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

October 3

winning the California Lottery

i was intrigued by a story posted on Yahoo's home page about lottery winners' fortunes over the years (good and bad)... apparently winners discover they have "dozens" of unknown relatives after they win big (most - of course - are 'needy')...

as a tax accountant/State auditor I understand the financial aspects of dispensing winnings... I was discussing with friends (from other states) about creating a corporation to hide identity from puplic when claiming the winnings (but, then again, the Secretary of State releases officers' names/addresses)... a friend said "why not just claim the winnings anonymously"??

I answered that it was not possible because there's an explicit agreement when playing that they will use the winner(s)' likenesses for promotional purposes... my friend vehemently disagrees (he is from Alabama)...

so I went online to discover the truth... I have been to many websites (including the California Lottery Home Page and California Lottery Act of 1984 page but this issue (seemingly very important) is not addressed..

QUESTION: other than supplying identifying info for taxing agencies, etc... does a winner have a "legal option" to direct all California Lottery personnel to keep his/her identity secret?? to exclude info from the press releases, etc??

thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardking1969 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See Lotto, the chances of winning, even with a secret identity are extremely small. 173.103.254.88 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP didn't ask what their chances were. They're asking about the rules of the game in a specific locale. And your suggestion to check the Lotto article is poor since the article doesn't answer the question. Dismas|^(talk) 02:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A response is good if it provides some information that is helpful to the OP. A posting that doesn't add anything to help the OP and only disparages other response(s) is an ungood response. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This suggests yes they do have the option [1] at least in some cases although it obviously doesn't say whether it's their legal right. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, FWIW, players have the right to anonymity. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And rightfully so in the UK: Winning leads to smiling, and publicity leads to photos. The British dental dilemma needs no further exposure. 174.146.174.52 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a dental dilemma, we just have normal teeth. It is the US that has an unnatural obsession with cosmetic dentistry. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A dilemma means a choice between two options, both unpleasant; how does that word fit here, other than alliteration? —Tamfang (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the answer depends on the jurisdiction. I believe some U.S. states allow winners to remain anonymous while some don't. The argument against anonymity is that it casts doubt on the integrity of the process -- a legitimate concern considering a scandal in Canada. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This reflects a major difference in UK and American law. In the states winners get taxed. In the UK gambling winnings are exempt from all taxation (please note the IRS (the American tax office) will still want their cut on any overseas winnings!) Spielberg —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

Driving a Car with a Dual-Clutch

When driving a high-performance sports car with a "sports-tuned" dual-clutch/twin-clutch transmission with paddle shifters, does the driver experience the characteristic "shock" when the clutch is engaged after each gear shift like in a traditional manual? Acceptable (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Never driven a dual-clutch myself, but I have driven a standard traditional manual 5-speed transmission in 3 different cars for the past 17 years. When driven properly, there is not a characteristic "shock". Poor drivers or those who are inexperienced with a manual transmission will do that. If driven properly, a manual transmission should be as smooth as an automatic. --Jayron32 04:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No such thing as a 'characteristic shock' from a manual gear box if the car is driven properly. Used to have to double-declutch, but not for decades since synchro came in.Froggie34 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a grounding issue to me. It you can't fix the problem, you might try rubber soled shoes and gloves. 70.4.71.74 (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The shock that I am referring to arises from the fact that in a traditional manual, the clutch needs to be disengaged and re-engaged. As a result, the car experiences a temporary pause from acceleration and then suddenly re accelerated. The same phenomenal exists in quick-shifting automatic. Since the dual clutch can provide power without disengaging, will it still have this pause? Acceptable (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Well some cars Triumph Spitfire, for example had an optional electronic overdrive on the shifter. Does your car have such a device, or possibly some other electrical contraption that could be a factor during shifting? What we need here, I believe is more details on the vehicle and any specifics you have on your being shocked. 72.58.55.48 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So given the (already stated) caveat that a correctly driven manual transmission doesn't jerk abruptly between gears - the claim is that the dual clutch arrangement avoids that problem. However, it can't be perfectly smooth.

• Imagine a dual-clutch transmission with the engine turning at (say) 4000 rpm at 50mph. When you shift up to the next gear which has a higher ratio, the car cannot instantaneously accelerate to whatever speed the car travels at when it's turning 4000 rpm in the new gear. The computerised shifter can shift in an amazingly short amount of time - maybe 10 milliseconds(!) - but the car can't change speed that fast - so instead, the engine has to change RPM abruptly - and that causes a 'jerk'.
• With a pure manual shifter, the driver is supposed to adjust the engine RPM while the clutch is depressed so that the speed of the car in the new gear and at the new RPM is exactly what it was in the old gear and at the old RPM. Done right - this is a very smooth operation - but not many people drive that smoothly - so there is this myth that stick-shift transmissions always "jerk" when you shift.
• In a conventional automatic, there are fluid clutches that are designed to slip until the RPM's sort themselves out with the speed of the car - but that's wasteful and slow.

Personally - I HATE any kind of 'sequential' gearbox because I often want to shift by more than one gear. If I'm cruising along on the freeway in 6th gear (for economy) and I need to kick in with a blast of power to overtake - I'll skip 5th gear and drop all the way to 4th so that the car is at the peak of the torque curve in the new gear and I have maximum acceleration available to me. Shifting through 5th is just pointless. But with the dual clutch arrangement, it's literally impossible to shift by anything other than one gear at a time - so you have to shift through 5th and then down to 4th - and while the individual shifts are fast, somehow shifting twice is just painfully slow compared to a decent short-shift manual gearbox. However, these dual-clutch arrangements do save fuel compared to a full automatic - so unless the continuously variable transmission technologies take off - we're probably going to see more of them in the future. SteveBaker (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Having driven a Golf V GTI with a DSG gearbox (and I'm talking pedal-to-the-metal, not a gentle Sunday cruise), I can report that you feel absolutely NOTHING whatsoever during gearshifts. If it wasn't for the fact that you HEAR the engine revs dropping as the gearbox shifts up you wouldn't know that the car had just changed gear. It is literally that smooth. For this to happen however it must take the engine 8 MILLIseconds (the gear-change time for that particular gearbox) to match the engine revs for the next gear, it doesn't seem possible but somehow it works. Can't remember if the downshifts were as smooth as the upshifts, but they were definitely smoother (and quicker) than I've ever managed to change gears in my life. It is literally in one gear NOW, and the next instant it's in the next/previous gear and you haven't felt anything.

Oh snap, just re-read your question and you're asking about sports cars in particular, so what I've said above might not apply. Apparently the Audi R8 R-tronic gearbox isn't as smooth as the others in the VW/Audi group. Guess we'll wait for a 911 or Nisaan GT-R owner to pop by. Zunaid 15:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've heard reports that some of these gearboxes jerk pretty badly when the engine is cold - and that may well have something to do with it's inability to change RPM quickly when not up to operating temperature.

Price Quote for a 2004 Nissan Sentra

My friend has a 2004 Nissan Sentra SE for sale and would like to know how much it can be sold for.

• It has roughly 95,000 km (59,000 miles) on it.
• Minor rust on the bottom of the door.
• 5-gear manual transmission
• New tires

Thanks, Acceptable (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kbb.com is the website for the Kelly Blue Book. You can look it up there. --Jayron32 04:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Without taking it for a testdrive, or at least seeing some photos, I can only offer you $500.00 70.4.71.74 (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the Kelly blue book is regional. Here in Texas, the private resale value is probably around $8,000 - but it makes a difference where you are situated. SteveBaker (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

fish & chips

is the fish in the "fish and chips" boneless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.133.251 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In my experience (both in North America and the UK) it is. Or at least it's supposed to be; occasionally you may get a piece that's not cut right and has some bone. --Anonymous, 04:17 UTC, October 3, 2009.

Pretty much, yes. You might get a tiny bit of bone every now and then, but for the most part it will be boneless - it is designed to be eaten with nothing but a tiny wooden fork, after all. (This is based on UK experience, I've never seen a fish 'n' chip shop anywhere else.) --Tango (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actuallly the 'tiny little fork' is recent. The correct way to eat fish and chips is out of newspaper with one's fingers. Yummy!Froggie34 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I like my fish and chips with lots of malt vinegar, so my fingers would get really messy that way. But still, needs must - if there are no tiny forks, one must make do. --Tango (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you eat. For example, rock salmon (or rockfish is another name you might find on the menu) contains a central bone. It is normal to serve cod and haddock (and their relations) filleted, i.e. boneless. However, you may well find the odd bone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC) oops forgot to sign!--TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about international terms for chips. The Reference Desk is not a chatroom

The real question is why do they say "Chips" in Fish and Chips. Though I prefer the Fries, I somehow feel like a swindle has occured whenever I purchase the meal. 70.4.71.74 (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I think the real question is why don't the people who call them "fries" call them "chips". A "fry" could be anything that's fried - meat, bread, rice, icecream, eggs, and yes, even chipped potatoes or other vegetables. (cf. a "roast" is anything that's roasted; a "bake" is anything that's baked; a "slice" is anything that's sliced; "eats" are anything that's eaten; "drinks" are anything that's drunk; I almost wonder why a salad isn't referred to as a "rip, cut, squeeze and toss".) -- JackofOz (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Anything can also be "chipped" (and frequently are - yams for example). It's just usage. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC) What about the word "pickle"? That annoys me more than "fry". "Pickle" just means a way of preserving food using vinegar, it doesn't refer only to a pickled gherkin. --Tango (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC) "Fries" are what Americans, French, Spanish, etc. call them. It would seem that it's the British who are at odds. But what do you expect from a country who's leading newspaper once ran the headline, "Fog In Channel - Continent Cut Off". :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Citation needed. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC) And why do Americans call crisps chips? They're thin slices fried to a crisp. Chips are honest-to-god potatoe chips designed for the working man whilst fries are a frenchy weedy thing. I suppose fries is better if you're going to use a poncey wooden fork. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Potatoes originated in the Americas, so we get to call them whatever we want. Ditto for corn (maize), tomatoes, chocolate, peppers, pineapple, beans, squash and pumpkins, peanuts and tobacco. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Look, it's simple - foreigners often get the names of English things wrong, so if Americans want to call chips fries and crisps chips, let them. I'm fairly sure though that beans aren't notably American in origin. DuncanHill (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC) See common bean. Beans on toast uses baked beans made from navy beans. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC) There are plenty of other beans that aren't American in origin, including the beans which Pythagoreans abstained from long before Cabot discovered the American mainland. DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC) And let's not forget scones vs. biscuits. "Corn" is the dominant cereal grain in a given country. Hence terms like "barleycorn", and also "Indian corn", which is shortened to "corn" in the USA and is called by its proper Anglicized name "maize" in countries where "corn" means a different grain. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC) They originated in America sure. They didn't originate from the United States of America. Just because you guys tried to annihilate the natives, doesn't mean we should ignore their names... Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Oooh snap --antilivedT | C | G 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC) If nothing else, at least those chips are typically boneless. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC) <sarcasm>You guys are all idiots.<end sarcasm> They're both chips. <sarcasm>Anyone who talks about fries or crisps is an idiot.<end sarcasm> Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC) The bigger question is why - if Americans insist on calling chips "fries" - don't they call fish and chips "fish and fries"? At least we Brit's are consistent. SteveBaker (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC) "We Brits"? According to this [2] you've just insulted yourself. At this point, I don't know what to believe. :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC) The Long John Silver's chain calls them Fish and Fries, or at least they used to. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Regarding "crisps", truth to tell the word "chips" is easier to say than "crisps". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC) It's easier to say chips then fries too. Now what did I say earlier...? Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Because "Fish and Chips" is a British phrase that has been imported intact. (Long after our two languages diverged.) APL (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC) A reader more interested in light than heat would do well to look at H. L. Mencken's 1919 work, The American Language, and its later editions and supplements. Mencken explains in detail how American English became its dominant form, whilst British became a backwater dialect. PhGustaf (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC) In Canada, where people mostly understand both US and British English, "Fish and Chips" is the name of the specific dish, and it's basically an acknowledgement of its British heritage. You might even a description "Fish and Chips:Lightly battered cod with a side order of French Fries..." But in Canada, you have poutine, and you don't have to eat fish and chips at all. A place down the street has good squid and chips. Gotta think about lunch. PhGustaf (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Analyzing the composition of a piece of Toilet Paper

Suppose I have access to all modern analytical chemistry techniques and equipment, what would be the best way to determine the composition of a piece of toilet paper? For example, I want to know how much, by percentage, cotton, wool, cashmere, etc... it contains.

Would a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry work? Acceptable (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Such a method may be able to determine the molecule-by-molecule composition, but not at the fiber level. The best options would probably be some form of microscopy. --Jayron32 04:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Won't it be made almost entirely of wood pulp (and maybe other fiber crops)? I've never heard of woollen toilet paper... I'm no chemist, but I think most chemical analysis will just tell you it is made of plant matter. A powerful microscope and a lot of expertise is probably the best way of identifying which plants - since it has all been pulped it is likely to be rather difficult. --Tango (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You could use a simpler instrument - a pen - and write to the manufacturer's and ask. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Would the analysis be before or after the products intended use? 70.4.71.74 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanding on Jayron's answer, I would suggest fluorescence microscopy, using labeled antibodies against the various fiber types that may be present. Whether such antibodies are commercially available, I have no idea. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally fibres will be determined by looking at the scale pattern with a microscope. Once you find that it is 100% wood, you may wish to find out exactly what wood. You could also do a trace element analysis and isotope checkup. I don't know how well this is documented. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Price of Cigarettes

Including tax, is a packet of cigarettes worth more than its weight in gold in the United Kingdom? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See this. At a little over an ounce per pack, the purchase price you pay would have to be quite high to achieve your criteria. 70.4.155.174 (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe in the UK right now, gold is running around $600-$700 an ounce... so, those cigarettes better be good! :) Goatofmendes (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Silver is around $16, or just over £10, per ounce. How's that compare? --FOo (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A typical packet of cigarettes is currently around the £6 mark - there may be some places (airports, motorway service areas, etc) that'll charge you £8 or thereabouts, but £10 would still be extortionate. Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin D .

Do our bodies create vitamin D when we are exposed to the sun behind glass and is so is it a safer way to sun bathe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyn Williams (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See Vitamin D, specifically on UVB radiation as related to Vitamin D3. Also see UV Light. You would need specifics on the glass as to any filtering of the wavelegnths related to the above. 68.244.39.0 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the magnifying effect of glass! Definitely not a safer way to sunbathe - unless you want the more immediate damage of burnt skin! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What magnifying effect of glass? Certain glass lenses magnify but a flat glass window doesn't. --Tango (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OR when I sit in my car, with the sun shining through a window straight onto my skin, my skin goes red in much less time than if I'm just outside. I've experienced this all through my life. My apologies if my experience is theoretically wrong! I'm aware that glass can block some of the sun's rays but not others. Whatever, the answer to the OP is no it's not a safer way to sunbathe! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the very same rays that are harming your skin are the ones that cause Vitamin D to be produced - so in a sense it doesn't matter whether the glass blocks them or not - if it does - then there is no point in sunbathing behind glass - and if it doesn't then it's still dangerous to sunbathe behind glass. Either way - there is still no point in doing it. But you don't need to sunbathe to get enough Vitamin D. Just 15 minutes with nothing more than your hands and face exposed to the sun is enough to give you enough Vitamin D for the day. SteveBaker (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Useful stuff. Now I can tell my mother that when she tells me it's not good for me to sit indoors all day on my computer. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are benefits to exercise too... --Tango (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It has to be 15 minutes of summer sunshine - winter sunshine does not work. There was a question dealing with this on the Science page a while ago. 78.146.29.77 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Avarage speed of Elfwood moderators

On Tuesday, September 29th, I created an Elfwood account and submitted some of my art for moderation. How long should it take before my pictures are published to the full site? Library Seraph (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask this at the official Elfwood forums.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my work was accepted the day after I posted this question. It ended up in a side area of the site due to cropping issues, so I had to resubmit it Library Seraph (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Minitab please help

I desperately need the video tutorials for learning Minitab,is there anyone who can help me with it...please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.114.245 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See our answer from two weeks ago. — Lomn 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about Facebook or Netlog.com

Hello, I hope to receive an answer this time,they didn't help me when I asked this question at another helpdesk of wikipedia. If I write the name of a person and I add after that name the word Facebook or Netlog.com,I arrive at the introduction page of that person on the site of Facebook or Netlog.com (the introduction page in wich you see the photo of that person with others photographs of the friends and with the favorites stores,muziek and others of that person).My question is:Can that person know who went to visit his introduction page of Facebook or Netlog.com if I (the person that has write the name) am not logged or registered on Facebook or Netlog.com? I thank and hope that you will be able to help me.Isabelle-21:55,3 october 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.240.193 (talk)

I don't know about Netlog.com, but no, someone on Facebook cannot tell who visits their pages, or if anyone visits them at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Very likely not, unless... no, 99% unlikely. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 20:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See this as an indicator of what can be monitored (IP, User Agent, etc). But generally no, not at your ex-boyfriends level. However, the server that the page resides on, along with any machines sniffing the network traffic that makes it to the server is perfectly capable of tracking the IP address (and a good bit more) of the machine that requested the page. The chances of this occuring are directly proportional to the paranoia of the individual snooping around. The Computer Desk can fill you in on the trails and info that can be captured when navigating on various sites. By the way, he IS doing your "Best Friend", forget about him and get yourself an STD checkup. 72.58.107.246 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether their servers can monitor it (they can), but whether the user can see the logs (they cannot). If you have a Facebook page, you are not able to see the information of any visitors to your page (you are given no information about visitors whatsoever). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree Mr.98 (2nd sentence of .246), However as unlikely as it is that Isabelle's ex works IT at the mentioned sites, she has now been informed. 174.152.22.155 (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to imply in your above post that it is likely or even really possible. But it's only even possible if they really work for Facebook and are in the sort of part of it that would give them uninhibited access to server logs. That's pretty unlikely. Even in that case, pointing it to an individual reader is very, very low. They'd see (in the OPs case) that someone from Belgium, near Zedelgem, visited them. Likely that describes many people who would visit said webpage. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, let me add ... it depends. If you're using certain Facebook apps, the app will notify the user that you have visited their page. If you use the generic Facebook software, then, no. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See: "Can I know who’s viewing my profile or how often it’s being viewed?" and "Can I see who's viewed my profile? There's a group or application claiming I can find out who has been viewing my profile". Basically, browsing statistics cannot be tracked unless you have given consent. --Mark PEA (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 4

Firefighters and smoke alarms

A question for any firefighters visiting the Refdesk: I don't think I ever see this in shows like Rescue Me or the like, but I figure that in any bad residential fire (e.g. there's smoke throughout the house), every smoke alarm is screaming its head off, and it's deafening inside, and probably impossible to use speech to communicate. True? Do firefighters wear hearing protection for this reason? Are firefighters ever able to actually use their radios in situations like this? Tempshill (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is peripheral to your question, but many firefighters in the U.S. use (or should use) some hearing protection just to guard their ears from the sirens and engine noise going to the scene. What it would be like once on the site, I can't imagine. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While travelling to the fire, I've seen many firefighters wearing a pair of Dave Clarks. This way, it keeps the noise out and they are still able to communicate with other people on the truck as well as receive information from the 911 operators. Dismas|^(talk) 08:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think smoke alarms would be a big problem, it would be the fire itself...a big fire is extremely loud. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam has hit the nail on the head. I am a (proud!) daughter of a firefigher of thirty years who has suffered hearing loss which is apparently not uncommon in long-serving officers. A fire, so I am told, makes a hell of a racket and while ear protection would be sensible it is impractical as you need to be able to hear a collapsing joist, a cry for help, shouts from colleagues. As for the smoke alarm, if positioned near the seat of the fire, it would soon melt!83.104.128.107 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope she doesn't ever confuse a joist with a girder. They were both great writers, of course, but one was Irish, the other German.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

BIT torrent 6.0

I have for the first time installed Bit Torrent but unable to locate the tab to start searching.It just hass, 1. file. 2.options 3. help in the menubar and which ever i click to it says ADD TORRENT. i have the software installed but am unable to find the bar wherein i can enter the name of the file for it to search, can anyone help me please.thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.88.48 (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BitTorrent clients generally don't include a search engine. Try googling whatever it is you want to download; most projects that use BitTorrent for distribution will have a torrent link placed fairly prominently on their website. FiggyBee (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It works like this. 1. You go to a website that has ".torrent" files on it for distribution. 2. You download the ".torrent" file, which is a tiny file that just tells BitTorrent what to do to get the REAL files. 3. You open the ".torrent" file in BitTorrent, and it will then connect to other people to start trying to download the real files you want. Make sense? It's a funny way of downloading things but you'll get used to it after doing it once or twice. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

thank to both of you was waitin eagerly to download minitab video tutorials, but to no avail thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.118.37 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Torrents are one of those technologies that takes a little effort to get working the first time, but if you stick with it, it works pretty easily after that. If you're having trouble, let us know. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

moss

What is the fastest growing moss in Europe ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WPRDQER01 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Moss, Norway Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OP was probably referring to the plant, see moss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Brachythecium has a reputation for fast growth - and it's found in the UK. Sadly, we have no article on it - and I have no clue whether it's absolutely the fastest. SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kate ? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Will never be anywhere near as fast as Stirling Moss Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

<insert unhelpful joke here> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

<insert sense of humour failure here> Gazhiley (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay then, I concede the Kate Moss one is better Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ Those who know more about botany are probably more likely to visit WP:Reference desk/Science. You might get a more-informed answer by reposting your question there. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

US discrimination against atheists

i just read the article about how americans (generally, that is) don't like atheists and all that. does this dislike translate into violence against atheists? i mean, if some atheists come from some other country ad settle in the US, will they be discrimnated against? i know, this question's answer depends upon the area in which he lives, but i wanna just hear what you have to say.

thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.142.126 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discriminating against someone because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof, in this case) is illegal, at least in the workplace. In my area (Virginia, metro D.C.), there are a lot of Catholics and I guess they might look down on atheists simply because they disagree, but I don't know any atheists so I don't know for sure. The Family Guy episode "Not All Dogs Go to Heaven", where Brian Griffin announces he's an atheist and is made into Public Enemy No. 1., comes to mind, but I don't know if that really reflects reality. Xenon54 / talk / 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

USA is a big place, I'm sure there are parts of USA where people would give you a hard time for being an athiest. Here in the southern New England area atheism is considered perfectly normal and unsurprising. APL (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the perceived discrimination discussed by atheists today is having to put up with things that they consider an official endorsement of religion. I've not heard of any violence in recent times. As a form of "discrimination" it is relatively cushy. (Which is why I, even being an atheist-agnostic, do not think that we are discriminated against in any way that is anywhere near the levels of discrimination against homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc. I think even describing it as "discrimination" is more likely to incite backlash than sympathy, as it is not very convincing. I say this as someone who spent some time doing work for "atheist politics" as well and eventually just felt it kind of pointless to protest every time some city council decides to open its meetings with a lukewarm prayer.) It's more that most people don't want you to bring it up and discuss it, and that maybe 80-90% of mainstream culture assumes you have at least some belief in spirituality. You have to put up with a lot of nonsense whenever the issue gets discussed publicly ("how can atheists know right from wrong etc.") but that's the case with a lot of issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How many national politicians, from anywhere in the country, are openly athiest? You could count them on one hand. To answer the original question about violence, the answer is no. Tempshill (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but that's true of many groups that aren't really openly discriminated against. I don't know how often atheism itself is made into a real political issue in such contexts, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This question is hard to handle because the OP seems to be asking for opinions ("I wanna hear just what you have to say") but as it says at the top of the page, this Ref. Desk is not (supposed) to answer requests for opinions. I offer some observations. APL's answer that USA is a big place means it is meaningless to generalize about Americans. The southern states are renowned for their religiosity and are identified as the Bible belt. To a European it is striking that so many in small towns are churchgoers, and that the usually protestant local church displays a bilboard with an evangelical message. In these areas a declared atheist may be viewed as an oddity, but educated Americans are generally friendly and tolerant. However there are social tensions, as parodied in Jesusland map, and more serious confrontations can arise when atheism is, rightly or wrongly, identified with other issues. These can be Communism, conscientious objection regarded as Anti-patriotism (although many conscientious objectors cite religious reasons) and/or too "liberal" politics or lifestyle. Discrimination sometimes occurs but a foreigner settling in the US may be reassured that the vast majority of Americans have learned tolerance from their recent history. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm an atheist - and I live in the heart of the bible belt (Texas) - and I'm from Europe. So I can confirm everything that Cuddlyable3 says. It's very apparent that attitudes here are not like in Europe (and why should they be?). When we first moved here and met our neighbors we were completely dumbfounded by almost the first question they asked of us: "Which church are you going to? Oh - you probably haven't had time to pick one out yet...I could introduce you to ours!"...without ever wondering if there was even the slightest possibility that you're an Atheist - or indeed anything other than some variety of Protestant. But when you explain - you get a feeling of coldness running through the air - like you personally insulted them. I don't like lying - so in general, it's better to simply avoid the topic. I certainly have not been the subject of violence - or even of particularly harsh words. But if you are at a party (why is it always a party?) and some discussion gets started about religion and lack-thereof - you'll often hear some really unreasonable and discriminatory language from people. They attribute so many strange beliefs to atheists - when in fact that label implies only a lack of one particular belief. This will continue right up until the point where you drop the "A-bomb" by saying that you are an Atheist yourself. Then there is rapid back-tracking and embarrassed self-justification - and the conversation changes direction with impressive abruptness. People are polite enough - and feign consideration too - but you know what they are thinking is unkind.

What amazes me the most is that people with strongly religious outlooks are often the most savagely un-christian. The callousness with which they treat their fellow man is horrifying to me. We had a recent situation in our neighborhood where an unarmed man was shot dead by a home owner who noticed him breaking into someone truck to steal the radio. It turns out this is legal in Texas - and I expected widespread horror - but no! The attitude over the whole healthcare debate seems to be "Well, I have really good health care - why should I lose any slightest part of that to help poorer people who can't afford it!"...this is not my impression of the teachings of Jesus! It's a deeply strange state of affairs.

But I wouldn't say that atheists are discriminated against in any material way...at least not obviously enough for me to have noticed. My wife (when asked) says she is a Catholic - she's French - so that's no surprise. However, she's never been to church or shown any other outward sign of her religion as long as I've known her (actually - that's not true - she's still in the habit of serving fish for dinner on Fridays!)...but I get the feeling that being able to label herself as a "Catholic" - even though she's lapsed about as far as it's possible to lapse - definitely helps to oil the wheels of social contact. Since Catholics are relatively rare in this part of Texas, nobody seems to be 'checking up on her' by asking which church she attends. Sometimes I wonder whether I should report that I'm a dedicated worshipper of the IPU and hope that nobody investigates any deeper! SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but the 'Catholic' discipline of eating fish (originally so as to avoid eating meat) on Friday (which I'm sure actually predates the Protestant Reformation) long ago became a non-sectarian general social habit in England, if not the UK as a whole. My agnostic (Jewish-influenced) paternal and agnostic (Socialist-influenced) maternal families both did so, and fish invariably formed the main Friday lunch course at my Methodist boarding school. In my experience, most English people have little consciousness that the 'fish on Friday' custom has a religious origin. I'd be interested to know if it's viewed as specifically 'Catholic' in France and elsewhere.

For the benefit of the non-USAians reading: in most (not all) of the UK asking someone their religious affiliation in such social situations as Steve describes would be considered weird and intrusive, while revealing it gratuitously (i.e. when a religious topic was not the subject of conversation) would also cause some unease in most listeners. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the case in the Seattle area too. None of our neighbors, who we are quite friendly with, have ever brought up the topic of religion. Nor have we. In general around this part of the United States it would be weird to ask such things gratuitously, as 87.81 said. Even the occasional Jehovah Witness's who come to the door never ask me what, if any, religion I follow. They just politely ask if they can give me a pamphlet or two. It is a big country and behaviors on this topic vary widely from place to place. Pfly (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, saying "I'm an atheist" is kind of treated with the same response as saying, "I cheat on my wife." It's not illegal, it's not dangerous, it's not hateful, but it's considered distasteful, disturbing, perhaps something you ought to have kept to yourself. Again, not exactly pleasant, and I don't generally tell people my take on things, or, if I do, wrap it up in something less confrontational (e.g., "I'm not religious"), but it doesn't stand in the way of getting/keeping a job, making plans as to what I would want to do with my time and life, whether I can walk the streets safely, etc. As discrimination problems go, it's definitely there, but it's not as pressing as, say, homosexuality or even racial issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any active violence against atheists, but there is a great deal of discrimination. Just last week, the City Council of Lodi, California reaffirmed their policy of having an invocation before each meeting, despite objections from atheists, agnostics and even many religious who objected to the Christian-heavy prayers. The Freedom From Religion coalition stays busy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The US is still relatively tolerant. I wonder how long an overt atheist would last in a place like Saudi Arabia. Regardless, America is still fairly religious, and a lot of folks look upon atheists with suspicion. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"i just read the article about how americans (generally, that is) don't like atheists and all that." What article? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists - I suppose. SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A foreign atheist in Saudi Arabia would probably be fine. They might suffer some discrimination in the same way any non-Muslim would, but for the most part Muslim countries tolerate non-Muslims doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't disturb the Muslims. An atheist from a local Muslim family might well be in a lot of trouble. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the US favorably to what is perhaps the least tolerant country in the world isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. --Sean 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is, incidentally, the sort of thing I mention above. If the worst that is done to atheists in this country is that the City Council of hick towns (as Lodi is, I can safely say!) read prayers before starting their sessions... that's not really very bad, in the larger view of things. I know, it's distasteful and chauvinistic of them. I know, it shows some overt disrespect to separation of church and state. But really. Come on. It doesn't actually affect me, even if I did live in the town. It doesn't stand in the way of me living my life how I want to, it doesn't affect my ability to get justice, it doesn't even use tax money in any appreciable way. Who cares? I say this as an atheist (and someone who knows Lodi pretty intimately!). When atheists call things like that "a great deal of discrimination," it makes them look pretty petty (considering the kinds of discrimination one can still feel in this country if one is homosexual, Black, Muslim, Hispanic, etc.). They don't search us at airports for no reason, they don't pull us over routinely while we drive, they don't deny us our home loans, and they don't beat up our kids. There are bigger fish to fry. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - but that doesn't make it a bed of roses either. According to Discrimination against atheists: "Several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president. A 2006 study found that 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did "not at all agree with my vision of American society", and that 48% would not want their child to marry an atheist. In both studies, percentages of disapproval of atheists were above those for Muslims, African-Americans and homosexuals."...and Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Situation_of_atheists says "According to Mother Jones, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as president. More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results. A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans (27%)." - so there is considerable grounds to claim that atheists are indeed discriminated against in ways that really do affect you...it simply may not be obvious in the way it has been with other minorities. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not this manifests in the behaviour of their citizenry I don't know, but several states discriminate against atheists in their state constitutions - Maryland, Mass, Miss, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Pennsylvania being a list of some where it's surprising and some where it's not. To echo earlier comments on an outside perspective, I think it was best put in a faux-anthropological book "Watching the English" that "The Church of England is so constituted that its members can believe in just about anything, with the end result that few of them do" --Saalstin (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A 1961 Supreme Court decision overturned the Maryland constitutional rule - it's widely assumed that the other states with similar constitutional bans on atheists are therefore unlikely ever to be enforced. It would be better if they were cleanly repealed - but removing something from a state constitution is never an easy process - it's probably just simpler to let the Supreme Court void it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the U.S. the "City Council of hick towns" read prayers before starting their sessions - the British Parliament does, too, and members can only reserve seats by attending the prayers. Warofdreams talk 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true that these things happen in the UK - but they are perpetuated mostly through tradition and not by true belief. I doubt that more than maybe 10% of British parliamentarians would claim to be religious. Also, it's not contrary to the constitution to do that - to the contrary, the monarch is described as "Defender of the Faith". It's a weird thing that the country with the constitution that demands disestablishmentarianism is so much more religious than the one where it's baked into the system by centuries of tradition. SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so weird, actually. Remember why the Founders wanted protection against a state religion: Many of them had ancestors who had moved here to be able to worship Jesus in their own way, not the way the Crown wanted them to. To the extent that they believed in Jefferson's "wall of separation between Church and State", it was likely more to keep the State from corrupting the Church, than vice versa. --Trovatore (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that all US politicians are truly religious. Some, perhaps many, probably are, but a significant number are, I think, following tradition and not true belief, as Steve Baker puts it. In the US you cannot be a politician above the local level without going to church now and then, and without proclaiming your particular religion. This by no means is proof that US politicians are not doing what Steve says UK politicians often do. For some it is obvious that they believe, but for a great many--how would we know whether they are "true believers" or just doing the things you have to do if you want to be a politician in the US? After all, successful politicians are experts in showing the public what they want to see, sincerity aside! Also, at the local level (county, city), there is far less concern about religion, at least in the Pacific Northwest. It just doesn't come up much. Pfly (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect it is more than 10%. How many of them actually attend a place of worship on a regular basis, I don't know, but I expect a significant proportion would at least nominally call themselves Christian, or whatever. The best bit with the "Defender of the Faith" title is that the monarch is the defender of the Catholic faith, yet head of the Church of England - Henry VIII was given the title before the reformation and kept it and his heirs have followed suit. The bigger problem with religion and British governance is that there are Church of England bishops in the House of Lords, ex-officio. That will probably be sorted out in the next few years, though. --Tango (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no contradiction in the UK's monarch being Defender of the Catholic Faith. The Church of England is Catholic (" . . .I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church . . ." or something along those lines), it just isn't Roman Catholic. Henry's schism from the authority of Rome wasn't due to any quarrel with fundamental dogma as was the European Protestant Reformation of Luther et al (although it came to adopt some of their principles), it was primarily a disagreement over local jurisdiction. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been the case in Henry's time, but the Anglican Church certainly does not now accept the fundamental Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The CoE may be catholic, but it isn't Catholic. There is a difference. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually - I can think of one place in the US where anti-Atheism is practiced openly - the Boy Scout movement. Our recently featured front-page article "Boy Scouts of America membership controversies" explains this in some detail. They don't even accept agnostics! SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, up here in Massachusetts, the Boy Scouts certainly didn't care much about such things, regardless of the official policy. In the 90's I achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, and I made no secret of being an athiest. They simply checked me off on the official paperwork as being sufficiently reverent and that was that.

Somehow I had an older version of the Boy Scout handbook that said I would need a clergy person willing to vouch for my reverence, so I made sure that the catholic priest that sponsored the troop would be willing to do so. Turned out that wasn't even necessary anymore. (But I was prepared!) APL (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's still the case with British Scouts too (at least, it was when I joined about 10 years ago), but I was an atheist scout without any problem (I had to take an oath I didn't actually mean, though - I discussed it with several people at the time and the consensus was that it was best to just say the words and then forget about it). --Tango (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Governor-General of Australia has traditionally been the Chief Scout of Australia, but Bill Hayden, an avowed atheist, declined to accept the honour (maybe he was never even offered it) because of the conflict with his atheistic beliefs. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Scouts (under 18) in the UK do not have to have any relgious belief (but they do promise to "do my duty to god"). Atheists cannot hold uniformed leadership positions, but Buddhists can, and as I understand it, Buddhists can be atheists. Our application forms for adults wishing to be leaders have recently been redesigned and the question about faith removed. Don't want to get into too much debate about this here, but there is debate within the movement about whether the rule barring atheists from leadership positions is appropriate for the society in which we live. DuncanHill (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US, there are different standards for private associations than for public organizations and businesses. Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. Thus, private associations can set membership standards that would constitute illegal discrimination for non-private associations. For example: it would be illegal for a business to discriminate on the basis of religion, but the law does not apply to a private association such as the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America— they can't be forced to accept non-Jews or non-veterans. The BSA does not have to accept atheists as members and the Girl Scouts don't have to accept boys.

As to the OP's question— "read the article" implies that one of our articles stated that Americans don't like atheists; I am going to presume this is irreligion in the United States. Looking at the numbers, the majority of Americans have some sort of faith— I don't think it is a big leap to presume a trust issue with irreligious politicians. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - at least two articles say that: Discrimination against atheists and Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Situation_of_atheists - so being unable to trust someone with different beliefs to yours is OK? You're OK with distrusting Atheists - but not with distrusting black people or gays? That is what the numbers presented (with references) in both of those articles say! That's really the problem here. So many politicians who profess religion are untrustworthy (let's not bother to list them - we know there are plenty!) - so being religious is no gold seal of trustworthyness. You have to understand the persons character - and judge them by their past deeds. What makes people imagine that someone who isn't religious is any worse than someone who is? The reason seems to be this mistaken view that if you don't have some kind of threat of eternal damnation hanging over you - that you won't behave in a respectable and moral fashion. But most atheists are generally moral and honest people precisely because they've arrived at their moral position from introspection and observation of the world. An honest, moral, atheist is so because he or she believes it's important for its own sake - not because of some concern about a disasterous after-life! SteveBaker (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If Jesse Ventura had made his comments about religion being for the "weak-minded" before the election, he wouldn't have had a prayer (so to speak) in that election that put him in the Minnesota governor's chair. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course BSA has the right to Freedom of association. No one said otherwise. The original question is whether an athiest can expected to be discriminated against. Part of the answer is "Yes, From the Boy Scouts. (In theory.)". APL (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversy over BSA is not so much that they discriminate, but that they have tax-exempt status. In effect, they are adding to the tax burden of people who are not allowed to join. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The BSA issues have not been about tax-exempt status, but about support from government agencies such as the DoD. The BSA has responded to lawsuits over this by pulling away from government support. Traditional units can no longer be sponsored by public schools, military units, fire departments or other government agencies. Even though Congress passed the Support Our Scouts Act allowing the BSA to use Fort A. P. Hill for the national Scout jamboree, the BSA will move to a private site after 2010. There are other issues where local councils have had contracts or leases with local government agencies as in Cradle of Liberty Council v. City of Philadelphia. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The BSA are also strongly ingrained in American culture and has a number of areas of contention beyond their support. E.g. they have a federal charter and the US President is is the honorary president and have the trademark to the word scout and other words associated with their movement. They are also recognised by the World Organization of the Scout Movement. And it's likely to be recognised that part of the reason they got where they are now is because of years of direct and indirect support from the government. There are a number of other youth movements with similar goals but they seem to be the most visible by far. Therefore even if they completely withdraw from any government support, I don't think the issue is going to go away regardless of the legal situation Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack's comment above was a little confusing. Bill Hayden was certainly the Governor-General of Australia from 1989 until 1996. John Young was appointed Chief Scout in 1989 lieu of Hayden (Hayden refused to make an oath fundamentally at odds with his beliefs). Weepy.Moyer (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your post confused me, Weepy, until I went back and re-read what I wrote. Yes, the "honour" I referred to was that of the Chief Scouthood (?). Btw, the "John Young" you mention (your link leads to a disambiguation page) was John Young (jurist). -- JackofOz (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am quite confused. I have always been under the impression that Atheism was not a religion, however if it is not a religion, how is it entitled to religious protection? Googlemeister (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not entitled to religious protection. Nothing is. However, everybody is (or maybe at least should be), entitled to protection from discrimination on religious grounds. Most religious discrimination is not based on the religion that the victim has (or hasn't), but rather on that it is not the same one as the offender's. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the question conflates some subtly different things. In the US, religious organizations often have tax-exempt status; this is not strictly a first-amendment matter, I think, though it's related ("the power to tax is the power to destroy"). Probably atheist organizations are not eligible for this status. Similarly, if the draft were brought back, you couldn't claim to be a conscientious objector on the grounds that you didn't believe in God, and indeed such an objection doesn't really make sense — how can you have a conscientious objection based solely on lacking a particular belief?

However the State is barred from excessive interference with such organizations, on other grounds, such as freedom of association, and is barred from certain other acts that might offend atheists, not because they are anti-atheist per se, but because they would tend to establish a religion. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Charities are tax-exempt, regardless of religion. The only kind of atheist organisation I can see a problem with is one dedicated to converting people to atheism - that's probably not a charitable purpose and it probably isn't a religious one either, so wouldn't fall under either category. Any other organisations run by atheists are likely to have some charitable purpose - atheists don't usually go in for organised (ir)religion. An atheist wouldn't conscientiously object based on being an atheist, they would do so based on being a pacifist (which is independent of theism). --Tango (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever successfully escaped the military by claiming to be atheistic but still a pacifist. The dilemma there is that conscientious objection is usually based on believing in God's teachings that killing is wrong. Just saying "I think war is wrong" is not likely to be sufficient. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A charitable atheist organization? I never heard of such a thing. Lots of charities are non-faith-based, but specifically atheist??? What would be the point of specifying that? --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The point would be to make a point - namely that atheists are good and loving also. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not impossible. All the same, I do not know of any atheist charities. No doubt there are charities "run by atheists", as Tango puts it, but that does not make them "atheist organizations", which is what I was talking about. --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A not uncommon issue which theists (particularly fundamentalist Christians) like to raise is the claim that atheists and atheism is immoral and selfish as evidenced by the lack of atheist charities. This is of course a silly claim (since most atheists see no reason why faith or the lack should have anything to do with charity) but given this claim it's possible someone may make such a charity although some may think it a bad idea and simply reinforcing or supporting the flawed claims made against atheists. In any case, as with you I'm not aware of any such charity. In terms of non faith based charities, they are likely to be seen as important to atheists, a number of charities while doing good work are also known for their explicit promotion of their faith often in controversial ways and many atheists may be concerned their donations are effectively supporting these efforts both directly and in giving these charities a greater voice then they would otherwise have. For example The Salvation Army does some good work in a number of countries including here in New Zealand but are also know for their lobbying against laws they don't agree with, e.g. those legalising and providing protections and rights for GLBT people. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Got me curious, so I did some searching. The Council for Secular Humanism has the Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort (SHARE).[3] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, specific groups which are atheist (like Secular Humanism) might have such organisations. I guess any Buddhist organisations would fall into the same category. A group which focuses on being atheist, rather than on a specific set of beliefs which just happen not to include any gods, is unlikely. --Tango (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't likely, but I think it is more likely that an atheist group with non-charitable aims. Generally atheists don't band together for any purpose, it's just not the way atheism works. Whether or not you believe in god(s) is rarely relevant to anything. --Tango (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just remembered American Atheists. I didn't think of it because in Europe there is just no need for a group lobbying for atheist rights - in the US I guess such lobbyists would be just the kind of non-charitable atheist group I said wasn't likely to exist. --Tango (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Madeline O'Hare was once labeled by the media as "the most hated woman in America". Whether they would still say that, I don't know, but it gives a hint as to the perceived American attitude toward religion and atheism. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, how about an article Madeline O'Hare from you because she sounds at least as notable as Monica Lewinski.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you spell it right you'll probably find it. Try Madlyn O'Hare. --Trovatore (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's not it either. Here it is: Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Weird spelling -- could use some redirects from misspellings. --Trovatore (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bucket List , does everyone has it?

Like the movie which was touching and we can relate to our own lives as well inspite not being diagnosed for any definite life taking desease like cancer or aids,but we have to die some day for sure and leave everybody behind, i have alot of wishes before i die and touch a million lives for the better and cause some smiles, but resources put me down,is there a way we can live our lives and spell happyness for others as well without the need of money in this life? but money seems to be source of happyness as well as misery.is there any other means tohelp others ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekhle (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious response: "We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love.” -- Mother Teresa[4].

Less serious response: A Dumb blonde released a genie from a bottle and in gratitude the genie offered to fulfil any wish. The blonde answered I wish for.....Gucci sunglasses! The genie said Of course you may have Gucci sunglasses but won't you think first of what an opportunity you have to use your wish to relieve all the suffering in the world? The blonde answered Oh yes, I should have thought of that. Let's have Gucci sunglasses for everybody! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Off topic, but this reminds me of one of the funniest ever dialogues I've heard in the TV show Daria:

• One Fashion Club member: You know, the children in the poor African countries... if they can't afford food, does that mean they can't afford diet soda either?
• Another Fashion Club member: Yeah! But how do they manage to stay so thin, then? JIP | Talk 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can achieve happiness based on your own efforts alone - then you can find some remote place on the earth and be happy - and money need never be involved.

However, that's pretty unlikely. You'll want food and shelter - maybe an Internet connection - you can't do that yourself. You need to provide something outside of your own needs that you can barter in order to get the things you need - yet cannot provide for yourself directly.

So if your happiness involves the efforts of others - then those people need some fair recompense for that effort - or they won't bother to do it. Money is the means by which the results of one person's work can be used to recompense the work of others upon which we rely. Money is needed because sometimes the work that one person does is not needed by another. So, for example, if I need a thick juicy steak to make me happy - I can't deliver the farmer who raised the cow 0.001% of a computer game as recompense (I happen to write computer games for a living). The farmer may not be interested in computer games...without money, I'd have to find someone who was interested in computer games who worked as (say) a tractor repairman who could provide the farmer with the service he needs - and get in return some computer game enjoyment from me. These chains of transactions would rapidly become so complicated and tortuous as to be impossible to maintain.

Hence, we need money - it's a wonderful invention! It serves as an abstract way to measure your contribution to society in general - and as a way to prevent people from taking from society more than they give.

As for the trick to achieving happiness - that's a far tougher question.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It all seemed to work so easily in Eric Frank Russell's short story "And Then There Was None". (Link of dubious copyright status here : Eric Frank Russell#References.)

I've always thought that this would make a hilarious movie. APL (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a great story - but it's really seriously full of plot-holes. The most serious problem is any kind of population growth. Their system only holds together for as long as everyone knows everyone else. In a society with sufficient complexity to manufacture their busses and trucks and such - the 'ob' principle would soon become too complicated. People would be forced to start writing down who owes who what - if someone runs (say) a small-scale brewery - but the only roofing contractor in town is a teetotaler then it's hard for the brewer to get his roof repaired. He has to rely on someone else who drinks beer doing an "ob-swap" for some other obligation. Keeping track of all of these obligations in a town of even a few hundred people would become pretty nightmareish...pretty soon people will be exchanging written-down obs - and before you know it there is money, banks and a slippery slope leading to government. Without some form of organisation, public works such as roads would be impossible. The tale of the guy who never pays back his 'obs' is nonsense - it requires that there is perfect communication and perfect memory between the small towns - but since the number of people who have to be tracked would increase in proportion with the number of towns - you'd soon lose track of all of the moochers. With rampant moochers - you soon need a police force - and then again, you're back on the slippery slope to government. Having said that - there are some successful barter systems working around the world - but most are little more than money by another name - and their main attraction is the avoidance of income taxes. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me you want the things that money just can't buy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I like the Reiki precepts: Just for today, do not worry. Just for today, do not be angry. Work hard. Be kind. Count your blessings. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Helping "millions" is not usually possible for any individual. However, helping even just a few can make a profound difference in the world, and in many ways can be more worthwhile than worrying about too big a picture. There are certainly those nearby who could use your help, just your extra time and a friendly face. It's not a million, but it's a good start. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you written a WP:GA yet? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe better to start with the easy stuff - world peace, cure for cancer, going over Niagara Falls in a barrel etc. - then work up to writing a GA. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Or in a bucket. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Turning down Facebook friend requests

I have, for the first time, received Facebook friend requests from people I haven't even heard of. These friend requests are real and honest, as explained by the accompanying message - they're from fans of the ShareWare software I wrote and uploaded to the Internet in my high school and university years. But even though I'm pretty liberal at accepting Facebook friend requests, I draw the line at people I haven't even heard of. But I would feel very bad at turning down friend requests. If I just click on "ignore", will these people know I did it, or will the situation just continue as normal? Do other people do this? JIP | Talk 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't send them a message or anything saying "you were declined", it'll just change the little thing on their page from "awaiting friend request response" or whatever to "add friend". So if they have a good memory they can go and check if you rejected them, but it's not really "in their face"es. At least that's my understanding... TastyCakes (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Having been ignored before (and by people I know - the nerve! =P), I can tell you that there is only a notification if your friend request has been accepted. So if you don't check your friends list often to tell that the person you added has disappeared, you would never know that you had been ignored. Xenon54 / talk / 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just start a group called "I like JIP's shareware", and have them join that? You don't even have to do anything with it, and then they can be happy while not bothering you to be friends or whatever. (This is just a suggestion from someone who has never used Facebook themselves.) —Akrabbim^talk 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you could create a group of people who liked your shareware. Then you would be able to limit the amount of your personal info that they see. Then if you want to ignore their status messages, you can do that as well. To do that, hold your mouse over their status update on your wall. A "remove" button will appear in the upper right of their status message. Click on that and away they go. Dismas|^(talk) 04:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to accept the friend request and then change your settings so that that person doesn't appear in your news feed and (if you like) only has access to certain parts of your profile. That way you haven't declined the request but the person won't ever be "in your face" as it were. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that's what I said...? Dismas|^(talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry. You threw me because I wasn't thinking in terms of creating a group of friends, just accepting each friend request as it comes in. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, you create the group first and then throw friends into it when you get/send the request. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but accepting the friend requests but ignoring the friends is a terrible idea. For one thing, it would make them think they're my friends when they're really not, and they would notice it eventually and get upset. For another, they would get privy to all my private information that I choose to share with only friends. And if I wanted to get all paranoid, there's the yet additional fact that my existing Facebook friends would know I have added people I haven't even heard of as Facebook friends. No, the only available options are to turn down the friend requests, or keep ignoring them. JIP | Talk 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can create a special "people I don't know group" that can't see your private information. (And that way, you can friend your parents as well!) T do so, you create a Friend List, add said people to it, and then modify your privacy settings to exclude the exiled Friend List from things you'd rather they not do. And I'm not sure anyone really thinks Facebook friends are "friends" anymore. But anyway, it's up to you, obviously! Do what you feel. I would just not friend them. Nothing wrong in that. People need to have their boundaries! You could send them a message that says, "Hey, I really appreciate your friend request! I'm trying to keep my Facebook account to people I know in person, but I am very grateful!" and most people would be cool with that, I imagine. (And if they aren't... who cares! They aren't your friends!) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[A variant on the ideas above] I socialize a lot on the Internet (these days, sadly, probably more than face to face), but within pretty old-fashioned limits. Although I certainly appreciate the thought, I haven't yet accepted a Yahoo! contact, a Flickr "join my circle" request, or a Facebook "friending" request (even from friends I talk to in person every day or every week). The personal networking stuff just looks too insecure and too intrusive to me. So, having said all that, my idea would be to start (if it didn't seem altogether too arrogant and presumptuous) a Yahoo! Group, or some other off-Facebook chat group, that's a fan club for your software. You really don't need to put anything at all in a Yahoo! profile, which is anyway far less revealing than some of them used to be, and you could let your software's fans chat away among themselves and join in on your own schedule within your own preferred personal boundaries, for example answering general questions about the shareware's history, development, potentialities and technical challenges. You'd be acknowledging their interest positively without feeling the need to address each one individually and personally. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Casino payouts in BlackJack

When you split cards in blackjack,are you supposed to get the same payout as a blackjack if one of your hands is a blackjack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leestark2630 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just considered to be 21. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You might like the Blackjack article, but what exactly are you asking? Is the question 'if you get a blackjack on one of your split hands does it pay out like a blackjack?' I believe the answer is usually yes, although it will depend on the rules of the casino you're playing. Shadowjams (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not guess. It does not pay an extra half bet when you split your cards in any casino I've ever been in (and I've been in plenty). "When your first two cards are 21, you have blackjack or what is known as a natural 21. This hand pays three to two or 1 ½ of the bet."[5]. "A blackjack is therefore an Ace and any ten-valued card, with the additional requirement that these be your first two cards. If you split a pair of Aces for example, and then draw a ten-valued card on one of the Aces, this is not a blackjack, but rather a total of 21."[6] Note: This applies only to regular blackjack. There may be some weird variation out there that doesn't follow this rule. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that's directed at. I'll guess at what the OP is asking to try and help out. You're right, it would be insane to forgo 3-2 (or 2-1 in some cases) to draw to a 10 and an A. I say that though not having run any simulations or referencing anything on that point. You've got two points: one that a 21 after a split doesn't pay 3-2; two that the odds of getting a 21 after a split is unlikely. On the second point, splitting 10s is generally stupid too, but if the modified count is about 2 or higher (depending on the method you're using) then splitting 10s makes sense. Anyone counting efficiently wouldn't have to ask this question, so I assume the OP isn't asking this sort of question. Maybe the more interesting question is if, in a Vegas casino (for sake of clarity), you would be allowed to do so. Usually they just pay out immediately and I've never seen one try so I don't know. On the first, I don't know what's standard. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Recycled toilet paper

I mean how the hell do they recycle that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiceJar (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's toilet paper made of recycled paper. Not toilet paper made of recycled toilet paper. So when you recycle your newspaper, they might make it into toilet paper. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In the old days, they used to hang a mail order catalog in the outhouse. This recycling is not far removed from that concept. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be reuse, rather than recycling, technically. --Tango (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, have you seen some of them? Most mail-order catalogs are just... crap on paper. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course in the interests of economy some people use both sides of the paper.Froggie34 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A priest was waiting in his Confessional and a stranger came in to the adjoining compartment and sat down, but said nothing. After a while the priest knocked impatiently on the grille separating them. The stranger said It's no good knocking, there's no paper in here either. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See Paper recycling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

October 5

socks

Can socks protect agains spider and centipede bites/stings?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thick heavy ones, probably. But bugs can climb!Froggie34 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The usual advice for deterring ticks is to tuck the bottoms of your slacks/trousers into your socks and then frequently check your clothed legs for the little pests so that you can remove any before they climb to exposed skin. You could try the same technique for spiders and centipedes. Marco polo (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Froggie34 is right there. Thicker socks definitely can, but thin socks (and shirts and pants) won't do very much. Mosquitoes can easily get through a pair of dress socks or an athletic shirt, but I've been bitten through thick, wool socks. You do need to take precaution to protect more than just your ankles, though, since the two above me say bugs will climb to other, exposed parts of your body. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Centipedes and spiders can't usually fly though (they can climb)... Of course you may run into spider webs hanging from trees etc but I'm not particularly sure whether mosquitoes are a great comparison for spiders/centipedes Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Socks are very good against spiders if you put a billiard ball in them and get a good swing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rijeka Crnojevica

Hello! Is it anyone who knows the real name of this peninsula close to Rijeka Crnojevica, Montenegro?

Thanks!

Perolinka (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it have a different name from the hill? That appears to be named "Pavlova Strana", although sources seem to vary on whether that refers to the hill, the viewpoint or the entire view. Warofdreams talk 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the name of the hill itself that i am after. Which source did you use? Perolinka (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I searched for the phrase and found the Swedish language Wikipedia article. That has an image of the view which is captioned as including the east side of Pavlova Strana. I then searched for the term "Pavlova Strana", and the resulting Google hits suggested that this was indeed the name of the hill. Warofdreams talk 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also seen the few google hits that maybe confirms it. I have written the article on swedish wikipedia;) Perolinka (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Iphone touchscreen

Why will it pick up your finger, but not a pencil or other stylus?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The screen uses electrical conductivity (http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10152_102-0.html?threadID=274261), which your finger has, but pencils lack. Marco polo (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How about when you just blow on the screen like with the Nintendo DS?Popcorn II (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you blow on the screen? I thought there was a microphone that picked up the blowing rather than the touch screen. --Tango (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you can blow it in different directions. There's a game where a puppy chases bubbles that you blow.Popcorn II (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how a touchscreen can detect air blowing in different directions. There's a microphone below the touchscreen, and as Tango did I thought the mike recorded the noise your blowing makes, which causes something to happen in-game. Mario Kart DS comes to mind (you inflate balloons). Xenon54 / talk / 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see it either. Sure, it's possible to do it if you really want to, but it would make the touch screen so sensitive as to be impossible to use (a slight breeze and everything goes wrong). --Tango (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking of Nintendogs. You can't control the direction of the bubbles. They just come out. It's absolutely the microphone that detects the blowing. APL (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It might also be associated with capacitance: Touch_screen#Technologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacky (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

lubricant

does the usage of oils,creams or other lubricants over penis shaft cause any damage in long/short run or any other health risk? which is the safest lubricant to use?

We are not able to give medical advice on the Reference Desk. Please check with a professional, such as a pharmacist or physician. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind most lubricants (the good ones, anyway) are water-based. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Without offering medical advice, I will also point out that oils and creams are incompatible with the use of a condom, because oils and creams can dissolve condoms and cause them to leak. Water-based lubricants are recommended for use with condoms. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See personal lubricant. While Marco Polo is correct insofar as the majority of condoms are made of latex (i.e. rubber), some are made of polyurethane and can safely be used with oils. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Most lubricants should say if they are compatible with latex condoms. Many condoms will also say what sort of lubricants you shouldn't use with them Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Check Premature ejaculation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A funky-tasting film inside of a steel bottle

Plastic bottles are a no-go these days, amirite? So, to be a little more environmentally conscious (as well as help out some girls in my class, as this was their project), I bought a stainless steel bottle. Ah, the taste of (vitamin) water from this bottle after a hard run was majestic. However, I made the poor choice of not washing this bottle out after every single use. What was going through my head? No idea. At some point, a strange black film appeared on the inside, up to the level where I normally filled it up. This film was a little coarse to the touch, and didn't seem ready to come off any time soon. Repeated washings later, and it's still there. I could just ignore it, but this film gives everything inside a bit of a funky taste. Does anyone know the exact nature of this film, and/or how to get rid of it? Thanks!--The Ninth Bright Shiner 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a well written question. There should be an award for such eloquence. From the minimal browsing I've done, I conjecture it might be a combination of calcium deposits & mould (or mold, in your parlance). A remedy appears to be washing with warm water and white wine vinegar. You may by now know that stainless steel and chloride-containing detergents do not mix at all well - a chemist will be along shortly to tell us why - and so dishwashers and your more esoteric cleaning agents are to be avoided. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, good sir/madam! I try to make my questions more than dull demands for answers. You've quite the articulate prose yourself! Although "esoteric" caught me off guard. From what I could gather from its definitions, that would mean...specialized cleaners?

Fluency of language aside, I don't have any white wine vinegar in the arsenal, but I'll keep that in mind. My mother previously let water and...denture tablets, I believe, soak inside the bottle. I think the film was a little diminished after that, but it was only a five-minute soak. We're repeating that, but letting it soak overnight. Any other ideas?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 23:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The principle would be something that dissolves calcium. Possibly Coca-Cola, since it, too, is acidic - although for all I know the sugar will feed the supposed mould. Coke seems to do well at cleaning up coins, though. Elsewhere I've found advice on the use of a toothpaste-consistency mix of baking soda and water, liberally applied to marked surfaces, but this sounds impractical for the innards of a bottle and might be useless in the face of supposed calcium. (Some) denture tablets appear to have sulfamic acid as an ingredient, so you're possibly on the right track there: but the devil may be in the concentration of the acidic solution. A longer soak seems sensible, but if it fails, put white wine vinegar on the shopping list. Your take on specialized cleaners is spot-on. Since there is a school connection, perhaps you have a sufficiently enthusiastic chemistry teacher or lab technician who might take on the cleaning as a practical science project - stainless must not be unknown to such people? Frankly taking all elements of the saga into consideration - the environmental concern, anatomical science, chemistry and possibly biology, not to mention information research, human perception etc. - the whole thing should be written up and taught as some sort of multi-syllabus course to the younger year-groups in your school. Possibly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're partially right about plastic water bottles. There has been a recent controversy over BPA in the plastic of those bottles. Common makers of plastic bottles include Nalgene. Although, once BPA was demonized for causing cancer, Nalgene and many other companies started making BPA-free bottles. Meanwhile, the market for metal bottles boomed due to everyone switching from their plastic to metal. For a while, Sigg claimed that their bottles were BPA-free. Although, recently it's come out that inside Sigg bottles, there is a thin coating of plastic and this plastic contains BPA. Sigg has now moved to a BPA-free coating for their bottles. If you do a search for "BPA water bottle" on Google News, you'll pull up plenty of articles about this, like this for one. Dismas|^(talk) 02:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless it would cause issues with the steel, I would try washing it with bleach, and then rinsing it VERY well several times. Mould does not hold up to bleach well. Falconus^{p t c} 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bleach is exactly what you should NOT use, according to every stainless steel bottle vendor site I visited last night. No details on why, and no wandering chemist to help us yet, but I think we have to discount this as a method. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer a mechanical rather than a chemical solution. For glass and plastic bottles, I use hard rice and shake for a long time. For stainless steel, you could always use sharp sand if the problem is severe. Bleach might kill the fungus, but it will leave a surface on which fungus can grow again, and bleach products will taste for weeks afterwards! Dbfirs 10:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, I never put bleach in anything that I intend on eating or drinking from ever again. Dismas|^(talk) 12:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you leave the bleach in the bottle for a prolonged period, it will rust. Boiling water will kill the mould, but leave the scum most likely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Victoly!

Thanks for the oodles of advice and idle chatter, everyone. But it turns out you were all ultimately useless. ;-) But that sounds mean, doesn't it? I'm sorry.

After the night-long soaking with denture tablets, the mold was all but gone. There was still some visible residue, but I hardly detected a difference it taste. And yet, it still felt iffy. So a wondrous analogy came upon me: if you use a household cleaner on just about anything, what do you do? Usually, you have to wipe it away afterward; few cleaners can dissolve a stain to death. I got a paper towel and folded it up, then wiped the inside surface as far as my finger could reach. Lo and behold, a gnasty black stain on the paper towel. Stabbing some long, pointy utensils through folded-up paper towels got almost everything else off. If ever I'm naggy enough to want it completely clean, I'll remember all of your advice. Thanks everyone!--The Ninth Bright Shiner 00:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

October 6

Essay on goldfish and pine trees

Does anybody know of an essay analyzing goldfish and pine trees to argue a Creator of the universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon83 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but you are aware, right, that gold fish look the way they do because of hundreds of years of deliberate human intervention? Using them as an example of either Creationism or Evolution is problematic because they aren't in any sense "natural". They are a great example of selective breeding (or artificial selection), but that's about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Selecting breeding is simply a much faster way of pushing evolution along. What the OP is probably getting at is the typical creationist argument that life as we know it "couldn't have happened by accident". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, selective breeding is not "pushing evolution along," any more than topiary is "pushing along" the growth of a tree. It has nothing to do with naturalistic evolution except as an analogy. It's just genetic tinkering. That's not the same thing as evolution at all! (And savvy Creationists are aware of that...) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Savvy creationists?" Look under oxymoron. Anyway, we now have the capability of doing genetic manipulation as well as artificial selection, and it's surprisingly easy when you know what you're doing. So genetic manipulation by mother nature is not surprising either. As with natural selection, it simply takes a lot longer, because it's trial and error rather than deliberate manipulation. But God has lots of time. :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The savvy creationists (e.g. the ones who know how to integrate genetics into Creationism) are clever enough to argue that what you're seeing is variation within a type, not variation between types. (Thus all dogs are still in the same species, after thousands of years of artificial selection.) They don't buy that increasing the time scale would change that, arguing that the total amount of information is basically constant, etc. I don't buy it, but it's more clever than the "God did it, let's just believe" it sort. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is evolution - it is a species adapting to become better able to reproduce in their environment. The fact that it is us determining which animals can and can't reproduce is irrelevant - we are part of the environment. --Tango (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting down to splitting hairs over whether "artificial" is really "natural". (Which, either way, is not the same thing as "evolution", if we're going to split hairs even further). The whole purpose of making the division between "artificial" and "natural" is to be able to distinguish between intelligent intervention and what happens without an intelligent agent, and playing with that only muddies the water further on other evolution/creation debates, IMO. I think we can take a page from Darwin here and say that making the distinction between humans deliberately molding animals to their wills and the sort of naturalistic, non-interventionist evolution do represent somewhat different mechanisms, end up with very different results, and have profound philosophical distinctions for most people. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is no. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a difference, but I would say that selective breeding is just a type of evolution. Evolution is inherited traits with random mutations combined with natural selection leading to organisms that can reproduce better in their current environment. Humans are part of nature, so human selection is a type of natural selection. To exclude humans from nature is arbitrary, anthropocentric and, I would argue, unhelpful. It is easy enough to say "non-human influenced evolution" in the rare cases where it is necessary to exclude it. --Tango (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No gold fish, although there might be a pine tree in the background, but there is the banana... The Atheist's Nightmare! Ooooohhhh.... Scary! Dismas|^(talk) 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pine trees are mentioned here. I haven't found anything about goldfish, other than the usual "this animal doesn't turn into that animal before our eyes therefore evolution is wrong" (goldfish into seahorses in this case).

The two arguments involving pine are that pine debris from Mount St Helens has formed coal in an unpredicted way (too fast and in a lake-bed rather than a swamp), and that pine pollen is present in 1.5 billion year old shale deposits despite pine trees first appearing ~350 million years ago. Here and here are possibly the most relevant entries on the Index to Creationist Claims AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

subscription of united states patents quarterly

How can my Philippine based company subscribe to United States Patents Quarterly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahlyn (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

email customercare@bna.com and ask them - see [7]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Best smoking utensil?

not the be criticised, but i was wandering, being a recreational smoker. other then a vaporizer, what would be the best smoking utensil to use in order to get the most out of what ever your smoking? my best guess would be a waterpipe? User:DanielTrox

Ultimately, probably an iron lung. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP doesn't say exactly what the "best" is in smoking but if it is the addictive stimulant nicotine then using a Nicotine patch is a way to get the euphoria without polluting the air for everyone around. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The TV show MANswers answered this, the consensus was that vaporizers were far and away the most efficient way to get the "active compounds" from smoking mateterial. The OP's smoking methods imply that he is searching for ways of smoking Cannabis, and the other standard methods (pipe, joint, water-pipe, bong) all provide considerably less than 30% or so of the active compounds from the material into your lungs; vaporizers apparently provide more than 80% of the active compounds. So basically, it takes something around 1/3 to 1/4th as much material to get you the intended effect. This is all as reported in the MANswers show, I have no idea the reliability of their data. Also, given the illegality of Cannabis in most jurisdictions, the OP is reminded to obey all local laws, less this happens to them... --Jayron32 21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that, given the social and legal stigmae associated with smoking, that there are some new joints[8] that make a ceremony of it. I find that a briar pipe, stoked with British-style tobacco, is quite pleasant. PhGustaf (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a nitpick, PhGustaf, but it's useful to know that "stigmata", usually used in reference to the wounds of Christ that appear on saintly people's bodies, is also the (irregular) plural of the LatinGreek word "stigma". There's no such word as "stigmae". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the plural of stigma is stigmas. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, a plural is stigmas, not the plural. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, a quick Google came up with "my 10 tepal polytepals have five stigmae!" So either "stigmae" is accepted by some, or someone is even better at making words up than I am. PhGustaf (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's dead right. I myself assumed stigma was Latin, but it's Greek. See English plural#Irregular plurals from Latin and Greek. Were it Latin, the plural might be "stigmae", or (as I assumed) it might have an irregular plural, hence stigmata. But it's not Latin, so "stigmae" is right out, as was my original theory. You can use either a normal English plural "stigmas", or go to the original Greek plural "stigmata". Those google hits all assume it was Latin with a regular plural "stigmae". Wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That depends where you live. In Egypt, a water pipe. In America, cigarettes... Vranak (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic problem about intervals

I have encountered the following sentence in the article of Penobscot River: "Flow here has ranged from 37,000 to 77 cubic feet per second.". I am not sure about the meaning. Does it say that the flow has ranged from 37,000 downto 77 cubic feet per second (so, naming the bigger end of the interval first) or from 37,000 to 77,000 cubic feet per second (using an abbrevation, therefore naming smaller end of the interval first then writing down the second number in a kind of short form)? - Xbspiro (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is says means the former, it could be a mistake and intended to mean the latter, but 77 is not a valid abbreviation for 77,000 in that context. It is common to say "37-77,000" to mean "37,000-77,000", but I've never seen that expressed as "37,000-77" (it might happen in spoken language where the way it is said can make it clear what is meant, but not in writing). --Tango (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the URL it is referenced to is broken, so I can't check which it is (if you want to, try googling the title given - if you find a working URL please edit the article!). --Tango (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found one. (It's a way away from either previous figure.) - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the cited figures are no longer in the article, so I assume you've changed it. But the second "flow has ranged" reference has the same problem -- a large number followed by a much smaller number. And the large number seems impossibly large given the size of the river's drainage basin (compared to, say, the Niagara River). There still seems to be a problem here, although it's not really a Reference Desk problem any more. --Anonymous, 19:18 UTC, October 6, 2009.

With some of the rivers around here, 37-77,000 could very well mean "37 cfs to 77,0000 cfs". --Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Interview tips

What are the competencies they may check to appoint me as a manager in a BPO it is an opening within the organisation i work for and i am a team leader for in other department, are there something specific i need to prepare or know for a sales and customer service department? any advise is appreciated

From the top of this page: " if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere. " BrainyBabe (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We've seen this sort of question before. Think about what the manager's boss is looking for. Probably he or she wants a "self-starting" manager who will run the department well, on his/her own initiative, without constantly bothering the manager's boss. Somebody who knows the employees' current jobs thoroughly, who can mentor the employees, help them do a better job, meet (and possibly help set) the goals set for the department by the manager's boss, and identify and solve problems of every sort in the department. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you are already in the organisation you have an advantage - you can seek out the person that used to have the job and ask them about it. They will know what the job entails better than anyone and once you know that you just have to convince the interviewer that you can do it best. --Tango (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest learning how to write a proper sentence, with appropriate capitalizations and punctuation as an excellent place to start? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Baby Smell

My 5 month old daughter recently fell ill, and since then I've noticed a strange smell. We think the illness is the flu, but all the blood tests and urine tests say she's negative of any bacterial infections, so we figure she's got the flu or something and we're treating the symptoms. She seems to be recovering, but my question isnt about the illness. It's about the smell. I think it has something to do with the mucus, but it's really weird. Smells kind of like used hospital sheets. Not pleasant at all. Any ideas where the smell is coming from?

75.128.118.91 (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a medical question, and we cannot answer those here -- you have a doctor who ordered those tests, and that's who you need to talk to. --Anonymous, 19:21, October 6, 2009.

I'm not going to even offer a guess at an answer to the question but I'm curious... What do used hospital sheets smell like?! Dismas|^(talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And why has the OP been going around smelling used hospital sheets? --Tango (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, does that matter? Hospitals have their aroma which comes from regular cleaning e.g. with chlorine bleach. We aren't going to answer the question anyway. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't we? Surely it depends on who used the sheets (presume clean ones smell the same). Men and women have different smells, and so do different illnesses. So the sheets must carry some distinctive smell before being sterelised and washed.Froggie34 (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In some inborn errors of metabolism there can be a distinctive body odor (examples: "mouse-like" odor in phenylketonuria, "maple syrup" odor in maple syrup urine disease, "sweaty feet" odor in isovaleric acidemia, "male cat urine" odor in multiple carboxylase deficiency, "cabbage" or "rancid butter" odor in type I tyrosinemia). These are very rare disorders. Most would be picked up by newborn screening (depending on where you live) but not by the usual blood and urine tests ordered on a child with a flu-like illness. However, we clearly can't make a diagnosis over the internet so you might want to discuss with your daughter's doctor whether any of these conditions could be a possibility. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research: The smell of a baby on breast milk was different from the same baby once formula supplemented breast milk. This is just noting that what is happening in a baby can affect the smell of, say the baby's scalp (aside from cleanliness, shampoos, baby oil fragrance, etc). Per the others, a good pediatrician is the appropriate place for advice and diagnosis. One is also free to search for general information at sites such as the Mayo Clinic. Libraries will have the latest editions of home medical guides such as the Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, or the American Medical Association Family Medical Guide, and your doctor can recommend baby books in the tradition of Dr. Spock or Dr. Brazelton. Edison (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Many illnesses create smells. A few of these odours can be detected by us humans. Dogs, on the other hand, can detect cancer (presumably by smell). "The documentary reveals the results of an astonishing new scientific study that suggests the dog could be better at diagnosing cancer than current technology. " [9] BrainyBabe (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yellow flag! "Dogs can detect cancer" is a long way from what your link says, which is that there has been a "study that suggests the dog could be better at diagnosing cancer than current technology." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what the sentence I quoted also said -- "could be better". Here's a lay-language overview of several promising trialsfrom the Science Blog of Cancer Research UK. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use question

Is it legal to use book cover images (small images from ex. Amazon) for Wikipedia stubs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.57.162 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(This question is really in the domain of the Help desk or Media copyright questions, but I'll answer it here anyway.) Any copyrighted image can be used on Wikipedia, provided the copyright status, source, and original author is properly documented, a sufficient fair use rationale is written, and the image is only used in articles. The full list of criteria is at Non-free content criteria. Remember that you must register to upload images. Xenon54 / talk / 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if registered you will not be able to upload immediately. You can use WP:IFU to make a request in the mean time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that there's nothing legally special about the Amazon covers. They're just covers, they happen to be on Amazon. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr 98 - I think the OP is asking if he can use the actual images from Amazon. DB 103245^talk 06:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. Very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.57.162 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

October 7

Geohashing

In xkcd's comic giving an example of geohashing (http://www.xkcd.com/426), what exactly does the "md5" arrow indicate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.202.36 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It means convert it to an MD5 hash. --Tango (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You probably know this, but just in case : There's a mapping utility here. APL (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed know this... I am trying to write my own program for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.202.36 (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

Suppose you were writing a list of the locations of, for example, developed houses only one room long, and on the list was Georgia (the country) and, someplace later on in the list, Georgia (the US state). Apart from writing "Georgia, USA" for the latter, how else would you distinguish them? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Georgia, USA" is easy; the problem is what to call the other one so that readers won't assume you mean the American Georgia there too. Perhaps the easiest solution is to write "Republic of Georgia", but according to Wikipedia (Georgia (country)#Etymology) that's no longer its official name. You might write "Georgia (Europe)", but the boundary between Europe and Asia in that area is not entirely agreed on, and some people might call that wrong. "Georgia (former USSR)" is another possibility. Or just "Georgia (the country)". --Anonymous, 05:20 UTC (minor edit later), October 7, 2009.

After much debate, the Wikipedia articles are at Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). That works for us. Who is the target audience? If it is people outside the US then "Georgia" and "Georgia, USA" should work, it is generally only Americans that would interpret "Georgia" as meaning their state rather than the country. If your audience includes Americans, then "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia, USA" would be my recommendation. That is all assuming it is necessary to specify the state - could you just say "USA"? --Tango (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not only Americans. I would expect anyone from Canada to see "Georgia" and think of the US state. Maybe people from at least some other places in the Americas too; I can't say. Maybe some other English-speakers too; the US Georgia has had that name for as long as any of us have been alive, while the other one was the "Georgian SSR" for many decades. --Anonymous, 19:20 UTC, October 7, 2009.

True - could I get away with claiming I meant people from the continent(s) of America by "American"? I can't speak for all English-speakers, but in the UK I would expect most people to think of the country. The news rarely clarifies when talking about the country. --Tango (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Georgia, Republic of and Georgia, USA ? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As Anonymous writes above, the country is not called Republic of Georgia, so Georgia, Republic of would be as incorrect as calling the USA the Democratic Republic of America /88.131.68.194 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Store the data in table format. The City(, State) column and Country column are distinct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Operating temperatures

Most electronic items I've seen, have a operating temperature range listed in the manual. The temperature range is typically something like "0°C - 50°C". I was wondering how do people in very hot or very cold environments keep their electronics working? Obviously, homes and offices are heated or cooled to make for more comfortable temperature, but I was thinking more about needing to use electronic items outside. So for example professional photographer taking photos of desert wildlife in Death Valley, or Antarctic scientists taking measurements outside. Astronaut (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The temperature range given by the OP is typical for commercial or domestic equipment and components, for example plastic encapsulated transistor circuits in a PC. Equipments for a wider temperature range use "military" grade components which often use ceramic in place of plastic encapsulation, at higher cost. Both extremes of temperature and humidity affect the reliability of electronic equipment. Most items can be operated outside their ratings but they are not guaranteed to do so. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. The 7400 series of SSI chips are still used for cobbling bigger chips together forty years after they were first designed. There was, and may still be, a 5400 series that did the same things, but was sturdier and more expensive. At one time I wrote manuals that included temperature ranges, but it was mostly just making shit up. PhGustaf (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A further question is what limits the temperature: storage, operation, or condensation. As an example a battery or electrolytic capacitor might theoretically freeze and burst at extreme low temperatures. The metal connections inside a chip might open up due to expansion and contraction. These would be storage failures. Wax which insulates transformer windings might literally melt at high temperatures. For other components, the thermal rise plus high ambient might destroy them. Clearly electronics including computers can be made to work over very wide temp range. Electronics in cars in the US might encounter ambient of 109 F (42 C) plus heating due to solar flux and due to heat from the engine, easily reaching over 122 F (50C). In the winter, at night, the same car could experience -30F (-34C). A failure mode which is not strictly thermal is condensation, or dew forming when moist air encounters chilled surfaces, which may be alleviated by moistureproof coating on circuit boards. Consumer electronics left overnight in a cold car might have problematic condensation when they are brought inside later to warm up. Edison (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that Wikipedia links a word "antartic" that I find in no major English dictionary to Antarctica. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a common enough pronunciation that it's probably a worthwhile redirect for anyone who's young enough or sufficiently poorly-read as to not know the correct spelling. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that surprising. Most dictionaries only mention very common typos. On wikipedia it is usual to have redirects for many different typos even if they are unlikely to be found in a dictionary. Redirects are free after all. This Google search [10] while not perfect suggests it's a not uncommon typo Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the blogs of a few Antarctic scientists, and the cold is one of the major challenges when operating electronics down there. The major problems I've seen mentioned are:

1. Batteries stop producing electricity. The chemical reactions that produce electricity slow down as the batteries get colder, and eventually come to an effective halt.
2. LCD screens stop working. Once they get cold enough, the liquid crystals in the display freeze and the screen goes black. CRT displays don't have this problem.
3. Lubricating oils solidify. Anything with moving parts (fans, hard drives, etc.) stops moving.
4. Parts go out of spec. Resistors are especially temperature-sensitive, but capacitors can also be affected, with thermal contraction changing the plate-to-plate distance, and thus the capacitance.

On the other hand, some things work better in the cold. The sensors in digital cameras are a good example of this: for every ten degrees C you cool the sensor, you cut the noise level in half. Most astrophotographers use actively-cooled sensors, but in the Antarctic, simply putting the camera outside is enough. --Carnildo (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When I bring in a chilled camera, I leave it in a moistureproof bag for the warmup, because condensation in the optical system, leaves streaks. Edison (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Beta

Hello, My name is Om Sinha, and question is about the Wikipedia Beta release. I want to know that what's this beta is all about? Is it like you people are going to add some new features or something? I just wanted a brief idea about this 'Wikipedia Beta' thing. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.8.6 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you open an account, free and very easy to do, and I am surprised you have not done that already given your wikihistory, you can try the Beta version for yourself, if you like it then provide some feedback, if you don't like it, again, provide feed back and revert to the main version. Good luck in Chennai.Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a new interface, which is called a "skin." If you register, there are a number of options to change the way Wikipedia looks when you view. The new option is called Vector, and is eventually going to replace the current default, called Monobook. Why don't you register and give 'em a whirl? I myself use Modern. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find some information by following the links from Wikipedia:Beta. Warofdreams talk 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

COCA COLA UK

Well i just recived the SMS on my mobile few days back that my mobile number has won the donation of 1 million pounds and it said that its its from Coca Cola UK, now m not in UK, m in a different country and have a different nationality. There was a number mentioned in it to contact them which i did, i spoke to the man who seemed to Irish from his accent said that we jhave to send them an email which was mentioned in the SMS.

Now i have not done that yet, because m not sure that i should do it or not, as i have heard lot many cases of the frauds who get hold of ur computer with the IP adres(m not too sure as m not that techy) details sitting in a different country and try to capture ur account details. Is it true ? And should i email them. I thought of emailing them from a cyber cafe but can not go there.

Also why would any coompany would donate such a big amount to someone like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

They wouldn't. It's a scam. See phishing. --LarryMac | Talk 14:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Avoid giving out any personal information and definitely avoid giving any financial information. An easy way to verify would be to contact the company's PR department directly (this is their corporate contact page); they will probably confirm that they have no affiliation to this scam. (Letting them know about this may encourage them to throw some legal effort at tackling the responsible scammer). Nimur (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there no one who can help me out with this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank U so much. I got the response late so i got impatient. But let me read that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank U so Much NIMUR. That was the best advise. I'l do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's too good to be true, it probably is a scam. Apparently I have won the UK National Lottery three times this year and am invited to share the contents of the wills of various unknown bequestors, mostly from Nigeria. Identity fraud is major business. More than 30,000 email accounts have been compromised recently, although this was apparently due to key logging, rather than users giving their personal details. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep - sorry to be the bearer of bad news - but it's spectacularly unlikely that this is genuine. Why would coca cola run a contest with such a huge prize in complete secrecy? Contests are run as a form of advertising...running a contest in secrecy is really kinda silly! Why would they award the prize to someone who didn't even enter the contest? Nope - it's a scam. If you are foolish enough to respond, they are going to start asking for personal details - stuff like "Please tell us your bank details so we can transfer the money into your account"...(or all of your money OUT of your account). Either that or it's some variation on the Lottery scam where they ask you to pay them money for some complicated reason relating to "transfer fees", or something similarly unlikely. SteveBaker (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I get about one a fortnight of this type of scam. A large 'win' or seeking help in getting a large sum of money out of some country or other. The most recent one said I had "won" umpty tumpt million dollars and please send all my details etc. etc. ITS A SCAM! Delete it and delete any further similar mails. This is an internet mirage, the appearance on the horizon of something desired but when you get there it's gone and you're worse off. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing which SteveBaker is thinking, and i also recieve the so many emails regarding the Lotteries, but i always delete them all because i undersatnd that its all fake but that was quite strange to get a message on the mobile.

Thank u so much to u all..... Got a very good advise and response... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A few comments. Firstly most scams last long enough that by the time you received one you'd often find it online if you search. In this particular case I easily found [11] which appears to be a similar thing. This doesn't of course mean if you can't find a scam online it's legit. Secondly most scammers of this sort primarily operate advance fee fraud AFAIK. They may ask for bank account and other private details but according to our article and supported by a reference this is usually primary as a test. This reference says a similar thing [12]. It depends what you mean by details of course. If you just give your name and account number this there's unlikely to be much they can do with it, this isn't exactly extremely secret/private information, it's something likely shown on your cheques and many people provide those very details to third parties when requesting legitimate payments, heck sometimes they've even available online. No bank worth anything is going to allow someone to transfer money out just because they know the account number and name. Of course if you have provided such details, it's still worth telling your bank about it. Even if you give other private details like copies of your national ID or US social security card or perhaps just the numbers, copies of your passport, and other stuff it's still probably not going to be easy to gain access to your account and risky to them too. It may be possible for a more sophisticated crime with local ties (either the scammers or someone they sell the information to) so it's a still a very bad idea. An exception is if they obtain stuff (whether to thorough phising or other means) like your credit card number, internet banking login and password or pin number that would generally be trivial for someone to use. Probably of greater risk if you provide such things is identity theft i.e. opening up accounts etc in your name. As mentioned all of these would generally take time, are more difficult to carry out and are likely to need local ties and therefore only likely to be used by a more sophisticated crime syndicate. That's why most scammers just take the easier route of conning someone into actually paying them money via Western Union or other nearly untraceable payment methods. BTW, you told us your IP address. While hopefully none of us have malicious purposes, it isn't exactly likely to put you at risk unless your computer is already insecure. The big risk from visiting such a website would be if your browser has security holes (and also the risk of phising etc). Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Using a Wikia photo

Dear Sirs: I would like permission to use a photo of a plant called Buddha Hand Citron in your recipes.wikia.recipes. If permission is given, do you have it in a higher resolution? Thank you.

Mike McLaughlin Director of Horticulture Marie Selby Botanical Gardens 811 South Palm Ave. Sarasota, FL 34236 (email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.35.157 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already licensed such that you can use it, under certain (very liberal) conditions. Here is the short version. Here is the long version in case you need a lawyer to read it (unlikely). Super-short version: somewhere on whatever it is you're doing, say "This [whatever] uses material from the "Buddha's hand citron" article on the Recipes Wiki at Wikia.com which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License." Alternatively, put a small caption next to the image that says: "image source: recipes.wikia.com CC-BY-SA". --Sean 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Homunculi

I need a list of artifical life and it along the lines of Homunculi so far i have Homunculi, Kelenthri, Golems Tulpa, and rokadamus

if you could give me any more it would be great thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogieene (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Were you unhappy with the answers given here? We usually prefer that questions not be posted in multiple places. Perhaps you could follow up on some of the comments already provided on the other page? For example, it might be helpful if you clarify what types of "artificial life" you are interested in (fictional versus nonfictional; biological versus digital). --- Medical geneticist (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How can it be?

Please explain how Obama is an African American?

His father was not an African American, but on a student visa from Kenya.

His mother was not an African American, but Caucasian American from Kansas.

The best I get is Obama is bi-racial. Please send info to

Virgilio San Andres

See the FAQ Question 2 at the top of the Obama talk page. TastyCakes (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The media is not always concerned with minute details. His skin is dark in color, and he is not from India so they call him AA. Googlemeister (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have a look at the definition at African American. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Kenya is in Africa. Hawaii is in America. (The USA,anyway.) So what's the confusion? He is an American with African ancestors. That's what "African American" means. APL (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but aren't all people originally from Africa? Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's from Africa and then there's from Africa. TastyCakes (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, APL should have said "recent African ancestors", ie. since European colonisation of Africa. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a little ambiguous isn't it? ;) TastyCakes (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"recent African ancestors" could mean citizens of African countries with European ancestry. I'm afraid, if you want to be accurate, you are going to have to say that word. OK, here goes...deep breath...you mean "black ancestors". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. But if your dad was a white guy from Africa, I don't think anyone would argue with you if you called yourself "African American". You'd have to explain it every single time, though. That'd get tedious. APL (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but what does "black" mean? It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, you can't actually come up with an effective definition. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

America has come a long way since the antebellum period, but the One-drop rule still widely exists, not on paper but in people's minds. Black is sadly still seen as something different, and is therefore drawn attention to, whether for good or bad intentions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a plain English term Mulatto. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That term is right up there with Negro in terms of acceptability. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the definition in our article African American, I think that the ethnonym African American is widely associated with having been raised with African American culture. That is, it is widely understood not as a term indicating geographic origin (e.g., a white South African) or even racial origin (e.g., a Haitian American or Kenyan American) but an origin in the culture of the ethnic group that shared the experience of slavery in North America and subsequent systematic racial discrimination prior to the mid-20th century. Obama clearly does not have that cultural, or ethnic, origin. So, while it may be technically correct to say that he is "African American" according to some definitions of that term, the fact is that he is not African American in the same way as people such as Martin Luther King, Jr., or Michelle Obama. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's wishful thinking. I believe that for most Americans, "African American" is just a politically correct synonym for "black". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's true for common usage. But it's should be noted that Black is not a politically incorrect word in modern usage. You can speak of Black history and Black culture quite frankly and quite commonly. It's not a pejorative. See Black people, esp. the section on Jesse Jackson in the US. It is often capitalized in such usage as a sign of respect, but not necessarily. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I once heard an American speaker explaining the relevance of Soweto in South African history say: "Soweto is where the African Americans rioted against the regime". Given that the riot consisted of non-American Africans rioting against equally non-American other-Africans I find it hard to imagine a worse description. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The concept of race is entirely man made, there is no biological, chemical, molecular or hereditry distinction which draws lines between what we call "human races", at best they are rough stereotypes. At worst they are a ignorantly supersticious source of fear, hatred and violence. Vespine (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many things in the universe that lack clear, natural, distinct demarcations. It is still useful to place things in generally agreed upon groups. For description and ease of communication if nothing else.

Colors, as defined by the English language, are completely arbitrary and indistinct, but it would be tedious and hopeless if every time someone tried to describe something as "purple", someone showed up to explain that light is a continuous spectrum with no natural distinctions. APL (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

African-American implies legacy of slavery and the severe discrimination of the Jim Crow South. Michelle Obama is African-American, for instance. Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So what legacy does German American imply? Maybe African American, to most Americans, just implies "Americans with African ancestry," like German American implies Americans with German ancestry. See Italian American, Japanese American , Irish American, and Swedish American. So if you don't conform to some typical shared trait of one of these groups, should you be banished from membership? You are not Japanese American unless your ancestors were locked in an internment camp during World War 2? Edison (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Race is significant in America. The reality of that has to find a word into which to go. The word that is the present receptacle for all that racial content is African-American. German-American, Italian-American, etc. has none of the severely and uniquely American energy that needs a special term to express it. Italian-American simply dispassionately expresses a situation. It is not of any consequence. It merely denotes a country of origin. But African-American is a term that is culturally required. It doesn't merely denote a place of origin. It denotes a condition that is inextricably tied up with America's unique personality. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing all of those groups have in common is that they encountered varying degrees of prejudice from the established Americans. One difference is that most of them came here voluntarily. But in addition to the negativity that blacks and others had to put up with for generations, and to a notable extent still do in the case of the darker-skinned citizens, there is a more positive aspect to the xxxxx-American tag, and that is to highlight America's significant racial and ancestral diversity. A look through any big-city phone book is a smorgasbord of diversity of surnames. Basically, "we come from everywhere". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenated Americans are what America is all about. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I love being a Danish-Irish-German-Dutch-English-French-Italian-Swiss-Scottish-Swedish-American. Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's gotta be a pain to fill out on the census form. APL (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "English-Scottish-Native American-American." Edison (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre animal sex

Bet that got your attention :) Okay, I really have two questions here 1. Is it true that male Cape Ground Squirrels have penises that make up 42% of their total body length, and what evolutionary purpose would that serve? 2. What is the species of shrimp whose sperm are equal to or longer than their body, and again, what purpose would that serve? Library Seraph (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1: Yes, it's true (though pathetic, compared to the Argentine Lake Duck). This article discusses the possible reasons for the large size. The glib answer is that female Cape Ground Squirrels have enormous vaginas. I'm not an authority on shrimp sperm, so I'll leave that question to future respondants. --Sean 17:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The shrimps for whom size is so important are ostracods or seed shrimp[13]. Bizarre is a self-relative perception and the squirrels and shrimps might have a similar opinion of the OP, if they cared at all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnacles have penises five times their own length. Some species of fly has a sperm some multiples of its own body length. Just to put Opie's questions in true perspective ;) Vimescarrot (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a citation for that Vimes? Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

QI, of course ;) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Our own article has the details on barnacle penises. The Book of Animal Ignorance, page 73: One species has sperm that is 2.3 inches in length - the longest in nature - and its testicles make up a whoping 11 per cent of its body-weight. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess when one spends one's life rooted to a rock, one must get one's kicks in whatever way one can Thank you for your answers, that was enlightening (For lack of a better word) I am having soem trouble accessing the ground squirrel link, does anyone have a version from a different site? Library Seraph (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

literature/genres

how can genres be conceptualised?Nomsi (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As many as you like. I don't believe there's any "hard" limit in what we can and cannot conceptualize. I could sub-divide existing genres into genres in their own right arbitrarily, if I wasn't being too creative...--Leon (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Copedit

Can someone copy edit this article for me? Showtime2009 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the reference desk, we help people find the information they are looking for. We don't do copy editing... --Tango (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You know who does, though? The Guild of Copy Editors. They can help. They currently have a backlog of 7,524 articles, so it may be a while (a shorter while, if, of course, we were to all join the Guild and help). Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) You can also do it yourself: see Wikipedia:How to copy-edit. It's really not that hard, especially if you do a lot of writing in real life as I do. This would probably be the fastest route; I think I requested that an article be edited by the Guild in November 2007, and still nothing has come of it. They're only human, and they're busy. Xenon54 / talk / 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited partway through it, but there really seems to be way too much detail about the minute by minute movements of parts of the storm. I removed a sentence about a business it "nearly hit." There seems to be too much microscopic detail about where it was at what time. That would have been news on the day of the storm,and useful to the people cowering in basements at the time, but is not of enduring encyclopedic importance. It reads more like the local paper the next day. Edison (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Broom handles

Trying to find out of which wood broom handles are made. Article Broom does not say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.114.101 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All are different —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.154 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Come now, 82, show some initiative. My assumption had been "always the cheapest wood available", which usually, I believe, means pine. However, this page, an online shop for broom handles, advertises handles that seem to always be called "hardwood", which does not include pine trees. This page about the history of brooms says that around 1820 in England they were using ash, hazel, or chestnut wood for the handles. One site that's obviously not going to be representative of the world's brooms, but which I found interesting: This page is a sourcing website for buying one million broom handles; most unhelpfully use the term "wood" to describe the handles, but the one that sticks out for me is a source from Brazil that says "Pinus and Tauari wood" in the description. (A little discouraging, as our article on the latter says it's a threatened species.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where I live the wooden broom handles are all bamboo. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, since bamboo is a grass and not a tree, that would make them not wood at all. --Jayron32 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wood is a material, not a clade; bamboos are unusual among grasses in that they have woody tissue. And "tree" is a shape, not a clade -- unless you want to claim that palm trees are not trees at all, since they're more closely related to grasses than to apples, lemons, or pines. The tree shape has evolved separately in several different branches (ha ha) of the plant kingdom. --FOo (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the UK some good quality broom handles are made of ash. In Spain many of the household brooms have handles made of a cheap steel alloy covered in a film of plastic. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In England, broom handles were traditionally made of coppiced wood. In a coppice, trees are cut back to the ground on a regular cycle, say every 10 years. That yields long straight poles, good for handles, fence poles, chair legs and many other purposes, as well as for charcoal and firewood. Ash is one of the most common and most useful coppiced timbers ("ash, for nothing ill" = good for all purposes). Chestnut, beech, hazel, oak, lime are other woods that might be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:In my house the Broom Handles we use are of 2 bountiful types of wood, Plastic and Metal... Gazhiley (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on professional users of low altitude brooms, where such matters may have been discussed by frequent flyers of the pointy hat squad. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

2 Misc. Questions, on general biology

Alright, so originally I had 4 questions here, but now I totally forget 2 of them, so I'll ask those that I do remember. For one, what is that "trench" below your nose? Between the nostrils, and leading down to your lips. I'm curious as to its function as well. Two, I'm looking for a specific type of flower, but I don't know the name of it. It looks like Jasmine and has a sweet smell. The flower is white, with five petals, it forms bushes approximately 1 foot tall, and grows in temperate/mediterranean areas (I live and it grows near San Francisco, California). Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.239.99 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The trench is called the philtrum; see that article for details. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If they're on general biology, you might have more luck on the Science reference desk. Intelligentsium^review 02:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your other question, five petals implies it is probably dicotyledous. Beyond that, good luck. Intelligentsium^review 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

October 8

Website with free online games

I know there are thousands of these websites and this is a long shot, but maybe someone will recognize it. I'm looking for a particular Flash website with a bunch of free online games. On the homepage there was a grid showing all the games (at least 20). They were all cutesy-type games rendered in pastel colours, simple games mostly involving catching things and whatnot. One particular game had little yellow chicks falling from the sky and you had to break their fall with an umbrella. It's been a few years since I accessed it so maybe it's gone offline, but if anyone recognises it I'd be very grateful. Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but if it's been a few years, your biggest issue is that the interface is likely to have changed radically, so describing what it looks like may not help. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what website you are talking about, but it has been a long time for me as well. Unfortunately, I have this annoying event called class, so I have to go. I will rack my brain trying to remember the name. The Reader who Writes (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Orisinal Taggart.BBS (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

HUCLEBERRY BUSHES - CARE AND MAINT.

I live in Michigan and recently planted 5 huckleberry bushes purchased through an on-line retailer. They appear to be doing well but I'm concerned about the harsh MI winter.

I know that wild bushes survive the winters quite well, but I wonder if I should cover these bushes before the snow hits.

I'd appreciate any insight.D2ROP (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Huckleberries are pretty hardy plants, they are natural to northern peaty/acidic soils and are developed to withstand hard winters. In addition snow is a fairly good temperature insulator and will serve to protect your bushes in extreme cold. More info here - [14] Richard Avery (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Simpson's reference to Brazilian time travelers

In a Halloween episode of the Simpsons a few years ago, Homer says "I am the first non-Brazilian to travel backwards through time". What is this a reference to? Thanks in advance.--173.68.15.233 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The line is mentioned in Treehouse of Horror V, but it's not really explained. --LarryMac | Talk 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some other sources on the web (like this one) say it's a reference to Carlos Castaneda. --LarryMac | Talk 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. So, to sum up the state of knowledge (I know, kind of grandiose for a Simpsons' episode), the answer is that it is possibly a reference to Carlos Castaneda, but may simply be a non-sequitur, and that it was a change to Matt Groening's original, differently-written dialogue, and the only way to truly find out is to track down who made the change to the script and ask them. --173.68.15.233 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of me would say that's a fair summary of what I found. --LarryMac | Talk 18:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The audio commentary on the DVD explains it...but I can't remember what it said and I don't have the DVD here, sorry --77.166.169.185 (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising scandal allowed by Google?

I highly suspect this, kevinmoneyblogs, is an advertising scandal. How can Google let them get away with using their name? Wouldn't that be misrepresentation or copyright infringement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HitmanNumber86 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Even Google doesn't have the resources to police the thousands - maybe millions - of people who start internet scams with their name on it. In the meantime, you've given this guy extra publicity. Is that what you wanted? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed the link. If you are really curious put .com on the end, just puting a hot link like that in here is just free advertising for the scammer preying on unsuspecting wikipedians. Vespine (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Testing the quality of silver cutlery sold on a market stall

Are there any uncomplicated and quick ways of testing the quality of silver cutlery, assuming that is that it is actually silver (and I'm not even expecting it to be sterling silver), sold on a market stall? As I'm in Morocco I'm not expecting to see hallmarks as I would in the UK. I've read the Silver#Jewellery_and_silverware and silverware articles already but they didn't really answer my question. Oh and yes I know that I need to haggle down big time. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be just silver plate, and that does not really add a huge value to the item. For Stirling silver it should have a higher density and feel heavy. Usually I can tell silver by the tarnish, or the extreme shininess, as silver is the second brightest metal, after rhodium. If it is rhodium plate, don't feel cheated, this is even more valuable. Stainless steel, German silver (nickel copper alloy) and nickel plate are more grey looking. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama Citizenship

Let's say the Obama actually was born in Kenya (or somewhere else not in the US). What does that matter for his eligibility for the presidency? Obviously it would be extremely embarrassing politically, but wouldn't he still be a US citizen? The article on US nationality law states that when he was born in 1961, a child was a citizen by birth if: "One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born; The citizen parent lived at least 10 years in the United States before his or her child's birth; A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday." Surely there's no disagreement that his mother fails to meet those standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.180.134 (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The US Constitution (in Article 2) requires that the President be born in America. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

People not born in US territory, whether they're citizens at birth or not, are not eligible to be president. John McCain was the closest to a trial of this rule yet, as he was born in the Panama canal zone while it was a US territory. If a president already serving were to be revealed to have been born in another country, I doubt they would kick him out of office, unless he also lied about it in which case I guess he could get impeached. This is all hypothetical, since Obama was definitely born in Hawaii, despite what conspiracy nut jobs might postulate. TastyCakes (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your reference for your first sentence. Because this page would seem to disagree. --LarryMac | Talk 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For anyone reading this in the future, LarryMac's statement "please cite your reference" is the polite form of "this is complete bollocks". The requirement is clear to be a "natural born citizen", which can be the case for someone born outside the US. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well this article makes it seem to me that the situation is not as clean cut in legal minds as you make out. Many seem to think that what the writers of the constitution meant by "natural born" quite possibly meant being born inside the US. TastyCakes (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a "birther" drive-by. He's been sent to the right article. It should be ignored otherwise. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't - it requires that they be a Natural born citizen of the United States. This can be acquired either by birth within the United States, or, explicitly since 1790, birth outside the United States to American citizens --Saalstin (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well McCain's section at Natural born citizen of the United States would seem to disagree with that. I guess the argument centres now on what "natural born citizen" precisely means. TastyCakes (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

These stuff has been debated endlessly on the Obama pages. There is no need to spread it to here also. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is disagreement over what "natural born citizen" precisely means. We can't resolve that disagreement; only the United States Supreme Court can. There is no reasonable disagreement that Obama conforms to the most stringent definition of the phrase. Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't see the need to get touchy about it. It's an interesting subject, an apparent gray area in the US constitution, and the subject of a ref desk question that, while probably politically motivated, is nevertheless valid and interesting, IMO. TastyCakes (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest, this is only truly interesting when talking about Schwarzenegger in 2010. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, in my neck of the woods, Jennifer Granholm and our insidious plot to insert ourselves into positions of foreign power. TastyCakes (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why Abe Beame could claim more convincingly than others that he wouldn't be trying to use the Mayoralty or Governorship of New York as a steppingstone to the White House. Also, as a complete irrelevancy, why Bob Hope could never have been President. "Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner..."—— Shakescene (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The doofi constantly come up with completely whacked-out (mis)interpretations of the obvious meanings of things. "Natural-born" clearly means that the person was a US citizen from birth. Obama makes it, McCain makes it, and Barry Goldwater - born in the Arizona Territory (yes, there was some nonsense about that) - also made it.

Wait 'til some candidate shows up who was born via Caeserian Section, and the jerks start to claim ...

B00P (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As odd as it sounds, there are some people who want Orly Taitz for President. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So much for their fevered rantings about Obama. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

literature

what really is materialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomsi (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read our article on materialism yet? Our sister project Wiktionary lists two distinct definitions of the word at wikt:materialism, so we won't be able to help you unless you provide more information as to what you are looking for. Please note that we won't do your homework for you if this is such a question. Xenon54 / talk / 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

 – In the future, questions like this are better if sent to the Help Desk

At List of wars 1945-1989, I reformatted the 1960-1969 section. For some reason, Tuareg Rebellion (1961-1964) won't activate. It was a real war and there's an article about it. I didn't make a mistake. What's going on? B-Machine (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. False alarm. It's okay. For some reason, it's now activated. B-Machine (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem was that you linked Tuareg Rebellion of Mali, which doesn't have an article. Since there were multiple Tuareg rebellions, they are named by date. The correct one is called Tuareg Rebellion (1961–1964). I fixed the link for you, so it now looks like Tuareg Rebellion of Mali. PS - Too fast to respond! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

October 9

coffee-making scheme

Is the following a reasonably conventional or sane way to make 1 cup of coffee?

1. stir coffee grounds directly into a cup of hot water;
2. strain out the grounds by pouring resulting mix into a second cup, through a paper cone filter / funnel. Then rinse out the first cup.

The result is supposed to be like using a plunger (french press) without needing the fancy equipment or resulting messy clean-up, and also to get the grounds out more completely than plungers usually do.

Right now I just use the cone filter, but it's a pain to get consistent results by pouring water through it manually. I'd rather not mess with fancy equipment including either plungers or automatic drip pots. I haven't tried the above method yet. I thought I would first ask if it has obvious drawbacks that I'm missing. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)