Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 2

Travel from USA to India [not by air]

I'm curious whether there is any way to travel from the USA to India without needing fly.

It doesn't matter whether it requires a combination of modes (sea/bus/train/etc.) just so long as there is no air travel.

And how would one go about making arrangements to do so? Pine (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick Google search with "cruise Los angeles to india" got me to this site. It's a very pricey cruise, but I'm sure you can find other ones. Probably a travel agent would be the easiest way to arrange this. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The non-luxury option would be to travel as a passenger on a cargo ship. You could try to go the whole way from the US east or west coast by ship, or it might be faster to first go from the east coast to a western European port, then across by train to some place in Greece or thereabouts, then onward by another ship. The availability of ships might require still another route.

If you search on "freighter travel" you will find people who arrange this sort of thing -- I have no idea how easy it is. The wikitravel web site (which is not part of Wikipedia) has an article on "freighter travel", which explains some of the advantages and drawbacks, but I don't know how reliable that is either. The primary thing is to understand that these are working ships and nothing would be arranged for your convenience as a traveler. --Anonymous, 10:58 UTC, April 2, 2010.

Luxury or not, travelling by freighter can be expensive (~$100/day). A search for LA to India by freighter gives lots of links. If you fancy going elsewhere on the Eurasian continent and getting a train into India, Seat61.com has info on Indian Railways, which also includes a short paragraph about getting to India by train and a link to a longer page on getting from London to India overland. I'm sure you can google for ways to get from China to India by train or bus, or from Singapore to India by ferry. Astronaut (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been taking a closer look at Seat61.com. There are limited land route options to get between China and India via Nepal (Lhasa to Kathmandu by non-running bus service or an organised "tour"). It might turn out to be easier to go via SE Asia. So, assuming you have got yourself to China, you can get from there to Thailand (via Hanoi, Vietnam and Vientiane, Laos), using train and bus. The barrier to India though is Myanmar (Burma) which apparently doesn't like foreigners crossing its land borders. From Bangkok, you could continue south into Malaysia or perhaps onto Singapore and get a cargo ship or ferry to India. Astronaut (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Freighter travel is excellent, expensive against flying, cheap against cruising. Go for it! Google "Cargo Ship Voyages" for long list of specialist booking agents .--Artjo (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading Gavin Young's dual travelogues, Slow Boats to China and Slow Boats Home. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cunard has cruises from US to Europe: [1]. From Europe it should be relatively straightforward to get to India (see seat61.com), though in some areas an US passport might be more obstacle than help (just guessing, but thinking about Iran in particular). Jørgen (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

bank draft payment legal dispute

i have negotiated 2 pay orders originally issued by karur vysya bank on 19 mar 2009.drafts issued by kvb on 18MAR 2009. when presented for payment IN clearing on 20 mar 2009 they were returned unpaid saying that" 1.dd cancelled 2.fraudulently obtained 3.police investigation in progress" 1. as we possess the original drafts and negotiated ,can kvb say they have cancelled the drafts. 2.fraud not take place at kvb 3.poloce investigation is nothing to do with original drafts issued by them.

kvb confirmed in writing that they have issued the above drafts. can they countermand the drafts issued by them with out any request from either purchaser or payee.

on enquiry it revealed that a alleged forged cheque paid at hdfc mumbai and funds transfered to kvb thereafter kvb issued drafts by debiting to their customer account. when this come to light on 19 mar 2009 they received fax from mumbai police to freeze their customer account. by the time amount debited to customer account and issued dds in favour of our customer and we have negotriated the drafts on 19 mar 2009. subsequently they have received fax from mumbai police.

in the circumstances kindly advise me the legal recourse available against kvb under various sections of law particularly NI Act kindly help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.219.219 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk cannot provide legal advice. If you want to know about any "legal recourse" that may be available to you, consult a lawyer. --Anonymous, 11:00 UTC, April 2, 2010.

Commies

Why did communism collapse in Russia and the USSR but not in China? is china still communist? why has it not failed in other countries such as Korea and Vietnam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

China seems to be in transition from communism to capitalism (but not to democracy). In some places it seems to be even more capitalist than the West, since they lack our unions, regulatory agencies, and democratic controls on capitalism. I think Vietnam is undergoing a similar transition. South Korea is, of course, capitalist, and always has been. North Korea, on the other hand, is a totalitarian state with almost no tolerance for capitalism. I personally blame the collapse of communism in Russia to all of the initial revolutionaries having died. China didn't start to change until after the death of it's founder, Mao Zedong. Similarly, in Cuba, I wouldn't expect change until Fidel Castro, and maybe his brother, Raul Castro, dies. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the term communism is used to describe two different arrangements: 1) the totalitarian control of the economy by the government roughly based on policies developed by Vladimir Lenin; and 2) the totalitarian control of the government by a party calling itself the Communist Party. It used to be, before the late 1980s, that there was a group of countries in which both 1) and 2) both existed. The Soviet Union and China were examples, as were Vietnam and North Korea. Today, both 1) and 2) coexist only in North Korea and Cuba. The other countries where 2) still exists, namely China and Vietnam, have abandoned 1) for versions of capitalism. So, it's hard to answer your question because the term communism is so ambiguous. As for why 1), totalitarian control of the economy by the government, persists in North Korea and Cuba, I think the simple answer is that there is a consensus among those in power that their interests are better served by the preservation of this system than by opening up to capitalism. The powerful elites in these countries probably fear that they would lose social and economic status and power in a transition to democracy. They may even fear (particularly in North Korea) legal sanctions or even violent attack by their own people in response to a lifetime of repression and abuse. In both cases, the elites also probably believe in the worthiness of their respective causes. In the case of Cuba, those causes include resisting U.S. imperialism and maintaining a more socially just alternative to capitalism (in their view). In the case of North Korea, those causes include resisting U.S. imperialism and defending the independence of the Korean people from foreign domination. Because they monopolize power in a repressive state apparatus, they are able to stifle most dissent, or, in the case of Cuba, to induce most dissenters into emigrating to the United States. Marco polo (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think that, if they really ever did believe their own propaganda, that era ended long ago, and now they're just trying to hold onto power any way they can. For example, how could the leadership of NK and Cuba possibly still think that communism will bring economic prosperity, despite decades of evidence to the contrary ? StuRat (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

North Korea isn't even that ideological of a state anymore. It is maintained by the Cult of Personality of its leadership (The Kim family) and little else. Cuba, on the other hand, still maintains a revolutionary ideology, so could at least lay claim to still maintaining a communist government. NK is communist in name only. --Jayron32 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They could always blame imperialism, foreign meddling, bad luck, etc., which is the standard approach of such regimes. Or they could point to their (perceived) successes (some real, some not), emphasize that Marx always said that it would take a long time for the Communist thing to work out. I'm not a fan of Marxism or Communism (utopias, all), and don't think they appear to work that well in practice (at least not in self-proclaimed Marxist/Communist regimes), but I can imagine how a true ideologue would justify it to themselves. Facts are slippery things, for all of us! --Mr.98 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How long ? They've all been around for over half a century now, so I'd think that would be long enough to "work out the bugs", unless, of course, the system itself is fundamentally flawed. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not like capitalism doesn't have its bugs, either. Every system has bugs. Whether you consider them fatal to the model will vary with what you perceive the bugs as implying about the overall system. Plenty of democratic, capitalist countries have lousy economies as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the difference seems to be that capitalism improves over time, while communism declines once people lose their "revolutionary spirit" and thus any reason to work for the benefit of others. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

StuRat, do you get the general point I am trying to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? The issue is that if you wanted to believe that communism works out, you can hold on to that for quite a long time. Just because you are not convinced of it does not mean that others could not be. There are a million obvious arguments against saying that capitalism has improved over time (the economy goes up and down with some frequency—it is not a universal "up" machine, unless you are in a bubble that is about to pop!), and historically, communist countries have gone up and down over time too (your lack of knowledge of such is probably just because that sort of thing is really not discussed in the US in any popular media—but if you read a longer history of, say, the USSR, it had its various ups and downs, for example). I don't want to just go 'round and 'round here — I think my general point is pretty clear and nearly self-evident, if you take the time to see things from another point of view. I am not trying to argue for which point of view is objectively correct, just that there are a variety of non-delusional points of view out there. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly am aware of "boom and bust" cycles in all nations, regardless of economic system, but consider this to just be "noise", with long-term growth being what actually matters. And communism can actually be beneficial in the initial stages, as redistribution of wealth can make more resources and capital available for rapid industrialization and education of the workforce. It's the long term where communism fails, where the lack of incentive to work, and the realization by the population that the economy thus remains stagnant after generations, leads to it's eventual failure. People who want to believe might be able to overlook economic problems in their area, for a while, if assured by government propaganda that the nation, as a whole, is undergoing strong growth. But, eventually, from talking with others and noting no improvement for decades, they will know for themselves that the propaganda is false. Similarly, the leaders of those nations would have to live in total isolation to fail to notice the poverty of their citizens. Even self-delusion has it's limits. StuRat (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely you can see though that people are good at rationalizing. In the US, everybody still thinks its system is great even when it hits rock-bottom economic times. They say, "well, it's bad luck, and maybe we need to make some reforms," but nobody "sensible" says "ok, let's scrap the entire system." Most people in most countries are not interested in scrapping their entire systems—it's hard to know what you'd want to replace it with, or whether the replacement would be an improvement or not. (There is a strong argument to be made that the Russians were doing a lot better under the USSR than they are today in many ways!) If you are going to try and understand why other people believe what they do, you are going to have to make an effort to see things from their point of view, and not just repeat American stereotypes of other nations. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not repeating stereotypes. In particular, that part about redistribution of wealth initially doing some good is not something you will find taught in US schools. And, during the Great Depression, there was a substantial portion of the US that did want to scrap capitalism. They eventually settled for a mix of capitalism and socialism under the New Deal. Also, in many Latin American nations in the 20th century, they regularly scrapped their economic systems and tried something else, with most of them also ending up with a mix of capitalism and socialism. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Cuba, it's easy: there's a very obvious case of capitalist repression preventing them from achieving prosperity. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Capitalist repression"? How about "threat of anihilation", from Cuba, when Castro allowed his pals in the USSR to begin building missile launchers to be used against the US. The situation in Cuba is all Castro's fault. Things will get better once he croaks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The embargo pre-dated the missile crisis, and in the end, the USSR agreed not to base them there. I hardly think you can blame Castro for looking for a security umbrella, given that the US did try to assassinate him a bazillion times, did try to invade his country, and happily propped up repressive right-wing regimes all throughout the region because it was in their commercial interests. Castro isn't a peach but claiming the US has dealt with him in good faith is ridiculous. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Castro may has also wondered as does a substanial proportion of the world nowadays why the US was so high and mighty about it when they had nukes within roughly the same distance as the USSR. It's also not entirely clear to me how exactly:

but Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara disagreed. He was convinced that the missiles would not affect the strategic balance at all. An extra forty, he reasoned, would make little difference to the overall strategic balance. The US already had approximately 5,000 strategic warheads[16], whilst the Soviet Union only had 300. He concluded that the Soviets having 340 would not therefore substantially alter the strategic balance. In 1990 he reiterated that "it made no difference...The military balance wasn't changed. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now."

was a '"threat of anihilation", from Cuba' particularly given that it's clear that it was only the Soviet Union commanders, not the Cubans who could actually ultimately use the warheads and there was clearly no intention to use them at that time, except perhaps in the event of an invasion of Cuban.

With ICBMs etc the US of course learnt to live with the threat of (mutual) destruction.

Of course there are the plenty of specific examples relating to Cuba Mr. 98 mentioned including the aforementioned attempted invasion and the embargo and other examples of events predating the missile crisis

The United States considered covert action again and inserted CIA paramilitary officers from their Special Activities Division.[7] Air Force General Curtis LeMay presented to Kennedy a pre-invasion bombing plan in September, while spy flights and minor military harassment from the United States Guantanamo Naval Base were the subject of continual Cuban diplomatic complaints to the U.S. government.

In September 1962 the Cuban government saw what it perceived to be significant evidence that the U.S. would invade, including a joint U.S. Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Cuba if American interests were threatened,[8] and the announcement of a U.S. military exercise in the Caribbean planned for the following month (Operation Ortsac).

which logical would have caused high concern to Cuba at the time. And there are plenty of other examples, such as this recent one or this which continue to illustrate to the world that lacking an effective deterent against an attack from a significantly larger power is always problematic. (Note that whether or not those attacks are justified in your mind, including in the Georgian case their actions which lead up to the crisis is somewhat irrelevant to the point that in the absence of an effective deterent, big powers including the US are always willing to invade smaller ones particularly if there's little to stop them.)

Of course having WMD is no guarantee against an invasion and can even make the situation worse, but it's hardly surprising that many feel and felt they were useful, even more so in the 60s. It's a catch-22 situation of sorts.

In any case, I'm not entirely certain why Castro even comes under so much strife over this, it clearly wasn't primarily his idea, and it's not even clear how much here really wanted them.

Arthur Schlesinger, historian and adviser to John F. Kennedy, on National Public Radio on October 16, 2002, concluded that Castro had not wanted the missiles but that Khrushchev had forced them upon Cuba in a bit of political arm-twisting and "socialist solidarity." However, Castro has said that although he was not completely happy about the idea of the missiles in Cuba, the Cuban National Directorate of the Revolution accepted them to protect Cuba against U.S. attack, and to aid its ally, the Soviet Union

As with Mr. 98 I'm not saying Castro is a peach and there may plenty of bad things he has done particularly within Cuba and also including some other stuff which have contributed to the problematic relationship, but pretending that the US is somehow blameless and in particular somehow proscribing all the ill will to Castro's role in the Cuban missile crisis is just plain silly. In reality of course, it's an extremely complicated mix of factors many of which aren't Castro's fault. (I'm not of course saying that things won't change significantly once Castro has gone, Castro is course a convinient boogieman for the US just as the US is for Castro and his demise a convient way to pretend things have substanially improved there even if little has changed or things get even worse.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is that capitalism is also used in two senses: for free markets and for state economic regulation in favor of large existing firms. (Both Marxists and the beneficiaries of the latter kind of 'capitalism' prefer to maintain the confusion.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be picky (but hopefully a little helpful in thinking about this)—Communism didn't collapse in the USSR, the state did. (If the USA collapsed tomorrow, you wouldn't say capitalism collapsed, you'd say the USA collapsed.) This is not just being pedantic. The reasons the USSR collapsed are many—and very related to the style of government it adopted. But saying Communism collapsed in the USSR seems to make it look inevitable. It wasn't. There are all sorts of ways you could imagine that the USSR could have continued into the present in one form or another. The USSR failed for a lot of reasons—corrupt infrastructure that was buoyed for years on petrodollars that eventually collapsed; the attempt by Gorbachev to liberalize the system which led to increasing instability; its ruinous defense spending policies, etc. Remember that for most analysts at the time, it was completely shocking that the USSR collapsed when it did—it would not have been predicted 5 years previous, or really even 1 year previous. "Communism" didn't collapse—the USSR did. The USSR is not synonymous with Communism (under any definition). (For an excellent, truly readable account of the final days of the USSR, I heavily recommend David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire. Totally fun to read, and gives a sense of the complexity of what was going on, without being a chore.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding North Korean motivations, this blog post is insightful. Marco polo (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is functionless art

Can someone please fix the deer article's vandalism I cant as I am viewed as a troll because I never sign my posts or sign in. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Already done. Most vandalism doesn't last long. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not blocked, as far as I can tell, so vandalism-fixing edits should work, and may even reduce the opinion you are a vandal or troll. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The user may be referring to ClueBot reversing their edits. Woogee (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

smugger

My problem in simple words is that I am not serious about my education. According to my friends I have excellent communication and debating skills, sketching ability and above all a passion for excellence. But I don't have this ambitious bent of mind to succeed in life. I never took up any major endeavor like getting a seat in prestigious universities or getting excellent scores in exams............I just revel in other's praises in my mediocre abilities!!! On other hand I am too excited about my chocolate boy image among females and all the rat shit! I think I am strangling my life and getting numb about the situation at hand..........what can I do to stop it???

I think you already know exactly what to do. JFDI. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See Attention deficit disorder. Naturally, as we are prohibited from giving medical advice, we may only advise that you should see a doctor if you think you have it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either of those responses is helpful. Aren't there organisations devoted to helping people find direction and determination in their lives? Connexions did it for me when I was younger (well...sort of), but I suppose the chances of the original poster being 13-19 and in England is fairly slim. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Try the book What Color is Your Parachute?. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was like that.I went out,worked and had fun then went to Uni in my 30's..hotclaws 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Who's the announcer?

Who is the announcer whose voice is heard in the beginning of this video? [2] --77.127.214.65 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob Hite (announcer) was the announcer on the CBS Evening News for much of Walter Cronkite's tenure, however the Wikipedia article notes that he started as the announcer in 1971, while imdb notes 1970, however that doesn't jibe with the 1968 date. I am not sure if that announcer is Hite; it may have been since Hite had been working for CBS as an announcer for decades at that point. It does sound a but like other soundbites of hite, like this one: [3] but it can be hard to say. --Jayron32 04:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

African Railway

Was there any plan for a railway that went from north to south africa? The former British colonies seemed to join up from north to south. 89.243.36.35 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There was such a plan. See Cape to Cairo Railway. It was something of a pet project for Cecil Rhodes. During the Scramble for Africa, Britain did indeed try very hard to create a contiguous chain of colonies through Africa. The main roadblock came in the form of two colonies, the Belgian Congo (Modern DR of the Congo) and German East Africa (Modern Tanzania). After WWI, the German colony became a League of Nations mandate overseen by The U.K., so techincally the U.K. did, for a few decades, have the contiguous land availible, but for various reasons, the drive to create such a railroad largely died with its champion (Mr. Rhodes having passed in 1902) and as a result, the line was never completed. The railway exists in parts, though it currently has three different guages on its different sections, making a "single train" traverse of the continent, even if it were completed, somewhat impossible. The current gaps also cross the Sudan, which for political reasons, makes it highly unlikely to be completed anytime soon. --Jayron32 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

These days, international transport infrastructure in Africa has once again come under consideration. See Trans-African Highway network. Astronaut (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

April 3

Investigating and prosecuting rapists

There are countless real videos of girls being raped by guys on the internet. Many of them are pretty violent and involve several rapists. The rapists usually do not hide their faces. Are the Japanese and Russian law enforcement even doing anything to investigate these and prosecute the rapists? I remember hearing on the news in America once, teenage girls were caught and prosecuted after posting a video of them bullying a schoolmate. Those were just teenagers beating up a schoolmate and the police in America responded quickly and arrested them. The ones I'm talking about are violent rapes and the the Russian and Japanese police aren't doing anything? Also, some of the Japanese ones are in broad daylight in public places (like the JR trains and school elevators) and involve many perpetrators... shouldn't it be pretty easy to investigate those? 209.148.195.3 (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the answer, but a few points to consider...How do you know they're not staged? If they are real, also consider the the people involved may not wish to come forward and admit what happened to them, for whatever reason. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

More often than not they are staged. Rimush (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is to determine if they are real or staged. That's not easy. If they are real, the problem of identification comes up. This is a problem with Internet crime, in general, such as child pornography. Unless something identifiable, like a landmark or street sign, shows up on the video, determining the location can be quite difficult. Without knowing the location, there's no way of knowing which jurisdiction it falls under, and thus no way to know which law enforcement agency should handle it. So, we end up with what may or may not be a crime, in what is probably not their jurisdiction, so you can see why law enforcement puts more resources into definite crimes absolutely committed in their area, like when a rape victim shows up at their hospital.

As for seeing faces in a video, we are only now getting to the point where a computer can take a pic and sift through all the pics in a file to find the one that matches. However, having every person in a country in such a file for comparison would likely overwhelm any current program. Even sifting through "known rapists" might be difficult. StuRat (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention they wouodn't have pictures of everyone. The Dnepropetrovsk maniacs videoed some of their murders and one was leaked to the internet, yet that didn't aid int he capture in any way.--92.251.142.219 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Folks, if you've seen these videos, they are clearly clearly clearly not staged. I know there are staged ones, some are obviously acted out and some are made to look real, but many video are clearly 100% real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.195.3 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Japan and Russia are both highly technological and strongly governed, and the Japanese (at least) have a conservative culture with strong taboos against sexual impropriety. I have no doubt that the police are aware of these videos, compare them to stories victims describe when they report rapes, and have very sophisticate systems in place for investigating such crimes. If the rapes were staged, no rape report would be filed. if the rapes were real, and reports were filed, there's a very good chance that the perpetrators were identified and caught (perhaps caught for other crimes, and then arrested for the rape based on identifying characteristics). There are also criminal laws in some nations against distributing material of that sort, but it is much harder to prosecute, particularly if it falls across national borders.

I suggest you report any such sites that you believe are real to the police so they can be investigated. I also suggest you stop visiting such sites - don't contribute to the problem. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

and the Japanese (at least) have a conservative culture with strong taboos against sexual impropriety - well, for suitable definitions of "sexual impropriety", maybe. Japan is the land of the pink film and Hentai, apparently has a sex industry that's as big as its defense budget, is the largest producer of pornography in the world, and has school girls upping their pocket money by selling used panties to adult men... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cracked claims that the USA is the biggest porn producer in the world. They cite a source which I haven't yet checked. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, they talk about "Internet porn", not porn in general. My claim comes from Pornography in Japan, which as a tag on that statement. But it includes "drawn and virtual pornography", two fields in which I find it plausible that Japan is a lot stronger than the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

While I cannot offer legal advice since your IP looks up to Canada you may want to look into Canadian law in particular note that "fabrication and distribution of “obscene” publications, or to possessing them for the purpose of distribution" violent pornography (whether stimulated or not) is potentially illegal [4] Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In countries like Ukraine and Russian I presume they would have picture of the vast majority of citizens above a certain age however (note I didn't say all) given the existence of compulsory identification cards. Of course the photo may be terrible out of date or not particularly representative of the person in the first place and I have no idea if it can legally be used in that fashion (or if it can, whether they're all digitised).

However the case of Dnepropetrovsk maniacs doesn't seem particularly relevant. According to the article "The fact that Yatzenko's murder was captured on video was unknown to the public until a court session on October 29, 2008" and "leaked to a shock site based in the United States and dated December 4, 2008". Since "The three suspects were arrested on July 23, 2007" the video is obviously irrelevant since the investigators I presume only obtained it after they had suspects and/or made the arrests (and it was leaked by someone in the police or prosecution team or perhaps defence who had access to it). This would also explain why "eventually, the investigators selectively distributed sketches". It's possible the perpetrators would have eventually leaked the videos (there's some claim they were doing it to sell the video but the prosecutor claims there's no evidence for that and from my experience people like to tell these sort horror stories of snuff videos) but thankfully they were caught within a month even if sadly after they had murdered 21 people so we never got to know.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern-day descendants of Conall Gulban

Approximately how likely is it that musician Pete Doherty and voice actor Joe Dougherty are/were descended from Conall Gulban, and are any other notable people descended from him?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that Conall Gulban had children who survived to adulthood, and that at least some of them had children of their own, it's virtually certain. However, there need not be any single demonstrated line of descent, and there's no way to insure pedigrees against unknown illegitimacies. It's worth noting both that there are no firm pedigrees dating back as far as the era in which Conall Gulban lived, and that gaelic monarchies did not necessarily pass directly from father to son. I'm not too familiar with the Irish situation, but the ancient Scottish crown often passed back and forth between lines of cousins. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read claims that virtually every person of European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne, but presumably anybody with children who lived that far back is probably an ancestor of millions of people. Woogee (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Illegal to force someone to fly?

Is it really illegal to force someone to fly, if that person is afraid of flying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.28.170 (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. (Allowing for parental authority over children, police authority over prisoners etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess the A-Team is in trouble, then, for forcing B. A. Baracus to fly in just about every episode. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You would think that he'd eventually get wise to the fact that people were offering milk laced with narcotics every time one of their missions wraps up. Vranak (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If he ever gets wise to it, the authorities are the least trouble the others will be in... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is in the sense that it's illegal to force someone to do anything they don't want to do, again with certain exceptions. I bet you could be sacked from your job, though, if you were required to fly for a business trip or something, and refused to. Buddy431 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know of any specific laws against forcing people to fly, but forcing people to do anything is generally illegal. There is some ambiguity in the meaning of "force", though. One could be compelled to fly, for example to keep their job. Physically grabbing hold of someone and pushing them into a plane without appropriate authority would constitute assault and imprisonment, which are both illegal. --Tango (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is, "forcing someone to fly" would invariably involve common assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any number of torts. It may also be against international aviation law (perhaps the Tokyo Convention?), I'm really not sure. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Under what circumstances could one be accused of 'forcing someone to fly' that did not violate other more obvious laws? At the very least, forcing someone to fly would involve kidnapping (which is a felony). --Ludwigs2 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A deportation would involve lawfully forcing someone to fly in many cases. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the OP asked the question thinking about an employment related activity. There are cases where you have the slow and expensive option of going on a business trip by train or flying. Can companies force someone to take the plane? The answer probably depends on the country where you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the means by which one is forced. I mean, it's not like it's illegal to make kids eat their veggies or go home when it's time to go home... I would think that the principle applies here, too. My best answer wuold be, :It depends".

OP, what are the cirumstances you describe? If it's a legal issue, we can't actually answer anyway.24.83.112.118 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a legal issue, a Friday night beer-induced discussion regarding a scene in Midnight Run, where Charles Grodin's character said it was against federal law to force someone to fly if they're afraid of flying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.28.170 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fictional movies are not necessarily authoritative sources of information. :) I don't know the plot-specific circumstances, but if someone's in custody, I doubt they have any say in the matter, and if someone's working for a business that compels them to fly, they might be told to "take it or leave it". Hopefully something like that would have come in the interview process, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Its just a plot device; Grodin and De Niro need an opportunity for an interesting journey or there would be no film. Besides, it's clear, even within the fiction, that Grodin's character is not exactly truthful—he'd say anything to delay having to face the law and/or his former employer (though he does manage to get them thrown off the commercial flight by "freaking out"). Deor (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't count the number of stories where someone does something illogical and the question arises, "Why are they doing that?" and the answer is "To advance the story!" Noel Neill's stock answer to "Why didn't you see that Clark Kent and Superman were the same guy?" was, "I wanted to keep my job!" Going farther back, if Captain Ahab weren't obsessed with the white whale, Moby-Dick would just be a collection of trivia about whales. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is too late to be useful, but it occurred to me (while reading something unrelated) what this is probably about. In the US Air Force there was a rule (and may still be one) that nobody can be forced to fly if they are deeply afraid of it. Normally you'd think this would not be a big issue—it's the Air Force, right? Who would be dumb enough to join while being afraid to fly? But in the 1950s it ended up being a big problem because a lot of reservists who enlisted during WWII or Korea were told by their recruiters that they'd get cushy desk jobs and not have to do any actual dangerous work. It turned out the recruiters were either putting one over on them or had no control over it. So there was a whole wave of Air Force enlistees who suddenly found themselves with deep-seated phobias about flying... because it got them out of being on the front lines. This was a fairly major issue in the Air Force at the time and garnered a lot of press at the time. I don't know how things worked out later, but one could imagine that if the rule wasn't changed, then this sort of thing would have been a problem in later wars as well (e.g., Vietnam). Anyway—my bet is that this is where the "can't force someone to fly if they are afraid of flying" thing comes from. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Driving a Ferrari for the first time

Throughout my driving career, I've only driven modest, family-oriented sedans such as Toyota Camrys, Nissan Altimas, etc... (The "fastest" car I've driven was a Dodge Magnum) In a few days, I will be renting a Ferrari F430 equipped with a traditional manual transmission (which I a very familiar with.) Is it advisable to practice driving it in an empty parking lot before going on the road? What can i expect in terms of driving characteristics? Suppose if I want to accelerate very gently, will that require me to touch the accelerator paddle very lightly? Acceptable (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no answer. I just wanted to say "Grats!" Dismas|^(talk) 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I clicked the F430 link. Are you really going to be driving a prosthetic group of the enzyme methyl coenzyme M reductase? If so, it is found only in methanogenic archaea, so you'd probably want to test drive it somewhere near there first... Vimescarrot (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the appropriate link: Ferrari F430. Buddy431 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The first thing you'll notice is the seating: you're reclined at what might seem like a crazy angle, and if you're in any way large or have an ass wider than Frankie Dettori's the seat will feel tight. Rear visibility is negligible and the blindspots are big. If you're unused to driving in a sporty car, it'll feel weirdly low for a while. The shifter is short and its throw small; the gate is fairly unforgiving. The clutch and accelerator aren't too unlike a regular car (neither is insanely delicate - if you've driven enough manual cars with old transmissions and rubbish clutches, you've dealt with far scarier things). The biggest difference is knowing when to gear up - you can drive in first gear up to some insane speed like 55 or 60 mph, but obviously you'd gear up before then. The trouble is that you're probably used to gearing up in a manual based on the engine sound, and the engine sound in the Ferrari is so different that it's hard to judge - a lot of new drivers gear up much too soon, even in ordinary driving. The brakes don't seem too bad unless you stamp on them, in which case the car makes a noise like a Tie Fighter running into a concrete wall, and stops very quickly. The ground clearance is very very low, so drainage gullies or navigating parking structures can demand attention (but who drives a Ferrari and parks it at the mall?). The weirdest thing is how other drivers treat you - you get lots of space, people smile and wave (it's so not like driving a Porsche, which is like wearing a "hate me I'm a tosser" sign), and all the times I've driven one no-one has ever made the slightest attempt to race me. People who overtake you (which they did on the motorway for me, as I was petrified of getting a ticket) all looked somewhat apologetic, as if they knew they were breaching the social order. 87.113.5.191 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

On thinking further about this, you might consider renting a roadster the day before (a Z4, Miata, S2000, or Boxter). They're not very like a Ferrari, but they'll give you the feel for being low, having stiff suspension, and having a healthy power-to-weight ratio. I think you'll find the handling, rather than the performance, of the Ferrari will be what will take getting used to. 87.113.5.191 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't driven a powerful rear-wheel drive car before, I should warn you that they tend to fish-tail. That is, if you give it some gas and are in a turn and/or the traction is reduced for any reason, the rear end wants to spin around to the front. I had this happen to me while turning in a Pontiac Trans-Am. There was some rock salt on the road, which was apparently sufficient to put me into a spin. If that happens, let your foot completely off the gas and steer the way you want the front end to go, and it should correct itself. StuRat (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can, I would caution against taking your foot completely and immediately off the gas. That's a classic way of creating a tank slapper (not linked, since it's not a very helpful link in relation to a car). You actually want to reduce the amount of gas, but not immediately to zero. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please describe a "tank slapper". StuRat (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a "tank slapper" is gasoline hitting a wall of a partially filled tank providing an unintentional impetus to motion in an unplanned-for direction. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's where the car swings violently one way, which you then try to correct by steering, but it then swings violently the other way. It keeps oscillating in this way until it runs out of steam or hits something. It's called a tank-slapper by analogy with motorbikes, where either the bars or portions of your anatomy slap into the tank with the violence of the oscillation. It starts because the original slide was caused by the rear wheels having too much power put through them and therefore losing adhesio. When the power is abruptly removed, they suddenly gain traction and are at this point travelling at an angle to the road. As they gain grip, they push the car back towards the straight line, but this happens so quickly that its momentum carries it past straight and so it slides the other way. It's a bit difficult to describe in words, but hope you get the general picture. There's a small illustration of one here: [5] --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's just called fish-tailing here, because of how the rear end comes around on one side and then the other, just like a fish tail. I can't see the wheels having enough inertia in them, after the foot is removed from the gas, to cause the rear end to go past straight. I'd say that over-steering is the more likely cause of continued fish-tailing. And continuing to supply more power to the rear wheels of an out-of-control car, in the hopes that this will allow you to regain control, seems unwise. Although, ironically, if the rear end comes around on a front-wheel drive car, you do actually want to give it some gas, to pull it back into line. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the inertia of the wheels - it's the inertia of the whole car that causes it to swing off-line the other way. And you don't need to continue to provide power to the wheels - you simply try to avoid cutting the power off suddenly. It's the immediate change of power that causes grip to be regained suddenly. By lifting off gradually you avoid the problem. I seen it done and done it myself on skid pans. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The lack of forward visibility is also a problem. You are probably used to seeing through the windows of the car in front, which gives you a clue when the cars in front of him start to brake. Without that ability, due to your lower stance, you have less warning and need to increase following distances accordingly. (Ironically, you may actually be able to see under the vehicle in front of you, at times, such as with trucks.) StuRat (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look out for sleeping policemen. Alansplodge (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am envious. If the road is empty, I suspect you will glance at the speedometer a few seconds after starting and be surprised to see you are already doing well over 160 km/h! Have fun. Astronaut (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The most visceral difference for me was not so much the acceleration in the 0-60 range - but just how incredibly ferocious it was in the 60 to 90 mph range. It actually made freeway driving kinda miserable - I always felt like I wanted another gear. Handling is good by rear-wheel-drive standards, but you don't really feel the freedom to chuck them hard into corners for the fun of it. These are truly magnificent cars - but I wouldn't want one as a daily driver. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for all the help. Can't wait. Acceptable (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Gas Versus Electric Cooktops

Hi all, I'm getting ready to move and the kitchen in my new apartment has an electric stove, presumably with the coil-type burners on the cooktop. I am used to cooking with gas, and what I'd like to know is how the coils will make a difference versus the gas burners I'm used to. I'm mainly concerned about the coils' ability to get enough heat into my cast-iron frying pan so that I'd be able to get a good sear on stuff. ANyways, thanks for the help!169.229.76.114 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that electric stoves aren't as good as gas. You want to make sure that neither the burner nor the pan is warped, as that may result in contact in only a couple spots, which will result in burning there. Also, you will have to learn which spots on the burners get the hottest and adjust your cooking style accordingly. To some extent, you can tell by the color of the various parts of the burner. Also, some pans are far better at distributing heat than others, so you may need to get a new frying pan, if yours isn't up to it's new duties. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I second StuRat's motion about the warping. Warped burners really suck. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You get less immediate heat control from electric hobs, which is annoying in at least three situations: where you want to cook something really quickly, where you want to remove something from the heat but forget to move it off the hob and it burns, and where you're doing some kind of advanced cookery that involves delicately tipping a substance over from one state to another by adjusting the heat carefully (frying spices for a curry, maybe). 81.131.48.116 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

YOu haven't lived until you have cooked on an Induction Electric hob I have had them all - spiral, solid, ceramic, gas and induction while house siting for the past 7 months. Induction is king for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.22.120 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I miss is being able to put two pans on the same ring, which is more economical for simmering if you are in a small household (things like cooking two vegetables separately). I prefer gas for its immediacy, though. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the above and therefore suggest doing what I do much of the time --- eat out. And if that's too expensive, go to hospital canteens - brilliant food at really budget prices. 92.30.13.64 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are totally joking, aren't you?! Not even the canteen staff eat at the hospital canteen I frequent...--TammyMoet (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No joking at all Tammy. Our local hospital in Falkirk, Central Scotland does great cooked meals and bistro snacks. Their freshly made sandwiches and baguettes are every bit as good as I can buy in Edinburgh, and for half the price. I always compliment the staff on the quality, variety, and price of their food, and they are all so very cheerful all the time. I have had to visit the hospital quite frequently recently for family reasons and it's interesting to see a lot of "regulars" who eat their by choice rather than go to in-town places. It's also something of a meeting-place for some. Seriously. But Stirling General Hospital is another story all together..........92.30.7.196 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the US, some hospitals don't have enough patients to remain viable, so try to get more by advertising and offering things like better food. StuRat (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cooking on electric isn't so bad. In my experience, you'll get enough heat, it's just that it'll take much longer to get there. Cast iron is an excellent cookware to use on electric in the sense that it redistributes heat so well, but will be a bit of a pain because it will take so long to heat up (for the same reason: it's very dense and heavy). So, if you're the kind of person who gets a little impatient with cooking times, you may want to get a good steel frying pan. Look for something with a fairly heavy base, especially the kind that has a different metal "sandwiched" into the bottom to redistribute heat more effectively. Matt Deres (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions, guys!169.229.76.114 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's an old-fashioned electric cooker, you'll find it's a lot less responsive than gas, e.g. when you turn the temperature down, it takes a while to cool. In my experience, it can lead to things burning or boiling over. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The upside to electric is that they are way, WAY easier to clean than gas if you have a flat ceramic top and not the ugly coils. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

April 4

Finnish Gold Hallmarks

So I have a gold ring. It has a maker's mark (VET), a made-in-Finland mark (crown in a heart), "18k", the year thing (either C4 or G4), and then there's what looks like a man wearing a helmet holding a bow or something. Does anyone know what this last mark is, or where I can find a listing of Finnish gold marks that might have it on there? 174.20.95.124 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That should be the Assay office's mark. Zoonoses (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked that up, and that's the correct name for the crown in a heart that I called the "made in Finland" mark, but not the little dude. 174.20.95.124 (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This file[6] (scroll down to page 21) gives only 3 location marks - Helsinki, Hemeelinna and Ylamaa, but none feature your little dude. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to give us a picture of your little dude? That would be a great help Lemon martini (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried, but my camera can't do it! It's too small. 174.20.95.124 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! This is driving me bananas! I can't find a full list of marks anywhere but I now know that the Finnish for "location hallmark" is Paikkakuntaleima. Your turn! Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! 174.20.95.124 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you put a question (in English) on the discussion page of this [7] page, which I'm fairly certain is about hallmarking. Fingers crossed... Alansplodge (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

[8] has a picture about halfway down of a Finnish hallmark including what appears to be a small dude of some sort.The caption suggests its a city mark for Vaasa,but the author appears uncertain about this.Does he resemble yours? Lemon martini (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kangaroos

Do Kangaroos have a voice and do they communicate with each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.101.167 (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do make sounds. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Do they go 'boing boing' when running?--79.76.175.65 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Only in cartoons. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also in cartoons, male kangaroos might have pouches. But they are typically quiet other than the "boing-boing" sound, as Mel Blanc apparently never came up with a characterization. Maybe he couldn't decide if it should be aboriginal; or Aussie like Paul Hogan, or maybe Eric Idle doing the fake Aussie accent for "The Philosophers Song". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Importing beer into the UK

Resolved

Does anyone know of any particular company/organisation that I can pay to import beer for me? I'm looking to get a couple of crates of Augustiner Hell from Munchen. 86.3.61.125 (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look here[9]. Alansplodge (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Thank you so much! 86.3.61.125 (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Or here [10] Richard Avery (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

male/female sex life-time

what is the average sex period of male and female in their lives?

means at what age a normal male/female can start to have sex and untill what age he/she can carryon to do so?

in short the question is what is the life time of sexual life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Household90 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Taken generally, the answer could be the entire lifetime (some 75 average years), because in the most basic sense, people are capable of experiencing sexual pleasure more or less their entire lives;though some would argue that children are not developed enough to understand (or moreover consent to) it, few would deny their capacity for such sensations.

If you mean sexual intercourse, specifically, you could roughly take the average age of adolescent onset (puberty) as the starting point, though that is biased towards sexual activity where impregnation is possible.

On the upper bound, people increasingly have sex late into their lives, though it declines due to health and fitness related conditions, spousal deaths, hormonal changes (less of them), and some cultural trends.

Frankly, you have to specify which culture you're asking about, because sexual behavior is often culturally influenced. Barring that, I'd hazard a guess at between 15 and 65 (puberty plus a few years, avg life expectancy minus a few years), so that's 50 years of sex. Potentially. If you're lucky. My hunch is that this number is gradually increasing as people live longer and possibly delay the age of first sexual encounter (non-casual, if you will).

A more interesting question may be, of those 50 available years, what is the average number of years a person has sex at least once per year. Either way, I caution you that the wikipedia miscellaneous reference help desk has not been known to increase this statistic).206.53.157.85 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! :) The question is asking for statistical data which may or may not be available. But one thing to consider is that Tony Randall fathered children when he was in his high 70s. And don't forget the old saying, "Just because there's snow on the roof doesn't mean there isn't fire in the furnace!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Some statistics on frequency this can be found here. (They are probably for the US in particular.) The same page also has statistics on age of first intercourse. This article discusses statistics relating to the elderly. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If by "sex" you mean penetrative intercourse involving the penis and vagina, the male sexual span would begin in puberty with the ability to get an erection. Some men are capable of performing sexually, including fathering children, well into their geriatric years, and the male sexual span ends only with death or when a man's physical health no longer permits erection and/or intercourse. A woman can receive penetration at any age, but her body won't truly be ready to prepare itself for intercourse until she hits puberty. After menopause, she may have difficulties with lubrication and such, just as an older man may have trouble getting and maintaining an erection compared to the average younger man, but these difficulties are rarely severe enough to end a woman's active sexual life. In short: the ability to experience and enjoy genital sensation is present in infants and children, but only with puberty does the body become able to prepare itself to perform sexual intercourse. In older adults, the biological mechanisms attendant to sexual intercourse may be somewhat slowed down, and desire may diminish, but there is no definite cut-off point at which an adult human can no longer perform sexually simply on account of his or her age.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.119.240 (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The ability to get an erection begins before birth, not at puberty. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - you're right; it's the production of semen that marks male puberty. However, just because a small boy can get an erection doesn't mean he's likely to get one in the same circumstances that would arouse a grown man. Unlike a woman, a man generally can't perform intercourse unless he's aroused, so the ability to perform intercourse would more or less begin with the ability to get an erection in response to a sexual stimulus. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A recent edition of the BBC Radio 4 programme Thinking Allowed (31 March 2010) covered the issue of sexuality in senior years, including in nursing homes. [11] BrainyBabe (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tools

What can be the use of the following three tools [12] and [13]? Pictures in gallery are zoomable. 83.23.244.28 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In the 2nd pic (assuming you're not asking about the triangle), those look like they might be stakes for holding down a tent or tarp. The plastic handle might be to get a good grip to pull them out, and also so the whole thing doesn't get pounded into the ground. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, they kind of look like leatherworking tools. I wonder where the OP got these items? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I got them from a baazar (flea market). 83.23.244.28 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a serious tool addiction, if you see them for sale and must have them, even though you have no idea what they are for. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat in that anyone buying tools without knowing their purpose and then subsequently asking that purpose on Wikipedia should definitely make a money contribution to the Wiki Foundation - (I include myself in that remark). However, the First pics above are clearly paint-mixing tools. The one with the wiggly working end is fine for its purpose but not nearly as much as the one with the 4 bladed rotor which also has a semi-erect penis higher up the shaft that is obviously for hanging it over the paint tin rim when not in use. Very clever. Me? I use an old wooden spoon that I insert into the chuck of a re-chargeable electric drill and spin it in the paint until I get the desired consistency. The other pic. shows a pointy ended spike that is intended for staking out perimeter lines such as might be used when marking out flower beds or vegetable plots - and yes - it could be used for staking out a tent. Wisdom comes with age - like wisdom teeth. 92.30.13.64 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The yellow handled tool could be for shaping clay. Are there any manufacture's marks? There is something on the wood handled tool, but I can't make it out. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the yellow-handled one would be for removing eggs (Easter eggs) from a food-coloring dye solution. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"This Old House" has a funny section on identifying unknown tools. From the This Old House article:

"There is also a feature entitled "What Is It?" in which three of the four regulars try to guess what an unusual tool is used for. The adjudicating fourth regular reveals the actual use." Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The tool with the brown handle (4 bladed rotor with semi-erection) could also have been designed as a type of honey dipper. Maybe this particular type is called something else in English or maybe it's rarer in English speaking countries, for if you do a google image search of "honey dipper" you only get results for a differently shaped one. If you google image search "Honignehmer" ("honey dipper" in German) you will see more examples of the four-bladed type. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We do have honey-dippers in the English-speaking world, but we also have an intriguing and versatile implement known as a "spoon", which does everything a honey-dipper does and much, much more. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. What I meant was that that particular design might be rarer than the wooden coiled variety. Surely we don't want to fork this off into a sticky discussion on the pros and cons of honey dipping! ---Sluzzelin talk 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, forks are less than ideal for serving honey. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

a tool is a functional object, not an ideal type. if you don't know what function a tool was designed to do, then the tool pretty much does whatever you decide it does. they might, for instance, make excellent back-scratchers. --Ludwigs2 16:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Though the tool is somewhat constrained by intentionality. Sure, you might want to use a hammer as a screw driver—but it doesn't mean it will function in that way! --Mr.98 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, the proper tool for that would be a knife, nail file, or fingernail. :-) StuRat (talk)

The two tools with plastic handles and bent wire at the end look like they are made to lift something which has a ball above a smaller neck at the top, like a lid of a crucible or a scale weight (crucibles get too hot to touch, fingerprints significantly affect scale weights). The Wood handled tool with the plus shaped cross section at the end would not make sense as a paint stirrer. A throw-away wooden paint stirrer would to a better job and not require tedious cleaning. There would likely be some paint stains on it if it were a paint-mixer. It would be useful for pushing something out of a mold of the same plus shape or for making an indentation of that shape in something soft like clay. If it were for indenting something hard like leather or wood, it would likely have a metal handle for striking. It has been used a lot, shown by the plating being worn off, perhaps by the user's thumb. Edison (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The yellow handle on one of the items to me suggests use around the kitchen, not the garage or a man's workplace, unless visibility is a consideration. The spike-type objects may be crocheting or knitting needles. Or they may be used to mark where a ball has landed in some type of outdoor game, such as bocce. One item certainly bears all the superficial characteristics of paint mixing device, but I don't think it's that. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What does 83.23.244.28 think these tools can be for? Closer examination might have yielded some clues. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

April 5

Oil startup economics

If a startup petroleum company wishes to become an integrated American energy corporation through rapid expansion, it will be involved in all oil processes. This includes upstream (exploration and production at the field), midstream (transportation of oil to refinery), and downstream (refining, marketing, and distribution). With the aspirations of the company described above, would it have a higher chance for vertical integration if it started in upstream or downstream? I reviewed Chevron's annual shareholders' report; the upstream created much more profit than downstream, but required hell of more money.--LastLived 01:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about that industry, but it seems to me that if everything you say is true, the upstream segment sounds risky whereas the downstream segment sounds predictable. If the startup commences its business in the riskier segment, then it sounds like there's a higher chance the startup will not survive to year 2 (or 3, or 4), which terminates any chance of success. Starting in the less risky but less profitable segment might mean the company has a higher chance of being able to expand to all segments, as it accumulates the capital needed in order to expand the business. On the other hand, if peak oil is around the corner, this startup might run out of time! Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As Comet Tuttle mentions above, the Upstream industry is much more unpredictable. A oil or natural gas well on land in the USA (where my experience is) costs between $100K (very shallow, cheap well) and $1 Million+. Offshore wells might cost $1Million per day just to drill and can easily reach 100's of Millions or Billions to bring online. That means that the zone you are trying to produce must produce enough oil or gas to be profitable. In a certain number of wells (maybe 10-20%) you find nothing at all. So, you now have a very expensive hole in the ground. Then in another certain number of wells (I'd think 10-20%, but those numbers may be off) you find oil or gas, but not enough to make the well profitable. Sometimes those wells are plugged and abandoned, sometimes the operator produces very slowly and waits until global prices make the well profitable (which costs money to do so, and the well may never be profitable). So a profitable well, in addition to paying for itself, must pay for other wells which are "dry holes" and interest and overhead, etc.

A company that wants to stay in business, will therefore, only drill wells in areas that look like they will produce enough money to offset their expected failure or "dry hole" rate. So, a string of good wells will make a company very wealthy, very quickly as they are not having to pay for failures. Additionally, since global prices are very volatile, if you design your drilling plan to be profitable at $40/barrel and prices hit $180/barrel, your company can expand easily. On the other hand, if you have a string of bad luck, or if you design your drilling plan to be profitable at $80/barrel and oil prices crash to $40/barrel, then the company quickly goes out of business. The volatility of the market can also cause problems as a well may have a useful life of over 20 years. If you can pay off all your expenses quickly then the well remains a money-maker regardless of global oil/gas prices. But if it takes a long time to pay off the well, then it can cause a cash flow problem or even never become profitable.

In contrast to the upstream market, the downstream market requires a huge initial outlay (refinery, trucks, pipelines, etc) but is not as affected by volatility. The price a refiner pays for crude oil can be mostly passed on to consumers. But as long as refinery capacity exceeds or equals consumer demand, the amount of profit it pretty limited. Since consumers will often choose gasoline solely on price, if you raise your at pump prices to increase profit, consumers will often go to another gas station. So you can only increase profits by increasing efficiency at the refinery or in the distribution network or by using advertising to convince consumers that your gasoline is worth the additional cost (which also costs money). If global oil supply decreases or if global demand decreases, you're stuck with a very large, very expensive, very specialized and perhaps polluted site that may be operating below peak capacity and costing you money.

It comes down to whether you feel lucky and want to take a risk on hitting a pay zone, or try slow and steady growth in the hope that you can eventually get enough capital together to expand. Tobyc75 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure your premise is very common: I don't think any startup has become a significant "integrated oil company" in many years (and even the majors contract far more of their work than they did a few decades ago, which is why their labour forces have shrunk so much). I'd say the usual story is for little (upstream) oil companies to find oil in an area and then either sell the whole or part of the asset to one of the majors or produce and sell the oil to a refinery, which may or may not be owned by one of the majors. If they are in an isolated area with no existing infrastructure, they may have to build their own refinery, but it is very unlikely that they'd do this alone, they would probably partner with other, bigger oil companies that have money and expertise to throw at it (joint ventures are extremely common in the industry, both upstream and downstream). I'd say it is usually much more common for startups to operate upstream than downstream: downstream operations benefit from economies of scale and require huge amounts of capital, while upstream companies can "hit it big" with relatively small amounts of capital (and large amounts of luck). As was said above, the economics of upstream operations are much less predictable than those of downstream ones, and you're much more likely to get successful startups from operations that can occasionally pay off 100 to 1 than from operations that can more reliably pay of at 1.3 to 1, or whatever. Of course you also get a lot more failed upstream startups than you do downstream ones. TastyCakes (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple things you should keep in mind: Oil exploration companies contract with drilling companies to service their exploration wells. After that, I'm unsure, but I believe the explorer takes over and brings his own rigs on. The contracted drilling servicer could be a significant price determination factor.--LastLived 23:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the second part of that's accurate. Most oil companies (even big ones) do not ever "drill their own holes": whether they are exploration or development wells, they are typically drilled, logged and completed by contracting companies. TastyCakes (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Wikipedians and their weird tactics

I ask a question on the reference desk now and then, and a few weeks ago someone called Kainaw told me that I ought to sign my posts by typing four "~" marks at the end, and that this was very important because of the tactics of some people who are trying to bring down or sabotage Wikipedia. He claimed that one of the things they were doing to bring down Wikipedia was to post things without the four "~"s at the end. (Btw, Kainaw, if you're reading this, thanks for giving me credit for being a noob and not a jerk.) Anyway, I understand that some people aren't big fans of Wikipedia, and it's true that it has its limitations - but who are these people who have such an active loathing for Wikipedia that they need to waste some of the precious finite minutes of their lives trying to orchestrate its downfall? Why don't they find some encyclopedia they actually like, or create their own (a la Andrew Schafly)? And what sort of damage do they think they're going to do with improperly signed posts anyway? I've actually been wondering about this for weeks and I thought I might as well go ahead and ask. Please explain! Thanks from your non-enemy -----> 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? You may be interested to read Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 05:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting - thank you. I'm always interested to know what motivates people to do weird things. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Only a tiny select number of people actually hate wikipedia, and naturally I feel quite sorry for them. Kainaw was no doubt fibbing a bit, it's just easier to read when people sign their posts, though people aren't intentionally not signing out of malice, just laziness. I suspect the attention-seeking and humour types are the most common reasons for vandalism.--92.251.227.235 (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what Kainaw said, but they may have meant that vandals often don't bother finding out how things are generally done on Wikipedia, such as signing their posts with four tildes. That doesn't mean that they can cause any harm by not doing signing, but it might sometimes mean that other editors are more suspicious of people who don't sign, and want to closely check their contributions to see if they might be a vandal. Warofdreams talk 11:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that signing posts only applies to talk pages, like this one, and not to articles. Vandals will leave out signatures, since that makes it harder to determine their identity and take actions against them (reverting their posts or blocking them). StuRat (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the anti-wikipedians tend to be users that were indef'd because they were trying to use wikipedia for some particular agenda, such as promoting a personal website or attacking a public figure and/or other editors. There are also some oddballs. I recall one user who absolutely, never-ever would sign his posts, despite being asked to many times. He finally said he would start signing, if certain conditions were met. He was under the impression that it was a personal issue somehow. Not surprisingly, his conditions for signing were ignored, as was the user itself from that point on. Some indef'd users (and sorry, but I don't have a list) have been known to start websites for the purpose of trying to "out" those who "wronged" them. There is no accounting for the lengths to which the obsessive types will go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't users allowed to remain anonymous if they so choose ? I think that's why signatures aren't automatic and the signbot even makes a provision for those who don't want to sign. True, some who refuse to sign are vandals, but many others just want us to respect their privacy. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Their user ID or IP address, whichever they are using, will show in the talk page history. So privacy doesn't enter into it. It's mostly a matter of habit (or lack thereof) and consideration for other editors. For example, sometimes I forget. But not very often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides which, if you really want privacy, you should create an account because without one, anyone can find out your IP address - and that can make it much easier for someone to figure out who you really are. For example, we now know that the person asking this question has an account with Verizon and lives in the USA. If you use a named account, the only information that's available is what you choose to divulge. Not signing doesn't make things more private because your Username or IP address still appears in the 'history' tab. SteveBaker (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Who's more anonymous, a sinebot signed IP address, or me with my pseudonym that bears no relevance to my real name (except that I use it elsewhere with my real name attached)? I can see that ensuring that your post will not be signed is disruptive, but where's the problem with letting sinebot sign for you? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not signing just makes it harder to find. But it's just a little tedious, not a show-stopper. As you say, once you're a registered user, no one can tell who or where you are unless you make it known. You can even make up a fake identity, and who would know? I, for example, spend most of my time in Lower Slobbovia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Sinebot add signatures to posts anyway? I've noticed it doing that to mine when I (almost invariably) forget the tildes. --Roydisco (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It does, but only under certain circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not active on all talk pages, and there's also a "!nosine!" keyword you can put in the edit summary, to disable this feature. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it tends to be active for IP addresses, as they are always assumed to be newbies; and for any editor (redlink or not) that has less than a certain minimum number of edits. There have been a number of discussions/arguments around the signatures issue. One user (an admin, yet) was threatened with being indef'd unless he started using a proper signature (it's a long story) and the obvious solution seemed to be to have the background processes simply post a signature so you wouldn't have to remember to do it. But there were various arguments as to why that's not practical. So the debate continues to flair up from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For example, if I was to respond to a question and then edit my reply to fix a broken link or something, it would be irritating to have an extra signature there. I rarely forget to sign, but I seem to screw up links fairly frequently. So, the current situation is better for me - and therefore better for all of you as well! Matt Deres (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are ways to program around that scenario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

egypt, language, history!

What is the symbol for revenge in Egyptian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melenas (talk • contribs) 05:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean hieroglyphics? Chevymontecarlo. 08:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If so, most hieroglyphics represent a sound, not a concept, so there would be several required to make a word. StuRat (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of websites that will translate an English word into hieroglyphics, so a Google search should be a good first step. However, with the word you're wanting to translate, it's possible there could be a specific character or group of characters for that word, instead of just translating the individual letters/sounds (as these websites appear to do). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are lots of Egyptian hieroglyphs for English words that start with 'R' but revenge is not among them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Language, History

What is the symbol or translation for revenge in aramaic?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melenas (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this online Amharaic dictionary revenge noun is ቂም /qim/, verb infinitive is መብቀል /mäbqäl/. There are several other forms at the link given. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's Amharic, not Aramaic. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to shuffle things off, but this is definitely a Language Desk question and you'll probably get better results there. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

History, Language!

What is the original Language of the Bible "old Testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.52.205 (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Classical Hebrew (OT) (and Koine_Greek (NT), though Jesus spoke Aramaic). Dbfirs 07:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The books of the Christian Old Testament were originally written mainly in Biblical Hebrew, but some passages were originally written in Biblical Aramaic. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bible Old Testament was written before there were any christians. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean there is no such thing as the OT qua subset of the Christian canon? —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Where to get small rubber bungs for ink cartridge refills in UK?

I only have one rubber bung, used when refilling ink catridges, and I would like to get a few more. It measures about two or three millimetres in diameter and about five mm in length as far as I recall, plus a disc-shaped lip to stop it falling in. I have several refilling kits but none of them has this bung, essential in making a waterproof seal. Does anyone know where I could get a few more of them in the UK please? 84.13.53.211 (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As an illustration, I'm looking for four or five of something like the first or second things listed here: http://www.grommets.co.uk/documents/products/plugs_mushroom270110.pdf Preferably with thin flat (not domed) tops and something I could buy on the High Street. Thanks 89.240.59.32 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Running speed records and performance-enhancing substances

Are there any running speed records that would change if the anti-doping regulations were retroactively repealed? NeonMerlin 14:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, do you mean if there were no anti-doping laws ever? Well I suppose you'd have to give Ben Johnson (sprinter)'s 9.79 back. But it obviously wouldn't be current today, and are you really asking what records would be standing today if there had never been any anti-doping laws? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ibruprofen labelling.

(This might sound like a medical question - but bear with me - it's not).

I had a headache today and went to the company kitchen to grab some Ibruprofen. I wasn't sure whether this was the kind where you can take one or whether it's two for an adult - and I needed to know how long before I should go before taking another one if my headache comes back.

So I read everything on the label - and it's not mentioned anywhere! There are long lists of side-effects and warnings about not taking them with alcohol and ingredient lists and all sorts of other junk - but no dosage information! I look on the box that the bottle came from - same thing - there is no paper insert of any kind. I was on the point of looking it up on Wikipedia when a co-worker who'd gotten enmeshed in my rant^H^H^H^H train of thought pointed out that at the very bottom of the label - in teeny-tiny letters it says "More information beneath label"...and lo and behold, when I peeled off the label, underneath it - printed directly onto the plastic - was the dosage information!

WTF? Why on earth do they hide this information? Surely it should be in the biggest lettering in the most prominent place?

SteveBaker (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

They got you to read all the warnings and disclaimers... from a liability standpoint, that may be the desired outcome. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, dosage information is pretty prominent almost universally. I can't find any reason for it being otherwise in the US, but this article suggests it is very common. Coneslayer's suggestion may be correct. Or, perhaps there are legal requirements to include all the side-effects and warnings in a prominent place, but no such requirement for dosages, so they hide the dosages away in order to say space. --Tango (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for an overly litigious society! Making life difficult for people with common sense since whenever. Anyway, I always skim for the heading "Directions", which is where dosage information is usually kept. I wonder if this leads to unintended consequences—people can't find dosage information so they just guess, thereby doing something probably less safe than they otherwise would have done. It would be interesting to know! --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a parallel problem on US prescriptions. There, they do list the dosage, but don't say what the med is actually for. (This could be particularly problematic if it's an anti-senility med.) StuRat (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deliberately hiding the dosage information sounds pretty stupid to me. I wonder how long will it be before some grieving relative sues a drug manufacturer for not putting the dosage information in a prominent place and therefore accidentally causing the "victim" to die of an overdose? Astronaut (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can assume ill intent. Steve probably has a little bitty bottle, so there's not enough room to put on everything they're required by law on the front of it. Whether they should put the dosing or the warning first is debatable, but they have to do one or the other, and neither is perfect. On my itty bitty bottle of Vaseline, there is one of those peel back labels with 5 pages. Their contents, in order:

1. Ingredients: White petroleum USP, (100%) and a bar-code

2. Uses: temporarily protects minor cuts, scrapes, burns. Temporarily protects and helps relieve chapped or cracked ... etc. etc.

3. Warnings: When using this product, do not get into eyes. Etc.

4. Keep out of Reach of small children. If consumed by children, call poison control. Etc.

5. Questions? Call 1-800-457-xxxx. Contains no colors, fragrances or irritants. Etc.

With the exception of the barcode and phone number, they're probably required by law to have everything in there (even though it's essentially inert), and there isn't even dosing instructions! Buddy431 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No - it wasn't a small bottle - it was a giant industrial-sized 500 gel-cap plastic bottle. I don't think there was that much shortage of space. But even if there were - it's bizarre that the most important info is hidden. SteveBaker (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not one to take any sort of medication when I get a headache. I have a high tolerance and such, so I'm not that accustomed to pill bottles. A month or two ago, I actually broke down and took some Advil or some such thing. I read every word of that label looking for actual dosage info. Under dosage, all it said was "Do not take more than directed" but nowhere on the bottle did it actually say how many were "directed". So, I took two and figured that the actual dosage was likely on the box that the bottle had come in and which was now in a landfill somewhere. Dismas|^(talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The dosage is always on there. It's under "Directions". It is a tiny, tiny section, and does not distinguish itself the way it used to (when there used to be a table or something). It just says: "Directions, adults and children over 12 take two pills every four hours as needed -- children under 12, consult a doctor" or something like that. It's very easy to miss. The argument that it has been done purposefully is in part that it has changed really dramatically in the last few years. I can still remember when dosage information used to be pretty easy to find. Now it is all impossible to find, but in a standardized, predictable way. It is definitely the result of some regulation change. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is this regulation change? Do you have a reference? SteveBaker (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which one started it, but the FDA has regulation changes fairly regularly. Here's one from 2009, for example, which explains in painful legalese what must be on a label and in what typeface and in what order. It even has little, impossible-to-read samples that show how "Directions" is forced onto a second page! Wonderful. The idea is probably that active ingredients and warnings are more important than dosage (you'd want to know if it conflicted with existing medication, which is a big health problem), but I agree that in most cases people probably just skim the warnings at best. It's like the research that's been done on how people deal with warning boxes on computers—if your operating system (read: recent versions of Windows) is constantly giving you alerts and possible warnings and so forth, people are inclined to just stop reading them altogether. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

More OR here: I've rustled up four other drug cases (Claritin, Cepacol, Sudafed, and Tylenol), which along with the Vaseline make five. They all appear to have the same order of stuff on the label:

1. Active Ingredient
2. Uses
3. Warnings
4. Directions (which includes dosing)
5. Other Information (except the Vaseline)
6. Inactive Ingredients (except the Vaseline: there is none of course)
7. Questions or comments, except the Cepacol, which has "Questions" in a different font at the bottom.

All of them use the same typeface and formatting, and all but the Tylenol have each category in a box. I agree with Mr. 98: there's definitely some sort of regulation standardizing these. As to why yours had a little peel off label and not a big one, I suppose maybe they use the same label for all their sizes, but that's just a guess. Buddy431 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

They all have dosage information in the U.S. Chapstick isn't a "drug" as far as the FDA is concerned, but ibuprofen is, and it most definitely has dosage information listed on the packaging. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Canned bean slime

Why do some cans of beans have lots of slime in them? The amount of slime tends to vary somewhat from can to can and from brand to brand. My guess has always been that lots of slime and gunk means the beans are really old, and I tend to throw them out. But the expiration date on the cans is really no help in determining whether a can will have lots of slime or not. What is this slime? Where does it come from? And is lots of slime in the can a cause for concern? -- noosphere 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. By "slime", do you mean the sauce ? I always toss out any cans that are bulging, and, if I open them up and they are separated (clear liquid and clumps of color), that's also a bad sign. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the slime might be what the liquid (or maybe "sauce") turns in to somehow. Some cans of beans have relatively thin liquid in them, in others the liquid is very congealed and slimy. It's just slime. I don't know how to better describe it. Maybe I should take a picture. -- noosphere 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are probably talking about cans of cooked beans. Having cooked dried beans myself, I can tell you that after beans are cooked and allowed to sit and cool, the fluid that they have been cooked in will thicken. Sometimes a gelatin-like substance will form. This is perfectly natural and not a sign that anything is wrong. This material is probably one or more non-starch polysaccharides that are released from the beans by cooking. These polysaccharides are natural thickening agents and may give the bean juice a "slimy" quality. If the can is not bulging and if it doesn't have a bad odor when you open it, it's probably safe, though of course we cannot offer any guarantee. Marco polo (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting my mind at ease. It looks pretty nasty, but at least I know now that it's not dangerous. -- noosphere 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that canned beans are cooked in the can after it's sealed up (sterilizing the contents in the process, for food safety). As a result, all that "stuff" Marco Polo describes is going to stay in the can, and since there's not a lot of liquid in there, it's likely to be more concentrated than if you cooked the beans in a big pot of water on the stove. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What sort of beans? DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Black beans. Though I'm pretty sure I've seen the slime in other canned beans (perhaps kidney beans). Here are some pics: [14] [15] [16] -- noosphere 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What sort of black beans? DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just plain black beans. Imported from Italy. -- noosphere 17:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The main ingredients in the sauce would be water and fat (especially if it's "pork and beans"), with some tomato and spices in there, too. Could the white slime be fat ? You can probably tell best by feeling it. If it doesn't rinse off, without soap, it's fat. Does the ingredients list include fat or meat ? StuRat (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There should be no added fat or meat in these cans. They're cans of just black beans. From the label on the can: "Ingredients: Black Beans, Water, Salt. Antioxidant: Ascorbic Acid." The slime does usually rinse off with just water. -- noosphere 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to go with Marco Polo's answer above, then. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

mexican revolution

the numerically dominant racist group in mexico is the? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sritanshu.negi1 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the largest racial group ? If so, what does this have to do with the Mexican Revolution ? StuRat (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Racial categories are social constructs that have little if any scientific basis. It is obvious that this is true because different cultures have different sets of racial or quasi-racial categories such that two people who belong to a single racial category in one culture are considered members of two different categories in another culture. Mexico is a perfect example. According to Mexican racial categories, the majority of Mexico's population is mestizo. This is not a racial category that is recognized by the United States Census or other U.S. agencies. Marco polo (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But the Mexican revolution was a social movement, so it makes a lot of sense to talk about social classifications. There was a census done in Mexico in both 1910 and 1921, so presumably the information is available. The census cite is here: I don't speak Spanish, so I can't wade through it. This interesting source gives some information: evidently the 1921 census catagorized people into four groups:

• “Indígena pura” (of pure indigenous heritage)
• “Indígena mezclada con blanca” (of mixed indigenous and white background)
• “Blanca” (of White or Spanish heritage)
• “Extranjeros sin distinción de razas” (Foreigners without racial distinction).

and also gives some statistics about the groups. Buddy431 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I bet you can find the data [17], if someone who reads Spanish wants to search. Buddy431 (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Though the US Census racial categories is hardly a good standard for that. Even they acknowledge that it is not "scientific" or even "anthropological," and recently even Census officials have made a point of the fact that it has nothing for Arab-Americans, continues to use the out-dated term "Negro", and so on.

Anyway, Demographics of Mexico might be the more useful article here, in particular the "Ethnography" section. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd's Medal-- 1st World War

Mr William Flynn, we believe, won this medal for helping to rescue sailors from a sinking ship during the war. Can you help with confirming + getting any detail ? Many thanks for trying-- Peter Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.0.201.226 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Lloyd's of London is a large insurance companymarket that specializes in ships - so they are presumably the ones who gave out the medal. That companymarket still exists - http://www.lloyds.com/ so, I presume you could contact them to get more details. There is a little more detail about a recent recipient of the medal here. It says that the medal is made of silver and has been awarded (albeit rarely) since 1917 - so if this one was awarded in the First world war - it would probably be one of the first! Also, since Lloyds don't insure military vessels, it would suggest that Mr Flynn saved these sailors from a commercial vessel that was insured by Lloyds. Their web page says: "The Silver Medal shows on one side Neptune and his chariot reflecting Lloyd's links with the sea, and on the reverse shows "For Services To Lloyd's". The recipient's name is engraved around the rim.". The two contacts at the bottom of that page (Louise Shield and Bart Nash) might be a good people to contact because they are likely to be PR types who are at least somewhat familiar with the medal. I bet they could find a complete citation for you. SteveBaker (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK - more: We have an article Lloyd's War Medal for Bravery at Sea. This is initially confusing because Flynn isn't mentioned there - but it seems that this award wasn't made until 1940. However, this page says that there are/were at least three different medals given out by Lloyds: Lloyd's Medal for Saving Life at Sea and Lloyd's Medal for Meritorious Services and Lloyd's War Medal for Bravery at Sea. Sadly we only have an article on the last of these. So it seems that the medal you need to know about is Lloyd's Medal for Saving Life at Sea - which was first awarded in 1836 and was renamed Lloyd's Medal for Saving Life in 1971 - those come in Gold, Silver and Bronze versions. I suspect that the information you need is contained in this book (you can click on the "Find in a library" link there to get a list of places where this book may be found. SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

this has a bunch of places you could try also. SteveBaker (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find a copy in a library someplace, you can buy a copy of "Lloyd's Medals, 1836-1989 by Jim Gawler" here for $25. SteveBaker (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just one point: Lloyd's is not a company, it's just a market where companies do their business. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point! I fixed my earlier replies. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To put the record straight; Lloyd's of London IS a market, but insurance companies can't do business there directly. The underwriting of insurance is done by Lloyd's Syndicates, made up of individual investors called "Names" who are members of Lloyd's and have unlimited liability. Insurance companies can buy reinsurance from the Syndicates but only through a Lloyd's Broker. The markets in London that companies can participate in directly are: the Institute of London Underwriters for marine and aviation business and the London Underwriting Centre for international and reinsurance. Lloyd's Register of Shipping records and grades merchant ships to make them insurable. I'll stop now before you all fall asleep. Alansplodge (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

According to [18] it was not the gold Lloyd's Medal for Saving Life which has only been awarded twice. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true - but there are also silver and bronze versions of that medal that (presumably) have been awarded more frequently. SteveBaker (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Epic Fail

Does anyone know who came up with the phrase "epic fail"? Truthsort (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As with most Internet memes the origin is hard to pinpoint. Epic fail attempts to sort out the origin, but in my opinion does not do a very good job at doing so -- the article's best answer is "a random Urban Dictionary user". I read some time ago that it was invented on 4chan's /b/ (random) board, where some users took the badly translated phrase "You fail it!" from the video game Blazing Star, shortened it to "You fail" and eventually "FAIL", then combined it with "Epic", which was another /b/ meme. I don't think there were dates provided for either action, unfortunately. Given /b/ has a long track record or originating memes (lolcats, Rickrolling, etc.), I'm inclined to believe this anecdote, so my best answer is "some random /b/tards." Not a lot of help, for sure. Xenon54 / talk / 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Guardian reader , eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

April 6

Twenty sensible questions?

After I posted some questions from New Era Publications who sell Scientology materials they have sent me 20 more. How should one respond to these?

1. Have you ever become frustrated because dealing with the “wrong” person in doing a job for you?

2. Or what about the hours of wasted time trying to come up with an “agreement” with an individual that was below 2.0 on the Tone scale - and you didn't spot this in time?

3. How can you conclude a deal with someone on 1.1 or apathy? Is it actually possible?

4. How do you recognize the tone of a person with only a handshake?

5. Or, what do you need to know about a person who is too fat?

6. How do you know when you have just spoken with a person who is 1.1?

7. How do you sell to people at different tone levels, i.e. cover hostility, apathy, boredom, antagonism etc…?

8. Do beings have different theta “peculiar capabilities” or are we basically all the same?

9. How does reactivity affect the performance of the individual at work?

10. How can you predict a person's honesty, ethics level, persistence and responsibility level?

11. Why does a businessman need to know the tech of Human Evaluation?

12. What is the importance of goals and ideals to survival?

13. What does the ability to conquest the physical universe have to do with a thetan's tone level?

14. How can you introduce someone to Scientology very easily?

15. How does the individual handle truth at various points on the tone scale?

16. How would you like to know how a thetan creates the MEST universe?

17. What is energy?

18. How does a thetan use his mind and body to operate and control motion and MEST?

20. How would you like to know how to tell a person's tone level from the condition of his belongings?

21. How would you like to find out what the true cause of anxiety is?

(I added numbers for easy reference to the questions and some links to help with the Co$ jargon.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are 20 sensible questions, which one is the crazy one ? :-) StuRat (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotta be number 14. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

These questions can only be answered by the Scientology organisation since only they actually use the terms involved. If you want to know the answers, you need to join Scientology. You may wish to research the organisation and find out about the harassment, fraud and general nonsense they spout before handing over any cash, though... If you do, don't expect the answers to actually make sense. --Tango (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it all makes sense to a "Cleared Theta Clear". StuRat (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I kept waiting for the question, "And hast thou slain the jabberwock, my son?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DFTT: One should ignore them and hope they stop sending you annoying junkmail. SteveBaker (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tried to take their tests and things with no intention of joining, just to mess with them? It seems like the kind of nonsense that any sensible person could easily reject. Or are they so good at it that that would completely backfire? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

They seem to have a strategy of only telling you the logical parts, like improving your life by getting off drugs and alcohol, at first, and leaving the really wacky stuff until you are into them for thousands of dollars and many years of your life. StuRat (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll confess, I took their introductory quiz once, just out of curiosity. I scored 9/10 across the board, and decided that any organization which would hold me up as a near ideal has deep and serious problems. --Ludwigs2 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation

Why are Americans so gullable? 78.147.35.82 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. If I send you all my credit card account numbers, could you tell me ? StuRat (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are non-Americans so condescending and dismissive of Americans? --Jayron32 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See the questions at the top of the thread. On the other hand, many Americans can at least spell "gullible". Matt Deres (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do Britons have such a penchant for sweeping, uncharitable generalizations? And why are Britons so insulting? Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Centuries of assiduous practice, dear boy :^). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do faulty generalizations deserve responses in kind? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear God - Forgive me - mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - I actually read this question - AND its responses. Deo Gracias. 92.30.40.36 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm clobbering this off topic banter. You're lucky I don't collapse the crap above it too. If you're not going to give a reasonable answer, don't respond. Buddy431 (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1. yes/no answer 2. yes/no answer 3. Assuming 1.1 refers to covert hostility on the tone scale, yes, people make deals all the time with hostile parties with diplomacy. (ex. Obama's health care reform). If they are apathetic either seal the deal yourself, get a representative to speak for their behalf, or pester them until they go through whatever motions are necessary. 4. Presumably by correlating "tone" with a (hopefully) accurate first impression. Read their body language, observe their dress, and listen to what their saying and how they say it... 5. See Obesity. 6. They were covertly hostile towards you. 7. The same way you sell anything to anyone - tailor your sales pitch to the person. 8. Unproven supposition thetans exist. 9. Assuming reactivity refers to the Reactive mind, this question has a false premise. All of those things listed on the WP page have proven non-somatoform eitologies, assuming the subject doesn't actually have Somatoform disorder. That said, having various mental and physical ailments tends to negatively impact work performance. 10. If you could, con-artists wouldn't exist. 11. They don't. 12. Human behavioral ecology, Evolutionary ethics, Sociobiology. 13. Unproven supposition thetans exist. 14. Send them bizarre questionnaires. 15. Covariance = 0 16. Personally, I'm not interested, also unproven supposition thetans exist. 17. A quantity. 18. Unproven supposition thetans exist. 19. Personally, I'm not interested, since I don't think the tone scale has any value or basis in human psychology. 20. I'm not interested because I already know what causes anxiety: stress, uneasiness, apprehension, fear, worry- reactions to threats that are perceived to be uncontrollable or unavoidable. 23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Blacksmith

What is the difference between an ordinary blacksmith and a master blacksmith?--79.76.156.101 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There's this WikiAnswer FWIW, according to which, you're looking at 10+ years of training and the approval of your guild. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The size of the anvil ? :-) StuRat (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the muscles of your brawny arms must be strong as rubber bands. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand the above answer: is it some sort of weak joke?--79.76.156.101 (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a parody of a line from this famous poem. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, by Bullwinkle J. Moose when he was reading Longfellow's poem in the Rocky and Bullwinkle feature called "Bullwinkle's Corner". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The poem says muscles strong as iron bands not rubber bands. So again its not only not funny, but its not an accurate quote. And the poem does not refer to the fact of his being a skilled man.--79.76.239.84 (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See Master craftsman for the general sense of "master" meant here. Specifics probably vary by country. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Today the term Master is often used to distinguish a craftsman who is self-employed and employees others. My father was a Master Butcher, without any Guild membership.Froggie34 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a prime example of a *cough, cough* master smith. I couldn't find the Porky Pig rendition. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Selling a found cell phone

I found a Blackberry. The phone is disconnected and I do not know who the owner is. Can I sell the phone on eBay without any reprocussions? --67.134.239.205 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly depends where you are. In Britain, the Theft Act 1968 (as amended) requires that you genuinely believe "that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps" – which in your case is highly unlikely, because if you hand it in at a police station, someone who's lost £100s of technology is likely to go looking for it. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP is in New Jersey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You should send this to "lost and found" at your local police station. They will hold it for a set period of time and (depending on where you are) if nobody claims it within a set period you may be allowed to become the owner of it. We cannot offer legal advice so you are strongly advised to speak with your local police (obviously don't dial 999/911 find a local number for them!) and they will advise you of the best process to follow. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that not all jurisdictions give lost property back to those who found it if unclaimed. The police station in my home town (in the US) was notorious about keeping it and auctioning it off itself. This provoked outcry—it demotivates people to report lost property, obviously—but was not illegal in any way. (I don't know if it still does this today—knowing them, it probably does.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "disconnected"? There should probably still be owner information on it even if it does not make calls. Look in the contact book for a phone number for "Mom". Try looking under Options > Owner. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is a contract phone then the network should be able to identify who the handset belongs to through its IMEI number. Even if it's pre-paid, there may be some authority with which it needs to be registered that will enable the owner to be identified. Failing all that, as mentioned above, it is reasonable that an entry such as "Home", "Mom", "Dad" or "ICE" would exist in the phonebook. Last resort would be to contact the network to identify which were the last dialled numbers from that phone, or even what the number of the last SIM card inserted into the phone was (if such information is kept on record). In short, it is very hard NOT to identify who a lost phone belongs to. Zunaid 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Orientation in space

Hello, Wikipedians. This question concerns a problem of the Star Trek variety! I'd love to know what system one might use, in order to convey verbal directions to a point in 3D space? For instance, when LaForge says there's an incoming Klingon vessel, it might be at "302.20". Disregarding any notion that the script-writers used anything but made up numbers, how can one provide directions in space?

It is true that, say, a holografic representation of the situation, within a frame of reference (whatever it might be; own ship, planet, sun, etc) would be most likely to convey good situational awareness. What I am asking for is a system of conveying 3D space coordinates verbally, where the one most easily adapted by humans (intuitive while precise, etc) can be deemed most successful.

Fighter pilots actually employ a system that is half relevant to this query, one relatively straining on the mind: A radar operator will call out a target's position relative to a predetermined spot on a map, called Bullseye: 45 50 to make the target NE, 50nm out. Onboard, the fighter pilot has an instrument that tells him his own position relative to Bullseye. He must then work out where he is, relative to the target. This, I think, can be a decent benchmark on mental capability. But I digress!

I would be very thankful, were you to invest your time and intellectual effort on this question. Thank you in advance. 88.90.16.251 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Astronomers use the equatorial coordinate system for this purpose, that is two orthogonal angles expressed relative to the celestial sphere. Out in some random part of the galaxy, you'd need a different reference. Fighter pilots (at least in old films) use a system relative to the orientation of their own flight ("nine'o'clock high"). Alternatively you could establish an arbitrary system based on fixed points - the Pioneer plaque described the position of the Sun with respect to a number of pulsars, each of which has an idiosyncratic cadence. But the Enterprise's preternatural speed makes for serious problems for such a celestial system, as those standard markers move and evolve with time, and you see them in radically different positions depending on where you are (because you're seeing with light); that doesn't matter much for ordinary travellers, but things are downright weird for the supralight Enterprise. A number of Star Trek references, including Wikibooks, simply say the Enterprise uses "Starmark Warp Celestial Guidance". As an alternative to an external reference, you could carry with you an internal inertial reference (based on super-accurate gyroscopes); every ship in the fleet gets their own one that was synchronised against the standard one in San Francisco. Again the unscience of Star Trek, with its relativity-flouting and its inertial dampening makes how these might work anyone's guess. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In Star Trek they use two systems. Bearings, which are relative to the centre of the galaxy, and headings, which are relative to the direction the ship is facing. In both cases, it's a form of spherical coordinates. --Tango (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Tango)

Well, in Star Trek they're theoretically either using two-part bearings relative to the ship (Yaw, then pitch), or three-part coordinates in a system that is never really explained, but seems to be relative to Earth.

However, even when they give bearings, they often give ones that don't really make sense, and/or don't correspond to the special effects shots. APL (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one episode where LaForge says there is "a bogey on a five o'clock tangent." Maybe the universal translator fixed that for the rest of the crew... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Related question for all editors: What's the name of the "three o'clock" system that pilots use? A quick Google didn't come up with a term for the system, and I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure they are just called "clock face directions". We lack a wikipedia article titled "clock face directions" perhaps because of the self-evident nature of the system, but a Wikipedia search turns up variations of the phrase "clockface directions" or "clock-face directions" or "clock face directions" used in this context in several articles. --Jayron32 20:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Memory Alpha article on navigation might be of interest to the OP. Dismas|^(talk) 00:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP (me) thanks all for their input and answers, but this is not about Star Trek. I likely should have known better than to bring up that example with LaForge. I've boldened the part of the OP which is important: The approach to verbally provided directions in three-dimensional space; up, down, left, right only go so far. Consider this poor example, if you will: A sphere is seen from its center; directions are provided by adressing individual manifolds (estimations of directions) on the inside surface of this sphere. For instance, were we to denote these manifolds by use of the old degrees, we could have the target be "straight ahead, 45 degrees up", this becomes "360, 45". We then get 270-360-090 = W(est)-N-E or Left-Ahead-Right. On the vertical plane, all values between 000-090 are up from the ship, 090-180 is down on that plane. This is a way of verbally providing these directions. 88.90.16.251 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You use spherical coordinates or a related system, which is basically what you are describing. You have a choice of where to put zero and what direction to consider positive, but what you describe is a common way. The main choice is whether you consider zero to mean North (one would usually say 0 rather than 360, although they mean the same thing) or to mean forwards. The former is used when plotting a course, say, the latter is used when saying where to look for a nearby aircraft or something. --Tango (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are also cylindrical coordinates and Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z). All systems would require at least 3 non-collinear reference points to use in establishing direction and orientation. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That Memory Alpha article is pretty terrible. But the spherical, ship-centered bearings at least sometimes used on Star Trek TNG would probably be the best way to specify positions in space if they're near your ship. Doing it for things halfway across the galaxy is trickier, because not only to you need a commonly agreed upon reference frame, you need a high degree of accuracy. APL (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Atomic Rocket is a wonderful resource for all sorts of science fictiony (with an emphasis on the science) stuff about spaceflight. Sadly, their astrogation page seems to talk about everything that's adjacent to your question without answering it! There's even a sister project about starmaps that also doesn't relate. But if you're interested in this question, I bet you're interested in the stuff they do cover. Paul (Stansifer) 03:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews

Is it true that the first WikiNews interviewee who died was Gene Amondson? --William Saturn (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Renting work animals

Is there an online registry of rental businesses from which I can rent pigs for plowing the garden, and sheep or goats for mowing the lawn? (I do not mean that a pig would pull a plow, as an ox or a horse might do, but that the pig itself is a plow.) -- Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I have found the following pages with background information.

• http://www.richsoil.com/pigs/; http://www.round-river.com/pigplowing.html; http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_pig.html
• http://www.seattlepi.com/local/319789_goats14.html; http://www.allaboutlawns.com/blog/are-farm-animals-a-lawn-mower-alternative.html
• http://www.practicalenvironmentalist.com/gardening/earth-friendly-ways-to-mow-the-grass.htm
• http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/sheep-goats-electric-mowers-tending-a-sustainable-lawn/Content?oid=1209758

The last one of those says that http://goatfinder.com/ "rents out grass-munchers", but the title bar of http://goatfinder.com/ says
"Free Nationwide Listing Of Goats For Sale - GoatFinder.com". -- Wavelength (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

April 7

Déjà vu by multiple people at the same time?

So A, B and I were in a car. As we were driving over a bridge B threw an apple core out the window into the river. I said I felt like this had happened before. We all experience Déjà vu sometimes so I'm used to it. However A and B both said that they felt like it had happened before too, that they were experiencing Déjà vu also. That's the first and only (and last) time we've everthrown anything in to that river, especially from a moving vehicle. Wtf happened?--92.251.159.250 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some possibilities:

1) A coincidence. That is, you both had a similar "tossing an object" experience.

2) Person B is putting person A on. That is, it's not really a déjà vu for them.

3) The power of suggestion. Person B again didn't really have a déjà vu, but person A saying so convinced them that they did, too. This is how mass hysteria starts. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

4) You really have thrown something out the window before that's triggering a common feeling. I suppose it need not have been in that specific river or from that specific vehicle. Buddy431 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article on Déjà vu says, the cause may not be a confusion with an actual memory from the past, but a glitch in our perception of the present which accidentally processes the short-term memory (of the last second or two) as if it came from long-term memory. (This doesn't address why you all had it at once, I'm just saying. And of course confusion with a real memory might add to the feeling.) 81.131.64.245 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone is changing the Matrix! Run! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)