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 12

Business management

Business management.... can u tell me d advantages n disadvantages of control which is one of d managerial function? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.205.203 (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not look it up for yourself?86.209.30.56 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question. Wikipedians will not do your homework for you. After trying to decipher your chatspeak, I think your question is too vague to get a coherent answer anyway. Xenon54 / talk / 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Try Fayol for a start. 92.24.128.70 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See the article Management which links to other management-related articles. Control is only one of the activities of a manager. Others are planning, organizing, staffing, leading and directing an organization or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mummy

How can I buy Egyptian mummy for personal collection? --Hok1234 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (who oversees all archaeological finds) is selling any to average people. Xenon54 / talk / 16:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be a long and difficult process. I would imagine the first step would be to start a museum and get it internationally renowned. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

However, a surprisingly large number of them were removed from the Egypt in previous centuries. Many of these were destroyed for various stupid reasons, but some of them wound up in the hands of private collectors. Some of those may still be extant. Perhaps you could track one down and purchase it.

This would require a lot of detective work, and who knows about the legality of it. APL (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are UNESCO regulations that govern the sale of antiquities... you would definitely want to get a lawyer who knew about this sort of thing. It's likely not possible. There are a lot of national and international regulations regarding the sale of things like mummies. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sadigh Gallery regularly has bits of mummy wrap, masks, etc. available for sale. You can get a mummified falcon for $9,000, for example. I've purchased other kinds of items from them; each item comes with a certificate of authenticity. While we think of mummies as being priceless heirlooms from the past, until recently it was no big deal to sell them by the ton - for example, as a source of mummy paper or fuel. Matt Deres (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

T.V.

Why is it that the more channels you have to choose from on your tv, the less there is on, is this not some sort of paradox.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is only a limited amount of good TV available. If it is diluted across countless channels then it appears as if there is nothing worth watching. The more channels there are available to buy TV programmes the easier it is for production companies to make and sell crap. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Bruce Springsteen song 57 Channels, which pretty much covers this exact topic. It was also cool in that it featured Bruce playing lead bass instead of guitar. Fun song. --Jayron32 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in the 60s sometime, when the only way to get TV was via antenna, one of the Peanuts characters said to another, something like, "Now that our reception is good, the programs aren't." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Teevees of that era had "brightness" controls. They didn't work. PhGustaf (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure they did. Well, they turned, anyway. As opposed to being glued in place. But I do recall having to fiddle with several knobs to try to get the RGB in balance. Color sets kind of do that for you nowadays. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because you had NTSC - which stands for "Never Twice Same Color". Those of us who had PAL didn't have that problem. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, he's making a frigging joke about how dumb the shows were. Adjusting the brightness levels didn't make them any less stupid. Why would he hijack a thread regarding show quality to drop in a non sequitur about technical difficulties? Matt Deres (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, before cable all you had were 3 network affiliates, maybe an independent, maybe a public TV station. So if you wanted to watch something, you didn't have much choice, so you stuck with whatever was most appealing out of the five. Then you went on vacation during the summer because it was all reruns. And here's the problem with cable: A number of cable channels seem to have endless reruns. To put it another way, the quantity of original programming that's on 57 channels at one time might not be all that many. And a number of the channels are niche channels with a fairly narrow audience. So while there seem to be 57 channels, the choices for something new and interesting, at any given time, might be considerably less than 57. And thanks to channel surfing, you can practically watch all 57 shows at once. Entertainment overload. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that when there ARE new shows, all of the channels feel the need to compete for audience share - so many of the new shows are scheduled at the exact same time. You'd really hope that DVR's would go some way to preventing that practice...but these companies are slow to change their ways, and the "official" ratings systems (which are racing to catch up with modern viewing techniques) aren't helping that! People like me who "collect" an entire series of shows on DVR before starting to watch any of them must really screw up their methods! SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think TV is getting better. In the olden days you had three channels of shallow crap. Now you get about fifty channels, by shear chance some of them produce good shows from time to time. For instance, quality Sci-fi like the new Battlestar Galactica, and Firefly would never have happened in the 3-network era. APL (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The more sure you are than at least one of these goshdarn channels has something good on, the less charitable you will be to whatever it is you are watching or thinking about watching. That said I remember the dreadful days of 1993 when we only had 26 channels. When Matlock is your best bet for entertainment, you know you have failed God and yourself. Vranak (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to flat-screen TV's and DVD's, you can watch whatever's available, on a big screen, and nearly commercial-free. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

26? 26?! Until 1997, we had four. And we were glad of it. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am from the colonies. When I return to the old country and see what is on those five channels, I find that your programming is far preferable. Even the adverts are amusing and intelligent. Vranak (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What states have the McDonald's Monopoly million dollar winners been in?

In other words, what states have the Boardwalk tickets been found in? I'm just wondering if they change fairly randomly or if the winners come from the same state or from a small group of states every year. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No clue, but I want to point out that a "random" distribution would not necessarily mean that winnings would be distributed equally across U.S. states—it would have to do with the number of McDonald's in each state, presumably, which likely varies by state (Montana should not have nearly as many as California, for example). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has, of course, an article on this promotion, McDonald's Monopoly, which also discusses the 2001 fraud. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like North Carolina was a hotbed for McDonald's "winners" in the late 90's-early 2000's because of the fraud Comet Tuttle was talking about. This FBI investigator's report http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/finaffar.pdf is a more entertaining read than any TV crime drama! 71.161.59.133 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

the mysterious British House of Commons

(Not House of Kafka, oh no.) I am most interested in the Guardian story "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament", but it's impossibly evasive and uninformative. One part:

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found. / The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

Does anyone here know what it's about? -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The Order of Business for Monday is published here. Although on further digging, I guess the information might in fact be in Questions for Oral or Written Answer beginning on Monday 12 October 2009. But that's a huge list of questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oral question 13 for the 12th reads in full: Mr Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): In how many primary schools in Chelmsford there were. That's somewhat cryptic: "there were children withdrawn for 'extraordinary rendition'", perhaps? I can't immediately see anything else of interest for yesterday. If I were in Britain, I'd pop out to buy a copy of the Eye. Thank you for the longer list; I'll peruse it from now. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) .... PS 2344 questions? Um, not all by myself. If we can muster a dozen interested volunteers, perhaps we can divide and conquer. (The last question -- so far -- partly involves "Huntingdonshire", which I'd naively believed had disappeared thirty or forty years ago. I doubt that I'm qualified to look through even one twelfth of a set of questions about this inscrutable nation.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The last issue of Private Eye indicated that Mr Justice Eady had gagged the press with relation to a potential libel, to the extent that even reporting on the case would be a breach of the gagging order. It also added that an MP had made it clear that he would use parliamentary privilege to raise the matter when the Commons reconvened. That is likely to be what the Guardian is referring to, although it is unable to say any more due to the gagging order. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't happen to say which MP? That would make a search more easy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here we go. Questions for Written Answer - Notices given between Thursday 17 September and Friday 9 October. Questions 60 to 63 seem apropos, and the matter is already covered in our article, here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Grauniad has also published The Trafigura files and how to read them --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is most interesting. Thank you for the information, Tagishsimon and Malcolm IV. I'd already been vaguely aware of the Trafigura affair, and also of the surprisingly wide scope of British libel law. (For the latter, I warmly recommend this paper: don't let the word "linguistics" in the title scare you: I read it and -- with mounting disbelief -- understood it before I'd ever studied any linguistics.) I shall resist a mighty urge to make a tart comment on this (it might be deleted as inappropriate speechifying), and instead simply raise a glass to Paul Farrelly. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Guardian claims victory on 'gag'. See also Streisand effect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In New Zealand, if Parliament is filmed ( we have only one House - that's enough as it is ), they are not to be filmed if they are doing something stupid, which is pretty much most of the time. But nowhere to my knowledge is a paper banned from reporting the whole business of the House. Let them be accountable, State Secrets aside. It seems politicians want to have it all their own way, and show an arrogance they may not have had otherwise. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to read through what's been going on, 202.36, you'll see this issue arose out of the application of libel law by UK courts, rather than having anything to do with mendacious politicians. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, libel laws in the UK are a sticky wicket indeed, but most everything that transpires in the H of C eventually comes out in the Hansard--Myersdtm (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stockdale v Hansard is probably relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 13

Question (NSFW?)

Do you know where is an article about a woman's moaning while having sex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.5.206.236 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd've thought this [1] would cover it, but no. In fact, they make the subject rather bland. My next stop was the Human voice article, which you could follow and see where it takes you. Ironically, the illustration of the vocal cords in that article could probably be added to the initial one I pointed you to, and it might fool some viewers. A better place to start might be Masters and Johnson. They did actual scientific study about human sexuality, and it's possible they get into the vocalizations angle. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alex Comfort in "The Joy of Sex" calls it "birdsong at morning". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What if it's afternoon delight? Fittingly, there's a section farther down, about skyrockets in flight. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Professor Speculum gave this address to the International Sexology Congress. 'Delegates, I have recordings that prove my theory that there are 3 kinds of female orgasm, namely the negative, positive and neutral. Firstly I play the negative (click) "On no! no! n-oooh!!". Now I play the positive: (click)"Oh yes, more, more, just like that, y-e-s oooh!". Finally here is the neutral: "Baseball it will take 9 months so why the hurry?"' ' Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I know of three kinds: Positive (Oh yes, yes), Religious (Oh God, oh God), and Fake (Oh Cuddlyable3). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Amor wins. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're all forgetting the inimitable "It's your turn to sleep on the wet patch". SteveBaker (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry - I forgot to be macho..."...those four wet patches". SteveBaker (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And the LORD sayeth, "Maketh it so good, that they will cryeth out My Name!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For a scholarly example of the OP's phenomenon, scan the film Porky's for the "Lassie" sequence. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Falling sensation while closing eyes by standing on one leg

Sir, If I stand on one leg and close the eyes, I cannot stand for more time than I stand while my eyes are open. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryamadduri (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably because you lose your sense of sight, which is important to balance. Equilibrioception#In_humans mentions this explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP seems to report two perceptions: the loss of balance noted above, and the sensation of falling in the title, that may be symptomatic of Acrophobia. Wikipedia does not have much content on balance in Acrobatics. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Giants Stadium

Giants Stadium in New Jersey is to be demolished and a new stadium, Meadowlands, will be built in its place. However, neither of these articles say why this is happening. What's so wrong with Giants Stadium in the first place? And if it has to be improved, why couldn't the existing structure just be upgraded, like Wembley Stadium in London was, rather than building a whole new stadium from scratch? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea about the Giants Stadium, but just to note that Wembley Stadium was not just upgraded - the original 1923 Wembley Stadium was demolished in 2003 and a completely new stadium with the same name was built on the same site over the next 4 years. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I've taken the liberty of removing the small tags, since I think your post is pertinent to the discussion. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New stadiums get built to replace structurally sound previous stadiums because there's money to be generated by construction projects. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, in most cases the new stadium comes at such a deep discount to the sports teams that it is essentially free. The local governments (state, county, and municipality) front HUGE sums of money to build these stadiums, basically because NOT having a major sports franchise means that your city is "second class", and that perception tends to, more than anything, drive the desire to keep and maintain huge new stadiums every 20-30 years. So there are two reasons why they are built:

1. Team owners want new stadiums with luxury boxes, which for their square footage, generate MUCH more income than good old seats do. Plus, the NFL revenue sharing agreement only covers standard seating, exempting luxury boxes. Thus, if an owner hypothetically built a luxury-box only stadium, they could keep 100% of their ticket revenue.
2. Cities want to keep their sports teams at all costs, and so are willing to bend over backwards to give the owners what they want, because there is another city willing to build that stadium anyways. --Jayron32 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope they find Jimmy Hoffa's body when they dig up the old stadium. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They need to check the "coffin corner". (Hey, that was Sports Illustrated's line, not mine.) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, from what I'm hearing, there doesn't seem to be anything actually wrong with the current stadium, except that it doesn't have enough revenue-raising opportunities. Would that be fair to say? I was actually hoping to hear from someone who knew the stadium and could comment on its general state of (dis)repair – which might, perhaps, be a legitimate reason for getting rid of it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the empirical evidence that large, concrete stadiums can be safe and viable decades and decades (see Fenway Park, Wrigley Stadium, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum) with proper maintence and occasional overhauls, then there really cannot be a claim that Giants Stadium is somehow falling apart after 30 years. It is most certainly due to wanting a better stadium than merely that the old stadium is somehow in disrepair. --Jayron32 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New stadiums get built because someone wants to build them. They do deteriorate over time if not properly cared for. But given that the average lifetime of a stadium nowadays is less than 40 years, that's not really an issue anyway. The closest a major league park ever came to being condemned for legitimate reasons would be incidents at Baker Bowl. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that how you spell Olympic Stadium where you come from? ;) Matt Deres (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Who are the ten most famous people in the world?

Out of all people ever to live, who are the ten most famous people today. I assume that Jesus is number one and Muhammad is probably number 2, but who else? Does someone like Obama make the top 10 overall? Reference to actual data of some kind (e.g., surveys) would of course be most interesting, but I suppose in the absence of that, your justified opinions are of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk does not tend to answer questions of opinion, per the rubric at the top of the page. neither do I think there is any objective or near objective measure for the question you're asking. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly an objective measure, this is an empirical question. Out of the 6.7 billion people currently living, who are the individuals that the most have heard of? This is clearly a question of fact. There is something of what might be termed an epistemological problem; in the absence of very good data, how can we know? But certainly, there is an objectively "right" answer and there is room for informed speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... why is it that so many ref desk regulars answer "we don't answer this" when they just don't know the answer? It's incredibly irritating. This is an entirely answerable question and surveys of this sort are done at national levels all the time. Why assume that nobody has done surveys on name recognition? Why assume that this entirely answerable question is asking for nothing more than "opinion"? --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to define "most famous" and "people" first. --Tango (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of good data, we are left with opinion, which as I say, we do not do. Please take the hint. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure some magazine (Time perhaps?) has made such a list before, although they call it the list of most influential people of the time period. I don't recall if they made one for all of human history, or if it was limited to 20th century or whatever. I will look around to see if I can find that article. Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Time annually publishes a list of the 100 most influential people of the year. It's not really the same thing at all, and sometimes the people on it are in fact quite obscure.

Alright, I'll get the ball rolling then. According to reliable sources, the following people make the list: Barack Obama ("perhaps the most famous man on the planet" according to the New York Times. [2]), according to the Joshua Project [3], just under 4 billion people have heard of Jesus, or roughly 60% of the world population, this would seem to place him on the list. Other sources include [4], the methodology of which is somewhat suspicious. Nonetheless, it places Shakespeare, George Washington, Einstein, Da Vinci, Lincoln, Walt Disney, Elvis, Michael Jackson, Martin Luther King, and Christopher Columbus on top. This, however, seems to be a highly amero-centric list.

"Most famous man on the planet" suggests they are restricting it to men alive today, the OP clearly means to include the dead. --Tango (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the data on this, but I'm sure this data exists and someone with slightly more initiative could fill this out. First, I suggest a good start would be to restrict our group to adults, we'll use it in the "able to understand" sense and not really the legal sense. I'll make an estimate at 13+ for this?

• I assume the size of the population in each country, large religious group, and culture over 13 can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.
• I imagine that probably 80-100% of the people in our population know at least the name of the leader of their country. I imagine it's possible some countries are lower, but not substantially lower. I doubt any country has less then 80% of it's population not even knowing the name (or close to it) of their nation's leader. This gives us a good start I'd guess.
  • We'd have to add in popularity in other countries, some leaders are more known abroad then others, Obama being an example of a well known foreign leader.
• I imagine that probably 90-100% of the people in our population know at least the name of the/a central figure of their religion. Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha/Moses. Eastern cultures in China/India due to their quality of life probably aren't educated as well, but I'd guess that they have extremely basic religious education, at least most of them do, or they wouldn't be put in the count of adherents of that religion. These are some more figures.
  • We'd have to note that Jesus is a well known figure in Muslim cultures (he's a prophet in their religion) so he is probably known by a large portion of muslims.

There is a lot more too this, and I haven't went into other historic figures (Einstein/Colombus/Da Vinchi) and I don't know enough eastern historical figures, which probably are on par with those. But I think this is a list that COULD be estimated with some amount of confidence. The fact that we add Jesus to the list with some confidence, and dismiss Millard Fillmore isn't completly opinionated I believe. Chris M. (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this may be worthless subjective opinion but I will dare a list: 1. Madonna 2. Fergie 3. Paris Hilton 4. The Queen 4. Bono 5. Bill Gates 6. Shakira 7. Sasha Baron Cohen 8. Steven Tyler 9. Oprah 10. Kylie Minogue. Sorry if this offends anyone. Vranak (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "offensive", but it is an entirely worthless and no doubt inaccurate opinion. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr.98, your characterisation of another's post is less than civil. It is unlikely that you can justify calling their opinion inaccurate. Vranak said the opinion was subjective. It is not worthless because it gives an interesting snapshot of media celebrities at, I estimate, the turn of the last century. You should take care not to be "offensive" yourself. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He's the one that suggested that it was worthless; I agreed. As for accuracy, that's another question, but Sasha Baron Cohen is probably not even widely known in the Western world, much less the rest of the world. The rest of the list suffers from such problems. I think we're allowed to comment on how useful others' answers are. Giving a random list of entertainers is not helpful. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr.98 thank you for explaining. I have strikken my last comment that I now feel was unnecessary. I don't think Vranak's list is random; it is ordered and not only entertainers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Sasha Baron Cohen is rather well known among the 15-35 year old age bracket. For more mature people I'm sure he's a bit of an obscure lunatic if the name rings any bell at all. Vranak (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A measure of the notability, or even fame, of Sacha Baron Cohen is that he rates four - 4 - Wikipedia articles including those devoted to Sacha's character creations Ali G, Borat and Bruno. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Benny. Here[5] is a pretty good version of his story. PhGustaf (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If the dead are included in such a list, Michael Jackson has to be in there somewhere. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's a top ten list, as suggested by the original poster, I'd be doubtful about Michael. Obviously he's well known in the West, but how deep does he fan base really run in the East? I suspect the top ten list would be heavily populated by names that are well-known in both the English speaking world and in China/India given their collective 2.5B people. So Ghandi, Mao Zedong, Confucius, Buddha for examples. Obviously Michael is famous, just not so sure he is top-ten famous. Dragons flight (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, a sorted list of the top 166. Bill Hicks is #164, so that's your grain of salt to take this list with. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably the most famous person is Australopithecus. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we accept proto-humans (and a long way proto at that) as people, I doubt many people have even heard of the genus and certainly not any individual members (Lucy is the only one I've heard of and I'm reasonably well read on the subject). --Tango (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's NOT a "sorted list of the top 166". If you actually look at the voting page, it asks people to rank the pre-existing list. The source of the list is not given (I suspect the source is the website owner made it up). I doubt more people worldwide, or even in the United States, have heard of Marilyn Vos Savant and Charles Everett Koop than have heard of, say, Adolf Hitler or Jesus. FiggyBee (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on some of the above: Providing a link to a published survey is one thing; editors providing their own personal, subjective opinions is quite another, and contrary to the rules of the ref desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be too prescriptive. No one wants to see the Reference Desks degrade into a mere forum, but I don't think it should be as narrowly focused as Google Answers was either. The activity level of the RDs right now is more than manageable. And of course, in the interest of prescriptivism this comment should be on the talk page :) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

However, it says, right there at the top of the page, The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions... Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Then the proper response could be to delete the request. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep the meta-debate on the 'discussion' page. Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia "famous people" links to an article with an appropriate talk page about improvement. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For a subjective, but well known list of the 100 most influential people, please see our article about Michael H. Hart's book "The 100". The top ten there, are

1. Muhammad
2. Isaac Newton
3. Jesus Christ
4. Buddha
5. Confucius
6. St. Paul
7. Ts'ai Lun
8. Johann Gutenberg
9. Christopher Columbus
10. Albert Einstein.

--NorwegianBlue ^talk 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken car, get rid of it without a loss

So I have a car I paid $1.5k for about a year ago.

Yesterday I was driving home in Charlotte, NC and the brakes failed. I had missed my insepection date so I figured I might as well pull in somewhere and have them take care of everything.

An hour later I have a $1k bill just to pass inspection, and an additional 4-5 hundred for the rest (including the brakes, which hadn't technically failed me on my inspection because they haven't fully failed... yet.)

I left the car in their parking lot but there is no way I'm paying that much, or even close to that much for this car. It's a 1998 Ford Countour.

I was wondering what the process would be to basically have it taken off my hands, and if there is any way I could do that so I can be free and clear and not have to pay anything at all (even towing expenses). Is this possible? What would you recommend? Thanks! Chris M. (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Got a friend with a tow-rope? Tow the vehicle to a scrap-yard and they'll (usually) pay you some money for it. Alternatively call up a scrap-yard explain what you have and where it is, find out how much they'll give you for it and how much they'll charge to collect and if you're happy that's that. If you have the time put the car on e-bay (listing the issues honestly) and see if you can't find someone who wants to use it as a shell to nick the best bits from (I know people who've done this a few times as it can be cheaper than getting a number of spare parts from a scrappers). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It will cost more to get back on the road than it will be worth when it is there, so its only value is as scrap. Look through the local phone book and find a scrap yard - they may well collect for free in exchange for the car, or possibly pay you for it (I don't know what scrap value cars typically have). --Tango (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it looks like I might get a little over 100 for it (craigs list), how bout that. Thanks for the advice, if this falls through I'll look into your alternatives. Chris M. (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about values, but wouldn't hundreds of pounds of good metal be worth substantially more than $100? --Falconus^{p t c} 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps - but only after you've gotten rid of the nasty fluids safely, stripped out the plastics, cloth, ceramics, then separated the metals out into aluminium, steel, copper, etc. The cost of doing all that is enough to wipe out most of the value the metal has. SteveBaker (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is to donate it to some charity in the area - they'll generally pick them up, take care of the paperwork and let you write it off as a donation for a tax rebate. If all you're going to get is $100 - that would probably be the best option, because they'll happily claim it was worth lots more than $100 for the purposes of your tax rebate. I know (for example) that our local NPR radio station does that. SteveBaker (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is probably the way to go. In my area, the name of the charity is Good News Garage (didn't think there would be an article...). They work on the car, get it in good shape, and then give it to a needy family. Dismas|^(talk) 00:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no source for this claim, but I heard that the IRS in the US is now more focused on this as an area of tax fraud; a person with a car worth $100 donates that car to a local charity, where the mechanic grins and gives the person a receipt for a $1000 donation. The person writes off $1000, and the IRS gets angry. Formerly they would not usually find out; these days, I have heard, they are more likely to apply scrutiny to the car-gift writeoff. Tempshill (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd heard that too - but it's hard to police because by the time the IRS come to investigate, the actual car is long gone. The person donating the car can reasonably claim that they have no idea what the value of the vehicle was. The charity accepting the donation are the ones taking the responsibility - but they can probably cite the green-book value of the car which is written on the assumption that the car at least runs and is in a saleable condition - which the wreck that was hauled away probably was not. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would a charity want to do that with a car that is worth less than it would cost to repair? They could just spend the money buying an already working similar car. --Tango (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of them have volunteer/amateur mechanics who give their time to fix up the cars for the cost of parts alone - others give them to high-schools who run car repair classes for students - others go to scrap, which still nets the charity some money - yet others are genuinely working cars that just look a bit scruffy and maybe have expensive-to-fix but non-critical problems like non-working A/C or broken electric windows and such. It's amazing how many people will throw away a car when the effort required to fix it is minimal to someone with the right tools and expertise. Once the value of a car gets low enough, a lot of people would rather give it to a charity than have to go to the hassle of selling a really crappy car. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not provided as legal advice, only as recent experience. I had a car I was considering junking, and asked several seemingly informed persons about the charitable donation route. I was told that all I could claim was what the charity sold it for. So no $1000 deduction for a $100 car. The car was fine except for the one major mechanical problem, so I paid close to the resale value of the car (were it in good condition) to have the repair made, rather than dishing out major money for a new car, or buying a used car with someone else's hidden problems. Edison (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rockets in Physics

Is anyone else's class building rockets for Physics?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember, please, this is the reference desk, not a chatroom. If you have a question about rockets, ask it on the Science desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Building water rockets is quite a common school physics project, is that what you're doing? If so, you may find that article useful. --Tango (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we are make regular rockets with real engines.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You must go to a rich school, or at least one that isn't worried about safety. The school system in my area let us use all sorts of heavy machinery in shop class, but we still were only allowed to build water rockets come springtime. I don't think rockets are built for physics, though. I can't imagine any public school being able to both afford the amount of rockets that would be required, and take the risk of injury or property damage. Xenon54 / talk / 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Even average, middle-class public schools can afford to do Model rocketry. Model rocket engines are for sale all over the place; this website is selling individual engines for $3.50 and full kits to build 12 rockets for $42.00. Schools can probably order bulk supplies for much cheaper from educational supply companies. --Jayron32 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unless the OP is at university, it seems unlikely that they would be building real rockets. I can imagine a university physics or engineering project to build a sounding rocket. --Tango (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that unlikely at all. Model rocketry can be a hobby for virtually all ages. The engines are store-bought and removable.

The launch-pads are store-bought and come with an electrical launch controller on the end of a long wire. (They often require a key that a teacher could hang onto until seconds before launch.)

Really, it's a perfectly safe hobby. It's entirely reasonable that a single adult could supervise an class of middle-school model rocket enthusiasts. APL (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We got to make and launch model rockets with the real solid fuel engines when I was in Middle School. We even put a rocket engine into one of those CO2 cars and launched it. It goes a lot faster when running on solid rocket fuel. Googlemeister (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1969 Ford Ranchero

Are the doors on a 1969 Ford Ranchero the same doors on a 1969 Ford Torino? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcstman (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the Ford Ranchero would seem to indicate some common design features between the Ranchero, the Torino, and the Fairlane in the 1968-1969 model years, but I don't know how interchangable parts from the three models are. If you look around online, you may find a "Ranchero Owner's Club" or something with a forum where you can ask and have a better shot of getting an answer. --Jayron32 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

October 14

Protecting a book

Many a time at school, I find myself with some time on my hands (anywhere from 5 to 50 minutes) in which I have absolutely nothing to do. Except...read! I'm enjoying some books from the school's library, and I take good care of them and whatnot. However, I have at least a dozen books of my own collection that I haven't read yet, and free reading at school would be a great way to work through them. There's just one problem; I'm the type of person who meticulously cares for his belongings. I always promptly return discs to their cases, I handle any sort of delicate electronic equipment with measured care...I don't even open my books much farther than 100 degrees, to prevent the spines from cracking. Yes, it is a bit ridiculous. ^_^

However, it would be a nightmarish...nay, impossible task to attempt taking one of my books to school without protection and preventing all sorts of damage. Even a minor scuff to the cover would be inexcusable to me. What would be a viable method of protecting a book to this extent? The only thing I can think of would be a small cardboard box, but I'd probably look silly carrying that around all the time, right? Perhaps I could stow it in my bookbag, but what if the weight of my textbooks crushed it? What to do, what to do?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 01:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If your books are hardcover, you may consider stretchable book covers. That would minimize scuffing. Falconus^{p t c} 01:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as meticulous as you but I generally throw my softcover books into a gallon size Ziploc bag and then toss that into my bookbag. Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

...I know the answer you want isn't, "stop being so OCD," but seriously, books are meant to be read, and that means cracking the cover a bit, and that's OK, because it means you are actually using them. When I was very young, I used to avoid eating candies that were terribly pretty because it felt like it would destroy their aesthetics. Then one day I found that maggots had gotten a lot of them. After that I resolved to just use things as I saw fit—not trash them, mind you, but understand what they are for—and get the most out of them. A book is meant to be read. Unless you're talking about treasured, collectible keepsakes (which you shouldn't bring to school)... just read 'em! A weathered book is a good friend. They will last longer than you expect. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit of samurai wisdom from Hagakure: After reading books and the like, it is best to burn them or throw them away. Vranak (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to burn them before I read them. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in the olden days, before manufactured book covers existed (because 1950s parents wouldn't pay real money for them anyway), we made our own. Short of bending galvanized metal around your books, there was nothing that beat a book cover made from a plain old brown paper grocery bag -- especially if you could reinforce the corners with duct tape!

Paper grocery bags aren't as heavy today, so perhaps you could use two layers of brown bag. Alternatively, try to acquire a couple of manila file folders, and repurpose them to this task. Or, do you have a dog? Carefully cut open a dog food bag, flatten it, and use that multi-layer product to make a book cover which might also be mildly water-resistant.

(I guess it should be noted, in case it's not obvious, that this works best for hardcover books, not paperbacks.)

Good luck -- and have fun! -- with your project. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Book stores used to sell book covers that you could wrap around the hard covers of books. There were even flexible vinyl covers to help protect paperbacks. The ziplock back (which of course didn't exist in my youth) is an excellent idea. Truth to tell, though, taking a special book to a public place...? Ask yourself if you could live without it, i.e. what you would do if it got stolen. Here's an idea: Keep a "good" copy stashed at home, and a "reading" copy with you, maybe a paperback version. Over time, you may discover you have more affection for the reading copy. However, if it gets stolen, you've got that other one. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect book covers with adhesive transparent foil (vinyl is better than ordinary sticky tape that in time turns brown). Your protected covers will be durable, can be cleaned with a damp sponge and keep their second-hand value. Alternatively consider taking off the dust covers (jackets) from hardcover books and keeping them in a safe place since they are relatively fragile. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Plastic covers are very common on library and school books. You could ask your school librarian where they get theirs or try your local office supplies superstore. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As for transporting them, I suggest investing in a hard-surface briefcase. Some are made of rigid plastic or other synthetic material, and I've even seen attorneys using metal (aluminum) briefcases. — Michael J 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm like you about my books :) I used to take books to school in a hard plastic pencil box, like a Spacemaker. This has the advantage of people thinking it's just a pencil box and not knowing you're actually being neurotic about the pristine condition of your books. Saves some ridicule :) (I know all about that firsthand.) Larger books probably won't fit, but my paperback copy of Lord of the Rings fit perfectly, so I was a happy kid. It prevents not only scuffs, but bent pages, spilled liquids, getting trompled by other things in your backpack, and all manner of other damage that bags and covers might not. And they can be obtained for about $3 at your local school supplies store. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go to the extreme level of protecting paperback books, libraries use services such as Demco to do this. It's basically a plastic adhesive film that goes over the book. You buy a kit that comes with the film and some stuff to trim it to size. There is probably a more consumer oriented company around if you want to go this route, but it is more than you need if you don't plan on circulating your personal books. When ordering books in bulk (for a library), this type of covering is an option for something around $2 per book. You can also buy cloth book covers made for various sizes of books, though this probably isn't the cheapest option compared to using a book sized container. That said, I'm in the "abuse your books" camp. No point in having them if you spend more time keeping them in perfect condition than you do reading them! 206.131.39.6 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

53-foot semi-trailers

In the U.S. of A., a couple of decades ago (maybe even post-1973 oil embargo), there was a wide-sweeping "reform" of interstate trucking regulations. I recall two features of the law, which affected the maximum size of semi-trailers: one for width, the other for length.

As a result, we have 53-foot trailers on the road today. Alone among semi-trailers, they are required to have their length displayed in large letters within a few feet of the front of the box.

Now, where the heck did 53 feet come from? I've pondered this at length, and my best idea is that it's the maximum length which can make a turn of some radius -- said radius being significant to road designers. But, that's just a wild guess.

Does anyone know the Real Truth of the matter? A good night's sleep depends on a credible answer! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some searching, but in the meantime, another factor is the size of a standard commercial pallet (40" x 48"). Having the internal length to be a number divisible by 48" would be a "good thing". I believe the 53' measurement in the external length; internal would be more like 51' - 52', which is divisible by 48". Matt Deres (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One possible reason for such regulations on the dimensions of vehicles may be the need to ensure compatibility for truck-train combinations in shipping. The term in the US seems to be "intermodal". Clearly, trucks would have to follow certain dimensional standards to optimally fit onto the rolling stock available. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[6] seems to suggest that there's always (since the 1950s at least) been limits on vehicle sizes; the reason the current maximum is 53' is because a maker of 53' trailers actively lobbied to have the maximum size raised to that number. 53' is the maximum size of intermodal containers in the USA, although that's more likely a result of the trailer sizes rather than a cause. FiggyBee (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am dumbstruck or awestruck or whatever, and for two separate reasons:

• That there's no highway engineering behind it, and
• That someone was able to locate the document which proves it.

Hats off to you all! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

different causes with confusing name

It's understood KTWV released quite a few compilation albums. They each were called "Wave-Aid". Portions of the proceeds benefitted AmfAR. But I know there's a different WaveAid. That one was a benefit concert for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake relief efforts. What can be done to clear up this confusion?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that it's too late now; whoever was last should have named their effort something else. Since 99.99% of Earthlings have heard of neither effort, I doubt this is much of a problem, by the way. Whoever was interested in either cause will presumably find out quickly that they're investigating the wrong charity effort. Tempshill (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you meant to say '99.99% of Earthlings outside of Asia' have never heard of either effort.' DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There might be some bias in Tempshill's comment. However, the listed WaveAid says it raised 2 million dollars. That's not really a lot for something supposed to be significant. Live Aid raised like a hundred times that amount just on its first go-around. The Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon for that year raised 60 million dollars. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 08:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

business management

business management,

 can i know d advantages n disadvantages of control which is a managerial function????
      it is not a homework question.... its just for my reference

can u give more information about control which is one of d managerial function —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.205.120 (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See the article Management which links to other management-related articles. Control is only one of the activities of a manager. Others are planning, organizing, staffing, leading and directing an organization or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Accepting that this is not a homework question, it is however the same question as you asked 2 days ago. It is unlikely that you will get different answers this time. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, "just for your reference", the word "the" does not have a d in it. FiggyBee (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also a good idea, for a manager or anyone else, to spell "and" as "and", or "&". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that the OP's IP address resolves to India, where English is commonly spoken, but is not a native language, so maybe some slack could be cut. Just a suggestion.-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That "d" is not a spelling error or other 'non-native speaker mistake', it's IM talk (like "dat" for "that"). No slack necessary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Polo shirt

I've just had a haircut. At my school, students must wear polo shirts in terms 1 and 4. I hate wearing polo shirts because they are itchy (even itchier when I've just had a haircut). What's a good way to remove itchiness from polo shirts? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 09:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fabric softener? Also, I'm guessing that the shirts have to be of a certain color or have some other restriction like that. Is there a way to get the required color or whatever in a cotton shirt? Cotton may be less itchy to you than synthetic fibers. Dismas|^(talk) 10:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to try a different laundry detergent - some people are irritated by certain types of detergent (eg. bio vs non-bio). I would expect that to make any shirt itch (and other clothing), but it might still be worth a try. --Tango (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure but try dry cleaning.Adi4094 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dry cleaning a cotton polo shirt is usually not a good idea... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Several washes will do the trick, but age the shirt.86.200.134.121 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the school requires this type of "uniform", perhaps they would have some suggestions about how to fix this problem. If their answer is "tough it out", maybe you should go to a different school. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful BB, as always —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should he have to put up with something uncomfortable? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not answer a question with a reference instead of making flippant comments? Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you constantly trying to keep the ref desks in a box? The questioner is asking how to put up with something. I'm asking why do you have to? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Undershirt? -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're not talking about a school uniform (you don't specify.), you could just get different polo shirts. They're not all made from the same material. APL (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet:The new GOD?

I saw a doomsday documentary on the History channel.It says Internet is equivalent to God.It can make certain predictions. How does this theory work?It was just mentioned not explained.Adi4094 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How should we know? You are the one that watched the documentary. It sounds like a reference to the wisdom of crowds. I think there is more to being a god than precognisance, though... --Tango (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for cats and pirates." --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The internet can also change reality by making certain things true or false. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and if you wanted to extend it further... it tells us how things are ordered, you can make a plea to it and maybe it will respond (and maybe it won't)... and.. yeah. I don't know. It's a little crackpot. If it is a God, it is not a Christian God, it is more like one of the Greek gods, who is occasionally shagging a sheep and all that. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That would explain why it doesn't always respond very quickly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get into the church of the high technological, I recommend reading about the technological singularity, which is a far more far-out concept than saying the Internet is God (which is intellectually rather shallow). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the first two results in this google search and they seem like they might be relevant. If not, you'll have to give us more details. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Television was once similarly described, in that it could reach everyone at once, or at least everyone who was tuned in to it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I've heard it said that God is truth. So insomuch as the internet spreads truth, it could be described in divine terms. Or we could just be a little more plain-spoken and say that the Internet is pretty nifty. Vranak (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Insomuch as the internet spreads truth..." is a bit like saying "Insomuch as Ann Coulter is a liberal...". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is pretty good when it comes to accurate information, I think. If we talk about most anything outside Wiki... you're right. Sports scores, that's spot on. Vranak (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is pretty good when it comes to accurate information", haha! What a comedian! Adam Bishop (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am disturbed by your apparent lack of faith! Well, no... not really. :) Vranak (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see both sides of that question. Mostly, the info in our articles happens to be accurate; it'd be a damn poor show if that were not the case. But WP does not focus on "the truth" per se of a subject. It focuses on what information can be verified from reliable sources. Big difference, but with, hopefully, a big overlap. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To "verify" means to "make true". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not around here; see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor can assert something as being true, thinking we're supposed to take his word for it because he and all his friends "know" it's true (a frequent problem on wikipedia); or he can find a citation and "make it true" under wikipedia standards. Verification is needed for facts that are not universally or substantially obvious. You can say "Barack Obama is male", and demanding a citation for that would be silly. But a statement about his height and weight would require a citation. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

None of which makes it necessarily "true" that he's whatever height we say it is. All that's true is that some reputable sources say he's that height. We accept the word of reputable sources; but reputable sources have been known to be wrong. We allow for that possibility when we make no claim that any of the facts presented in WP are "true"; all we ever claim is that they've been verified. Calling this "true under Wikipedia standards" is a distortion of the meaning of the word "true". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And that argument likewise distorts the meaning of "verify". Here's the deal: "Truth" can be a relative concept. To "make true" in the wikipedia sense means to make the facts "as true as we can", although the "absolute" truth may be uncertain. We do not blindly accept sources if it's obvious that they're wrong, because that would be an insult to our readers. If the only source for Obama's height said he was 4 feet tall, we couldn't use that, regardless of what the source was. And we have to use some editorial judgment when supposedly reliable sources provide conflicting information. An example of the latter was discussed recently in regard to the ballplayer Dave Kingman and comments that an opposing manager, Tommy Lasorda, made about Kingman, back in the 1970s. Some logic and reason had to be applied to provide the "true" answer. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the analogy. No god in human history ever made predictions as far as I know. Among other things, making any kind of predictions would imply they were not in control. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 26:34 is one example that comes to mind immediately: "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm constantly getting yelled at for making "unhelpful" responses. The fact is that Tango's initial response was sarcastic, pointed, and totally fitting. The OP asks us to interpret a TV show that he just watched. How silly is that? There needs to be an approved procedure for simply saying, "Sorry, can't help you. See ya." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok now you challenged me to actually give a thoughtful response.

What I'm getting from the original question is akin to the typical doomsday sci-fi scenario, ala Skynet. When people start putting together a large scale network with some AI capabilities, something interesting happens and we can either get large-scale malice, or as the OP says, we might be able to get some useful predictions. Well, the way computers work is like this: they are very good at doing specifically what you instruct them to. When it comes to extreme high-level functions like predicting the future -- well that's just a non-starter. Computers are very very dumb. If you can make a machine to see into the future, you can already do so yourself. That is my understanding. Vranak (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in Saint Vidicon. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Gods usually evoke worship. Who, pray tell, worships the Internet? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Prayer Verily I bowest before thy shrine of 102 buttons and do invoke thy mysterious spirit by pressing thy holy button, that button not of the 102, even that button of which Saint Gates commanded Thou shall not press a second time for they that seek to End shall pray to Start. Blessed be thy infinite network for its packets bring me comfort and I shall surf in its bandwidth forever. Give us this day our chat, our mail and our porn in abundance, for now we see as through windows dimly the great domain of thy name sung by 32 angels but we rest in faith that soon at the last bugfix of the last glitch there shall be no more workarounds and a vista made mightier seven-fold by a chorus of 128 angels shall be our reward. E-men. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is?http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html..Hotclaws (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Question! Let's ask Multivax. APL (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A late response, but we _do_ have an article on this particular issue - Web Bot. It's supposed to have predicted 9/11, and the end of the world on October 29th 2009 - viz, the Thursday after next. I hope everyone has made appropriate preparations... Tevildo (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

October 25th (next Sunday), my apologies. Tevildo (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Being Released From Prison

When a prisoner is released from prison, do they arrange anything for them like sort of a halfway house or anything? Just curious, I always see that in movies where the gates open, they walk out and then they close... but I wasn't sure how the system really works. Do they arrange anything at all? Because some might not have family and obviously no job or home, especialy in the winter months.74.218.50.226 (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What jurisdiction are you thinking of? Here in the UK the prison will issue a "Get you home" travel warrant plus a Discharge Grant (not very much). If the prisoner is being released early for good behaviour reasons, he/she will have been assessed as being capable of surviving on release, and if not, there will be some form of Social Work intervention, failing which, there may be a half-way house arrangement - but not always. Prisoners MAY NOT be kept incarcerated beyond their ultimate sentence duration in any circumstances. 92.23.90.16 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, prisoners can specify where they would like to be released to (e.g. to stay with a friend or relative or a halfway house). There's then a decision made as to whether that is possible, and whether it will be permitted. Shelter give advice to people in this situation and try to find suitable accommodation for those who need it. Warofdreams talk 15:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are released on parole then I believe your parole officer is responsible for helping you settle into your life as a free person. There will be systems in place to help them do that. --Tango (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For better or worse, many U.S. states and the U.S. Federal government have abolished much of the former parole system in favor of fixed sentences, so I think there are fewer parole officers, at least by that name. (They still have probation officers, who enforce the provisions of a probation sentence.) There's also been a philosophical shift towards deterrence, punishment (retribution) and incapacitation, and away from reform and rehabilitation, as ends of a criminal sentence. But there must be some system governing early release. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are similar to the UK in NZ I believe. For example, in some cases finding a suitable place for you to live is necessary before parole will be granted. Help will be offered to those who can't find one. [7] Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an article: Halfway house -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

PSAT question

What are some of the questions highlighted with a blue box on the answer sheet, while others are not/Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's predictable (i.e. every 5 questions are highlighted in a different colour), then it probably only means something to the people who wrote the test.

If you are referring to highlighting similar to [8] , I believe it is only to assist in page orientation for the student. You can contact PSAT directly at: psathelp@info.collegeboard.org. --Preceding unsigned comment 02:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer

What do I do If I hired a lawyer to do a job and it took so long for them to get it done (not due to a deadline) Just took too long I had to hound them many times. It has caused me severe financial hardship

help09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20jump02 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the first instance, complain to the lawyer themselves. If that doesn't work, you can probably complain to the local bar or similar - where are you? --Tango (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Missouri. Whats complaining going to do Ive done that already manytimes thats the only reason they got anything done.this has stressed me out alot.they are getting it done now(I hope) !!!! Its to late to start over i spent to much time already with them, do I just take this bull sh... and know never to use them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20jump02 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that complaining to the offending party is unlikely to do much good. If you think that the lawyer has violated ethical standards, you could complain to the Missouri Bar association. If you think that he or she has violated any laws, you could hire a different lawyer (after getting references) and press charges against your former lawyer. Other than that, you could always look for forums online where you can describe your experiences with this lawyer to try to warn others that they may risk the same. Marco polo (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The applicable term for "lawyer did not appropriately fulfill his professional obligations to a client" is malpractice, specifically legal malpractice. But note that not all "lawyer didn't do what they were supposed to" situations rise to the level of malpractice. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on the circumstances. For example with a large law firm, they may have a system in place where they will take on complaints. Depending on the circumstances, they may not necessarily take action, but if they get frequent complaints about a certain lawyer this is unlikely to be favourable to said lawyer. Even if it's not a large law firm but is a firm with multiple lawyers involved and if your case isn't very serious, I would expect there's someone higher up in the law firm then your lawyer. Also it's not entirely clear how the existing complaints were handled. If you're just calling the lawyer involved in your cases (or their secretary/paralegal) and asking them to hurry up, while this may be an appropriate way to try and get them to hurry up, it's not necessarily a great way to actually issue a complaint. Note that if you want to take a complaint to someone else, it's usually a very good idea to show you've tried all resonable measures to resolve this directly with the people directly first. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that your opinion of "how long something should take" may not be realistic. When I worked as a paralegal, we often had clients furiously enraged that (for instance) a transfer of land took more than a few hours to register at the land titles office. That was completely out of our hands, though: if the provincial land titles office took nine days to register a transfer, it took nine days. Yet the clients would be calling and calling, complaining and complaining, and refusing to believe that we couldn't somehow make things happen more quickly and blaming us for the delay. (Worse were the new homeowners who thought they could sign the documents on the day they moved in because that was how it was done on American TV: no, the documents have to be registered first, so you'd better sign them ten or fifteen days before the official closing date.) --NellieBly (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it's also how it's done in American real life. We spent an hour or two at the lawyer's office signing the paperwork at closing, then drove directly to our new home and moved in. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur Googlemeister (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Haiti

Okay my fiance' has a child that lives with its mother in Haiti. He is not being well taken care of, what are the child custody laws in Haiti so that i can help get my fiance' his son back and i can adopt him?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.65.191.34 (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. Sorry. Xenon54 / talk / 18:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But we can be a little more helpful. Search on google for 'Haiti custody law' or 'haiti custody lawyers' and follow the links - as noted you'll need to get legal guidance (something we can't provide you) but a bit of searching may find you an avenue 'in' to contacting someone who can provide more info. This result (http://www.hg.org/law-firms/Child-Support-and-Custody/Haiti.html) for instance appears to have a link to a view Haiti based lawyers that will help with child support / custody. ny156uk (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Casino perks

Quite often in movies that involve gambling at casinos (e.g. Rounders and 21) some character will say that they were "comped". I take this to mean that they got a complimentary stay at the casino hotel, dinner at a restaurant, etc. How often does this actually happen and what's the process? Do casino staff just wander around and hand out slips of paper saying that whoever presents the slip to another staff member gets whatever they got comped for? Does this just happen with people who are winning (to maybe entice them to stay longer and thus lose their money back to the casino?) or can you just be wandering through the casino and be 'comped'? Dismas|^(talk) 19:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Accoutring to our article Comps (casino), it seems the more you play, the more "Comps" you get. Fribbler (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have known that we'd have an article on that... Dismas|^(talk) 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You should read this article about government-owned casinos in Canada using so-called perks to lure compulsive gamblers into spending their life savings on blackjack and poker. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The only comps that you can get just by showing up and looking interested are free drinks, in my experience. You really don't have to play much at all to get those -- you just have to be with someone who is playing. Considering it costs them almost nothing to provide the drinks, even with a large percentage of non-spenders getting them, it's not very surprising. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're a high roller, you generally have to ask for a comp (other than drinks of course). They then check out your "action" on their computer (tracked by the player's card you either place in a slot machine or present to a dealer at a table game before you start playing) to see how much you've played to decide if you warrant it. It's no big secret how they determine what you're worth to them. Basically, they calculate your expected loss (not your actual win or loss) and "rebate" you a percentage of that in comps. AFAIK, it doesn't matter if you're winning or losing. I believe that Jean Scott, the "Queen of comps", states that you can get the most comps for the least amount of $$$ by playing video poker (if you learn the right strategy). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone I know got offers in the mail, but I think it involved some king of registration as well as spending big in the casino. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another way that comps work, or worked a decade ago: When you sat down at a game table, you gave your club card to the dealer, who swiped it -- "logged you in", effectively. When you left the table, same procedure. Thus, they build up a history of your visit.

When you check out of the hotel, they look at your history vs your bill, and credit off some portion of it -- up to and including 100%.

One consequence of this program is you're more likely to do all your gambling in the one hotel/casino you're staying in, rather than hop around from one to the next to the next to the next. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It used to be that most casino comping depended on the pit boss noticing you and offering you a comp. Now, most Vegas casinos offer "comp cards" which like credit cards you swipe when you sit down at a slot machine; many table games also have swiping machines; you hand your card to the dealer/croupier, who swipes it for you. The machine then automatically calculates your comp based on the betting level of the machine/game and how long you play it. The card then stores this comp as a "cash value" which can be spent anywhere in the hotel like cash; you could spend it on a room, in a shop, in a restaurant, etc. --Jayron32 02:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC) PS. Looks like DaHorsesMouth just said exactly that. I should prolly read ALL the comments. --Jayron32 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

October 15

Reconciling bills in US government.

I've been following the progress of the health-care bill(s) through the US government - and we're now at the point where (according to NPR) they are attempting to 'merge' or 'reconcile' various bills that have already been passed by one or the other elected branch - plus those voted on by some committees. Do both houses then go and re-vote on the merged bill? I kinda got the impression from the radio report that the merged bill would merely go to presidential signature/veto - and that's that. That doesn't sound right to me - what exactly is the procedure? Who decides how to cherry-pick bits of one bill and bits of the other? SteveBaker (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See Conference committee. And, yes, there is a re-vote, as described in United States congressional conference committee. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Afghanis

In the 20th century many powers have tried to control Afghanistan.The British,Soviets failed.It looks like US is failing.Where do they get so much willpower,knowing that the invaders are much superior? US helped them fight the Soviets,but why the Afghanis wanted to fight them in the first place? Even before US assistance? They fired at Soviet helicopters with WW2 guns.Where does this exceptional courage come from? Is it in their genes? Or are they simply freedom loving people?Are they determined to cause the invaders damage,if only a little?Adi4094 (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you oversimplify things. The British outright lost the first war, but from most perspectives won the second and third under their new assumption that they didn't want to control Afghanistan so much as they wanted to keep it as a buffer between the Russian Empire (later the USSR) and British India. These were not large wars, by any means. The Soviet invasion was repulsed, but only with the support of America, as well as India and many Muslim countries. Does the social make-up of Afghanistan make it an especially difficult place to "conquer"? Probably, the isolated, tribal, traditional culture all lends itself to fighting "outsiders". But I would argue no more so than other places in the world, which didn't fare so well against recent invaders. Indeed, Afghanistan hasn't fared that well if you look back through its history. I would say the biggest difficulties for would be invaders is the remoteness, the extremely difficult terrain and the lack of political will to properly support an invasion (due to the fact that it isn't a particularly useful piece of land). Second to all of that is "innate Afghan courage". I also think it is bordering on inflammatory to suggest the Taliban was a "freedom loving" government. TastyCakes (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason the forces there at the moment are struggling is because they are trying to fight the Taliban while not harming the innocent population. If they were willing to harm the general population they could win in a few days, but it would be a serious moral problem and they would be left with a complete mess - a completely failed and likely depopulated country which would result in lots of people turning to crime in the same way as lots of people from Somalia have turned to piracy causing a big problem for the rest of the world and other people moving there to use if for crime, eg. the growing poppies. The invading forces would be left having to occupy and police the whole country themselves without any cooperation from the local people (people don't usually cooperate with you after you kill large numbers of their friends and families). So, due to the moral and practical problems, it has been decided that the forces should protect the local people, not fight them, which makes it very difficult to defeat the Taliban. --Tango (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In premodern times, empires expanded simply by winning battles and killing or capturing opposing leaders. Ordinary people in conquered regions typically didn't care much who their master was, as long as he didn't greatly increase their burden. Thus what is now Afghanistan formed part of a variety of empires through history. In early modern times, empires were able to expand while greatly increasing the burden on ordinary people (through colonization, taxation, exploitation, etc.), because the imperialists enjoyed overwhelming technological advantages, such as (early) modern firepower, cavalry in regions that lacked it, and transoceanic navigation. Also, early modern imperialists succeeded in coopting local elites with various inducements. Since the 19th century, the calculus has changed with the rise of nationalism and the diffusion of modern weaponry. Short of blasting a place into ruins and committing something close to genocide, as Tango points out, it is exceedingly difficult for an outside power to subdue a country whose inhabitants are motivated by a nationalistic passion to resist external control. Nationalistic passion or something like it is now nearly universal, no less so in Afghanistan. As Tasty Cakes points out, Afghanistan resisted conquest in the early modern period because there wasn't much there to attract imperialists. The British probably could have subdued the country in the 19th century, but the lack of valuable commodities would not have justified the expense. It was enough to get the ruling elite to agree to help deter the Russians. Ruling elites and their people are no longer so amenable to taking the dictates of outsiders. Marco polo (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Milk in a coolbag

Is it possible to keep milk in a coolbag if said coolbag is frequently topped up with those gel coolpack thingies or ice or something? Will this work like a fridge of sorts? Thanks :) 129.67.144.173 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that will work fine. --Tango (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can keep it cool - sure it'll work. Easiest way to tell milk has gone off? A quick smell, a little sip and (if necessary) a quick spit of it into the sink as there's little worse than gone-off milk for unpleasantness of flavour! 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks a lot :) 129.67.144.173 (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

... and if you don't have a coolbag or fridge or access to ice etc, another way to keep milk cool is in a dish of cold water covered with a damp cloth. Dry air and a breeze speeds evaporation of the water, and this cools the milk (because the latent heat of evaporation has to come from somewhere). This method can work surprisingly well in some conditions. Dbfirs 18:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Two warm milk bags have double the charm. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

These cuddly vandalists should follow Wikipedia's rules and avoid vandalism. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

^^^^^ Sense of humour failure me thinks... Gazhiley (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not medical advice but question on why people use anal beads and safety

You would think that given the length of the anal beads pictured in that article, they could go quite far in, possibly get trapped, cause some damage? Kinda sick when you think about it. I can't believe people use these without thinking that it's gonna get trapped in their intestines.--Fillchugg (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Was there something hard to understand in the article you have seen where it says "Those who use anal beads enjoy the pleasurable feeling they receive" ? Do you have a question we can answer? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The rectum is about 12cm long. There is no scale in those pictures, but they don't look that long. --Tango (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The body apparently has little problem expelling things from its nether regions that are unwanted. I would liken the situation to getting food stuck in your throat. It may stay there for hours, even days, but eventually it does spontaneously move out. At least that is my speculation on the matter. I have no personal experience with anal beads, let me just state that up front. Vranak (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all true. The rectum is not suited to expelling anything other than soft stool, and those who use items for anal stimulation that are not intended for that purpose (curtain rings, billiard balls, marbles, vaginal vibrators, strings of pearls) frequently end up having to visit their doctor for an uncomfortable extraction. It's for this reason that sex toys that are designed for the anus have a facility either for easy removal (anal beads always have a lengthy string) or a mechanism to avoid total ingestion (butt-plugs have a wide base, many anal balls or beads have a collar on the distal end of their string). Without these the toy can become trapped, causing total de-facto constipation, which (if left unchecked, as someone might be tempted to do, given the embarrassing fix they've gotten themselves into) can lead to very serious complications. 87.114.150.241 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

87.114 has it. As far as safety is concerned, toys designed for anal pleasure are quite safe when used according to instruction. The risks involved, besides accidental complete insertion, are tearing from using a sharp object, from rough insertion or from lack of lubrication; introduction of bacteria, viruses, etc. from unclean objects; and muscle fatigue from over-stretching. Despite this, when done carefully, anal play isn't inherently unsafe. It is not, however, fun for everyone, and should only be done consensually, of course. If you don't like it - don't do it. Steewi (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As for why one might do it? In men, at least, the enjoyment comes from the combination of stimulation of the nerves around the rectal cavity and the sphincter and more importantly from the stimulation of the prostate, which is a very sensitive body part. Although it is mostly practiced by bisexual and homosexual men, many heterosexual men enjoy anal stimulation. Because they do not necessarily enjoy the stimulation of another man, the stimulation can be created with toys like anal beads. Steewi (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anal beads normally have a ring to allow you to pull them out203.214.104.166 (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Solar panel installation in maui

My question is.... how to find due south in maui? how many degrees & what direction we need to comepnsate for our earths magnetic pull? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenao.q (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See Magnetic Declination. PhGustaf (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic declination can be found on many sorts of maps, particularly nautical charts. A local navigational facility such as an airport can probably tell you (this data from 1985 says that it was 12E, though that may have shifted by now). Alternately, a non-magnetic means of determining direction (such as GPS) will give you true readings. I'd bet that 12E is close enough for jazz, though. — Lomn 20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you could use a solar compass, look at the shadow of a vertical marker at local time noon (adjust your timezone for your longitude on the earth). After all it will be the sun position that is important. If this is worth tens of thousands of dollars use a surveyor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not that critical. A fixed solar panel is always a compromise because the sun moves across the sky and that track shifts through the year - so your panel won't ever be perfectly oriented. Furthermore, the amount of sunlight the panel gets is proportional to the cosine of the angle between the direction it's pointed and the sun's direction and so a small error has almost no effect - even around noon. I'd use a compass and go with that. More important than the southerly alignment is the slope of the thing. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you’re actually in Maui, call up your address on Google maps, and you’ll have a North-South orientation. Find a landmark due south of where you are, and go outside and look for it. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Airport navigation charts are a good source for magnetic variation. The current FAA chart for Kahului Airport shows that Runway 02 has a compass heading of 024 degrees magnetic which is 035 degrees true. So there are 11 degrees difference between magnetic and true headings. A compass heading of 169 degrees would be due south. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Find Polaris in the night sky. It should be at an azimuth of about 21 degrees. South will be directly behind you. Or get a cheap compass - this site [[9]] suggests your declination is 9 degrees 55 minutes East. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

October 16

Location of Czech village Butterberg / Máselnik

I am searching for the exact geographical location of Butterberg (German) / Máselnik (Czech), a (possibly abandoned) village in the northern Bohemian county of Dauba / Dubá, classified as a part of the town of Sebitsch (German) / Dřevčice (Czech). Thus far, via google maps, I've been able to find a small collection of app. 8 houses just southwest of Dřevčice, which could be it.Butterberg (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have found the correct location. According to this historic map, the former Butterberg is indeed that cluster of houses on the hill about 500 meters southwest of Dřevčice. Marco polo (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's an amazing web utility. I'd love to see that for my country (or any place I've actually been to). Jørgen (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I am truly astonished. Thank you so much for the response. I didn't expect to get a quicker answer from my English query than from my German one, that's for sure.Butterberg (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Entertainment Lawyer

where can i find an entertainment lawyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.210.81 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Try your local phone book. If you can't find one, call another lawyer and they may be able to point you in the right direction. Dismas|^(talk) 03:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Contact your local bar association or law society - their website may have a directory with specialties as well. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do they maybe advertise in Variety (magazine)? Also, typing in "Entertainment Lawyer" into Google caused a large number of them to scurry out of the woodwork. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

superstitions

can anyone tell me which is the most superstitious country (and also the least)? is there any survey about this? please inform me.

thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.136.193 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an impossible to answer question. On the first, what constitutes a superstition? How does one draw the line between a superstition and a religious practice? I'm not sure this is a quantifiable concept. --Jayron32 02:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no straightforward answer, as these days the people of any country have less and less in common with each other and more in common with their peers in other countries. There is no doubt some correspondence with lack of education, so you could try investigating that aspect. Also, if you believe that religion is superstition you could try looking at the more religious countries. I suspect that isolated communities would tend to have more superstitious ideas and traditions than urban ones.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguably Italy, in that it has the most churches per capita of any major country.[10] Red Act (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Surprised nobody mentioned Vatican City yet... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Or arguably Jamaica. I can't find a reliable online source, but googling "churches per capita" turns up a lot of hits that claim that the Guinness Book of World Records lists Jamaica as being the country with either the most churches per capita, or the most churches per square mile. Red Act (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

According to The Largest Atheist / Agnostic Populations the 10 most superstitious countries are Croatia followed by Cuba, Dominican Republic, Kyrgystan, Argentina, Albania, USA, Portugal, Mongolia, Kazakhstan. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems even with their low numbers atheists are to blame for all the ills of America - see Glenn Beck blames godlessness for America's problems ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That would only be accurate if atheists and agnostic people were not superstitious - there are plenty of non-religious superstitions out there. Warofdreams talk 11:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't make too much difference to that list if the percent of professed agnostics and atheists who are really closet believers in superstitions is less than 50%. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any references for that? Warofdreams talk 12:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at that list they only get to about 10% atheist with those. No 20 in the list gets up to 20% atheists, even if all the next 10 were 50% closet believers and the 10 I said weren't the US at 7 place would only move down a few places in the list, it is given as 3-9% atheist. AT the other end of the spectrum are places like Sweden or Japan where more than half the population are counted as atheists. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, the list would still be accurate if the proportion of atheists who are superstitious is stable across countries. For example, if 99% of atheists are superstitious in all countries, that ranking won't change. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a big if. Superstitions, it seems to me, are based in culture - so there's every reason to expect variation. Warofdreams talk 12:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Congo or Haiti? Witchcraft is not irregular in those places if I am not mistaken. I really wonder if I should offer any opinion at all, but I wonder if Japan is the least superstitious. They seem to generally have sane heads and sound minds. Vranak (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese superstitions and also Omamori perhaps. While the Japanese evidentially don't skip the number 4 in floors as is not uncommon among Chinese and Koreans they do skip the number 43 in maternity rooms (according to the first article). According to the second article they also skip the number 13 in hotels although you could argue that isn't because the Japanese themselves are superstitious but they are afraid Western tourists may be. I largely agree Shantavira. In particular, there's likely to be some (imperfect) correlation with education. Going by stuff like the number of churches is not going to work, there are plenty of superstitions not tied with organised religions. Thinking of Chinese cultures... I've already mention stuffed like tetraphobia but there's also other stuff tied to numbers like the belief the number 8 is lucky (remember the olympics?). There's also feng shui, stuff tied to veneration of the dead and beliefs in the afterlife, during the Chinese New Year and various other superstitions. Doesn't appear to be a general article but there is an unsourced one on that which I'm also more familiar with which is Superstitions of Malaysian Chinese. Quite a few of these are probably present in parts of China. Traditional matchmaking and astrology are also not uncommon and usually have some sort of superstitious aspect. Some of these may have been traditionally discouraged by the communist government particularly during the cultural revolution but there's obviously some acceptance even by the government, e.g. the olympics again. And perhaps a key point here. Quite a few of these beliefs are not uncommon among people who can be considered atheists or at least agnostic even if they do have spiritual or religious beliefs (as mentioned in atheism). In many parts of the Western world though, many atheists are irreligious and probably also significantly less likely to be superstitious. Therefore as Warofdreams said, it's a big if. Hitting on one final aspect, what are superstitions? Religions have already been addressed. But what about stuff like belief in urban legends such as fan deaths, or traditional medicine (which covers a wide variety of stuff from herbs or tiger bones or whatever, to acupuncture, to faith healing), or belief in evil government conspiracies, or that the holocaust didn't really happen, or that aliens have visited earth, or vaccine nonsense or Chinese restaurant syndrome etc? The other complicating factor is people may do stuff for cultural reasons or just out of habit without really 'believing' in the superstitions. BTW, as for that list, it doesn't have that many countries. It has virtually no Muslim countries and African countries. Place like Saudi Arabia may very well have less then 7% atheists (although accurate statistics would be almost impossible to come up with) Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball players, ranging from the devout to the atheist, typically will not step on the foul line when running on or off the field. Is that an American thing? Or is it a cultural thing? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bentham and Hooker

These are two well-known taxonomists.They spent most of their lives in India.They classified plants,animals and pretty much everything there was to classify.They conducted surveys of industries and even classified tabularly hundreds of Indian castes and sub-castes.Hooker even wrote about the peculiarities of people of each caste.But I could not find this "Caste Survey" anywhere.Does anyone know where it could be found?--Adi4094 (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure on the specific works you are looking for, but the people in question are George Bentham and Joseph Dalton Hooker. With those specific names, you should be able to track down the works you are seeking. --Jayron32 03:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure they wrote on the people of each caste? In the British library catalogue I can find The flora of British India, Himalayan Journals: or, Notes of a Naturalist in Bengal, the Sikkim, and Nepal Himalayas, the Khasia Mountains, etc. and A Century of Indian Orchids by Hooker, and a lot of other botanical works by both men, but no studies of the caste system. Are you sure this isn't a mistranslation? What was your source that told you about them? --82.41.11.134 (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking calls to my landline phone

I've suddenly started getting loads of calls from annoying 'people' asking to speak to someone who doesn't live here. They are claiming to be Barclays Bank or Littlewoods but I doubt they are. One of them is just a machine. I've searched their numbers online and found loads of others having similar problems with these numbers. So how do I block these calls? I'm in the UK and I've got a BT landline being run by Orange. Thanks.91.109.234.25 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You might like to look at Telephone Preference Service, It is free. I am subscribed to this and while it does not stop everything (we get calls with far-east accents asking for people we don't know, and then want to suddenly speak to us!!) it has reduced the annoying calls considerably. If it is an unrecorded call that sounds as though it might be from somewhere in the UK it is interesting to see what happens when you ask them for their contact number because you wish to report the infringement. Richard Avery (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US I occasionally get some similar calls. Recently, the College of William and Mary was calling five or six times a day - as late as 21:00 - asking for money (a family member went there). Then they hung up when we didn't answer, making for an unpleasant answering machine recording! People that we didn't know also called from such far-fetched places as Denver, Miami, and Moncton, BC! Fortunately, I discovered a feature of my phone that shuts off calls from a particular number after Caller ID data comes through, so all you hear is one ring. If your phone doesn't have such a feature, then the phone company might do it for an extra fee. Xenon54 / talk / 19:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My annoyance by telemarketers stopped when I installed an answering machine. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

..but the bill goes up when one has to call back. 86.4.186.107 (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US, you can get caller ID so you know who's calling, and answering machines where you can "pick up" in case it's a "real" call. With those two machines, in combination, you can effectively screen your calls. Just don't mention your name in the answering machine greeting - make it generic. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 22:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Energy Drinks vs Coffee

Is caffeine the sole active ingredient in Energy Drinks that provide mental stimulation to increase alertness? If so, then will a bottle of energy drink containing 150 mg of caffeine provide the same stimulation as a cup of coffee providing 150 mg of caffeine? Do all the other stuff such us ginseng, taurine, vitamin B's have any role in mental stimulation? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See Ginseng. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, do not forget that sugar is food energy. Much of the sugar in your energy drink will reach your brain at some point and provide fuel. Googlemeister (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We have articles on each of those ingredients which describe their benefits, if any. You can look the information up as easily as we can... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

BBC radio archive

Does a recording exist of the BBC quarterly programme "The Countryside in Summer" for 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.222.133 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you go to the BBC radio website [11] and contact them. I have found them very helpful in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the word "free"

In reading some of the comments about the possible meaning of "free" and the possibility of purposeful ambiguity, I wondered if the word "libre" in the Spanish and French versions conveyed the proper range of meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltermclauren (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding the question. "Versions" of what? Are you talking about the translation of an English work to Spanish or French, or a translation of a Spanish or French work to English; or are you asking whether the word "libre" would be nicely unambiguous to use in the English language in general circumstances? (And this question probably belongs on the Language reference desk, where people smarter than I, about languages at least, reside.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In French, "libre" means free in the sense "without constraint", and "gratuit" or "gratis" mean "without paying" (source: Concise Collins Robert dictionary). This is different to English, which has only one word for both meanings. I assume the question refers to the free speech vs free beer distinction. I don't know Spanish but I believe they have a similar division. Wikipedia has an article Gratis versus Libre. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language might be a better place to ask this. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cúba libre? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Vive le Quebec libre!" Words of Charles DeGaulle that endeared him to the rest of Canada. We use "gratis" in English to mean no-cost. "Gratis" is from Latin, "Free" is from the German side of English. "Liberation" is freedom in English. Etc. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Gratis" as a root has to do with "pleasing". Something that's "gratis" is a "favor", rather than charging for it. Another good English word for something free of charge is "complimentary". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 23:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Free" in the sense of no payment in English is really short for "free of charge". There's the common English colloquialism, "Free, gratis and for nothing." —— Shakescene (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

‘I wondered if the word "libre" in the Spanish and French versions conveyed the proper range of meaning’ really calls for the services of a recent troll. Or those tiresome (and almost always mistaken) souls who always harp, "The —–— have no word for ———" [war, hatred, revenge, etc.] On the other hand, one of the purposes of Newspeak in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four was to limit the meaning of words like "free", so that while "equal", for example, still existed as a word, "all mans is equal" would be as obviously absurd as "all mans have red hair". Thus "Freedom is Slavery" on the walls of the Ministry of Love (miniluv). —— Shakescene (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Though, in a strict sense, "all men are equal" is false and obviously absurd unless you mean, "equal before the eyes of the law" — and even then, it's an ideal, not a reality. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This comes up in the OpenSource software community all the time - the ambiguity of the word "free" in the context of "free software" in English has often been a source of confusion. Hence, it has come to be explained as "free (as in free beer!)" versus "free (as in free speech)"...and of course not all OpenSourced software is both of those things, so the need to disambiguate is paramount. We might say "Firefox is free (as in beer) and also free (as in speech) - but Internet Explorer is only free (as in beer)." SteveBaker (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought "free as in beer" told you a little too much about the demographic in question... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are lots of English dictionaries whose many definitions of "free" you can scour. For when and how these meanings have arisen see the etmology of free. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many senses of the word "free": something can be "free" because it is unrestrained ("free speech", "free-running water"), independent ("free state"), or liberated ("freeman"); because it is available for no cost ("free lunch"); or because it is rid of some contaminant or substance ("sugar-free"); or because it is not occupied or engaged ("a free seat", "free time"). There are a number of universities called Someplace Free University, which are "free" because they are independent and nondenominational, not necessarily because they don't charge tuition. --FOo (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

October 17

i want to know some info. about Britanniya industry, taratola,kolkata

information about Britanniya industry, taratola, kolkata,

about their.
  1. general information.
  2. environment.
  3. product and progress.
  4. marketing.
  5. finance.
  6. human resorce.Prasenjitghosh (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look at their official website.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Argument of silence (conspiracy theories)

Can anyone direct me to an article (or article section) that describes the "argument of silence" in relation to conspiracy theories... i.e. the claim that the lack of information on a subject is evidence in itself that the information sought after has been covered up?

Its likely described under a different name. The similar Argument from silence doesn't appear to be what I'm looking for (the silence in that scenario seems to be interpreted as an indication that the silent party does not have the information they previously claimed to have, not the silent party denying they have the information in the first place), and it doesn't look like there is anything in conspiracy theory or cover-up (or if there is, I missed it).

Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 09:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you looked at Conspiracy_theory#Study of conspiratism that gives some useful links in the section "Psychological origins". The article UFO conspiracy theory describes the classic case of alleged suppression of information. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't what you asked for, but I think the "argument of silence" is a case of affirming the consequent, if that helps. (If there is a cover-up, there will be no information: there is no information, therefore there is a cover-up.) 213.122.50.254 (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Argument from ignorance and Evidence of absence are what you're looking for. It comes up a lot in Religious arguments against Evolution, as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been, incidentally, times when this has been true. Georgii Flerov used the fact that no American scientists were publishing on nuclear fission in 1942 to deduce that the US had indeed started a nuclear weapons program. The Manhattan Project did enforce rigorous scientific and press censorship as a means of keeping their work secret. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the silence of the Kennedys helped to unwittingly fuel the conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 15:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, right, perception of silence can fuel conspiracy theories; what I'm offering up here is an instance in which that was actually correct (that is, the "conspiracy theory" was valid, and the silence was evidence of it). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No question. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A paranoid person perceives themself as central figure in events which have no reference to them in reality as directed at or about them, though the evidence to support that perception is only silence. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You've hit upon the attraction of conspiracy theories - the idea that there is "secret information" that only certain ones are "in on", thus lending artificial importance to their drab, wretched lives. (Borrowing a Tom Lehrer quote.) The Moon hoax fairy tale is one of those. So is "Area 51", the "top-secret" government testing location that everyone knows about. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, except scarequote Area 51 scarequote is a top-secret government testing location that everyone knows about. FiggyBee (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the tests is secret. The location is not. And the absence of information about the specific tests, leads to speculation about UFO's and other such nonsense. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on the Flerov example, the reason why the Soviet government didn't label Flerov a looney is because 1. he was actually an expert in the field he was talking about, and 2. there was good reason to suspect that the publications would be there if people were working on it openly (there were hundreds of publications relating to fission just before WWII... and then suddenly, almost nothing). These are, of course, rather specific conditions—ones that most conspiracy theories don't meet. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can say the silence was any sort of evidence of the existence of the nuclear weapons program. It may have been evidence of the scientist's and the government's wish to keep it secret, but in order to link those two things, you first have to know not only that there's something they're keeping a secret about, but also specifically what that secret is. In other words, you have to be an "insider". Otherwise, we could leap to all sorts of weird conclusions, such as "The government has never made any statements about a race of purple aliens living in the deep forests of Paraguay, so that proves there is a a race of purple aliens living in the deep forests of Paraguay". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you're ignoring the history involved and I'm not sure why. It wasn't the absence of articles, it was the sharp reduction in articles that provided the evidence. That was suspicious. Matt Deres (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a risk in trying to interpret silence. In the case of The Bomb, someone guessed right. But think of something mundane, such as a police investigation. Sometimes silence means they are closing in on a suspect and don't want to give away the game; other times it means they haven't a clue, and they've turned their attention to other cases. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's true that one can guess wrong historically as well. The President of the University of California knew that the physicists were working on a secret project, but didn't know what. He guessed it was a death ray. That was incorrect (but close enough to rankle Manhattan Project security when he made it public). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for some enlightening reading. -- saberwyn 10:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase I am familiar with is conspiracy of silence - try searching for that. 78.151.108.233 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Social Security in the Untied States, and different costs of living

If I'm reading right, Social Security payments in the U.S. are the same from state to state; at least, from what I've read, it doesn't sound like an averge. Why is this, considering that the cost of living in, say, New York City is so much different than the cost of living in rural Iowa, for instance? I understand that it would be hard to recalculate every time a person moved, and really would have been before computers, so it makes sense that it didn't factor in every locality in the U.S. at first. Still, the checks have to go somewhere, at least into a bank account? With computers now, wouldn't it be pretty easy to at least calculate every year?

Or, am I misunderstanding, and there really are differences between localities? I saw nothing in the Social Security debate (all about privization versus not, and other issues), or in our articles as I skimmed, t least.4.68.248.130 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is the same everywhere or not, but if it is the reason could be one of fairness. While wages (and therefore tax payments) are higher in places with a higher cost of living, there is nothing stopping someone working all their life in a low wage area and then moving to a high state pension area and getting more that the share they paid for (or vice versa). --Tango (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good piont, I hadn't thought of that.4.68.248.130 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Though... one could also move into a place where money went further and get the same benefit, theoretically. You could imagine a rather fair system—e.g., something like the per diem system, where different cities have different costs of living associated with them, and your social security rates would be some percentage of a maximum rate for that given area. But that would be complicated. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign taxi drivers in the US

How do foreigners become a taxi driver in the US? I suppose they don't get a green card as highly skilled workers, do they?--Quest09 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a green card to work. If search and read Permanent residence (United States) you'll find that is says right in the beginning that while the application is pending aliens can receive a work card, namely the Employment Authorization Document. There are also other visas (such as for students) that allow aliens to work. Also, just because someone looks different and has different customs than you doesn't make them foreign. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Foreigners" in the sense of "foreign born", i.e. "immigrants", although you can't always judge that, either. To work legally you need to be here legally, of course. And we get lots of legal immigrants every year. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 02:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Working in the USA

Inspired by the question above, I'm curious about this too. I'm what Quest09 might call a "highly skilled worker", yet most/all employers who I consider applying for a job with, have a note that applicants must be eligible to work in the USA. I understand that to mean a non-resident foreigner such as myself, would already need to have a H-1B visa to even be considered for employment. And yet that visa must be applied for by the employer some months in advance and a substantial fee paid (again by the employer).

It seems to me that I need to already have a H-1B visa to be considered for employment, yet the visa application cannot be made without having a job to go in the first place. How does a foreigner get a job in the USA (whether a taxi driver or something else)? Astronaut (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Some employers will only consider persons who are already eligible to work in the United States: citizens and resident foreigners with visas permitting work other than the H-1B. The most common such visa is the IR type. Other employers are willing to sponsor a foreigner for an H-1B visa, but these are typically employers who are unable to find qualified applicants who are already eligible to work in the United Statesfor unfilled positions . In this economy, there are fewer such positions available than in the past. It is not enough to be highly skilled. One must have a skill that employers cannot find in adequate supply among existing US residents. Marco polo (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparantly you can work or settle in the USA without any restrictions if you have a master's degree. 78.151.108.233 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. I think you are talking about an EB2 visa - that's for "Professionals holding advanced degrees (Ph.D., master's degree, or at least 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience) or persons of exceptional ability in sciences, arts, or business" - but there is a quota of 40,000 of those per year - they aren't granted automatically - and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get one. However, that's not a permanent status - it takes many years and many lawyers to turn that into a green card. SteveBaker (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't their restrictions on criminal records (particularly offences committed in the USA)? --Tango (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Who came up with 4 rings when you call someone to be acceptable

Why is it 4 rings on a phone before you disconnect? why not 3 or 5? Who came up with this number that everyone seems to follow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivtv (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In what circumstances is this a "rule"? I often call and will wait for a dozen rings or more before deciding that the person I'm calling is not there. Astronaut (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. If you follow it, don't - rings are meaningless. The rings you hear in no way correspond to the rings the person on the other end hears. If it takes a long time to connect, you can easily hear five or six rings before the target phone rings once. And that's not to mention the fact that ringtones usually play once - does that count as one ring? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I never hang up after as few as 4 rings (unless I suddenly change my mind about wanting to talk to that person at all). I give them a minimum of 10, usually more like 20. It's incredibly irritating when you're away from the phone when it rings, and you rush to answer it, only for them to have just hung up. So I don't do that to my phonointerlocutors. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I get very annoyed with anyone hanging up after fewer than seven or eight rings - there are circumstances in which it's simply not possible to get to a phone in that time (mobiles included). I find only four rings an astonishingly small number to use as a "rule". FWIW, I usually wait 50 seconds (17 rings - a ring lasts one second and gaps between rings are two seconds*) before hanging up. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC) (* yes, I was bored one day and timed it.)

Besed on at least canada it is 4 rings and the way the phone system works is when I hear a ring its silent on their end. On my silence it rings on their end. After 4 rings and a silence we hang up. Thought it was a world thing haha. if someone called my land line and let it ring 10-20 times i would answer and lose my mind for being rude. Ivtv (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Typically it's four rings before the answering machine kicks in. It's always been that way as far as I know. ('Always' being a relative term, as answering machines started to become widely popular sometime in the 1970s or so.) You can set it to fewer rings, typically. It's probably that someone estimated the average amount of time it would take the average person to get up and walk across the room. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 02:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And if no answering machine kicks in, normally you would stick around for awhile, minimum 8 rings, perhaps. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 02:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, about answering machines' four rings standard: Answering machine designers likely had to choose a number of rings high enough to let the receiving party answer the phone if they're home, but also low enough to prevent callers from hanging up before leaving a message. (If no one left a message, an answering machine wouldn't be useful.) Four rings was likely the compromise that's become standard. --Bavi H (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ivtv: The practice of hanging up if there's no answer after four rings was likely originally related to avoiding answering machines. Perhaps this behavior might just be a learned habit by newer generations of phone users in your area. Or maybe the people in your area are less patient to wait for an answer.

Here's the only situation in which I would hang up in such a short time. In the US, pay phones refund your money if there's no answer. If I was stranded and needed a ride, but only had enough change to make one pay-phone call, I would hang up before the end of the fourth ring to avoid getting an answering machine. I could then call someone else for help, or try calling the same number again to see if a person answered. --Bavi H (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it should be noted that the speed of ringing varies from one country to another. In the US and Canada it's one ring every 6 seconds. Ann Landers used to say in her column that 10 rings was appropriate, giving the person one minute get to the phone. I still go by that (and my home phone goes to voicemail on the 8th ring), but some people today seem to think that it's much too long. They probably assume everyone either has a cellphone or a phone in every room of their house. But that's not actually true, and besides, the person might need at least a few seconds to finish their Reference Desk reply before picking up the phone. --Anonymous, 07:11 UTC, October 18, 2009.

I've never heard of a "rule" existing and I always go by a mutu (a Finnish expression meaning "what I feel like") basis. I typically hang up after a few rings, or just after the answering machine kicks in, if I'm phoning a relative or friend I know who I can phone again. If it's an important business call I leave a message. JIP | Talk 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

October 18

hand grenades

Will an exploding fragmentation grenade start a fire in dry grass?65.78.183.48 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Every grenade range I've been on has been free of vegetation (wonder why?), but It is very common in dry conditions for fires to erupt in the impact area of ranges using everything from small arms to mortar and arty. On a range, it will usually burn itself out due to the sparsity of vegetation. By the way, don't play with frag's. If you have found one, call the base range control/EOD or your local police. 173.124.206.41 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that your standard military hand grenade was just a pressure system with chemicals that caused a shrapnel explosion without fire. It is not the explosion that kills it is the balls that fire off in all directions. Use matches to start a fire not a hand grenade.

Ivtv (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? A hand grenade is a metal (steel?) case around a lump of explosive, with a fuse (that burns) down the middle. There's a mechanical device to ignite the fuse at the top end (at one time percussive; not sure if they still are) and at the bottom end a I presume a detonator would be needed to initiate the main charge (I'm guessing it's high rather than low-order explosive). As you can see from my various caveats and assumptions, I'm not an expert in the field, but I can tell you that there is no "pressure system", "chemicals" (apart from the explosives), or "balls that fire off". The means of doing damage is the fragments (hence the name) of the steel case as it is blown apart by the explosion. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on hand grenades, of course, that describe how they work. Some fragmentation grenades do have ball bearings or fletchettes in them to provide shrapnel damage; others get all of their shrapnel from the casing. It's true though that the system that disperses them is indeed explosive. It's true though that the explosion need not be very large or killing in and of itself—it depends on the kind of grenade it is. (Hence "sting grenades", where the ball bearings are replaced by plastic balls, and are meant to be less-lethal.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The section on fragmentation grenades explains what's inside them. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When you look at grenade explosions (eg on YouTube) you see stuff like this: [12] - which is a real grenade explosion - and has no sign of flame, just a big cloud of dust and smoke. It's not at all like a video-game or movie grenade eg: [13]. I wouldn't say it was impossible to set grass on fire that way - but it's not likely. SteveBaker (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tanks Going Through Walls

In the 1977 film Cross of Iron, there is one scene where a Russian T-34 is about to burst through the wall of a factory, and before doing so, it fires a round at the wall so there is a hole at the exact point where the main gun would go through, thus, presumably, saving it from extensive damage when the rest of the tank follows. Is this normally what would have happened? In order to burst through a wall, would the crew have to take a precaution such as this so as not to damage the gun? If so, what would be the usual round for this type of work? A HE round (possibly creating a larger hole) or an AP round (creating a hole big enough for the gun)? What would happen to hull-mounted or coaxial weapons? I presume a turret mounted outside machine gun would be damaged by falling bricks. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be more typical to rotate the turret to face backwards prior to gently nudging the wall into collapse - then driving over the resulting rubble - but it's pretty rare to want to drive a tank through a building - there are all sorts of external antennae, tools and other stuff that you wouldn't want to wreck. It's dramatic for a movie - but has little tactical value. SteveBaker (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention strapped on rucksacks and duffel. A brick hung up in in the track has a high chance of "blowing track", causing it to roll off the sprockets. If the building has a basement, a tank would probably break through. You don't want debris hung up in the main gun. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Add the fact that any upper wall or roof would probably collapse on top of the tank and you've got a suicide mission.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and absolutism

My sister is a vegetarian and a woman I know is an absolutist. But how common is it to be both at the same time? Is this more common among men or women? JIP | Talk 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article absolutism, it doesn't appear that my intended meaning of "absolutist" is clear. It means one who abstains from alcohol. JIP | Talk 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we don't called such a person an "absolutist" but rather a teetotaler -- 41.136.72.103 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)