Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

March 7

Speeking question

Is it possible to speak without your lips ever touching your front teeth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.196.132 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but certain letters would be difficult to pronounce. See ventriloquism for details - that is basically what you are talking about, except ventriloquists don't let their lips move at all. --Tango (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much mandatory if you have dental braces. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask this person to tell you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrialicWave (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of Joss Whedon's remark (in DVD commentary on "The Harvest") that it was cruel to ask an actor to say "Jesse was an excruciating loser" through vampire teeth. —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to speak "good English" (here left deliberately undefined) without the lips on the front teeth. It's needed to pronounce /f/ and /v/ properly. However, if you pronounce /f/ and /v/ as [Φ] and [β] instead of [f] and [v], it's possible, but will sound a little weird. As Antilived mentioned above, when you have dental braces or a dental plate, it changes your speech a bit to accomodate the difference (I developed a bit of a lisp). Steewi (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you speak a language with no labiodental consonants. ZigSaw 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera

Why are they called soap operas? they rarley have anything to do with soap and rarley do they sing opera please explain. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article soap opera:

The name soap opera stems from the original dramatic serials broadcast on radio that had soap manufacturers such as Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and Lever Brothers as sponsors and producers.

Intelligentsium 02:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)These kinds of shows originated on radio, and were frequently sponsored by the makers of soap and other products that it was assumed would be of interest to their target audience. The "opera" part is just being funny - ascribing high class to something mundane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opera, generally, is not "high class", but extremely accessible, funny, and with storylines so ridiculous they put Neighbours to shame (the exception to this is Wagnerian opera, which is not to be wished on anyone). People who think it's some high-falutin' boring snobby business usually know nothing about it. Likewise Shakespeare, whose works are actually full of your mom jokes, cross-dressing, and terrible puns. FiggyBee (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "classical" would be the better term. Tony Randall was a big fan of opera, in part (as he once explained to Johnny Carson) because they have such racy storylines, or as he put it, because they are "dirty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, radio shows frequently had the sponsor in the title: "The Johnson Wax Program, starring Fibber McGee and Molly." The Lux Radio Theater, which was sponsored by Lux soap. That kind of thing. One of the last vestiges of that approach was the TV anthology series called the Hallmark Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I read they were called "operas" because of their reputations for being overly emotional and dramatic. (In the US they were -- and are -- aired in the early afternoon, so their primary audience would be housewives.) Although I believe the prevailing European practice is to air soap operas in the early evening (18:00 to 20:00), the term is still used in British English and most European languages (with the exception of Spanish and maybe German, which prefer "Telenovela"). Xenon54 / talk / 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was? See Hallmark Channel (International). Woogee (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The soap part comes from the misogynistic male view that only women would enjoy a soap opera and they'd be enjoying it while washing the dishes. It's an extremely dated, offensive term which should not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrialicWave (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a statement of the source of "soap", thank you, which is nothing to do with your claim, TrialicWave. Or was that intended as a joke? What we haven't had (nor does Soap opera give, on a quick scan) is a documented source for 'opera'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled ["soap opera" origin] and a number of entries came up. This one, about Procter & Gamble, might be considered at least as trustworthy a guess as the others.[1] And many of them seem to be using the "opera" part as a somewhat humorous synonym for "drama" (maybe you'll recall from the movie Tootsie how the producers insisted that their shows be called "daytime dramas" rather than "soap operas"). I wouldn't say the explanation is definitive, but something to keep in mind is that western movies were often called "horse operas", i.e. basically the same joke, humorously dubbing those works with a high-falutin' connotation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gallileo, io, thor

there is or was an article on the main page stating that gallileo flew through a plume from the volcano thor on io and collected data, do we have an article on what data was collected and what we learned from this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna check out the Galileo (spacecraft) article for more info. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and it did not give me the info i am looking for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an inital report here, this looks pretty good, and some likely other (paper) sources appear in the refs of Volcanism on Io. Deor (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and see especially Thor (volcano)#August 2001. Deor (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes

Has anyone been tried for War Crimes in the 21st century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhgi yostiba (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of war crimes may help you. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One current trial is that of Radovan Karadžić who stands accused of:

Five counts of crimes against humanity (Article 5 of the Statute - extermination, murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, persecutions, inhumane acts (forcible transfer));
Three counts of violations of the laws of war (Article 3 of the Statute - murder, unlawfully inflicting terror upon civilians, taking hostages);
One count of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (Article 2 of the Statute - willful killing).^[1]
Unlawful transfer of civilians because of religious or national identity.^[2]

131.111.248.99 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ICC's first trial, of Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga, began on 26 January 2009. On 24 November 2009 the second trial started, against Congolese militia leaders Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also ongoing trials of former Khmer Rouge leaders in Cambodia for war crimes, crimes against humanity etc under both Cambodian and international law [2]. Sadly we don't seem to have specific articles on these. Saddam Hussein was tried for various crimes against humanity and he would likely have been tried for war crimes were it not for his execution Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mail -- Return to Sender?

I've just moved into a new flat. How can I get all the mail delivered to the former tenants returned? Can I just write 'return to sender' on the envelope and dump it in the post box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.9.247 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google turns up [3], which seems to advocate doing pretty much exactly that, albeit for junk mail. Obviously it'll have to have a return address on the envelope somewhere. You can do it unstamped - the recipient just has to pay the difference, as usual. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you just cross through the original delivery address and write "gone away - return to sender" on the front of the envelope, and stick it in a convenient post box. DuncanHill (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "official line" from the Royal Mail - [4]. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also find out maybe from the estate agent where the previous people moved to and send it to them and ask them to get their addresses changed on their forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrialicWave (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You actually can write 'Return To Sender' (or even 'RTS') on the envelope and either put it in the postbox or take it to the post office. I did it plenty of times when I moved into my last flat. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would "gone away - return to sender" mean the same thing over there as it does here in the US? When I read "gone away", I take it to mean that someone will be back. As in, "They've gone away but will be back in a couple weeks". To my ears/eyes, saying "Moved - return to sender" would be more clear that the intended recipient no longer lives there. Dismas|^(talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew where they had gone away to, you would cross through the old address and put their new one on, and the PO would redirect it for free. If you knw they were coming back, you'd hold on the the post for them. "Gone away", in Britain, does not (in postal terms) imply any potential for return. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, to me "gone away" in this context implies finality - they've gone, disappeared, we don't know where and can't help find them. I think it's actually a term of art used by Royal Mail in their own writings. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put 'not at this address' on the ones that come through my door. They never come back to me (no idea whether they make it to their intendent recipient but i'm betting based on the envelopes 99% of it is junk-mail anyways). ny156uk (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may take a while for all the databases to be updated. I'm still getting mail for the previous occupant 3 years later!! I write 'Gone away' above the address and repost it, nothing has returned. Richard Avery (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.12.100 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landlord

Is the landlord of a property responsible for the roof or is the person living directly below the roof (and thus having attic space) responsible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eisoser4 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a matter of local law and/or the terms on the rental contract. It is not something that the Ref Desk can answer except in terms so general as to be near useless in any specific instance. Bielle (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the majority of cases, the landlord is responsible for exterior maintenance. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in most cases the landlord is responsible for the functional systems of the house, so one would also include HVAC, electrical, and plumbing in what is usually the responsibility of the landlord as well as the structural integrity of the building. Usually, cosmetic maintanance is the responsibility of the renter, so they are usally responsible to keep the grass mowed, for example. Depending on the specifics of the contract, other things like interior painting, fixtures, and furniture can fall to varying degrees to either the landlord or the renter. --Jayron32 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may also depend on whether you are renting the entire house, or merely a portion of it (e.g. an apartment/flat in a house), and the time period for which it was rented (e.g. a month-to-month or yearly lease, versus a 30-year lease or a lease for life). In most of the apartments I've rented, the landlord was responsible for all routine maintenance issues of items which would stay with the apartment if I vacated, e.g. including ovens and refrigerators. I could not imagine that repair of a roof, which is a major financial outlay and would benefit the owners and occupants far into the future, would be the responsibility of a tenant who may be vacating the premise in less than a year. However, your local laws and rental contracts can vary significantly. I'll also note that if the damage to the roof was caused by maliciousness or willful neglect by the tenant (e.g. they tore shingles off in a drunken stupor, or held a party on it, damaging tiles) most jurisdictions would hold the person causing the damage, rather than the landlord, to be responsible. -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American military

Has the American armed forces grown in size related to Americas population growth or has the number of armed forces personnel remained pretty much at a static level? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaKrunWn (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has decreased in size relative to america's population over the last 20 or so years--92.251.216.41 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a nice graph in this CRS report; see thumbnail to the right. That's active duty military personnel divided by 1000, so around 1952 it peaked at around 3.7 million. By contrast, this BBC pic has a US population graph as the topmost graph. As you can infer from the graph, it's the demands of US foreign wars that determines the military size; the two big peaks there are for the Korean War and the Vietnam War, both of which utilized the draft (see Conscription in the United States). I would expect "armed forces growth = population growth" to be true in a place like Israel, with its mandatory military service. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the chart starts in 1950. The numbers would have been much higher during WW2. Also note that modern fighting concepts tend to limit "troops on the ground" in favor of more use of air power and, recently, drones. Since those methods tend to be more expensive, the military budgets can go up even at times when troop levels go down. Also, more use of contractors means that the budgets and total number of people (versus soldiers) deployed might both go up, despite what the chart indicates. StuRat (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

How do I avoid abuse when asking for more information about a Wiki reference?

If I don't understand the entry provided in Wiki; where do I go to ask for clarification without being subjected to abuse? OR: Am I using this site incorrectly? Often; entries are defined with explanations that require advanced tertiary degrees to understand. In an encyclopedia that is intended for the general public, these entries provide no benefit to the ordinary reader. I understand that the "Discussion" tab is provided for contributers and editors to collaborate on the shape and content of the main page. It is not there for "Readers" to ask questions. So I presumed that the Reference Desk may be a source of charitable advise regarding my difficulties. I thought that the "Talk" pages were provided for just such a purpose; however, when I posted my questions there, I received answers that either:

Ignored the questions or answered a different question
Repeated the complex and opaque language in the original definition
Provided additional examples that only led to additional confusions

I, dutifully, thanked contributers for their help and pointed out the existing and additional confusions that transpired from their answers and attempted to ask my questions in a more targeted form. I was assailed by contributers with insults and gratutious advise regarding solutions to my ignorance. This behavior appears to be common throughout the Internet; however, I was surprised to encounter it here. Nevertheless, I apologised for my initial ignorance and my veracity in admitting to my continueing ignorance - presuming that reasonable people understand the difference between ignorance and intelligence. Now, I am perplexed: Is there no place within Wiki where I can ask genuine questions without having to endure the sorts of comments my enquiries provoked? I am merely trying to use Wiki in a manner that I thought stood it apart from other encyclopedias: an on-line source of information, constantly under review and improvement, in the hands of the people who hold the knowledge - not just a single entry, take it or leave it. I assumed that the community writing the definitions would appreciate additional questions from genuine readers. If sufficiently interested and motivated to help, they could gauge the source of my misunderstanding and re-work the entries to render them more accessible to the average person. But no; some entries seem to be testimony to the brilliance of the contributers and show little interest in providing useful information to the general reader beyond expecting them to marvel at the intelligence of the geniuses that wrote the page. I can't pick up a tertiary volume on any esoteric science or technology and expect to understand the language, as it is not written for the lay-person. Is this the same for Wiki? If so; I'm sorry. GPCViriya (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing problem at Wikipedia, where a group of experts dominates the edits of an article, and write it in such a way that only they can understand it. I've personally worked very hard to fix one such article, which even one of the founders of Wikipedia had criticized as being overly complex, only to have it continually changed back to the same PhD level article it was when I started. I suggest asking your questions on the appropriate Ref Desk. You might still get some of those type of answers, but hopefully there will be some people who can also gauge the audience (you) and provide answers at the desired level. StuRat (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I am a genuine fan of Wiki and have benefitted greatly from it as a resource. I fear that my writing is too clumsy and leaves the wrong impression at times, causing people offense when none is intended. Maybe there is scope for the PhD's to invite educators to provide a more general explanation for public consumption and still expand the topic to the highest level for the sake of completedness.
GPCViriya (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - it's certainly an endemic problem in some math and science subjects. If you take something really basic like Force - I'd want to see "F=ma" in there someplace near the top - just like our Momentum article puts p=mv right there in the second sentence. But Force goes on for two long sections before it gets into the equations - and then it starts off with a vector differential equation for chrissakes! I can't think of anyone anywhere who could understand the concept of a vector differential equation who'd need to look up the equations for Force! Even the info-box says that it's the differential with respect to time of mass times velocity - a true statement but since masses of things don't change much and the differential of velocity with respect to time is more simply stated as 'acceleration', it's really unhelpful to someone who actually NEEDS to understand this subject. It does eventually gets around to say F=ma (albeit with some arrows over the top). But for a kid in highschool - the obvious, simple explanation needs to come first. There are much worse examples out there - this was just the first one I looked at.

A complaint about the complexity of the article most certainly does belong on its discussion page. However, requests for clarification do not. The Ref.Desk can answer questions like that - but you need to explain that you've already tried to understand the article and cannot - or we'll just point you right back to the article.

05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a persistent problem on many, many math and science articles. I do ask for clarification and simplification on the talk pages of these articles and my advice in response to abuse is to remain very patient and remind the regulars that an encyclopedia is written for the layman. Usually they know it's a problem (again, WP:OR). Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that articles in need of rewriting can be added to the queue at WP:COPYEDITORS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for the phenomenon, so it can be countered with some pithy guideline like K.I.S.S.? Hmm no sig but the voice is strangely familiar...213.122.53.235 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with the force article. The third sentence pf the article says "Newton's second law can be formulated to state that an object with a constant mass will accelerate in proportion to the net force acting upon and in inverse proportion to its mass". That is a clear high-school description of "F=ma". If you put equations in the lede section then you fall foul of another group of readers who complain that the article is too mathematical and does not explain its concepts in "plain English". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that the given sentence is at least as mathematical as the equation, and don't really see any way to reduce it without going to something like "force is equal to mass times acceleration". 131.111.248.99 (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why not say it that way ? It's simple, concise, and yet still defines the terms for those who may not know what "m" and "a" represent. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "Newton's second law can be formulated to state that an object with a constant mass will accelerate in proportion to the net force acting upon and in inverse proportion to its mass" is a really horrible sentence. "can be formulated to state that" is the sort of thing nobody should have to read. There's an "it" missing after "net force acting upon" as well. DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the sentence has two faults. 1) It includes extraneous verbose language. "can be formulated to state" is unnecessary, the word "states" suffices. A common writing fault — even among those who are well-educated — is to assume that grander language is somehow better language. 2) The sentence is largely incomprehensible to those who don't already understand the concepts. What in the world could a typical ten-year-old make of the phrase "constant mass"? I'm not sure I know! Is the writer trying to draw a distinction between classical mechanics and an object accelerated near the speed of light? Simple, educational words and concepts are needed. Perhaps taking several sentences. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that anyone has abused this user. He or she asked a question about space on the science ref desk and received a number of helpful answers. When he or she disagreed with the answers, they were reminded to be polite to the ref desk contributors. No abuse, just careful help.

FWIW I would suggest that if there are aspects of the Space article which they don't like, they should raise them at the talk page and will likely get a good hearing. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limits

I have been brushing up on limits in my spare time (I don't usually use them in my profession, but I'd like to know them). So if I remember right from high school maths, in $\lim _{x\to a}{bx^{n}}$ or some such formula, couldn't you just substitute a for x to find the limit (unless doing so would result in an undefined solution, as in $\lim _{x\to a}{\operatorname {bx^{n}} \over \operatorname {x-a} }).$ In the latter case, I would have to try to get the a out of the bottom or modify the limit to not result in an undefined solution. After I do that, am I correct in assuming I can just plug a in for x whereever? 68.76.146.111 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might get a good answer here, but you might improve your chances by posting this on the math page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for the first example, since the expression doesn't do anything odd around x=a. However, you're not going to be able to get the a out of the bottom in the second case. As Buzz Lightyear would say, you're just going to + or - infinity (if not beyond). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond. Right. As in the final section of 2001, "Beyond the Infinite". Or as a weird math teacher once said to our class in reference to irrational numbers, "There are at least an infinit number of irrationals." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thats just on WP:RD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.232.131 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your math teacher knew what he was talking about. There are different sizes of infinity. There are exactly the same number of rational numbers as there are integers (

\aleph _{0}

), but there are strictly more irrational numbers (

2^{\aleph _{0}}

). See cardinal number and Cantor's diagonal argument for a start. --Trovatore (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do prices include sales tax in California?

In brick-and-mortar stores in California, do sticker prices in brick-and-mortar stores normally include applicable sales taxes? Neon Merlin 05:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. PhGustaf (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the answer is "extremely rarely, so much so that a store that does this would certainly have to put signs up all over the place telling the customer about it". I can't actually think of a store in California that does this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally a store like Orchard Supply Hardware will have a "We pay the sales tax!" weekend sale. But incorporating the sales tax into the usual price of a product is, I think, illegal in California. PhGustaf (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'd be interested to see that law. I can't think of a reason to prohibit such behavior; it certainly doesn't mislead the consumer into buying something that's more expensive than he's expecting. If anything it makes the consumer think the price is higher than it is; then he gets a pleasant surprise at the register. --Trovatore (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it here before and the reason given was checkout operators and others may cheat the customer who doesn't realise the sales tax is built in and make them pay extra which they pocket. Personally I think the better way to handle it would be make it compulsary to include the sales tax or make it abundantly clear if they aren't as done in most countries who use a GST/VAT. Of course just moving to a GST/VAT may be better but that's no an argument for here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes in the US are generally itemized. One common exception would be at sporting and theatrical events, where the taxes are built in on the concession items, presumably to help keep the lines moving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another case where taxes might be included is a concession stand which sells snacks or other low cost items. One reason is that they don't have to calculate the taxes while the customer waits. Another is that they can use "round numbers" for prices, to the nearest dollar, quarter, dime, or nickel, so as to limit the time needed to make change. Those differences could make the line move twice as fast, and therefore make a big difference in total sales. Some dollar stores take that practice to the extreme, and make everything a dollar so no price tags, math or change is needed, although I've seen others that do add taxes. StuRat (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who comes from a jurisdiction in which taxes are included in the advertised price, I must say I find it very confusing and misleading to go into a shop and be charged more than the price on the label. DuncanHill (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even worse than that are ads that say "Only have a dollar in your pocket ? Well you can still get any of the items off our value menu for just that". Anyone trying to do so will quickly find out that they can't, since sales tax takes the price over the dollar they have. StuRat (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you can, if you get it "to go", at least in California. If I understand correctly, California does not impose sales tax on food, but it does on food eaten in restaurants. This exemption is intended to make the sales tax slightly more progressive (or some would say less regressive), given that poor people spend a greater fraction of their incomes on food than rich people. However the exemption does not apply to restaurants, because rich people eat in restaurants. But if you take your food out, then I guess the restaurant is acting like a grocery, so the exemption kicks back in. No warranty on any of this — this is just my vague understanding. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Prepared" food that's taken out is also taxed. This apparently includes anything they heat for you. At Subway, I could get away without paying taxes if I claimed my sub was to go, didn't have it heated, and, for some odd reason, didn't use a coupon. (I think the coupon thing was just a bug in their software.) StuRat (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the US situation, but here in the UK whether or not you get a price with VAT (what repalced sales tax in the UK) seems to depend on the primary nature of the type of customer a seller deals with. Prices quoted by retail chains tend to be VAT inclusive, whereas firms who primarily deal with 'trade' customers tend to list the VAT as a seperate item... Some firms I've dealt with sometimes list two prices... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this (as Sfan00 probably knows) is that most trade customers are buying on behalf of another business which is 'registered for VAT', and will therefore be able to reclaim the VAT paid as part of its routine accounting: for such customers, the price excluding VAT is therefore the actual price that (eventually) they will be paying.

VAT ("Value Added Tax") is sometimes defined as a Consumption tax as distinct from a Sales Tax, though in most ways the two seem very similar, and when introduced in the UK it did not, so far as I recall and can discover, replace any pre-existing sales tax, though I would welcome correction should I be mistaken on this point. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are mistaken. VAT in the UK replaced Purchase Tax in 1973, but you are correct in that many items to which VAT was applied did not previously carry Purchase Tax which was levied only on "luxury goods". Dbfirs 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching, the two reasons for not including tax in the price that sound most reasonable to me are A) If tax were included, then the tax would somehow have to be deducted from the prices when non-profits and churches purchase items. They don't get charged sales tax in the US. and B) it eliminates confusion for the manufacturer because tax rates are different between states and even from one town to the next. So they can set their price for their product and not have to worry about what the tax rate is for a market. So, for instance, McDonald's can have their "dollar menu" or whatever and the price remains the same. The store charges the tax and that's that. If they had to include the tax, then they'd have to advertise it as a "something close to a dollar but maybe not depending on your local taxes menu". Dismas|^(talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your (B) answer is most of it -- and there's another facet to it, too: Yes, tax rates can vary by town, county, and always by state. But, printed advertising (think of the Sunday newpaper color section) is printed and distributed across wider regions, and broadcast advertising covers a wide area; there's just no way you could advertise a price that included taxes and be correct about it.

And, frankly, it's what we're used to on this side of the pond. It's not a big deal. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B may be relevant, but A doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. The vast majority of purchases are surely from ordinary consumers not churches and non profits. Whether your adding tax or subtracting it, either way it's an inconvenience to someone (the only case you can perhaps argue adding is easier then subtracting is for a nice round number like 10% where adding it is very simple maths but subtracting is more complicated), if you're an organisation that mostly deals with churches and non-profits then perhaps it makes sense to exclude taxes but otherwise for McDonalds etc, for the average consumers POV including the taxes surely makes sense since they will be paying it. The complexities mentioned in B are relevant and the complexities mentioned by StuRat. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churches and non-profit organisations are very fortunate not to be charged sales tax in the USA. In Europe, they cannot escape VAT. Dbfirs 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Inquiry...

Hello Sir/Madam,

With due honor i wish to appreciate your services and ask a visa related question.

Am a successful business man in Cameroon who wish to take a vacation by going on a touristic tour to Singapore, Kosovo, and Georgia. please i understood this countries were visa free for a Cameroonian. so i will like to know if there are still visa free for a Cameroonian this year 2010???????. 'If yes', what is required on entry the countries listed above?????. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FRUERIC (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have formatted your question so that it's easier to read and changed the heading to be more descriptive. I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to your question. Dismas|^(talk) 10:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you picked these countries solely because of their visa-free status for Cameroonians? They are very far apart. Also, while Singapore is well known for its tourism, Kosovo and Georgia are emphatically not, and are indeed dangerous places which many countries strongly advise their citizens not to travel to (that said, so is Cameroon...). FiggyBee (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you exaggerate, in the case of Georgia. There are plenty of attractions - our article on Tourism in Georgia provides a very brief summary - and British government advice states that much of the country is safe enough for travel. They also state that "most visits to Kosovo are trouble-free", although I'm not aware of any significant tourism infrastructure there. Warofdreams talk 13:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual sources of information about visa requirements are embassies or consuls of the countries concerned, and travel agencies. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings

How is a paintings value determined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techcolis (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think generally by reference to the prices paid for other paintings by the same painter, and then taking account of secondary considerations such as the state of the market, the relative importance of a particular painting, etc. There is a fair amount of smoke and mirrors involved in the art market, and the process is at best somewhat arbitrary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings are often sold by auction and thuis it depends on what people are willing to pay for them, which, as mentioned above, affects what other paintings are valued at. The price is therefore influenced by the prominence of the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For living painters, a standard is how much they've been paid for previous work. No matter how good they are, they tend to start small. People are willing to pay what others have. Over months and years, a successful painter raises prices. Another example: an acquaintance at university was so good they almost didn't accept him saying, "We have nothing to teach you". At the time, he was selling paintings at an exclusive store in a major city. He charged by the square foot. No kidding. So, in sum, there are many forces at work, here. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any given known artist has a sort of base price, depending on experience and visibility, which varies up and down depending on the size of the painting and the medium used. In short, oils are valued more highly than acrylics, and acrylics are valued more highly than water colours, all other things being equal, which of course they seldom are. A "per-square-inch" price is more likely than "per-square-foot" in my experience, but either is possible. And any recent public sale, as in a reputable auction, for example, will affect the value of most other paintings by the same artist. Pricing one's own work appropriately, until you have a reputation, is one of an artist's greatest challenges.Bielle (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most expensive material

What is the most expensive (moneywise) material on earth? I guessed diamonds but I could be wrong. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that pound-for-pound Saffron is more expensive than Gold. Never investigated to see if that's true though. Diamonds may well be worth more. Would you include or exclude man-made materials? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you are, of course. In Spain, Saffron is expensive, but not as expensive. Kingsfold (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no exclusions --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also heard inkjet printer ink was more expensive than gold! This link gives a grouse about it. [6] --TammyMoet (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) link added--TammyMoet (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Moon rocks are expensive, at the present time. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests antimatter and LSD are worth more than diamonds. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are any number of materials that are truly priceless. At infinite value, they're hard to beat. I'd head the list with any of my vital organs, which currently are priceless, but could potentially be acquired at a quite remarkable discount at some point in the future. --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a real answer to that question. One candidate might be Californium. This is a real material, in that it's used in milligram quantities, but is said to have an interesting property: a .45 bullet made of the stuff shot onto a concrete wall would compress into a critical mass and go kablooie. That would be one expensive bullet. PhGustaf (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Californium cost $60m per gram in 2000[7]. In contrast rhodium is according to the Wikipedia article the most expensive precious metal at $80,000/kg.

60 micro dollars? Perhaps you mean millions: $60M --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, William Shakespeare's signature is reportedly worth $3 million[8], and a 10x10 cm piece of paper with his name on might weigh 1 gram. --Normansmithy (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great source about Californium. It makes sense here to consider a "material" as "something one can make stuff of" — objects of antiquarian or personal value don't count. PhGustaf (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, it is almost certainly antimatter, specifically antihydrogen at $62 trillion/gm. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my lungs are far more valuable than that. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, your lungs are not a material. If they were, I would gladly sell 1 gram of my lung tissue for $US62 trillion. Googlemeister (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense are your lungs priceless, exactly? I'm sure one could hire someone to acquire them for rather less than trillions of dollars, and they certainly wouldn't sell for that much on the open market. Algebraist 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I currently own them and therefore set the market price. I'm sure there's a nice case study here on elasticity of demand, as the price is entirely unrelated to demand and interestingly/peculiarly related to supply. On your other point, if you're going to hire someone to acquire things (presumably nefariously) the prices for all these things are rather more arbitrary than the figures we're bandying around. A bloke down the tube offered me a gram of anti-matter for a fiver this morning. --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did you ask him to shake the container to make sure that it was still in there? Googlemeister (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have two lungs (I presume) and can survive with one, so would you really be unwilling to sell a lung at any price? I find that hard to believe. It wouldn't be too hard to buy a replacement lung on the black market with some of that money, for a start. Few things, if any, are truly priceless. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point... if I had said "lung". But I said "lungs". --Dweller (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point... if a pair of lungs could be considered a material. Honestly, your lungs have very little value to anyone but you, and trying to sell you your lungs back probably will not work well either. Googlemeister (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. Given the lack of organs for transplantation and while the scare stories (e.g. [9]) are almost definitely exaggerating there's also almost definitely a black market for organs and if Dweller is a good enough match to someone in need of and willing to pay for a lung or lungs, it's likely he or someone could sell Dweller's lungs if they knew the right people. Of course since he/she'll be competing with poor & desperate people and the middlemen will take a very big cut, I doubt Dweller will be happy with the price. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now we get to it. Is the price fixed by the buyer or seller? In most realworld economics, the price is set by the two meeting, but in Dweller's Lungs Economics, if demand was infinite, and supply=1 set the price exceeds infinity. Equally, if demand =1 or even 0 and supply still=1, the price remains in excess of infinity. Honestly, I think I need to create an essay about my lungs for economists' elucidation. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Off topic slightly:) Price elasticity of demand is up for GA at the moment at my behest, no reviewers yet :) It used to have (I think) the human heart as an example inelastic good, but in reality, there is a limit: if the market price of hearts (or lungs) is $1 million, I'm dead, and consequently, I would no longer demand a heart (or lung). (Obviously, it's also a bad example on many other ground, many of which are unrelated to this topic.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ink ($/ml) in a typical inkjet printer cartridge is a potential candidate, albeit artificially inflated by HP and the likes. --Chan Tai Man 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

anyone have a link to read about that californium bullet nuclear explosion thing?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea may have started here[10]. PhGustaf (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. However, I would want to sure it couldn't be forced into criticality by the compression force inside the gun. Astronaut (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kahn proposed the nuclear bullet more as a gedanken experiment than as a useful weapon. But your point is good: I wouldn't want to fire a nuclear pistol myself, nor would I want to drop a nuclear depth charge from my ship's fantail. PhGustaf (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case for MythBusters. "Okay, Jamie, so the handgun didn't work, but what if we use a high-powered rifle ..." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fungibility" as a quality would have to be an aspect of any "material" to be considered as an answer to this question. That would rule out such items as body parts or Shakespeare's signature. Otherwise Fort Knox or the Taj Mahal or the Pyramids are "materials." Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When something is so spectacularly rare, prices become almost meaningless. Take most recently named element "Copernicium" - only 75 atoms of the stuff have ever been made. If those atoms cost only $1 each to make (and I absolutely guarantee it was a LOT more than that!) - then the price per gram of the stuff would exceed, by far, all of the money in the whole world - more than all of the money there has ever been in the entire world! But is there a market for the stuff? Probably not - if you decided to corner the market and buy all 75 atoms of the stuff - then you'd find that 29 seconds later, you only had about 40 atoms - after a minute, maybe 20. Within 5 minutes, you'd be lucky to have even one atom left. That probably makes it pretty worthless! SteveBaker (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the answer will depend somewhat on what constitutes a 'material', and whether it actually needs to be available for sale on the open market. (The $62 trillion per gram price of antihydrogen, for instance, is very impressive — but it's not exactly something that you can actually go out and buy from Sigma Aldrich.)

I know that tritium is quite pricey, and also readily available (with the proper licenses). It runs about 100 thousand USD per gram (warning, PowerPoint slides). For comparison, gold is trading at around 40 USD per gram. The californium example above is another valuable illustrative case.

If you want to limit the search to non-radioactive materials, then I'd look to the world of molecular biology. Looking at a pretty standard commercial monoclonal antibody against p53 tumor suppressor protein, we find a list price of 259 USD for 200 micrograms. That works out to a little over a million USD per gram. For more highly-specialized biomolecules, I'm sure you can find materials that are orders of magnitude even more costly, but I don't have time to go catalog-diving today. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In honour of this thread, I have created User:Dweller/Dweller's Lungs Economics. Economists and clever people who really do comprehend the terms I've bandied about in that essay are welcome to come and amend it, and explain to me (using small words) why I shouldn't use technical terms I don't understand. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to place this late reply. How much does one share weigh? Berkshire Hathaway have them going at $123,250 each as of right now. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much would 10,000 electronic shares weigh? Googlemeister (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a pull-up, not a chin-up

In the pull-up, the palms are facing away. In the chin-up, they are facing you. But, how is it called when you are pulling your body up with the palms facing each other? --Mr.K. (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some body-building websites (eg [11]), it's just called a "parallel grip chin-up" or a "semi-supinated chin-up" - there isn't a more specific term that I can find. Our own chin-up and pull-up articles don't cover it, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The grip described is similar to that in the exercises Rings (gymnastics) and Flying rings. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney

I need an address so I can send him some material. Rich Wareing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.175.91 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your physical address from this posting. It is not necessary to post your physical or e-mail address here, because we answer all questions right here. (It's also a bad idea to post them, for privacy reasons.) As to your question, our Mitt Romney article implies he's unemployed at the moment, but you may be able to send him your material via his PAC. Though his signature is right at the top, the text at the bottom claims it's "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee", so you should write them an e-mail first to see what to do. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S$1.8K - S$2.5K Sales Secretary cum Coordinator

What does this secretary have to do?--Mr.K. (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not touching this one. Bugs? Woogee (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's safe from me, since I don't have a clue what the OP is asking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Cum will elucidate. --ColinFine (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary for sales with ("cum") some role as a coordinator. All that for the low, low wage of 1800-2500 Singapore dollars, which is $1300-1800 USD. I don't know how far that goes in Singapore, but I hope those are monthly wages, not annual! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Definition -cum- preposition used to join two nouns, showing that a person or thing does two things or has two purposes; combined with This is my bedroom-cum-study.Froggie34 (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The job description implies that the post includes some controlling responsibility for sales-related activities where several people are involved. That might involve exhibitions, publicity campaigns, monitoring a sales team or whatever else the activities are of the company sales department. Ask them! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.K. will have his joke. Bielle (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-Fi friendly after-hours place in central charlotte

Hey, I'm working in Charlotte (NC) today and I'm not going to be able to leave until around 9/9:30 or so. I know a lot of places close after people leave the area for work. But I'm looking for a place where I can just sit for like 4 or so hours on my laptop, get free WI-FI, not buy anything, and it be a relatively comfortable environment. Any ideas? Chris M. (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, Charlotte's main library, at 310 N. Tryon St., has wi-fi and is open until 9:00. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you. Chris M. (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

paralegal professional

can a client restrict the use of information obtained as part of an investigation?--Msladys (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for legal advice? In that case, this is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOLEGAL). Consult a professional lawyer instead. Gabbe (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the general point, this will be jurisdiction-dependent. For the law in the USA, see Attorney-client privilege - articles on the law in other jurisdictions are linked from that one. The answer is "Usually, depending on where you are in the world." Tevildo (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

Signature

After reading our signature article, I am still left with a question as to how exactly the average, modern-day signature provides any such security as the article suggests. On average, I find that most people scribble something in place of a signature -- how in the world does such a mark indicate that the signateur is actually the person it indicates? Is it merely an oversight of the common individual to think that a scribbly signature is worthwhile? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a perfect system, but I wonder what would work in its stead or in addition? Maybe a fingerprint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that in Japan, they use stamps, which strike me as even less secure than signatures. Aaronite (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my company, before direct deposit, they used to imprint checks with a signature stamp of the CEO, a process that was of course very tightly controlled. Using a seal is a very old method, which I assume is the basis for the relic expression "my hand and seal" in legal documents. But nowadays I can't imagine a personal seal or stamp being very secure, at least on the face of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Often a stamp is used in combination with a signature (hand and seal, as you say) for corporate things. The seal shows the company's identity and the signature is to verify that the person holding the seal was actually a person authorised to do so. --Tango (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The signature doesn't identify a person, but it allows to tell that two people (eg. the person that signed the back of the credit card and the person signing the credit cart receipt) are the same person. It is far from 100% reliable, though. --Tango (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why stores in the US, at least, increasingly ask for a photo ID when you're charging a purchase, especially a good-sized purchase, due to the proliferation of identity theft. It's pretty hard to both forge a signature and to look like the person whose signature you're forging. Of course, you could substitute a picture. Which is why an embedded hologram is used in the photo ID's of at least some states' driver's licenses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered about this. I don't have a signature. I just write my name. Surely the use of a credit card (or similar) would be more secure? Yes, you could steal it, but the person who owns the card would notice fairly quickly (I'd hope) and get the card deactivated (or whatever it is you do to credit cards...) Vimescarrot (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I ever do too. If I write my name, that's my signature, my autograph, whatever you want to call it. If I print it, as opposed to writing it, that's not my signature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as faking a signature, I believe it's harder to copy somone's signature if it's not made with perfect penmanship. If I were to write my name using the cursive that I was taught as a kid, it would be easier to copy since we're taught as kids to make letters look the same. It would be harder for someone to copy the slashes and sweeps of my (or anyone's) signature. Dismas|^(talk) 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I would say my signatures are never "identical", and that's one way that experts can expose forgers, as I recall - a forger has learned to make the signature a particular way and they repeat it over and over, i.e. it's not a "natural" signature for them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signing credit card receipts is another interesting difference between customs in the US and UK. In the UK (before the days of chip and pin) the retailer would hold on to the credit card as the receipt was being signed and hold the 2 together to compare them. In the US, the retailer almost invariably gives the card back, then hands the receipt over and never compares the signatures. This always struck me as very open to fraud. Of course - we now use chip-and-pin and so rarely sign a credit card receipt now anyway. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course here in NZ we still use magnetic strip and pin. On those odd occasions when I've seen people sign, I think they do at least check the signature. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, it varies. Sometimes they take a quick look at the card and hand it back. Other times they hold onto it. I assume in the first case they are forming a quick mental picture of the signature and see if the receipt signature matches. Increasingly, they are not even requiring a signature for items under 25 or even 50 dollars. Then there's the signature pad, where you use some type of stylus to sign in a most horrific-looking way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! We have those for some deliveries in the UK - half of the writing doesn't even appear in the signature. A seriously dubious piece of kit, I've always thought. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a patient once who paid his bill with a credit card that was not only devoid of a signature but that still had the original "call to activate" sticker. When I asked him about it, he laughed and said it was a social experiment to see how many merchants asked him what was going on or requested ID -- he said they rarely did. I thought it was so funny that I do the same thing myself now, I have 2 credit cards and an ATM card and all remain unsigned and still have the stickers on them. Since I've started doing this about 4 years ago, I think I've come across 3 merchants that asked for ID. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I haven't had to sign for about a year, but before that credit cards were signature only. So I made a point of signing a different name to that on my card. My card has my standard signature - my first initial and my 10 letter surname in messy cursive - I regularly signed receipts with "Psud" in legible cursive and was only asked to sign again about one in thirty times. So at least in common usage for credit cards for sub $200 purchases the signature offers absolutely no security at the purchase point, but I suspect the mismatched signature would allow me to successfully dispute the transaction. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Patricia Highsmith crime novel The Talented Mr. Ripley, Highsmith devoted much of a chapter describing how Tom Ripley tried to perfect Dickie Greenleaf's signature with lots of practice. It involved pinning through the original signature and then join the dots together. I'd imagine in those days of the 1950s, signatures were closely scrutinised. --Kvasir (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to posts higher up) Seals are used for identification in East Asia (still prevalent in mainland China, Taiwan and Japan) because seal imprints are actually quite hard to forge. The carvings on a seal are highly unique - they vary by type of script used, by the style of the carver, and varies even between works of the same carver - and thus are very difficult to replicate exactly. An added advantage is that each imprint of the same seal is identical - so if two seal imprints differ even slightly (discounting differences due to amount of ink etc) - then they are definitely made by two different seals. Traditionally, a person carries his or her personal seal everywhere, so the chance of theft was relatively small. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seals have many uses:[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked in supermarkets,it's amazing how many cards have a signature that is pretty much just a straight line or a circle or a couple of swirls.In terms of copyability,they're ever so easy to copy-anyone can doodle a line without too much skill Lemon martini (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitor and Time Travel

AbstruceGoose

How a capacitor is linked to time travel? I remember this concept also used in an English movie. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Flux capacitor was critical for making time travel possible in the movie Back to the Future. Astronaut (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just Technobabble. (In fact, our Technobabble specifically refers to the "Flux Capacitor" from Back to the Future as an example of Technobabble!). There is no such thing as practicable time travel - the only even slightly scientific ideas entail taming black holes and such. A "capacitor" is a really common, boring electronic component that you'll find loads of in most computers, cellphones - and pretty much any other electronic gadget. But a "flux capacitor" is just a made-up idea - two random scientific-sounding words glued together with no intent to actually mean anything. SteveBaker (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction, especially sci-fi, is filled with this kind of stuff. Star Trek and Star Wars, for example, have all kinds of unexplained technologies. If the writer is smart, they won't spend too much time trying to explain them, because (1) that would make them easier to challenge; because (2) they're fake. Superman (1978) had a couple of lines that stuck out. One is when Lex Luthor described Kryptonite as being harmless to humans and lethal to Superman due to "specific level of radioactivity". Whatever that's supposed to mean. Then there was Otis telling Lex that he had set the "directional vectors" on the missiles. As opposed to the types of vectors which lack a direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been director Steven Spielberg who decided the movie needed a gimmick with capacity to induce extra high tension. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or even the director Robert Zemeckis?91.111.124.236 (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Superman writers also did other silly things like making Superman claim he never lies, then making him lie (which effectively means the first statement is another lie I guess) so we probably shouldn't be surprised. Back to the question, as I understand it, e.g. Talk:Memristor#Flux Capacitor you could probably have something which you could call a flux capacitor although it's unrelated to the BttF device and won't help time travel in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kal-El apparently practices some Kryptonian version of "situation ethics". He doesn't exactly lie, although he does deceive. Come to think of it, he lied flat-out in Superman II when he told the villains about the molecule chamber. Part of his justification for his secret identity is to keep anyone from getting into trouble from knowing his secret. But the real reason is simply practicality - he would stick out like a sore thumb if he wore his red-and-blues to the Planet office - and basically that he doesn't trust his friends to keep their mouths shut. One exception to that rule was in Lois & Clark, where he revealed his secret to Lois, and it actually worked out well (except in the TV ratings). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition as I pointed out when this came up before Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 September 11#Motivational poster (hence why I thought of it when Superman came up) Superman explicitly and clearly denied being Supermanand surely knew that to be false. This is clearly what most people would consider a lie. Note that whether or not Superman's lying is justified is irrelevant. We aren't discussing the ethics of Superman lying, simply whether he does lie. A lie is still a lie even if the lie is justified. (A real world example, if a agent for some intelligence agency or whatever explicitly lies about who they are, many may feel the lie is likely justified to not only protect them but also their families, but it doesn't mean it isn't a lie if they for example flat out deny being such when queried.) Of course aside from the lying about not being Superman, there's also the small matter of lying about not killing and it's questionable if there's any justification for lying about not killing people (the answer is probably no since that's was a writer screwup). P.S. In terms of the writers, while the need to maintain Superman's secret identity is hardly surprising, making him say he never lies is clearly a silly thing. Even more silly to make him say that, and then not take extreme care in writing to at least exclude any case where he clear lied, for example by using non-denial denials when the issue came up of whether he was Superman. In reality of course, it's unlikely he could really never lie if he needs to conceal a secret identity, ultimately non-denial denials and other things which you could argue are not lies can only go so far, particularly as evidence mounts. Indeed excessive use of such is only likely to cast further suspicion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always understood it to mean that "Superman" never lies when he is in his Superman persona - but when he's Clark Kent, he behaves like any other human in order to blend in. SteveBaker (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Nurse Licensing

Can I get a Registered Nurse license in Georgia with a misdemeanor for marijuana possession on my record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyandjenny (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds kinda like a request for legal advice. In any case, I would be surprised if wikipedia has such detailed info. Have you tried Google? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked if someone could get a Registered Nurse license in Georgia with a misdemeanor for marijuana possession on their record i have called the board of nursing on the matter and they would not give me an answer and i have tried google, ask.com, and every message board and still cant get an answer. If anyone knows it would be of great help. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyandjenny (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you "can't get an answer", do you mean they said, "I won't say", or do you mean they simply did not respond? Maybe a more positive approach would work, such as, "What are the requirements for obtaining a Registered Nurse license?" and see if the lack of an arrest record, particularly a drug-related arrest, is one of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify - do you mean Georgia the country or Georgia the US state? I'm guessing the latter, but I'd rather not guess. --Tango (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA the state. I have tried every approach when talking to the nursing board and still have gotten nowhere so i figured i would give this a shot. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyandjenny (talk • contribs) 06:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can't tell you what the qualifications are for getting a Registered Nurse license??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The law is certainly vague about it; a criminal background check is required, but the requirement does not say what degree of legal entanglements are enough to disqualify. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised the law is vague. Mostly likely they'll be evaluated on a case by case basis with the person applying for registration sometimes interviewed and questioned and while there'll be some examples which will never make it (e.g. imprisoned for murdering patients) it's likely ultimately up to the board to use their best judgement on whether the person's record means it's too risky the person may not be a fit nurse. This would probably also explain why they're so slippery, the person can't guarantee your request will be successful or notso they prefer not so say anything so you can't complain. However I would have also expected they already told the OP something like this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They have to be a little vague, and maybe consider a misdemeanor drug conviction as part of an overall picture in making a decision. For example, if it happened 10 years ago vs. if it happened last week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High school completion options

Is it possible to obtain a High School Diploma at age 26? Or, can you only get an equivalency or GED? I want a DIPLOMA...not an equivalency. If it is possible to get a Diploma... Can you take the courses online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.4.130 (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you ? US ? StuRat (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GED's a uniquely American and Canadian invention, and the IP is to Oregon, so probably the U.S. Shadowjams (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't have GEDs in other countries, what do adult former drop-outs do if they want a high-school education? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably whatever the high or secondary school qualification is in their country? O-level/A-level, NCEA [13], SPM/STPM, South Australian Certificate of Education, well I'm just throwing random examples I know of here so I guess Category:School qualifications is of relevance. Of course some countries probably lack any real centralised qualification even at a secondary school level (the US being one example and part of the reason for the GED I believe) and there may not be anything specific on offer but there will likely be schools which cater to adults and offer some sort of qualification recognised the same way other secondary school qualifications are. And some may choose something with international acceptance like the A-level, International Baccalaureate or probably even the GED even if it isn't the norm where they live. Of course it likely depends on why you need a qualification. If you just need an education, then there will likely be adult or night classes you can take for various things particularly key areas like literacy and numeracy. These may offer a diploma or something which may not have so much recognition (or even nothing at all) but if your primary purpose is for education then this may not matter (you're there for the education, not the piece of paper that says you had an education). If you need it for university enterance well in some places that may not be required for adult students in some courses (e.g. here in NZ) and/or the university may have their own programme for adult students (again here in NZ). The need for qualifications for jobs and other areas of life also likely varies. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it we're talking past each other here because the U.S. education system is so different from the system that arose in Britain. A high school diploma in the U.S. does not mean you have passed a certain exam. It means you have shown up at school for four years and received passing grades (A, B, C or D) in a certain number of classes. Some states now require students to pass a standardized test to get a diploma, but that test is usually incredibly easy and designed to weed out only those who are absolutely clueless. I'll never be able to understand the British education system, but it sounds as if there is no such thing as a high school diploma. Instead, you take a certain number of exams similar to Advanced Placement tests in the U.S. Since the UK doesn't have high school diplomas, it has no need for GEDs. Or so I understand. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Aside) The UK system is straightforward, in general terms, at least. The precise details and edge cases are, as you would expect, nightmarishly convoluted. Loosely: from the age of about 14 onwards, you choose a selection of subjects where assessment is partly split between internal and external assessment, with the emphasis being on the former (i.e. exams sat and coursework submitted to a third party exam board who sets the syllabus for each course, within government guidelines). Each course result may have a detailed breakdown of some sort, but is normally summed up into a single grade. The length of the courses varies even between schools, but typically is split 2/1/1 years. The grades attained in the final two years are typically what most strongly dictates entry to further education. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK education system certainly seems complicated to someone from the U.S., where you simply go to school until you're 18 and then you either go to college (university) or you don't. We don't have GCSEs, O-levels, A-levels, sixth form colleges, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

And it's typically quite possible for adults or mature students to resume studies using those same exams at college (which I think has slightly different connotations in Scotland vs the rest of the UK, but the point stands). It's worth noting that a college in the UK is then a significantly different beast to a university, unlike in the States where I think the two terms are somewhat interchangeable. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as a further caveat on 131's last point, the term "college" has in the UK no exclusive official definition. I attended a secondary level (i.e. ages 11-18) school in Kent in the 1960s-70s which was then and is still now called Kent College. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some UK universities use the term in very specific ways. An Oxford or Cambridge "college" is an autonomous institution with its own sources of funding, etc. (See Colleges of the University of Oxford) I went to the University of Kent - and our four "colleges" were nothing more than halls-of-residence with no independence from the university at all. It's variable from place to place. SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the original poster: It doesn't sound like anyone here really knows the answer. Why don't you look up the webpage of your local school district? If it doesn't answer the question, it might give the phone number of someone who can.

You might also consider earning an Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degree from your local community college. I doubt that would be much more work than getting a high-school diploma, as opposed to equivalency certificate. --Trovatore (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Peace Tower

Does anyone know,or know where to find the construction and total costs of the Imagine Peace Tower in Iceland. Thanks in advance.KTo288 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Peace Tower home page states that construction and installation of the tower was a collaboration between Yoko Ono, the City of Reykjavik, the Reykjavik Art Museum and Reykjavik Energy. The art museum web site [14] gives a contact that may be able to answer about the tower cost. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.KTo288 (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Othmar Zeidler's birthday

According to our article, Othmar Zeidler was born in 1859, and published his thesis work in 1874. This would imply he completed his graduate work at the age of ~15. Now, that second date does seem to be correct, but all I can find in terms of sources for the first date are Wikipedia mirrors and a few random websites giving 1859 as the correct birth-year. Science describes him as "young" when he published his work, but they do not give an age. Can anyone point to a reliable source that gives his birthdate? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Othmar Zeidler is empty and would be the appropriate place to post the question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, adding a tag to the date (which I've now done) or asking whoever added this info in the first place (which appears to be User:Afasmit [15]) Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuddlyable3: Asking questions on an empty talk page of a stub is almost certain to yield no answer.

@Nil Einne: Thanks for hunting down the diff. I should have done that in the first place. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails you can look under the "history" tab and see the list of people who edited the article. That gives you two more possibilities:

You can find the person or people who edited the article the most (and the most recently) and ask them (via their "talk" pages) whether they agree that the date is correct.
You can track down the actual person who added that specific piece of information and ask them where they got it from.

If the information seems dubious and there is no reference (and especially if nobody can back it up) - then you can just delete it.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most used textbooks in American colleges & universities for different subjects

Is there someplace online to see which textbooks are the most used for, say, calculus, physics I, chemistry I, etc... or maybe rankings to show the top n books used?20.137.18.50 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the regional version of Amazon.com to see which books for various subjects have the most sales. It's not a complete accurate picture but it'd be a good guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect these figures are not wholly available. Even as available, treat them with suspicion, because there is hot competition between vendors. You might consider: How many books are commonly resold? A text that is used over years at a particular university would have many used copies in circulation, whereas a completely new text would have none. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I at least found this myself for physics: http://www.aip.org/statistics/texts/hsttext.htm 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting link, but do note that it's for high school physics, not college/university physics. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to add this: http://www.aip.org/statistics/texts/tyctext.htm 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is Orange Telecom's numbr of users break down ??

I need to know please the number of users that use services from Orange telecom ( france telecom ) break down in eac country, more details are : if orange telecom has net connection in 30 countries I want to know how many users are there in each country! as an example ( Orange telecom has 15,43453 users in Egypt and has 30,64789 in Nigeria etc ....

Thank alot :)

raamr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasha.Assem (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found all this information in one place, but found two useful links. This link at their website may be useful; it lets you get details on many countries, although the exact stats seem to vary at the whim of whoever typed in the information. The information is also a little dated — clicking Central African Republic boasts about how their commercial activities are planned for 2008. Here, on the other hand, is their 2009 annual financial report, which also has some user data scattered throughout. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Google trouble

Moved to WP:RD/C#Major Google trouble. Coreycubed (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

Checking Luggage without a Flight

I'm in Europe and long story short I want to send my suitcase home before I personally get on the plane about 2 weeks later. Do airlines allow you to pay to put your luggage on a plane and send it to a specific destination. I could certainly have someone from home standing at baggage claim to pick it up at the airport back in the USA when it gets there. Would the airline that I'm flying on allow me to send it early? Thanks! Jared (t) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally no. Luggage requires a passenger. In fact, if you check luggage and miss your flight, airlines usually find and remove your luggage from the plane prior to leaving.

Ship it Federal Express,the ship luggage all the time.

It's for safety reasons. You could look into shipping it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US airlines do send your luggage if you don't get on the flight, a fact which astonished me the first time I discovered it, given their claims of high security. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather surprising too. This has been a big deal ever since the Air India bombing in 1985. I would expect an airline to send checked baggage ahead of the passenger only if they were the ones responsible for the passenger not being on the flight. --Anonymous, 22:13 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Plus baggage claim is airside so how would your friend get to it? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US airports I've been to, luggage is checked in at the ticket counter and picked up at the baggage claim, both of which are outside the secured parts of the airport. In any case, he should look at shipping the suitcase through normal means. My assumption would be he's trying to save money, but in this day and age a suitcase without a passenger would raise all sorts of red flags. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But unless it is sent from an airport that has US customs pre-clearance, the bag would have to be picked up prior to clearing customs, which is in the controlled part of the airport. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) So if I understand you correctly, people who haven't flown can take bags off baggage carousels? That's... bizarre. And it doesn't happen in Europe. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I bet your right - baggage for international flights would be handled differently. But it is true that for US domestic arrivals, at least, you could theoretically park your car in the airport garage, waltz into the baggage claim area, and grab someone else's suitcase - although the odds are good its owner would be grabbing for it at the same time, and would politely ask you what the bleep you think you're doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WHAAOE, see baggage claim. This, along with experience, confirms that international flights have baggage claim located prior to Customs. Domestically, there is no control on baggage claim in U.S. airports, other than normal surveillance and security. However, people generally don't take other people's bags unless there is a case of mistaken bag identity. I suppose there are more domestic fliers in the USA, which is why it seems the norm here. _{Someone from Europe finds commonplace American practices bizarre? This must be a first!} Coreycubed (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - send it freight. Or by FedEx, DHL, etc. only problem - cost. Sorry.Froggie34 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do ship your stuff ahead, be sure to use a service that includes package tracking. It's worth the cost if you don't want to lose your belongings. That could be registered mail at the post office (or its equivalent in your present country), FedEx, UPS, or the like. I personally would avoid any means that involves the US Postal Service. On two different occasions in my life, I attempted to ship personal goods via unregistered mail from Europe to the United States—once from France and once from Germany. In both cases, most or all of the items that I shipped never made it, and the USPS claimed that it was unable to track them down. (I suspect that pilferage was involved somewhere along the way, probably on the US side of the ocean.) Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is, assume whatever you're shipping could get stolen, and hence only ship stuff that's replaceable and not too expensive. Although shipping with tracking and insurance is a reasonable deterrent. If you ship anything valuable with no tracking or insurance, you might as well stamp "steal me!" on the box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but note that checked luggage is also highly vulnerable to theft or loss. The best carriers still lose luggage 3% of the time, which means if you fly every day, you can look forward to them losing your stuff once a month. The way they handle it is just pathetic, in many ways:

1) As noted previously, anyone can go up and grab your luggage after domestic US flights. If caught, they can just claim they mistook their luggage for yours. If you don't see any other bags that look like yours, they could just say they have one just like it, at home, but forgot that they brought a different bag this time. The proper way to handle it would be to check the ID of each person trying to claim a bag against the official ID tag.

2) The way they collect baggage headed to different cities, put tags on it all, mix it all together, then try to pull each bag out and put it on the right cart based on the tag, is likely to cause problems.

3) The open, often overloaded, carts they use to deliver the bags to the plane are also a problem, as bags can fall off.

4) Connecting flights are yet another opportunity for the baggage to be pilfered or lost.

A more reasonable way to handle checked luggage would be to have everyone carry it with them, through security, to the gate and then the plane, and deposit the checked baggage right by the plane door for loading into the baggage compartment. I've seen them do this when they decide there's too much carry-on baggage for the overhead compartments. Then, at the other end, you should get the baggage back right at the terminal, and have your ID checked against it. Of course, carrying all those bags the length of a terminal might be problematic, but having enough electric carts (or just push carts) and such available would fix that issue. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed" on the 3% claim. I have taken about 180 flights in my life, a large majority of those with checked baggage, and only once did my bags fail to make the flight I was on. And that one wasn't the airline's fault. (Due to a change of plans I found myself at the check-in desk more than 3 hours before the flight I was booked on, but there was space on another flight in just 30 minutes. I got on that flight, but the bag took the following one, less than an hour later.) --Anonymous, 22:10 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Barring theft, the bag has to go somewhere, so it might get misdirected but it should show up eventually. I've had a bag "lost" a couple of times, but it was eventually found. It's important to include some ID inside the luggage, in case the external tag gets torn off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sister once had someone accidentally walk off with her luggage. We figured it out by waiting until there was just one extra piece of luggage from the flight, which happened to look like hers. We called up the name on the tag and sure enough, she had picked up the wrong bag and not checked. Eventually she drove back to the airport and swapped it out. Annoying to say the least! --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My idea of requiring everyone to show ID that matches the name on the bags would have stopped that problem. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And added a lot of time to an already time-consuming process. I suspect the incidence of things like I described happening is pretty low (people generally want their own bags), and not worth adding an extra 30-60 minutes on to the baggage-retrieval process... or do you think that airport personnel would be able to cross-check bag tags and IDs for 150 people any quicker? Especially when, inevitably, some people will have lost their bag tags or they will be out of date or borrowed or whatever. In my case, it would have been easier if my sister had just put a big piece of yellow string on her bag so that nobody would have been confused about whose it was... it also would have cost less than a penny and taken up no additional time for anyone involved. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking IDs against names on bags requires no equipment and no special skills, so they should be able to provide enough employees to do that in a timely manner. For example, the stewardesses who just got off the plane can be asked to help out during this task. They could even wake up and/or sober up the pilot, and ask him to help. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the 3% claim — that may approach the correct value for 'number of bags delayed, temporarily misplaced, or misrouted', but is far, far, far from the fraction of bags permanently lost (through theft or other mechanisms). This article notes that roughly 98% of 'lost' bags (which includes bags that are delayed through misrouting, failure to catch the passenger's plane, drunken baggage handler, extra security fondling, etc., etc.) are 'found' again within five days; most of those are found much more quickly than that. The article pegs the fraction of bags which are totally and irretrievably lost at less than one in ten thousand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but not having your stuff for 5 days can be a major hassle (like having no suit to wear for that job interview), as is making arrangements to pick up the baggage, especially if you've gone home by then. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my luggage "lost" many, many times... it usually happens on connecting flights at busy airports—the people make the connection but the bag does not. It is always sent along on the next flight. At my airport they always have delivered it to my home afterwards, though it can take a day or two. Fortunately they always seem to lose it on the return end of my flight, not the outgoing, so it is not such a big deal for me. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Mr.98? Do you ever wonder "What am I doing wrong?", or "Why am I choosing crap airlines?". I've done a fair amount of air travel, but my bags have never been lost. I know people who've had that experience, and once is more than enough for a lifetime. To have it happen "many, many times" would seem to be getting into the realms of conspiracy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "a fair amount" of travel will mean very different things to different people. To some, it might be one vacation a year, while to others it may mean flying to work and home each day. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I sometimes have to travel a lot (once, maybe twice a month or so). It's usually not mysterious when they are going to miss my flight—it's certain airports and certain tight connections than do it. Flying a tight connection through Denver and your bags will probably get delayed. (Fly a late flight from DC to Boston in the winter, and your flight itself will be delayed. Guaranteed.) Part of what I do "wrong" is sometimes schedule tight connections like this—because the alternatives are usually pretty awful (I don't do red-eyes). When I'm flying back home, I accept this as a possible consequence, because the stakes are low (Logan delivers late bags to your door for free). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really practical in many cases. However, you're absolutely right that you should never put anything valuable or irreplaceable in checked luggage, especially things like jewelry and money, because there's a reasonable chance you won't see it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What parts aren't practical ? If you mean redesigning the gate area to include a luggage carousel, that would require some work, but they could do that whenever they rebuild the terminal next (which they seem to do on a regular basis, anyway). There could be lots of less expensive methods, though, right down to putting the baggage in a roped off area and having the passengers point out their own bags. Having less automated movement of baggage should ultimately cost less, though, as there's currently a massive unseen complex for handling baggage from the ticket counter to the plane, and none of that would be needed anymore. If you mean more of a load on security, that would have been true when they didn't check luggage, but now they are scanning all checked luggage, too, so this change would just move those scanning machines from the baggage handling area to the regular security area. It would also be helpful to have the person there to ask them about any questionable items. StuRat (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travelers are already annoyed enough at the airlines, and if they had to lug all their bags to the gate instead of having someone put them on a conveyer and let a system take care of it, that might put them over the edge. I've been behind groups of tourists with lots of bags, and the thought of the extra time and inconvenience that approach would put them through is unsettling to say the least. Along with having to pay a bunch of money for those carts. Yes, they sometimes have to gate-check items, but in general the current system seems to be optimal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason those carts have to be so expensive, they can soak travelers to pay for their new stadium some other way. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason hot dogs cost 5 bucks at either the airport or the ballpark, but they do. But even the carts were free, shlepping your family's luggage to the gate and then having to wait behind everyone else who shlepped their luggage would add a large amount of time to the process. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you already have to wait behind those people while their bags are checked at the ticket counter, that activity would just be moved to the gate. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that check-in takes place over a larger physical area and a longer timespan. It's not often I can say this but this time I agree with BB. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you're assuming things must stay the same as they are now. The length of the desk at the gate can surely be extended to accommodate one or more person moved up from the baggage check area. As for time, I see no reason why people wouldn't get to the gate earlier, if they no longer needed to check their bags first. And, at the gate, they would no longer need to ask you where you are going and print out appropriate luggage tags, as obviously they already know where everybody at that gate is heading, so they would just have a pile of pre-printed tags to which each customer could add their name. In the case where this is the first leg of a flight that ends up in multiple cities, then they could have a small number of piles of tags, each in a bin with the appropriate destination clearly marked. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished to hear that in the United States, any Tom, Dick or Barry can just wander into an airport and take incoming bags. That's certainly not the way it works in Britain... :O ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking theory. It's possible they keep an eye out for folks walking in off the street. But there's no guarantee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about the problem, including some remarkable photographs: [16]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our security screeners and baggage handlers remove anything of value before the bag reaches baggage claim, so there's little reason for the general public to go into the bag-theft business. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be possible to do this at Inverness Airport, for example. The main baggage claim is not seriously segregated from the arrivals area of the terminal, and my relations have been known to meet me in there. The airport even used to have a carousel out in Arrivals as well - I don't know if that's still there. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible at Frankfurt Airport (not UK, but Europe and one of the worlds major airports). This is irrespective of where you arrive from. You have to clear customs if you want to get from Baggage Reclaim back to the outside, but anyone (with a rough idea of the layout of the airport) can just walk up to the carousels. I've always been quite puzzled by that.213.160.108.26 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I once sleep-walked right through baggage reclaim and into the public area without picking up my backpack. It was no problem to just turn around and walk back in - I kinda expected to be challenged, but by looking comfortable and as if I belonged (or by someone else sleeping on the job ;-) I managed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search online for "luggage forwarding", "door-to-door luggage service", and simply "suitcase shipping", and you'll find a number of services that will ship suitcases, air or surface, door to door. These services all charge (the only one I could find online that gave quotes wanted >£150 for a Europe->US transfer for a single bag); some partner with airlines so you should check with your ticketed airline and see if they offer the service or have a partner who does (it should be cheaper, but I doubt it'll be free). The security and customs concerns raised above aren't any different for any other shipped item of comparable size (50 pound packages are airfreighted around, door to door, every day. If there's a security concern they'll open it. If there's a customs concern you'll have to pick it up at a customs office. Given the costs involved, however, you may consider whether it's economic to just give some stuff to charity and lug the rest. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the deal with splinters?

I've got a couple I'm trying to find right now. It seems the biggest ones (i.e. macroscopic ones) are almost entirely painless, while the ones that hurt like hell^H^H^H^Hheck are either barely visible or nonexistent. What is going on here? Oh, and secondly, if I don't feel like getting out the microscope to remove these, how long is it going to take for the dermis to grow out and drop them? ZigSaw 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what small-and-decreasing percentage of readers now will get the ^H^H joke?--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it somehow represents someone starting to say "hell" but then changing to "heck". Is that it ? StuRat (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks ^H is backspace and just two of them would have sufficed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE, which helps to slow the decrease. ^H. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Well, I have a 25 year old splinter, which I don't expect to fall out anytime soon. Actually, I suspect that the wood has all dissolved, and just left the wood stain behind. Apparently, this is a new way to get an accidental tattoo (with getting really drunk being the original way). So it seems a splinter can go deep enough that it's below the layer of skin which is shed, and thus remain permanently. As for small splinters hurting more, perhaps they are able to go down farther, to the nerves. I've always found it easier to locate splinters in profile than viewed straight on. So, if I have one on my finger, I rotate it so that anything sticking up will go into a profile view. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps smaller ones hurt similar to how Paper cuts hurt so much? The article suggest it's to do with the number of pain-receptors affected in a small area and leaving the wound open to air. Either way they bl@@dy well hurt when you're not expecting them - metal splinters being the worst i've had the misfortune to experience. ny156uk (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail address of Jim Davis (Garfield creator)

jim davis's email address(garfield creator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcbwayne (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) _{I have reformatted the question to its own section. Richard Avery (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

I doubt Jim Davis publishes his personal email address. You can use this link to visit the "Contact Us" page on the official Garfield website. (Their Site Map has a link marked "E-Mail Jim Davis", but it simply takes you to the Contact Us page.) Coreycubed (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also have information on how to make contact for commercial purposes (licensing, reproduction, etc), and contact details (email and postal) for Paws, Inc, the company that handles the commercial side of Garfield[17].--Normansmithy (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how to?

how to convey a message of dismay and unhappyness wih your big boss and askk for the position you looking for..al i mean is how do i go about it,do i say, i find myself capable of taking up new challanges etc etc?hope you got this.. please help.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting to switch to another department, badmouthing your current boss is likely to do nothing but brand you a malcontent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so try to only present the positive part, as in "i find myself capable of taking up new challanges" (although proofread it better first). If all else fails, look for a job outside the company (but don't quit your current job until you have a new job). StuRat (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Hopefully, ) OP was asking how to convey a message of dismay and "unhappyness" regarding his current position and not with the big boss himself. If the request is written, I hope for OP's sake that he proofreads it first, though. Coreycubed (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If 'big boss' means somebody in line authority higher than your immediate superior there is nothing positive to be done directly. (You would be cutting out your immediate boss.) Also never put a complaint in writing unless you are starting a formal Complaints Procedure (with guidance from Union rep, etc.). Depending on your relationship with your immediate boss you may raise the matter with him/her, informally. Test the water with a minor niggle and note the response. But you ain't going to beat the system. Best solution - probably - keep quiet, get a new job, and leave without complaint. (Your old bosses will be asked to give a reference so you must leave them happy. Good luck.Froggie34 (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other places, but in the US generally companies are not allowed to make comments about former employees, either good or bad, except to verify dates of employment. That way they avoid risk of lawsuits from either the former employee or his next company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legally they're not, but in practice they have ways of saying, or not saying, things in references that on the surface are innocuous and not provably negative, but may be understood by other management/HR personnel as detrimental. Undocumented and unattributable word-of-mouth information can also be conveyed when they meet in business or quasi-social contexts (conferences, Freemasons, Rotarians, RAOB etc: since the employee in question can never get to know whether this has taken place, it's impossible for him/her to instigate legal proceedings. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but it's worth avoiding the risk in the first place by diplomatic conduct. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone assumes the issue is negative comments. But positive comments can be a problem also. The issue is that while a given person may be right (or wrong) for a given situation, he might be wrong (or right) for a different situation. So if a boss gives an ex-employee a positive review, and the employee doesn't work out at his next place, that reflects negatively on the employee's former company. So the safest policy, and certainly at my company, is to say nothing to a recruiter except to confirm dates of service. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting off-topic, but I'm fairly sure companies aren't legally prohibited from commenting on former employees, although they may decide to follow such a policy to avoid legal trouble. The First Amendment applies to bosses, too. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten the jobs I've had without positive comments from former employers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - you definitely need to keep it positive. Talk only about how the new position would be good for you - and (importantly) why you'd be a greater asset to the company in the new position than your present one. Explain that you've been thinking about a move like this for quite a while - you don't want to make it seem like this is a snap decision. You might even be ready with an explanation about how your old department will be able to get by without you - you probably don't want to offer that unless asked. Be sure to point out that you'll be prepared to work harder to cover the transition - to avoid leaving a sudden hole in your old department. Be prepared to accept an 'overlap' period where you may need to pick up tasks from the old job until they can get a replacement. SteveBaker (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms in non-European countries?

In Europe, it's common for countries and their cities have their own coats of arms. But how common is this outside Europe? Are coats of arms of countries and cities used in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia? JIP | Talk 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very common, would be unusual to have none. Sometime it's as simple as an emblem like that of the Imperial Seal of Japan. See List of coats of arms. --Kvasir (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few entries on the list, and my general feeling based on this was that while every country has a symbol for both the country itself and its cities, not all of them look like what I've accustomed to think coats of arms look like. I've come to think of a coat of arms being shield-shaped, with an easily distinguishable, artistic but not overly detailed, image on it, and very few to none exterior decorations. Most of the European coats of arms look like this. In contrast, based on my quick glance at the list, most of the coats of arms outside Europe go to one of the extremes: either they are very simple designs, or overly flourishing images. JIP | Talk 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that the Coat of Arms of Commonwealth countries follow the style of the British one, be it Canada, Australia, Uganda etc. which include an emblem shield, supporters, crest, motto etc. See Heraldry#National_styles for different heraldric traditions that are as unique as culture itself. --Kvasir (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Gallery of country coats of arms you can quickly compare different heraldric traditions. The Coat of arms of Sweden, say, is no less elaborate than that of Cambodia. --Kvasir (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Canada the coat of arms appears on all of our paper money (as well as the rarely used 50-cent coin). For a while around 1980 it was printed in full color and I liked the way that looked, but later designs show it in monochrome. It also appeared in full color on the Canadian Red Ensign, the old flag (never officially adopted, but generally used) that the present design replaced in 1965. --Anonymous, 22:18 UTC, March 10, 2010.

It is well to be aware of the distinction between a Coat of Arms, the term more-or-less correctly used to describe the heraldic design depicted on a Shield (though as the name suggests it originally referred to the design displayed on a Tabard), and a full Heraldic Achievement, often though wrongly also called a coat of arms (our article is misleading on this point) which at absolute minimum could consist only of such a shield but for most individuals usually also includes a Motto, Helm (plus Torse and Mantling) and Crest, while for higher peers, some corporate bodies, and countries it usually also includes other elements such as a Coronet or Crown, Supporters and a Compartment with Badges, etc. In many circumstances only the Shield/coat of arms, or the Crest, from an Achievement can be validly displayed on its own, which can lead to further confusion. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that at least in the United States, cities have seals instead of coats of arms. They can be used for the same purpose for identifying the city, but I think the traditions behind them are different. JIP | Talk 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would demur. In Western Europe after the rise of Heraldry in the 12th Century, the seal of an individual (usually) or corporate body (such as a city) more often than not included the individual's or body's Achievement or parts of it (shield, crest). US cities (founded largely by Western Europeans) that adopted (or altered) seals after European rule ended may well have chosen non-heraldic designs, but they would have done so as a conscious alteration to the existing tradition, not as something that had arisen independently. I confess this is surmise, and I am ready to accept evidence to the contrary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds plausable. Modern UK Borough Councils have big wax seals, issued with their Charter by the Queen. However, they also have a coat of arms but these days are more likely to use a corporate style logo for most purposes. Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also the rise of landscape heraldry; and that not all seals were heraldic, even in heraldry's golden age. —Tamfang (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Poster

I'm searching for an image of a Spanish antifascist poster from WWII. If I remeber correctly, it represents a skeleton with angel wings flying over a ruined city. The main color should be red, but I'm not sure about it. I've seen it on a book a lot of time ago but now I can't find it anywhere. --151.51.61.156 (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this it? --Mr.98 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Mr 98!! Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be from the Spanish Civil War? Surely by 1939, Spain was firmly in the Fascist camp. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find much about the poster specifically. I imagine it is Spanish Civil War era. It would be nice to know exactly where it was used, who made it, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says "El angel de La Paz de los fascistas!", which translates as "The angel of La Paz of the facists!" (there's also smaller writing, but I can't make it out). Also note the skeleton angel is wearing a gas mask and has a hand formed into a swastika. There are many places named La Paz, but, of course, the largest is the capital of Bolivia. So, could this poster have been criticizing a political figure or party in Bolivia as being sympathetic to the Nazis ? StuRat (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was able to enhance the pic to make out the smaller text. It says something like "Las juventudes libertarias lo sabran destruir !" which, I think, roughly translates to "Sabran youths, it is up to you to liberate or destroy !". Sabran is a region in France, though, so that doesn't seem to fit. I'm going to cross-post on the Language Desk, to see if I can get a better translation there. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cross-posted, and here are the answers: [18]. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which puts us back where we were... Spanish Civil War (not Bolivia). But at least we know it was probably made by the Federación Ibérica de Juventudes Libertarias. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Question on a Citation Style

I was wondering if anyone could help me. Is there an English citation style which combines in-text references consisting of the author's name plus a superscript number with full citations in the endnotes? In other words, the in-text reference might look like (Smith, Johnson ³), and it would correspond to entry number 3 in the citation endnotes. Paul Davidson (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that manylegal citation systems work like this. I know that at leas the Australian Guide to Legal Citation does.Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much appreciated. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hierachicise?

Is there a verb which means "to place in a hierachy"? I've never heard of "to hierachise" or "to hierachicise". "To tree" sounds quite nice. The specific context I am working in is describing file structures. You can search, link and tag or you can... Yaris678 (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Webster's (US spelling, obviously) says "hierarchize". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the original meaning of "hierarchy" is "sacred ruler/leader", going back to a Greek word. It traditionally means an order of angels. That's something Mike Scioscia fills out every day. A related word is "hieroglyph", which means "sacred carving", referring to ancient Egyptian writing, or your doctor's handwriting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find Hierachicise in ANY English dictionary. ~~Heirarchize~~Hierarchize is found[19] in a small (6) number of dictionaries. corrected Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns up (with both an 's' and a 'z') in the online version of the concise OED. But since this is technical writing, and its meaning will be clear, I think you'd be safe to use it, regardless. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing an "r" in Hierachicise and you said "Heirarchize" but linked to "hierarchize". --Sean 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The verb "unflatten" seems to be used in jargon senses[20][21][22]. This makes sense because "flatten" is to reduce or remove hierarchy, particularly in data-tree/directory contexts. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic occupational safety and health training course

What would be the reason for attending the basic occupational safety and health (BOSH?)-Out of scope question by an IP at Commons, so not sure of the country or context this is asked in. Thanks in advance.KTo288 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Occupational safety and health. The goal of all occupational health and safety programs is to foster a safe work environment.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a purely pragmatic level, appointment or promotion to various posts in many companies requires formal BOSH qualifications. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

entertainment/games

are activision xbox360 games multiregion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.200.240 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about companies, but if you were after some specific games, then this thread claims to list all multiregion Xbox and Xbox360 games. It was written in 2006, but the thread is still being posted on in 2010...The main post was last updated in 2008. I imagine if you asked there, those people might be able to help you. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excellent - this one even has a talk page - a list from Wikia Gaming. My searches would seem to indicate that companies don't decide, as a whole, whether or not to region lock games - it's a game-by-game decision. I could be wrong, that's just how it seems. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm a game developer) Often it depends on the game content. For example, it's illegal to sell games that show blood or Nazi symbols in Germany. If your game has that stuff in it, you'll generally have to use region locking to keep the game out of Germany and make a special version for sale in Germany (typically using green "ectoplasm" as a stand-in for the blood and other art changes to keep any undesirable symbols out of the game). It's also possible that Microsoft, Nintendo or SONY might lay some requirement on you to region lock for deep, dark mysterious reasons known only to themselves. Also, if you had to buy rights to music or characters or movie rights or something - then those licenses will typically only apply to a certain set of regions - so again, you'll have to lock the game. SteveBaker (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dentists and orthodontists

What is the difference between dentists and orthodontists? Chevymontecarlo. 13:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the cleverly titled dentistry and orthodontics. I think you'll find your answer there. Richard Avery (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which is actually so titled. Sorry, but ... :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever apologise for being a pedant Jack, some of my best friends is pedants. Richard Avery (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply: Dentists treat tooth disease and tooth disorders. Orthodontists work on tooth and jaw alignment (braces, etc.). As with any set of related professions there is some overlap in definition, especially since orthodontics is considered a sub-set/specialty of dentistry. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiley's Dictionary: "Overbite: n. Something your dentist notices in your child's mouth, just before he remodels his office." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am so stupid sometimes. I often wonder whether I'm actually intelligent enough to edit articles and help people on Wikipedia! Chevymontecarlo. 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We here at the reference desk resemble that remark. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't edit any encyclopedia that would have me as a member! -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Too stupid to edit"? Ha! That never stopped anyone else! (Me included.) 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?

Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?

--Mr.98 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dentists are doctors who diagnose and treat diseases and conditions of the oral cavity (such as those of the teeth, gums, palate and tongue) and related structures (lips, muscles of mastication, TMJs, etc.). Some dentists specialize in a smaller, more concentrated area of training, such as endodontists (who generally limit their practice to root canal therapy), orthodontists (who generally limit their practice to treating malocclusion with the use of orthodontic braces and other similar apparatuses), periodontists (who generally limit their practice to treating diseases of the gums and perform gum surgery and place implants). There are other specialties, and you can ask directly on my talk page if you'd like further elaboration. So, to be precise, an orthodontist is a dentist but a dentist is not necessarily an orthodontist. And whereas there are no regulations in the United States, for example, forbidding a general dentist from performing orthodontic work, one who does will in general be much less familiar with the procedures and will be held to the level of a specialist in case of a malpractice suit. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find article about Mephenesin

Dear sir or madam,

I cannot find pharmacology information about Mephenesin, a muscle relaxant. Could you please add this article in your website? 115.178.25.154 (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check our page on Mephenesin? Coreycubed (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that is just a stub, so we are still in need of a proper article. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European lotteries

Dear Sir/Madame, My question is: As european citizen which European Lotto & Lotteries I am eligible to play ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osfpkassos (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be rather surprised if they exclude anyone based on nationality, as the more people play, the more money the lotteries make. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is believable - I'm pretty sure I remember there being a story relatively recently about people flocking to Italy (I believe) to buy tickets because the prize had 'rolled over' repeatedly. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have received an advert trying to convince you to buy European lottery tickets, don't send any money. It is an Internet scam. 310exit (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I buy a lottery ticket here in the US, I'm not asked to prove my citizenship. I would imagine that in Europe, the same would be true especially because the borders are even more porous. Dismas|^(talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the various lotteries have their rules posted somewhere, which should be consulted before "investing" in a lottery (i.e. helping make someone else rich). Contests sponsored by companies as marketing gimmicks typically have rules forbidding anyone connected with the company from participating. I could imagine that employees of lottery administrators, and their families, would be similarly barred from playing. And for whatever reason, it's always possible a given lottery might have other restrictions on who can play. For example, if "Powerball" has an official website, which I would expect them to, they probably have the rules somewhere on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The important question is not whether you are eligible play - it's whether you're allowed to collect the money if you win. In the UK lottery, you either have to be physically present at a retailer who sells tickets - or you have to have a UK bank account. The French, Spanish and Italian "Loto" web sites specifically state that foreigners are welcome to play and to collect prizes. The German lottery site doesn't say you CAN'T play and collect winnings - so I presume it's OK there too. At this point I got bored - so if you need to know more - you'll have to type "{somecountry} lottery eligibility" into Google yourself! SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EuroMillions runs in several countries (listed in the article). I'm fairly certain I've seen posters for the Irish Lotto in UK bookmakers too. As User:310exit says, beware of any emails telling you you've won a European lottery, as it may be a lottery scam. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK national lottery specifies you must be a UK resident to play online, but that appears to be more to do with having a UK bank account with which to pay for tickets and receive prizes. Their terms and conditions don't say anything else about citizenship/residency. I have played other European lotteries (buying tickets at lottery outlets) and won (small) prizes, and have never been asked for any ID when buying a ticket or collecting my prize. Astronaut (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires

Wouldn't it be more helpful if vampires had enlongated two front teeth instead of the canines? My guess you will need to puncture then suck. --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some do from Nosferatu but canines seem to have become more common. meltBanana 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, incisors are for slicing bits away, the canines are for gripping. This is why cats (both great and small) and dogs (including wolves foxes etc) and snakes have elongated canines rather than incisors.--92.251.227.109 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on nothing, but I've always imagined that the canines on a vampire are hollow, and they such blood through them. That way they can get a lot of blood without spilling, and it explains why the wounds are so tiny (often they look just two small red circles, like slightly larger snake-bites) Belisarius (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would require a direct connection between the apex of the canines and the lungs, so as to provide negative pressure for the suction. Unless vampires rely on capillary action. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A connection with the mouth would do. Consider how you use a straw. (Can't believe I'm posting in a thread about vampires!) --Anon, 05:12 UTC, March 12, 2010.

Given that vampires are fictional, anything you might imagine has equal validity with anything else. Vampire bats pierce the skin with their teeth, salivate a blood thinner, and lap up the blood. It's insects such as mosquitoes that pierce the skin and drink through their built-in straw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of remark is often made in reply to questions about fiction, but it isn't quite true. There is such a thing as canon (fiction). I could imagine that vampires absorb their victims' blood through their elbows, or use a curly straw and cocktail umbrella, and those ideas would have distinctly less validity than popular concepts of the actions of a vampire. 81.131.52.202 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a vampire canon??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canines are much wider and bulkier than incisors and have much longer roots -- in fact, they generally possess the greatest root length of any tooth. Because of these characteristics, canines are some of the last teeth remaining after the devastating effects of periodontitis ravage the dentition because average overall bone loss contributes to a smaller bone loss-to-root length ratio for canines. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section could almost be added to the Dentist section above, as it's covering some of the same ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all vampires have fangs. See Tables of vampire traits. Astronaut (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, WHAAAOE. —Tamfang (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Becomes soggy in milk", haha! I love that article. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resources to deal with alcoholics

I'm specifically looking for websites which help teenagers (school-age) deal with alcoholic parents, in the UK. I'm Googling, but my results aren't terrific, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out our article on the National Association for Children of Alcoholics. Here is NACoA's UK website: [23] Hope this helps. Good luck. Coreycubed (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Al-Anon and Alateen. Marco polo (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, should be useful. It's for a friend, I'll show her when she comes online tonight. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

River of northern Iran

What is the name of that river in northwestern Iran that starts near Mount Sabalan, flows north past Ardabil into the Aras River? Thanks, Shannon ^talk _contribs 01:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at one of my atlases, the river that makes a turn to the west after Ardabil, flows due north after that, and enters the Aras on the Iranian border with Azerbaijan, about 20 miles SW of Füzuli, is the Qareh. Not sure if there are alternate spellings. AlexiusHoratius 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wow! That was hard to find...this says that the river that flows through Ardabil is called the "Baliqly Chay River" SteveBaker (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main river which flows into Aras is Qare Su. Baliqly Chay passes through Ardabil, joins another river, and makes Qare Su. By the way, there are also some other "Qare Su"s in Iran in other provinces. --Omidinist (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like that there are actually two rivers around the Sabalan region that join together and flow due north, but I haven't been able to find the name before I asked. Thanks for clarifying. Shannon ^talk _contribs 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sea salt vs Table salt

I was going through differences between sea salt and table salt. Sea salt has 98% NaCl and 2% other minerals; whereas table salt has 99.9% minerals. From this it looks like sea salt should be considered as bad as table salt, but sea salt is recommended when compared to table salt (?). Is it because of 2% minerals in sea salt ?! Just wondering, adding >2% minerals to table salt will make table salt better than sea salt ?! --V4vijayakumar (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad" in what sense? If you're trying to cut back on sodium, I expect sea salt is almost exactly as bad as table salt.

If your sodium intake is within limits, will substituting sea salt improve your health by supplying minerals you'd otherwise be missing? I don't know. It's not ridiculous on its face, but I don't have any data.

But if your doctor has said "ixnay on the altsay, because your BP is way too high", and you assuage your guilt by using sea salt instead, I don't think that's really gonna cut it. Speaking purely hypothetically of course — not offering any medical advice, nor do I claim any competency in this field. --Trovatore (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'll make it taste better than regular salt! I doubt that there's any other effect, unless you have some specific mineral deficiency. Paul Stansifer 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is that really true? Does it really taste any different at all? I'd be most interested iun seeing the results of a blind test. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you think it tastes better, then it does taste better. This is an area where getting the scientific facts is not necessarily the path to maximum utility. --Trovatore (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but if the eater was not aware that it contained sea salt, and assumed it was just table salt, would they notice any difference? I am yet to be convinced. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to get the table salt in your blind trial to have the same crunchy texture, or that would be a giveaway. Possibly the texture is the only difference. Then again, I'm sure we can detect 2% of various things in our food, such as 2% burnt bits or 2% engine oil, so it's not unreasonable. 81.131.52.202 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about sprinkling salt on to a finished meal, where the visual appearance is a give away even before they get to the texture. But in that case, the individual eater would be doing the sprinkling so of course they'd be aware of what they were putting on their meal. Now, what about using it in the cooking process itself, where it becomes totally dissolved? Would two identical steaks, one cooked with sea salt and the other cooked with an equivalent amount of table salt, taste any different? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. People often delude themselves into thinking silly things, like $2000 wires 'sound better' or even sillier things like certain digital streams sound better even though they are exactly the same stream. You may say caveat emptor or tough on such people but IMHO those who spread such nonsense to make money are committing fraud and I have no sympathy for such people. For those who are doing it out of ignorance and have no personal benefit on the RD even if this isn't the science desk, we should challenge any claims without good evidence, we can't force people to accept they may be wrong, but if we show them there's no evidence for their claim, and challenge them to do their own tests if they won't accept the evidence, perhaps some will begin to change their minds. We definitely should not be perpetuating nonsense on the RD. Coming from NZ, where iodine deficiency is a very real problem, it really irks me when people promote sea salt or uniodised salt without good reason and yes, if you're going to promote taste as a reason, I expect good evidence or failing that at least acknowledgement that what you're saying may very well be complete nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the $2000 wires sound better to them, then they sound better. I'm not going to take that back. I happen to be just plain right about this. --Trovatore (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to believe something which sounds exactly the same as something else sounds better (e.g. two digital streams which are exactly the same), that's you're right of course, but since this is the RD, I call that nonsense, and will call it out whenever I see it. Sure you can make philisophical arguments about what 'better' means but as far I'm concerned if two things are the same, then they are the same, claiming one is better simply because some people have deluded themselves into thinking it is better when they are unable to detect any difference is not something I'll ever advocate. Sure if people are aware they are unable to detect any difference but don't mind because they are happy with the way their delusions make them feel, I have no problem with that. But the evidence suggests this is not the case for the vast majority of people. They will insist their delusions are real, in some cases even going as far as to outright reject any evidence while still believing their delusions are real. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you changed your essay after I'd responded to it, without noting that fact — not really kosher. You're still wrong — the subjective experience is the entire point here, so if someone thinks his experience is better, then it is. --Trovatore (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did however inform you on your talk page (before you said anything here although I understand you were likely composing your message the same way I was adding something to my comment above). Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is not what pressure waves hit your eardrum; the point is how much pleasure you get out of it. If it sounds better to you, then it sounds better, period. So you can call it like you see it, but you're just flat wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I disagree, and from my experience as mentioned above, this is not what the vast majority of people making such claims are saying. They are genuinely claiming that there is a difference. Many are simply misinformed and will be surprised but have no problem accepting when it's shown to them their deep seat beliefs were incorrect, and in fact will often be happy that you've shown this to them (although the evidence has to be strong enough and they sometimes may require a fair amount of explaination). The more die hard will reject any evidence, even from their own senses and come up with silly reasons for why you evidence is wrong or the experiments don't work but they will still insist there really is a difference, they just argue you aren't showing it. They will often get worked up about it, if you challenge their beliefs precisely because they strongly believe their most be a difference (similar to the way religious people and those who believe in other pseudosciences tend to get worked up). A vanishing few are fully aware that there is no difference but don't care because it seems better to them (i.e. the case you're talking about). Again I don't really care about the later and isn't what I'm discussing here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll just add one more thing and then I won't be back to this discussion unless someone asks me to on my talk page. My main point above, even if it got a little sidetracked in the discussion is that if you are going to say something "tastes better" you should at least clarify what you mean by "it tastes better". If you solely mean "I think it tastes better but in reality it probably tastes the same I've simply deluded/whatever myself into thinking it tastes different because of preconceived believes and emotions on my part, and there's no reason why you should share let alone embrace my delusions/whatever" then explain so in some meaningful way and I don't care since you are entitled to your personal beliefs.

My concern is when people just say "tastes better" but are intending the above, and given this is a RD even if not /S, people may be confused into thinking such statements have some basis in fact, rather then simply being personal delusions/whatever which others may not share, and in particular many people who approach the world from a more logical viewpoint are not going to want to share.

(And I suspect/OR that this is a majority of people since as I've mentioned the way people generally respond if challenged is either accept it or reject it because they don't accept the validity of the testing. Even those who do accept it may be in their imagination but still believe it anyway often also believe there may be something there you just aren't detecting but don't care that much either way. In other words as I said before from my experience/OR it's only a small number who actually fully accept its in their imagination/whatever but don't care.)

Now, if you mean "double blinds tests have shown I can taste the difference and I personally do believe it tastes better (perhaps with an explaination of why you feel it tastes better if you can describe it)" then I'm even more happy with you mentioning that. If you mean "double blind tests have shown that in geographical location X among people Y, A% of people find it better tasting & here are the refs to show that" then say so, the later of course being the best answer since this is the RD.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my point: You keep repeating this thing about "deluding oneself" into thinking that something tastes better. It is not a delusion!!!!. There is no such thing as being "deluded" about your sense perceptions. You can be deluded about how they relate to external reality; you cannot be deluded about what they are.

So if you think coffee tastes better in a pretty mug, then guess what, it does. It really, factually does. The reason it tastes better may be psychological rather than anything related to the neurochemistry of your oral and nasal cavities. So what?

And obviously double-blind methodology is simply aggressively missing the point here. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beware, people who make money selling sea salt are going to make all sorts of claims about it. As sea salt is the sort of thing that is sold in health food shops, then its easy to tuck it in with health foods. I try to avoid all salt in my diet, by not adding any and avoiding processed foods. I make my own salt-less bread. My food tastes just as good as with salt. If you add up all the salt in food you eat in a day, then you will probably have an unpleasant surprise. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, both about how marketing works, and the potential risks of salt, or more specifically, sodium. We do need some salt, but there's already plenty of salt in foods, generally, so it's not normally necessary to add any. One oddity: The OP said "Sea salt has 98% NaCl and 2% other minerals; whereas table salt has 99.9% minerals." That last part should say "99.9% NaCl and .1% other minerals", right? Especially as he seems to have corrected himself in the next sentence. But I don't like to mess with other people's posts directly. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sea salt makers sometimes claim that because it tastes nicer you can use less (which is presumably healthier, if true). More scientifically, salts which contain not just sodium chloride will also have additional minerals and trace elements that your body requires such as iodine - manufacturer sites[24][25] - so that is healthier. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, the use for iodized table salt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and specifically, because a lack of iodine can cause goiters. Unfortunately, iodine has a nasty taste. That's why they added it to salt, because salt has such a strong taste, that it tends to cover up the iodine. However, you can get uniodized table salt, and it does taste better. I suspect that that's what's going on with sea salt, too: it tastes better because it has less iodine than regular iodized table salt. But, of course, if you skip the nasty tasting iodine, you're putting yourself at risk of an iodine defficiency. StuRat (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can get enough iodine by eating seafood occasionally, such as sea-fish. You ought to be eating oily fish (such as salmon, sardines, mackeral)for health reasons anyway. You should not eat salt just to get iodine. 89.242.121.98 (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most table salt sold in the UK is uniodized. The main difference between sea salt and ordinary table salt is that sea salt has a higher proportion of dead fish and sewage in it than table salt. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} for double blind tests (or similar) showing uniodised salt tastes better Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, again, that most people in the Western world get PLENTY of salt in their diet as it is—way too much, from a health standpoint. The incidence of iodine deficiency is practically nonexistent North America and Western Europe. Don't add more salt to your diet out of fear of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you shouldn't be adding salt for fear of iodine deficiency. However, the question of whether you should choose non-iodised salt vs. iodised salt is a valid one Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though does it matter in practice? If you eat out every once in awhile, surely you get enough salt and iodine, provided you don't just eat in places that serve sea salt? I am presenting this as an honest question. My understanding is that Americans in particular get a huge overdose of salt from eating out. I imagine that most of that is iodized? If that were true then you'd never really need to intentionally add additional iodine to your diet, right? (Since the amount of iodine required to avoid deficiency is very small.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since more relevant to the original question I'll answer this but also leave after that. This ref says

The proportion of the US population with moderate to severe iodine deficiency (<50 µg iodine/L in urine) has more than quadrupled in the last 20 years, 2.6% in NHANES I vs 11.7% in NHANES III

I'm not sure if that reallys means 11.7% of the American population has moderate to severe iodine deficiency or I misunderstood something (didn't read it in depth) but either way, I'm not sure if the problem is really that small. Nowadays of course, you're probably better then many in the past and in the US still far better then many other countries, but the recommendations are I presume set on what should ideally be minimum level for the average person based on the evidence available. [26] does at least suggest the problem may not be getting worse at least from the 90s-2000.

Also I'm not sure how much the overconsumption of salt from eating out helps since [27] says

Contrary to popular belief, four-fifths of the salt in American food is not iodized. That would be fine if we only consumed fewer over-salted, processed, prepackaged, and fast foods (which do not contain iodine)...

The site may not seem the best but it does have a HONcode which seems to suggest it's not complete quackery.

BTW, as mentioned in the 1st ref & hardly surprising, those on a sodium restricted diet are at obvious risk although iodised salt may not help much here (although it would make sense that of & salt they do use for it to be iodised without a good reason to the contrary particularly if they're reluctant to take external supplementation).

And as you may guess from the womentowomen site there's more likely to be a problem for women, pregnant and lactating ones in particular [28]). This isn't an uncommon problem with many nutrional requirements although as with many isn't an easy thing to solve, supplementation is useful but many pregnancies are unplanned and the mother may be unaware for weeks that she's pregnant which can be a problem in itself. Also while I'm not sure if this is a problem in pregnancy, if you suddenly increase iodine intake that will generally be a problem in itself causing hyperthroidism [29] & the w2w ref

The w2w also suggests iodine intake in the US is "marginal" & something that may seem to the contrary

As recently as 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine defined our iodine status here in the US as “marginal,” based on data acquired from the International Council for the Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorder and the World Health Organization (WHO). More specifically, the WHO data suggest the greater risk in the US is not iodine deficiency per se but iodine-induced hyperthyroidism (overproduction of thyroid hormones) or iodine-induced hypothyroidism. Interestingly, both these problems can occur when people who are already iodine-deficient are given too much iodine, too quickly......

I haven't hunted the original ref but while it may suggest many Americans are taking too much iodine, the w2w conclusion is not that nor have I seen any other refs saying that. (Many refs mention the lack of major problems from Japan's very high level & the first ref mentions they don't have much more hyperthyroidism then the US although they do have one type less common in the US.)

Other then perhaps an unavoidable issue without carefully targetted individual nutritional profiles, my guess is that it may also be a combination of 1) immigrants to the US having a sudden iodine increase (c.f. the first ref on sudden iodine increases) 2) migration within the US due to substanial differences between geographical areas 3) iodine deficiency is often picked up on in the US and treated with supplementation (which would imply it does occur often enough for this to be a detectable problem) but this is done poorly/too fast.

Either way these & a few other things I read lead me to believe a resonable number of Americans will benefit from increased iodine intake. Again I emphasised this because a key point when it comes to nutritional things like this, it's not that the level is critically low but that a higher level will generally be better & in particular, you're more likely to be lower than ideal then higher than ideal bearing in mind that while hyperthroidism is a problem if it does occur from what I gather you've either suddenly changed your level, are 'unlucky' or perhaps have other major problems like are consuming way, way to much salt in which case the excess iodine may be the least of your worries. I haven't see any recommendations Americans in general should avoid iodised salt because they're like to be overconsuming iodine.

My impression (i.e. WP:OR) is it's perhaps only a very minor problem compared to other parts of the world (both in terms of the number of people affected & the how low their level is) and as the US is a developed rich country, people don't tend to care about it anyway since they can take care of themselves. Within the US the problem isn't big enough particularly compared to other issues that it get's much attention & it's not an easy thing to resolve anyway (mandatory fortification tends to be controversial).

Iodised salt doesn't have to be the solution but if you don't have a good reason not do take it or you believe you'll get little benefit but don't have any real evidence (e.g. if you're regularly tested and you level is within recommended range then that's different) then I think it's something worth considering from what I've read.

P.S. Just to re-emphasise what I said above, if you're planing to increase your iodine level do it gradually & seek medical advice if necessary.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Kosher salt. It does not usually have additives like anti-caking agent and iodine. It is one of the kinds of salt suitable for aquarium use. --Kvasir (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sea salt tastes different because of magnesium chloride which has a much stronger sensation than NaCl. This also absorbs water and makes the sea salt sticky. the small amount of sulfates, iodides or Potassium or Calcium salts would not make much difference to flavour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that minerals like potassium and magnesium help to regulate sodium concentrations in the body, as well as to regulate other bodily functions. I don't know that the trace levels in sea salt would actually make any significant difference, but there is a value to taking in a more comprehensive spectrum of these chemicals. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubik's Cube

How do you solve the last corners if they are in the right position but oriented differently?--Mikespedia is on Wikipedia! 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's heaps of websites detailing solutions to the Rubik's Cube. Try Googling it, and you'll see there's hundreds. See if you can find the solution there. Chevymontecarlo. 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

backstreet boys

its written in Wikipedia that they had their first concert on july 8, 1993, but i checked some other sites and they showed that its actually may 8, 1993. can anyone help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.137.170 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses references to show that the statements in articles are true. References are links to sites and books that say the same thing as in the article. The actual Backstreet Boys article uses the MTV site, [Located here] as a reference (Go to the link and scroll down to the 'biography' section). Try looking on several websites for their first concert dates - if they say the same date then it's more likely that whatever that date is is true. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo. 16:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That MTV link doesn't give a date for the first concert. Many of the sites that say July seem to be Wikipedia clones. But this is a discussion for Talk:Backstreet Boys. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open_admissions and academic quality

Can a university have both? At least, in some fields like art?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the liberty of rephrasing your question so the Reference Desk can give a proper answer: "Can anyone point me to examples of a university or college that had open admissions and high-quality, highly regarded academic programs?" (The way you phrased it, everyone could lazily answer "yes, it is possible.") 74.212.140.226 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they could say simply 'yes.' But, perhaps the OP just wants to know if being selective is a condition to being good. I personally believe that it is not, you can be a good educator and accept any student who knocks at your door. You'll try the best and the result will not be consistent. On the other side, highly selective institutions could have excellent students coming out of them, without being good educators. It is the selection effect that makes their student above the average.--ProteanEd (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do we mean by academic quality? Quality of teaching, of research? Quality of an individual student's potential education? Or do you mean the ability of all of the students to do well according to various types of testing regimes, earn extremely high amounts, etc.?

Sure, it could, in theory, have all of these things. In practice, the performance of the students (however measured), on average (individuals can certainly buck the trend), probably drops as you widen admission requirements. That doesn't preclude the possibility of hiring excellent faculty for the most part (though "quality of students" is a factor when considering where to work, in my experience—working with students who are just a step or two out of high school is a very different sort of job than working with slick Ivy League kids), though it probably does, in practice. Academics want to work in places with money and/or status. Theoretically an open university can have both, though I'm not sure in practice that they do. That being said, there are some notable exceptions. The College de France has free and open lectures, and is renown for the quality of its faculty. Many excellent academics have worked for the Open University. City College of New York is ranked higher than many other institutions which have more selective admissions requirements. There are probably other examples as well. On average, though, if you are considering institutions like community colleges, open admissions does seem to be correlated with both a decrease in the quality of instructors (as measured by the standards of the wider academy) and students (ditto). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only endorse the three recommendations of Mr.98. I have also heard of the quality of these institutions. Furthermore, I have to add that it also depends on the field of study. In many cases, like classics, history, or philosophy, there is not a lot of competition (at least in Europe), so the university is in practice open for all who know the language and have a high-school diploma. --ProteanEd (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WILDLIFE QUESTION

I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SUGAR GLIDERS ARE LEGAL IN PENNSYLVANIA. I SEE ON THIS SITE IT STATES THEY ARE LEGAL AS HOUSE PETS...BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME STIPULATIONS ON THE SALE. CAN I GET A PERMIT? I'VE SEEN THEY DON'T ISSUE THEM ANYMORE? I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHERE I CAN PRINT OUT IN BLACK AND WHITE THE EXACT GUIDELINES/RESTRICTIONS FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.249.102 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the conditions at the top of this page, you'll see that we can't give you legal advice. You could try contacting the State Veterinarian's office whose details are given here; they should be able to advise you --Normansmithy (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sugar Glider article has some general info on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is asking what the law about something in a state is asking for "legal advice"? It is pretty hard to figure out what PA's laws are; there's not a list of specific animals that I can find -- most likely it's internal Game Commission policy, since they consider each application individually and specifically. (For example, for big cats and such, they'll want to know what provisions the applicant has made for safety, etc.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Pennsylvania law, "A new applicant for an exotic wildlife possession permit shall provide documentation of at least 2 years experience of hands-on work with the designated species, including care, feeding, handling, training and husbandry. This experience shall be from a recognized/approved facility and the owner, manager or licensee of this facility shall provide a letter of reference." If you feel you can meet these requirements, you should contact the Pennsylvania Game Commission to request a permit. Marco polo (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write in capitals either. There's no need, as it won't get people's attention any more than any other question. Chevymontecarlo. 09:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it may turn people away. Dismas|^(talk) 10:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fat people

I'm 6'1" 260 lbs. I'm overweight and I have a gut. However, my arms and legs don't have drooping fat. But when I watch TV shows like Judge Alex and Maury and trashy shows like that, the people are absolutely enormous. I have terrible eating habits and I don't exercise, but I don't look anything like them. What exactly makes them so large?

I was under the impression that Canadian and American lifestyles are pretty close to the same, but on my excursions to the US, there are more very large people. Why is there a difference? What are they doing that I'm not that make them so much bigger? Aaronite (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, this isn't a judgement: as far as I know, I should look like that too, but I don't, and I don't really understand why. Aaronite (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Body chemistry, metabolism, genetic makeup, that kind of thing. With the (near) exception of identical twins, every body is unique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They take in more energy than they expend?--79.76.188.14 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They spend too much time sitting on their butts answering Wikipedia Ref Desk Q's. :-) Butt seriously, those type of freak shows either go for "hotties" or the hideous, because that's what their viewers want to see. So, those people aren't representative of Americans, thank God. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely speculative, but I think that Canada's educational systems are better on average than U.S. educational systems. As a result, I suspect that a larger percentage of Canadians than of people in the United States are aware and appreciative of the importance of good nutrition and exercise. Furthermore, in some low-income communities of the United States, there is an entrenched culture of eating and drinking high-calorie foods (especially soft drinks) and avoiding exertion. There may well be cultures like that in Canada, too, but because extremes of income are much greater in the United States (see our article Gini coefficient), a larger percentage of the U.S. population lives in poverty. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is also completely speculative, but I think that the combined factors of drinking bagged milk and proximity to A. alces makes Canadians more susceptible to illnesses therefore necessitating a public health care system. Seriously though, I think fat people (okay, fat Americans) know that eating junk food and not exercising is unhealthy - they just don't care. It's not a lack of education, unless you're trying to make the argument that the Canadian school system is better at stigmatizing obesity than the American school system. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, though. Coreycubed (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some have blamed high-fructose corn syrup, which is used heavily in the US because (for political reasons) it's artificially cheap relative to cane sugar. Is HFCS used much in Canada? —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Canadians just burn more calories shivering ? StuRat (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Have you any idea how many calories you can burn singing O Canada? Also, it is a well-known fact that Timbits bind to fat and flush it out of one's system. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm relying on the negative calories found in Diet Coke to do the job. (Actually, I prefer to call them "Dark Calories" - a rather specific form of Dark Energy that's found only in Diet Coke). SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrews, Scotland.

I have visited St. Andrews regularly and have just returned from yet another visit there. And I always forget to ask at the local Library or Tourist Information Centre why it is that Saint Andrews is so called. Oh I know it is named for the Patron Saint of Scotland St. Andrew but it would make more sense to me if the town had been named St. Andrew's (Town or City) or the City/Town of Saint Andrew. I walked around the graveyard surrounding the ruins of St. Andrews Cathedral and actually found a few headstones that remembered a deceased loved one or more who had been "a prominent academic or a respected cleric, or a successful businessman of St. Andrew's", but in the formal absence of the apostrophe I began to suspect that it's presence on a headstone several hundreds of years old might suggest a mistake had been made by the stone mason. So the absence or even the presence of a possessive apostrophe keeps me guessing. Why then is the famous University Town that is named for Scotland's Patron Saint named St. Andrews, without the apostrophe? Thanks in anticipation. 92.30.44.225 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A chap called Saint Rule allegedly took Saint Andrew's bones from Constantinople to Scotland "for safe keeping" and buried them. The full story is here[30]. I expect the apostrophe just got left out, like Harrods. However, St David's seems to have kept theirs. Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I didn't read my own sources. Rule took the relics from Patras, (where Saint Andrew was crucified) to Scotland, so that they WOULDN'T be taken taken to Constantinople. Simple! Alansplodge (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at other similar names (St Johns, St Peters etc) you will in each case find places with and without the apostrophe. I speculate that in many cases the spelling became established before the use of apostrophes for possession became as firm as it is today. --ColinFine (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution

Is there a 28th amendment to the bill of rights. There is an email floating around that states there is. Regarding the disparity of the new health bill by the president of the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William A Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the "Bill of Rights". What you are probably asking is if there is a 28th amendment to the Constitution. There isn't. See List of amendments to the United States Constitution. Rimush (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. There aren't any amendments to the Bill of Rights itself. Our article has a list of amendments to the United States Constitution which stops at the 27th, Variance of congressional compensation. It passed in 1992 and no amendments have passed since then, nor have any been proposed in the last thirty years. Usually, anything you read in "an email floating around" is the sort of thing they debunk over at Snopes. In this case, a cursory search seems to show that they have already done so. Coreycubed (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill of Rights had 12 articles, of which 3 through 12 were adopted as amendments 1 through 10. Article 1 or 2 of the BoR, I forget which, was eventually passed as the 27th amendment. The other one of the 12, if I recall correctly, had something to do with allocation of representatives, and probably is of little consequence at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been Article the First, rendered virtually irrelevant by Public Law 62-5. If Article the First had passed (and Public Law 62-5 had not) we could be looking at a House of Representatives cap of about 5,600. And you thought today's government was getting big? :P Coreycubed (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would go further towards countering the claim that people are inadequately represented under the current system. And the newly expanded Congress could hold their sessions in Nationals Park. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without that clause (and PL 62-5), the cap is 5/3 as high. So? —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see, there could be as many as 5,628 representatives or some such. No stadium needed, just a good high school basketball arena. Ironically, the original idea seems to have been to keep the Congress from being too small, rather than from getting too large, which could be the consequence of it passing nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Congress even bigger...around 250 million. In other words, all adults with citizenship. We could vote with computers or by phone. Special interests couldn't bribe all of us, as that only works when you have a small number of "representatives". It's called Direct Democracy. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Even politicians only partly understand most bills, do you really think it is a good idea to have the general public, who will mostly have no understanding at all of the bill, voting on it? Direct Democracy tends to dramatically increase the Tyranny of the Majority problem, too - take a look at some of the direct democracy that goes on in Switzerland (the recent ban on minarets is an obvious example, but the local votes on individual citizenship applications are rather interesting too). --Tango (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bills are absurdly complex now, that's part of the problem, because they're written, and voted on, by mostly lawyers. If everyone voted, they would insist on simpler bills. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how much trouble people have figuring out the wording in a simple referendum, or even in how to use a voting machine (as per Florida, 2000), the thought of the public voting on even "dumbed down" bills is fairly scary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost photo

This is a very eerie question. Last week, I've seen a ghost photo at one of my friends' computer. This was a very disturbing photo, not one with those orbs or ectoplasms.
In the foreground there is a smiling woman with two children with Halloween costumes. In the background, there is a tall dark figure (a ghost?) with a pale face that seems to be hanging from the celing wrapped up in a long veil. Under the picture, there was a description from the person who took the photo.
I've meticulously searched for it in the most prominent ghost-photo sites, but with no success. --151.51.61.156 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask him about it? That would be the most direct way to find out, as there are probably gazillions of fake ghost photos circulating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a very logical answer! But unfortunately, he doens't know. We talked about it lately, but we both weren't able to find it again. Also, he was the one to find and show it to me, and now he has no clue about the original site.--151.51.61.156 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate he didn't download it or bookmark it. Is there any chance it's in his history of sites visited? I know these questions are kind of elementary, but ya never know. Or did he in fact download it? If so, there's a site (I forget its name just now) that can track down the sources of internet photos if you have a copy of the photo on your PC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I believe you're talking about "tineye.com," which is a kind of reverse image-search. OP, give it a shot if you still have the file. AlexHOUSE (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they were wearing Halloween costumes, the most likely explanation (having not seem the photo in question) is that it was just a Halloween decoration. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly more interesting story involves some couple whose wedding photo, which is up against a wall, appears to show a "demon" peaking over the guy's left shoulder. It's obviously a photo of a dog (you can see its tail on the other side), but they've made a big thing of it. Always take photos with a grain of salt, especially if they're about stuff like spooks. Although it would be interesting to see the photo anyway. What about the caption? Do you remember what it said, or part of what it said? I've found surprising results when posting part of a sentence to some obscure statement. Google is amazing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When they can make Forrest Gump shake JFK's hand and have blue aliens ride dragons, I'm sure they can add a ghost to a still photo and make it as disturbing as you like. Astronaut (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These days, you can fake anything in a photo extremely easily. You can also fake video - but it's harder. Consequently, any photograph that you don't personally know the history of has to be regarded with deep suspicion if it purports to show something controversial like a ghost. If we could see the photo - it's likely that we could spot something in it that would reveal how it was faked. But finding a photo from just a description is very difficult. SteveBaker (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to still bother you with my silly question! My hope was that someone had seen this photo so he/she could report it here. For example, I was able to track down you dog-demon photo: [31] (but I can't find the tail (-: ). The possibility to find the photo in my fried's computer is near to zero (and he surely didn't save it).
It was allegedly a "real" ghost, not a Halloween decoration. And was really disturbing!. Obviously, I'm well aware that it could be (very likely) a hoax.
The description was something like: "I was taking a photo of my children and later we saw this strange thing". If I remember correctly, she mentioned the fact that they moved from the house because of it. She also wrote that, even if the ghost seems to hang from the ceiling, they haven't a fan or a chandelier in that position. --151.51.61.156 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the "demon" thing only in quick clips on a video. What I thought was the tail was her bare shoulder. The couple claims other photos taken in that vicinity don't show that creature. But they don't show us the other photos. They claim that fear of this "demon" drove them to the straight-and-narrow on drug abuse. So even if they're wrong, it served a purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Subliminal messages on youtube ?

I was watching a Life after people on youtube and noticed a flashing frame with some guy, which was a bit creepy, so I tried to stop the video and take a look what is it (here`s a screenshot of the frame http:// img37. yfrog. com/i/creep.png/ ), but it`s just a guy. So now I`m curious, because I don`t know what to make of it - is it someone`s take on subliminal messaging or something ? I came here to ask two things - does someone recognize the guy (maybe he`s famous) and is he present in other videos from this episode (if someone can check - S1E3 this frame appears after Angkor and sea scene, right before it says 600 years) or is this some strange practice on youtube ? 95.68.112.111 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The frame looks to me like a frame from an advert - I think it's some financial services company who's name I can't remember (so much for the power of advertising!). The style of rotoscoped/toon-shaded picture has been used in a couple of movies ("Through a scanner, darkly" is one) - and for that series of adverts. So I strongly suspect that whoever recorded this and put it on YouTube didn't successfully edit out all of the advert from the broadcast. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, but can someone verify this in some way ? Because I see slight problem with this - thought it looks like ad, it would make sense that if someone cut out advertisements beginning or end of the sequence would remain and it usually contains channel identification and even if not, this looks like what would be in middle of ad, and (at least in my region) History channel doesn`t run ads 95.68.112.111 (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version of THC that comes over my cable certainly includes ads—quite a lot of them. The brokerage Steve couldn't remember the name of is Charles Schwab; here's an example of one of the ads. Deor (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hacking

is there a way to hack a 40 minutes trial game and play it forever.--Myownid420 (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would take you so long to do this that it would be more efficient to just buy the full version. Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial games often only have a restricted number of levels or features that you can only get in the full game. You'd be better off just buying the full version. Chevymontecarlo. 09:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can... but we should know what trial game it is. Try googling <game name> + serial/crack. --Belchman (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though be aware that the majority of the links that will come up these days for serial gens and cracks are just viruses. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Travel

In London, the Metroplitan line has no cameras on its carrages, is this the cause of tghe high level of grafitti? I ask this because the Bakerloo line has cameras, and very little graffiti. What percentage of people are caught creating graffiti? is a person arrested for every peice of writting? what is the percentage? Why is it so rare that anything is actually readable? most things say something like SKUM MEVK WAHPR, surely these people are stupid enough to do graffiti on their own train but they must be able to spell a few three to four letter words correctly or am I giving these idiots to much credit. I would not mind it if I could readwhat it says. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, graffiti can be one of the reasons why there's cameras on the underground, but they're there for other stuff too - assault, vandalism, suicides, accidents...they're there just to make sure everything's running smoothly. The reason why a lot of graffiti is unreadable is because a lot of people spray their 'tags' on stuff. This is basically their name or nickname that they use whenever they graffiti. But I agree with you, a lot of the stuff people spray is completely random and pointless. I suppose there are figures out there for the number of people who have been arrested for graffiti but it'd be hard to find that out. Many graffiti artists pose as painters or work late at night when there's not that many people around. Chevymontecarlo. 09:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English language in a Youtube video

[32]

What does the voice say at 0:10? "Keep arms down, head back and *****" Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hold on". FiggyBee (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I was thinking. --Belchman (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking

This is not medical advice, just curious. Which is better or worse for you, smoking roll your own cigarettes or normal cigarettes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that "roll your own" are less bad, since the tobacco used for them tends to include fewer additives. Also, if the inconvenience of having to roll one reduces the number you smoke each day, that's a plus. StuRat (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd want a citation on that 'fewer additives' claim. Secondly, people I've seen roll their own cigarettes do not add a filter: this is bad. Thirdly, is it even the additives that you should be worrying about? Fourthly, people I know who roll their own are quite capable of rolling a large quantity very quickly while chatting or watching TV: they then put them in a tin to smoke as they would smoke bought cigarettes from a packet. It doesn't seem to slow them down, but they're very keen on how much cheaper it is, potentially meaning they smoke more. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd agree with StuRat, commercial cigarettes have more additives and chemicals in them then if you rolled your own. Still not great for you though! Chevymontecarlo. 13:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a reference to a reliable source, or are there just opinions on this topic? (Remember, we're supposed to be the Reference Desk.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Ten and Warning OR follows...I did some contract work at one of the larger brands, in the production area. I was quite surprised that on the packaging floor (from raw product to sealed cartons) there was a noticeable lack of trashcans. Plenty of brooms around. I think it was safe to say that for dirt, debris, etc. there was 1 basic way out of the factory. The disgusting efficiency still amazes me to this day. 68.28.104.249 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rather extensive list of additives to cigarettes: [33]. In an OR example, I happen to be allergic to one of them, ammonia. Cleaning fluids containing ammonia cause my throat to constrict, as do cigarettes, although the degree seems to vary widely by brand. Pipe tobacco, on the other hand, has never caused this reaction, so I conclude that it's ammonia-free. StuRat (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, RYO [Roll Your Own] smokers tend to believe that RYO cigarettes are less harmful compared to factory-made (FM) cigarettes [1] despite evidence to suggest that RYO smokers are actually at increased risk for certain cancers [3-5]." [34]

"Smokers of hand-rolled cigarettes showed an increased risk of cancer of the mouth and pharynx (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5; 95% confidence limit = 1.2-5.2) when compared with smokers of manufactured cigarettes. Also, the risk of laryngeal cancer was greater among smokers of hand-rolled cigarettes (OR = 2.7; 95% confidence limit = 1.3-5.7) as compared with smokers of commercial cigarettes" [35]

"Many smokers believe that RYO cigarettes are more 'natural' and therefore are less harmful than manufactured cigarettes. The current findings suggest that this is not the case. " [36]

"the myths associated with rolling tobacco - it's not less harmful, it's not more natural and you're just as likely to develop smoking related illnesses." [37]

86.178.167.166 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ "UN Indictment".
^ "Karadzic will fight extradition". BBC. 2008-07-23. Retrieved 2010-01-04.

[1] "UN Indictment".

[2] "Karadzic will fight extradition". BBC. 2008-07-23. Retrieved 2010-01-04.

[1]

[2]