news this week, and Forbes.com has a reference to it here. I don't think the addition was vandalism though it may, indeed, be marketing nonsense. // BL \\ (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I always knew it as coley, which is a redirect to pollock and sounds a bit like colin. My mother always fed this stuff to the cat. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Coley is the coalfish (Pollachius virens), pollack is Pollachius pollachius. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The re-naming may be nonsense, but it is valid nonsense - see this BBC News report. It was mentioned on several UK news channels at the time. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally would rather eat a bollock than a colin. --Sean 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Under-3 Mortality Rate

During ancient times and the Middle Ages, how many percent of babies born alive died before the age of 3 years?

Bowei Huang (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Have found an interesting essay here that you might like. From own knowledge, I believe it would be quite high even until the 19th century, since among many families in Europe it was almost customary not to reveal the birth of an heir until the baby was over twelve months of age, since chances were pretty high that it wouldn't survive its first year. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the age at which babies were christened, i.e. welcomed into the community, varies considerably. You need to be more precise about where and when. Class and gender affected rates too, and still do in poor countries. See infant mortality for background. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

e-books (pdf format)

Could anybody suggest me a website where i can download heaps of e-books (.pdf format) easily for free?? Because I've been trying to download a couple of books (and some of them aren't that famous), and I've tried googling but all I came up with were sites that required registration and payment. And some of the sites don't seem to work because of geographical difficulties (I live in South Korea). Any type of suggestion or advice will be appreciated. thanks. Johnnyboi7 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out List of digital library projects. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifically this site [16] might be helpful to you. No payment necessary .Richard Avery (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The link above (Gutenberg project) is surely amazing, however, the site do not offer pdf files.--Mr.K. (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is a portal for a large number of online libraries as well as having its own collection of user uploaded books. Every book is available in pdf format and is copyright free. They have a very impressive collection of literature. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia view/edit/revert ratios

Is there anywhere to find out what the edit:view and revert:edit ratios are on wikipedia? Smartse (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You might have better luck on the Help desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis has tons of information on this. Overall, the estimate is that 80% of edits are "normal" edits, 10% of all edits are reverted - and (of course) the remaining 10% of edits are the actual reversions themselves. However, I believe this is an underestimate because there are times when an editor will delete most of the words of a previous edit (and perhaps replace them) without using reversion tools. There are also times when the reversion is partial - or happens after lots of intervening edits - meaning that the reversion tools don't work. It's virtually impossible to know how often that happens - or even to define precisely what "reversion" is. If you write: "Machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics are not possible" - and I change that to "Perpetual motion machines are in widespread use in American Industry" and you change "n widespread use in American Industry" to "mpossible" - was that a revert? Logically/conceptually, it was - but textually - not even close. SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009

Thanks for that. Why hasn't there been any data since then? Smartse (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sleeping away from home

How come some people can fall asleep anywhere and other people like me have falling/staying asleep unless we're in our own beds? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because everyone is different. Your question contains the answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people tend to go to bed more fatigued than others; those that go to bed when they're less tired will often do so as part of a routine, and being outside of familiar surroundings will disrupt that routine. Anxiety (conscious or subconscious) may also keep you awake. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have experienced that I have more or less developed the ability to sleep wherever and whenever, having travelled a lot and having slept in cars, lorries, on porches, gas stations and in scores of beds and rooms, trains, buses and so on. If the situation seems safe enough dozing off is no problem. The presence of a familiar person (friend) sleeping by one's side might increase the feeling of safety. On the other hand, I personally know people who are my age (or close to it) that for example would neither take a night train across the country nor allow themselves a short nap while taking a day train somewhere. We are all different, it's true. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can sleep lying down just about anywhere if I'm tired enough but I've never been able to fully doze off when seated (unless passing out drunk on buses and trains counts). I do sleep better in my own bed, however. The me-shaped indentation probably has something to do with it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read that horses will sleep standing when in unsafe surroundings, but sleep laying down in safe surroundings. I don't know if this is true. My hunch is that peace of mind facilitates sleep, though under less than perfect circumstances, sleep is still possible. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found out my fair share about horses, and from what I know, it's normal for them to sleep standing up, safe conditions or not, and that they just need a few (2-3) hours of sleep each day. Random fact: I've driven a few horses from Belgium to Poland, giving a grand total of over 1000 km, and we've found out that the horses were calmest while we were driving, and were getting restless when we used to stop whenever we needed to (regulations require checking on horses often when you do that). --Ouro (blah blah) 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm like that too. When the car is in motion, I'm calm. When it stops, i get restless. 'Guess I'm a horse. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When I'm hoarse I find it difficult to neigh. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Two White Doves Flew to my balcony

I was standing outside on my balcony with my boyfriend when two white doves flew up to the ledge about 2 feet away from us and states there! What does this mean?71.129.120.246 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say that they were probably waiting for you to feed them. The pigeons and gulls in my local town centre do that regularly. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In Prague, it's illegal to feed pigeons, due to the damage they cause to historic buildings in the old town[17]. Strange but true...! — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They have signs up in town here asking people not to feed the pigeons. I don't know if there's any specific local bylaw backing it up, though - people seem to do it anyway, regardless and I've never seen anyone getting in trouble. Feeding the gulls doesn't seem to be an issue, however (well, feed the pigeons and the gulls end up getting 90% of it anyway). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In St Ives you don't need to feed the gulls - they will steal the food from out of your very hands. DuncanHill (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It means you and your boyfriend will get married and live happily ever after! (This was the answer you were really looking for, wasn't it?) Livewireo (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect so. What unromantic people Misc. ref deskers are! ;) --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Feed us" is probably close to the mark. Most wild doves are colors other than white. The likely source of the white doves (especially since there are a pair of them) is a dove release. There probably was a wedding nearby where a pair of domesticated white doves were released (symbolizing the purity of the bride's and groom's souls as they embark on their journey of marriage, or other such saccharine malarkey). They'll find their way back to their coop eventually, but may have stopped on your balcony to rest for a bit. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cycling through a red light in the UK

I ride my bike to work most days, and I've been wondering if it's legal to run a red light when I wouldn't cross any lanes of traffic or greenlit pedestrian crossings in doing so. Mostly this would apply to left turns, but also lights on a straight road covering a smaller road merging from my right. I couldn't find it explained in the Highway Code. Anyone know where the rules are written down? — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not allowed to give legal advice, but I can tell you I've been told off by the police for turning left at a red light on a bicycle. However, there have recently been proposals to allow this [18].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Highway code rule 69 is '[Cyclists] MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.' That seems fairly clear. Algebraist 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know the default position would be that I have to obey all signals. Was just looking for an exception, in case one existed. Thanks! — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Get off and walk.86.197.44.151 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)DT

In London, some cyclists do regularly ignore red traffic lights on pedpestrian crossings, apparently believing that pedestrians will either get out of their way, or they can manoeuver around them. As Algebraist says above, I have always understood this to be illegal. It is certainly very dangerous. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always understood it to be illegal too. Some cyclists claim it is safer - something to do with avoiding being run over by buses stopping next to you and then turning left into you, I think. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What eye colour am I?

I will post a pic later if necessary, but basically this is most similar to my eye colour out of the pics I could see there.

I live in northern Britain, Scotland to be precise. It says that this sort of eye colour, grey eyes with mixed yellow element is more common in Finland, the Baltic states and Russia, yet I'm relatively far away from that.

It's weird 'cause my eyes are almost exactly like those in that picture, I always think the colour in the middle looks too much like piss.--Voodoo Lounge (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say bluey grey. As far as the colour in the middle (apart from the black pupil) looking like piss goes I think you'e spending far too much time looking at your own eyes. AllanHainey (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If your piss is that colour, you're not drinking enough water and/or you're drinking too much coffee. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My best friend has eyes like that. I tell her they're blue with a golden halo. :) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They look like gray eyes to me, the hazel ring is called central heterochromia. — jwillbur 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Railway Enforcement Officers APU Melbourne Victoria Australia

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: I keep hearing about a special unit in the Victoria Railway Enforcement area called the APU. I have found out that APU stands for Asset Protection Unit. However I have found out very little other than they target graffiti vandalism. Does anyone know anything more about this unit?Be4four (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

US Military Water Bottles

What kind of water bottles do frontline, combat US Marines use to carry their water? Do they still use metal canteens? Acceptable (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they're plastic now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They have been plastic for at least 30 years. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't the desert soldiers have water bags built into their packs now, with a tube they can sip from on the front? Camel Bags or something? Gunrun (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hydration packs, and I would expect they use them for any long journeys on foot. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How common is it for people never to have been to an island?

I'm just wondering. I think it's obviously quite common in certain impoverished areas, but this would obviously exclude people on impoverished islands like those in the East Indies, West Indies and Great Britain.

I mean, the World Island... how many Eurofags have been on an island from that?--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You could have Eurofags from Sicily, or Eurofags from Great Britain, or Eurofags from that island that Denmark's capital is on, but what I'm asking is what the ratio of people who have been on a continent and people who have only been on islands is.--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I know this guy on an anthropology forum who is Sicilian-American, and I agree with him on a lot of things, but he's obsessed with island mentology.--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, couldn't *every single piece of land on earth* be considered to be part of an island? :D --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks Kurt, a breath of sanity! 86.4.180.199 (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Better ask if there is any body who has not been to an island differing from the one they were born on. There would be many in land locked countries in that situation. On islands like Nauru, it is too isolated and expensive for most inhabitants to travel anywhere else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

IMPOVERISHED ISLANDS LIKE GREAT BRITAIN???????????????????????? Quick Martha, there's no coal left in the cellar - throw another kid on the fire................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.194.66 (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is poorly written. Indeed, he could have meant that the impoverished islands in Great Britain (some of the islands in Scotland, for example) and not Great Britain as a whole.--Mr.K. (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "Eurofag". We seem to have a page for the term, redirecting to Metrosexual, yet the latter includes no mention of the term. Is it an Americanism? --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is troll-language. Let it starve.--Saddhiyama (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good meat sausages

Sausages are, from what I've heard, ade from all the meat that's crap and doesn't go anywhere else. Am I right? If so, how much would a sausage cost if it was made from the best meat from a pig, instead of the worst? And weren't stuffed full of filler and everything else that makes it cheaper. Basically, how expensive could you possibly make a sausage using just pig meat? Vimescarrot (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds if not thousands of varieties of sausage made from various parts of different animals. Not all use organ meats and most add herbs, spices and other non-meat ingredients. Also, "best meat" is a matter of opinion and not necessarily the same as most expensive. Some of the tastiest and least expensive cuts of meat are the offal. If you want to use the priciest pork cut in your sausage, you'd probably want organic pork tenderloin. This website lists it at US$20/lb. But you could really jack up the price by mixing your pork with aged, grass-fed filet mignon ($80/lb.), white truffles ($3000/lb.) or gold leaf ($14,000/lb.). —D. Monack ^talk 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Gold leaf and truffle sausage...o_O Vimescarrot (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an over-generalization. Not all pork sausages are made from the ikky bits (although some undoubtedly are). But you can figure out the cost - look at how much a pound of decent pork costs (pick your cut) add that to the cost of a pound of the cheapest sausages you can find (which we would assume to be mostly the cost of manufacturing them) - and that's pretty much your answer. It also depends on the nature of the sausages - in the UK, it is traditional to add bread as a filler to sausage meat (presumably, originally, to save money - but actually, I'm a firm believer that you get a better product that way) - so you wouldn't need even a pound of a good cut of pork to make a pound of sausages. But then some sausages have herbs or beer or who-knows-what spices in them...then the cost of the final product will be whatever the gormet sausage market will bear. SteveBaker (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just get meat you think is not yucky and make your own sausage. It's easy. Google it.--Levalley (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of making my own sausage. I don't like sausages. Thanks, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the purposes of a sausage (I am referring here to the traditional British sausage, not some foreign pretender) is to use up all the bits of the pig that may look slightly disconcerting in their non-minced-and-tubed form. Some of these bits (cheeks, snouts, ears) are actually very tasty and enjoyed by some in their own right - Bath chaps (inexplicably a redlink) for example. Steve's right about the bread - it improves the texture of the sausage. Remember - you can eat every part of a pig except the squeak! DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cured meat products saltier in the US than elsewhere?

Is it true that cured meat products (e.g. ham, sausages) in the US are saltier than comparable ones from other parts of the world? If so, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.18.189 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about cured meat products specifically, but my anecdotal evidence having eaten in various parts of the world is that the US does use significantly more salt than other countries. They also use more sugar. I don't know why it started, but once you get used to food with lots of added salt and sugar it becomes normal and food without it tastes bland, so it is natural that is continues. --Tango (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A concern about weighted clothing

I dug out a pair of wrist/ankle weights out of the shed a couple of days ago. I believe they're five pounds each (I have no scale). I was thinking of leaving them on for extended periods of time, a la Rock Lee, but I've heard here and there that doing so can actually be bad for you, usually something having to do with ligaments. I also saw on Wikipedia's article that taking that weight off without training to do so can be harmful, overextending a tendon or tearing a muscle. Is that former danger real, and would that latter one apply to cross country running?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give medical advice - it really isn't a good idea to get information which could affect your health from random people on the internet. I suggest speaking to someone with professional expertise in this area, such as a doctor or perhaps a personal trainer. Warofdreams talk 10:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

An Unpopular or Discontinued Manga

I was browsing a bookstore one day, and there was a sale rack full of books. The manager said the books hadn't sold well, or were being discontinued, like "Space: Above and Beyond", but that's a different story. So I picked up this one manga, there was this blonde chick on the front with really big breasts, some sort of pistol things, and it was EXTREMELY graphic on the mature level. It was really sexual and violent. I can't recall the name, and I can't find it anywhere. I'm not sure if it was discontinued, it wasn't popular, or I'm not very good at searching the internet for books. It has to be one of those things. Has anyone ever heard of anything like it? <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there's a whole pornographic genre called Hentai, which has lots of particular sub-genres. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And try a Google Image Search, rather than a regular Google, since you don't know what the name is, but seem to remember what it looked like pretty well.--Levalley (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, search for what? Pornographic manga? That's going to turn up a LOT of unrelated hits... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's probably hundreds of mangas that fits that description. Seinen manga lists a few popular ones. If you have a lot of time on your hands, you may also want to sift through these. decltype (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Grenadier comes to mind, but I doubt it's it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 20

Paladium manufacturing companies

Can anyone tell me of any companies that are major paladium refiners/manufacturers? The reason I ask is simple. Given the reports about the nuclear effect, if you believe them, then those companies may become very good investment vehicles indeed. I am not asking for any investment advice. My risk is my own.—70.19.64.161 (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Palladium, the world's largest producer of the element is MMC Norilsk Nickel, a Russian company. They're also large producers of gold and nickel. For more exposure specific to Palladium, you might invest in the Canadian company North American Palladium (AmEX ticker: PAL; Toronto: PDL). Their website says they produce 4% of the world's supply.

You also might consider buying Palladium futures options or bullion. I highly recommend talking to a financial adviser before making any of these investments, especially if you have never invested in commodities before. —D. Monack ^talk 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Soldiers' helmets

The level of astonishment at this story makes me realise that people don't generally expect soldiers' helmets to stop bullets.

So, what's the point of them? There must be a reason; armies wouldn't spend all that money and encumber their troops if there wasn't some good reason. I'm just too stupid to work out what it is. --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They stop shrapnel and protect the head from falling debris. Also like motorcycle helmets they protect from impact, say a soldier throwing himself to the ground and bumping his head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Shrapnel's a good answer on its own, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on combat helmet mentions this and glancing bullets too, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be rather disappointed if my armour piercing bullets couldn't pierce armour. (I'm not sure if the bullet in question, apparently a 7.62x39mm, is defined as armour piercing, but I think most rifle ammunition is, to at least some extent, these days.) --Tango (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Sir Alan choose who to fire in The Apprentice?

I'll admit this is a somewhat low-brow question, but I'm in an argument with my sister. She claims to see a pattern in the firings this series (UK) that boring candidates are going, presumably to ensure a more interesting second half of the competition. She claims that the BBC must be pressuring him into who to choose, and that I am naive for disagreeing. I insist that he is unpressured and even unpaid in his role, so the BBC must play no part in the decisions (he would leave if they did). The Apprentive site vaguely says they are his choices, but does anyone have any better evidence than that, even if it is just anecdotal or original research? Thanks 217.206.155.146 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the early dismissal this season of Majid disproves this theory, as he was anything but a boring candidate. You've got to remember that Sugar's reputation is also on the line. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Majid not boring? How do you figure that one out then? Sralan was right that he hadn't contributed much, but that wasn't (IMHO) a good enough reason for firing the chap. (James should have gone instead.) And how is it that Sralan's reputation is on the line? At least one previous winner left his employ shortly after the show was over. He can find any number of decent people to work for him – better, by and large, than the muppets on the show. FWIW I kind of agree with the OP's sister, I think the firings are being made with an eye to the ratings. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere useful. I haven't watched the show, but I think it's clear some people may not find Majid boring and some people may think Majid deserved to go more then James. Also, while I don't watch the show, I did come across some discussion a while back and looking again I confirmed that Majid was who I thought. Boring or not, it appears he attracted a fair amount of interest due to his appearance and religion and some allegedly sexist comments (which I personally expect would not have attracted so much attention were it not for the two former things), so from a 'ratings' standpoint it seems likely keeping him on the show would have been a winner. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is one quaestion we can ever answer. Whatever goes on behind the scenes, it's very likely secretive enough we'll never really know. Also I would point out the firing of 'boring candidates' doesn't definatively indicate Sir Alan is being pressued, it's his show so he likely cares bout the ratings and in any case, his inner and internal reasoning is unknown, perhaps he doesn't like boring candidates for reasons unrelated to the ratings Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It may never be conclusively answerable from WP:RD, but I was hoping for 'weight of evidence' to use against my sister. I like the theory about ratings putting Alan under pressure without the BBC saying so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.155.146 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that there is any real evidence, only speculation that could easily be argued in either way as with the above (which the RD isn't really the place for). I don't think Sir Alan or anyone high up in the show is likely to come out anytime soon and comment on this which would be the best evidence from a RD standpoint although perhaps there is some reliably sourced speculation about this which would be suitable to mention, but I doubt it personally Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that often, participants in shows like this are made to seem boring because the producers choose to edit the show in that way. I don't know how long there is between the actual firing and the program airing, but I'd bet it's long enough to choose exactly how they want to portray the guy being fired. If they choose to portray him as boring, less people will stop watching when he's sacked. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The show is filmed in late summer early autumn of the year before transmission. This can be quite precisely dated from a letter the camera saw in the previous series. For anyone as pedantic about this as I am, the letter that the interviewer had from Thames Valley Univeristy that confirmed Lee McQueen had dropped out was dated 11th September as I recall, thus dating that 'challenge' as taking place within a couple of days of that. Since that immidiately preceeded the final task we can reaonsable assume the whole thing was over by Fri 19th Sept 2008. Since the entire process takes about 2 months (challenges performed back to back, not weekly as shown, this causes extreme tiredness due to all the 5:30 wakeup calls and is responsible for many of the mistakes in later weeks) we can assume it started round about the 7th or 14th July (these being mondays).

To get to the point, they have plenty of time, approximately 6 months. 217.206.155.146 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Information lost when only passed down verbally?

At my workplace, and previous ones, there's a lot of information that isn't written down anymore, but instead is just passed on by someone else that's been around longer or in an otherwise higher position. Has there ever been a study done to evaluate the accuracy of information if it is only passed down in this manner, instead of recorded, referenced, etc.? Also, is there a convenient term for this overall concept (information lost/incorrect when passed down verbally/from memory only)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.56.2 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find a nice analogy at Oral law and also at Chinese whispers --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Einstein quote? Else who?

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone could help me with this quote please? The general jist of it is:
"The reasonable man is content with the best evidence that can be obtained when a perfect proof is not available."
I thought it might have been Einstein, but after going through lists of his quotes I can't see anything similar. Googling it hasn't helped either, so I'm hoping someone here might know it. If so, I also need to find a source for it please?
Many thanks! Duke Of Wessex (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Book of Quotations, 3rd edit p314.7 has: We must never assume that which is incapable of proof. G H Lewes 1817-1878. I doubt any scientist would accept your suggestion, since one cannot be content until proof is found. One may accept a partial proof for the time being, but the search for total proof would continue. Such is the nature of science.86.197.44.151 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)DT

To the contrary, there is no such thing as "total proof" in science. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

code

Does anyone know how I can solve this code?

202601309024090-5080270120-1017019023080

0024011012017090230-40160210

70180140100330140240-003017060

50230220-4011070260280150

3014021025060270150210

30270140100200-003022070-10702308040170250

80260160-20140190-50340230300270

00190110120150180230180190110290

So far, I know that:

The language is English

words are separated by dashes or a new line

That capitalization makes no difference in the coding

There are no numbers in the encrypted message

The first and fourth words have 5 letters and both start with "t"

Thanks 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the first and fourth words begin with t, it's a complex code, as the first and fourth batches of code do not have front or back ends that replicate each other. Unless, of course, the whole thing is backwards. In which case the last and fourth last both begin (if reading backwards) 09. --Dweller (talk)

Oops. Sorry, that's the last and third last. Back to the drawing board. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)