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 22

Women's stance

This bugs me but I was reading this article and noticed that Kimora Lee Simmons posed her legs in a certain fashion. I've also seen it in other places, such as the poster for the movie Mean Girls. Why do women do this? Is this common? --Blue387 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the question you mean to ask is not, "Why do women do this?" but "Why do photographers request this pose?" It isn't something that would be a comfortable way to stand for an ordinary person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okey, so why do photographers do this? --Blue387 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the photographers think it looks more attractive for the camera? I'm just taking a stab at a guess here, but that answer could easily apply to "Why do photographers use unreasonable amounts of Photoshop?" or "Why do modeling agencies require the models to look anorexic?". Obviously the advertisers think that it sells the product better, regardless of how ugly it looks. And no matter how many people complain, it won't matter as long as the product sells, which in most cases, it usually does. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit confict with above) It looks like they're essentially resting their weight on one foot and sticking the other one out sideways. I've been known to do that sometimes, just because, and it's not too bad (never in that type of showy, staged manner though). But I think it's relevant that they're in heels, that seems like the only way to get a bend in their knee (of the leg sticking out to the side) like that. FisherQueen's right that it certainly doesn't look terribly comfortable, but to my guy eyes, wearing heels in general (especially ones that high) doesn't look comfortable. I'm not sure that that pose looks a ton less comfortable than any other standing pose in heels. Buddy431 (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason is to show one leg in profile. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How about product placement? --Blue387 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the basics of posing in drawing and photography is that angling the hips and shoulders creates a more dynamic "action line". The exaggerated pose Kimora's doing there has become such a cliche of fashion photography that it's become a standard "strike-a-pose" pose amongst young women. Also, check out Hip#Sexual_dimorphism_and_cultural_significance, and compare the painting and sculpture there to your examples. FiggyBee (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That pose may be a cliche, but it's a lot more attractive and dynamic than just standing there at attention like you were posing for a group picture for a high school yearbook. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking also that it's a posture that would cause the muscles in the leg to tense a bit, which might make the leg a bit more attractive- it's the same principle that makes high heels work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Contrapposto combined with the ability to "show some leg". (I'd link to the article describing the erotic connotation of the female leg, but the article human leg is oddly silent on the issue, although there is a request (dated 2006) on the Talk Page for a section on it.) -- 174.24.208.192 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Contrapposto and S Curve, 208.192, I was looking for those articles for my answer. :) FiggyBee (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic issue here seems to be one of confident, self-assured feminine sexuality. So... the question is resolved I take it. Vranak (talk)

Why do Americans hate the French? [and vice versa?]

Why do many Americans hate the French? - Vikramkr (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The French have good food, good wine, and civilization. It's jealousy. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

'Many Americans' don't hate the French. Can you give an example of Americans who hate the French? FiggyBee (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an unflattering stereotype of the French which is used for comedic effect in American humor. They are often called "cheese eating surrender monkeys. Why? I have no idea. Dismas|^(talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The French and Americans both have highly individualistic societies, and two similar entities have a tendency to clash. Also, individuals filled with pride often spare with others who likewise feel self-important. Therefore, it is easy to dislike someone for this reason (especially when the feeling is mutual), and it likely is heightened when there is such an obvious difference as nationality.--William Saturn (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on Anti-French sentiment in the United States - not to mention Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and, more seriously, France – United States relations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The <cheese eating surrender monkeys> insult is derived from the fact that France surrendered in 1940 rather than have their country ravaged with hundreds of thousands of lives lost. What would any other country have done ? Britain escaped through Dunkirk, a massive defeat that is hailed in Britain as a victory. So how do Britain and France in 1940, faced with the might of Nazi Germany, differ ? One had a Channel to cross. The other didn't,Froggie34 (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the stereotype was built up from the beliefs that the French love their cheese (which they do, in fairness), that France has a terrible military history (hence the 'French Military Victories' joke) and that they are meant to be very hairy. Cheese, Surrender, Monkeys. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

France has "a terrible military history"? It has dominated western Europe for about as long as nation states exist. It took all of Europe 20 years to put down Napoleon. The French bore the brunt of WWI (and won), and the US would still bow to Westminster 5 times a day if it hadn't been for Lafayette and the Comte de Grasse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

130.88 is referring to this page. It is the first result on a google search for "French Military Victories", so if you go to google.com and type "French Military Victories", then "I Feel Lucky" it will take you to this page. I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say France dominated Western Europe, with the exception of the Napoleonic era, France has suffered a series of pretty rough military defeats (Franco Prussian, WWI, WWII, Indochina and Algeria). TastyCakes (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Americans are Johnnies-come-lately at pretending to dislike the French. The English have been doing it for centuries. Actually, we grudgingly admire and copy each other, but don't tell anyone. Alansplodge (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Monty Python bit about "a man with a tape recorder up his nose", which plays the French national anthem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK comedy show "Yes, Minister" has information on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wltv12Hx9Bo --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The "cheese eating surrender monkeys" quote comes, I believe, from a Simpsons character with a dodgey Scottish accent. There is a monkey / French connection in the UK, because in the Napoleonic Wars, a French ship sank on the coast at Hartlepool. The only survivor was the ship's pet monkey, whom the local inhabitants allegedly mistook for a Frenchman; the unfortunate beast was put on trial and hanged as a spy. The joke is more on the inhabitants of Hartlepool, who have suffered the nickname of Monkey hangers ever since. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is also the reason behind the Hartlepool United mascot, H'Angus the monkey, who, incidentally, is now the mayor. TastyCakes (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

France has a tendency to be a difficult ally of the U.S. On the one hand, yes, they helped us out during the Revolutionary War, we helped them out during World War II (and World War I, and Vietnam), and we share a fairly common culture that has deep ties and links. On the other hand, France, unlike the United Kingdom, feels fine to spurn American interests if they do not align with French interests (see the article linked to by Ghmyrtyle for a long discussion of some of these instances). Put another way, the French are fiercely and proudly independent, politically and culturally, and that does not really jibe with the US idea of being the world's policeman and primary provider of culture and civilization. The French do not think that being bailed out of a war (or two) makes them need to endlessly cow-tow to an idea of US supremacy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They're probably also a bit annoyed that English has fairly much displaced French as the "international" language. Then there's the cultural difference, which someone once described to me as, "The only thing the French know how to organize is a party." Also, this quote, allegedly from Mark Twain, as per Hal Holbrook's one-man show about Twain, in reference to some sort of outrageous behavior: "That is un-English! It is un-American! It is French!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

The French have set values and strived for them. Americans have not been able to compete in this game. Americans are resentful of the French for this. This has traditionally applied to food and art. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This illustration[1] not too long after 9/11 satirizes the American attitude toward the French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an element of class hatred involved. As in most societies, lower and middle-class Americans resent upper-class Americans. Since the upper-class Americans are often associated with the French, from drinking French wine, eating at French restaurants, going to Paris, buying French art, perfume and fashions, etc., much of this resentment transfers to the French. StuRat (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That might be a carryover from a millennium ago, when the Norman French ruled England, and spoke French of course, while the peasants spoke some version of English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an element of puritanism involved. Puritanism was a major influence in American society, while the French seem happily free from its influence. Americans have the uneasy feeling that the French are enjoying themselves. DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the culture clash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And then there's the French reputation for not bathing any more often than absolutely necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The tricky part here is the encompassing term "The French". I happen to admire France (the country) because it's mostly very beautiful, it has great culture, it has good food, fantastic wines, superb high speed trains, cheap cost-of-living coupled with high standards-of-living - and has gone a long way to fixing their contribution to to greenhouse gas emissions. There is much to love. I also like individual french people (I'm married to one!) and I've never met an individual French person whom I have not hit it off with. My problem is with medium-to-large sized groups of French people - who somehow manage to be obnoxious, arrogant and generally awful to deal with. My wife comes from a gigantic family (she has 13 brothers & sisters a dozen in-laws and maybe 50 nieces & nephews, etc) - and I like every one of her relatives. But when they get together in a big group...urgh! I can't explain why that is. SteveBaker (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is truly amazing how much crap can be spouted when (not you Steve!) (presumed)xenophobia rears its head. I thought 'Americans' hated everybody. This of course is a personal viewpoint - as was the OP's question. The corollary of course is that many, many nations dislike 'Americans'. And all this started from a line from the Simpsons spoken by a Scotsman. But hey, lets continue and see if we can work this whole thing up to an international incident. I doubt that will happen though because the French (whoever that refers to)really don't give a flying f,f,f,..fig about 'Americans' (whoever that refers to). Stereotype doesn't get close, but hang on, wasn't France the first country to recognise American Independance?? there's gratitude for you!! Richard Avery (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

1. They don't, not really.
2. If there is any basis to this perception, it's because the French are regarded as snooty, arrogant, and aloof. It's kind of the bane of the stereotypical flag-waving beer-guzzling patriot. They don't want to live in a world where anyone would regard them as crass and depraved. Vranak (talk)

For a contrary point of view, there's the line (attributed to Thomas Gold Appleton by Oliver Wendell Holmes) "Good Americans, when they die, go to Paris." I'm hoping that this may turn out to be correct. Deor (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is only natural that there should be animosity between the Americans and the French. The Americans let the air out of the French hot air balloon. And the French are proof that there is such a thing as "quality," Freedom Fries notwithstanding. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To which Oscar Wilde quipped: ... and when bad Americans die, they go to ... America. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe this arose because the French would not join in with other European countries in invading Iraq - or was it Kuwait? I also have the impression that Americans see Europeans as being culturally superior (better food, dress sense, architecture, etc), and due to cognitive dissonance this becomes dislike. 78.149.175.91 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Beware of generalizations. I have seen many a French restaurant in America, but the number of British restaurants is rather small. There's just not that much of a market for kidney pie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"The <cheese eating surrender monkeys> insult is derived from the fact that France surrendered in 1940 rather than have their country ravaged with hundreds of thousands of lives lost. What would any other country have done?" Poland didn't surrender. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of a quip about the Israel 6-day war in 1967 or so: "As soon as France heard there was a war somewhere, they surrendered." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Poland should have surrendered. France certainly came out better in the end. Maybe Poland was also used to being fucked over by their neighbours no matter what they did. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Poland did surrender, and quite quickly after the German/Russian invasion began, the same as France/Belgium/Holland. Their cavalry fought bravely, but they lacked a modern air force and armored forces and tried to defend a very wide front against better equipped forces. Edison (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not according to our articles, History of Poland (1939–1945) and Polish government-in-exile. Polish forces retreated to Romania and Hungry, and set up a government in exile in France. When France surrendered, the Polish government relocated to London. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that had more to do with geographical proximity to the USSR than anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Before the invasion of Iraq, while the US was trying to get the UN Security Council support for another resolution, I heard more than one American express the view that the French refusal to support the US, demonstrated a "lack of gratitude" considering the USA "had to come and save your asses in WWII". Astronaut (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There were people in the USA who thought that Hitler running Europe was the lesser of two evils, compared with Stalin potentially running Europe if Hitler were defeated. In other words, there was a fair amount of opposition to even lifting a finger to help Europe. Maybe the American isolationists were right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Edison made only one commercial recording. It was called "Lest we forget" and was about World War 1, in which he highly praised the bravery of the French and other Europeans who gave many lives fighting the Germans and their allies before the U.S. even entered the war. In World War 2, the French failed to live up to commitments to Poland after the 1939 German invasion of Poland by failing to attack Germany promptly with at least air strikes against industrial areas near France. This torpitude surprised even the Germans. The speedy 1940 defeat of the British, French and Belgians was pretty appalling, with the Dunkirk evacuation being claimed as a "victory" but the British still doing a better job than the French in fighting the German invaders. The popular image of France in early WW2 is the famous movie/photo (which I recall from my high school history book) of the "Frenchman crying." (Apparently the man was overcome with passion watching military colors being expatriated to colonies in 1940 before the surrender. It was likely in a port city rather than Paris, as shown by the motion picture footage of colors embarking).They naively believed that the Maginot Line would stop a German attack, while the wily Germans attacked through Belgium as in the first World War. The Vichy France government then became enthusiastic collaborators with the Nazis. Post WW2, along with abusing their colonials in Algeria, and being defeated soundly in Vietnam in the 1950's while trying to reassert colonial domination, the French did not show much gravitas in maintaining world peace since World War 2 compared to many other countries. Their Korean War dead totalled 300 compared to 36,000 U.S. and 1100 U.K. The French did not strongly support NATO. They have a reputation in the U.S. of being abusive in general toward tourists, such as pretending not to be able to understand the attempts of foreigners to speak French, however fluent the foreigner may be. But they make wonderful wine and have fine culture. Students of U.S. history will always be grateful to France for the military assistance in the American Revolution, which might have ended differently otherwise. This led to Americans being proud to go to France in WW1, as in the saying "Lafayette, we are here." Edison (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Is not the Statue of Liberty a gift from the people of France? Did not America and Britan on D-day rescue France? And was not French troups in first to Paris to rescue Paris, while the other Allies remained behind, proving a point? Do you blame the French for not going to war over Iraq? After all they were proved right! Viva la France, Viva Libertie! Viva la Reason! The French do expect you to try to speak their language when you come to France and are appreciative when you try. Do remember that many of our fore-fathers lost their lives in the fields of France.

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that weeping Parisen photo before, but I'm curious if Edison has some source for thinking the image description (the same as that held at the National Archives) is incorrect? Astronaut (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The views expressed above are just the kind of thing that reinforce the French dislike of the US. For example, simply saying "The Vichy France government then became enthusiastic collaborators with the Nazis", ignores the contribution of the French Resistance who, without the support of a military-industrial complex, fought and died for four long years before the Normandy landings in 1944; and the contrast in Korean war dead looks dramatic, but while the US lost 7.6% of 480,000 troops deployed, the French lost 8.7% of 3421 troops deployed. Astronaut (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So why did they only send 3421? Edison (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe French military commitments elsewhere, but still wanting to demonstrate they supported the UN forces militarily as well as simply voting for UNSC Resolution 82 and Resolution 83? Astronaut (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

On why the French hate the Americans, one reason they dislike the British is for saving them. At least that's how it looks to someone in Britain. They're disappointed with having thousands of soldiers use their country to fight each other. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the photo of the "weeping Frenchman", this came up here at least once before. There's a strong possibility that the the photo was staged, made for an American propaganda film. We were never able to get to the bottom of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For history of discussions about the context of the photo/newsreel, see [2]. For the actual footage, see [3] at 54 minutes and 40 seconds in. The "weeping Frenchman" photo was from a newsreel, which was pretty clearly filmed in France, not a Hollywood staging. It showed French troops in a port city apparently carrying their military standards down toward the ships waiting to carry them to overseas colonies. This may have been Marseilles in 1940 (or 1941?). The man wept, some in the crowd clapped. This fits with the "retiring the colors" scenario. Maybe the man was a veteran of WW1. If it were Nazis entering Paris, as is sometimes claimed, some of the "clappers' would have been waving Swastikas or giving Hitler salutes, and the carrying of the French military colors would have made less sense. The French resistance fighting Nazis does not mean that the Vichy government and the police system were not enthusiastic collaborators, [4] Petain's government embraced collaboration from 1940. The claims of French not to be able to understand a word from tourists speaking French is from persons who were fluent in French and visited there. (You have a recognizable accent, so I will roll my eyes and pretend I cannot understand what you are saying). [5]. In contrast, natives of Hispanic countries, China or Japan are said to be quite appreciative of efforts of visitors to speak their language. There may be some understandable resentment on the part of the French that English has displaced French to such an extent as an international language, with the decline of French colonialism and international military and political power. Edison (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding French accents and culture, I'm under the impression that there is a great deal of condescension from French people regarding the Quebec accent, and perhaps the Quebecois in general, which I find quite sad... Or maybe this has been overblown? TastyCakes (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the French waiter pretending not to understand foreigner's attempts at French, I quickly found that to be at least partly true if you started in English and only resorted to fratured French when they claimed they didn't speak English. However, if you don't ask "Parlez vous Anglais?" and instead try to start off with what you want to say in French, you get a much better response (and in perfect English too). Astronaut (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I found that my pronunciation of "Bonjour!" was bad enough that they immediately started speaking English to me upon hearing it. I usually couldn't get as far as "Parlez vous Anglais?" -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Eurostar Not Working?

With the recent fun and games with people being stranded in France because Europe had a flying ban (due to the volcano in Iceland), I have wondered why people had to hitch rides (and spend thousands of £££) on Royal Navy warships just to get back to the UK. What happened to the Eurostar? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Strict answer - I don't personally know. However, it normally runs fairly full, and so would not be able to provide enough extra capacity to carry all those stranded. Many were also stranded in countries that the Eurostar does not run to. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that people were all over the world at the time. I was specifically referring to people in France, and the many people who made the journey to the north coast - not only for the warships, but also for the failed attempt by a BBC reporter to evacuate people - likening it to the Dunkirk evacuations at the start of WW2 (completely inappropriate and over the top analogy, IMHO). I guess it may have been 'full', but would this not be an opportunity to put more services on, considering they had at least a week to organize this? Or maybe some people did get on the Eurostar, and the news agencies don't think those stories are interesting enough? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't source any links at the moment but Eurostar has been running extra trains to help with the backlog of returning travellers. Of course you won't have read about it because it is not a really newsy story. To get some serious Brownie points you need to own a large cruise ship and go and pick up a few of the stragglers.[6] But, hey, it's history already!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dominic Burn from the Chris Moyles Show got back from Paris via the Eurostar, if you've been listening to it... Chevymontecarlo. 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you search Google News for "eurostar" you'll find a bunch of stories about increased Eurostar ridership and bookings. This Telegraph story says they've handled 50,000 more trips, with their demand pricing structure pushing the fairs up pretty high. This Eurostar press release says they're capping 30,000 seats at a fairly sensible price, and that they've run an extra 33 trains. Really they only have so many spare trains (and you can't run regular trains through the chunnel). Albion was something of a one-off: she was really there to collect British soldiers returning from Afghanistan - a field squadron of the RAF Regiment, 33 Medical Regiment (a field hospital unit), and elements of the Royal Anglian Regiment; that left a bunch of spaces on Albion, so I guess they decided to fill those with needy civvies (I believe they were selecting those who had an outstanding need to return, such as the elderly and people with kids) rather than sail with a third of the space free. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, cheers. So all the news stories on TV with teary eyed Brits stranded in France, the Royal Navy coming along to save the day, and people lacking any sort of individual ingenuity or common sense to get on a train were just news-hype stories, then, and in fact, people were using their nuggets. Cheers! That's what I wanted to know. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was stuck in Amsterdam, trying to get to a wedding in Edinburgh, and we'd hoped to get the train, but it was booked solid for several days. We took a bus that crossed at Calais on Friday instead. Calais was busy, but it didn't look like it was more than a one or two ferry wait for cars when we got on (we got the first ferry but I don't know if the bus had a booking or something). I think most people that could get themselves to a ferry landing in France, the Netherlands or Belgium could get back to Britain relatively quickly, but I think the Spanish ferries may have been more backed up... TastyCakes (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

internal links for article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou

Hello Wikipedia,

House of Nehesi Publishers would like your expert assistance to further wikify following article: Lasana_M._Sekou

Please help by adding relevant internal links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou to meet Wikipedia's quality standards

Sincerely,

House of Nehesi Publishers —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribbeanTongue (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you have reached the Wikipedia Reference Desk. We answer questions here. We don't do your work for you. You know, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody, even you, can edit. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deodarant

What is in a deodarant can? What sorts of things can be found in them? I don't understand what the stuff is on the ingredients list, so if someone could simplify it it would be much appreciated. Chevymontecarlo. 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A brief skim of the back of one here suggests that it's essentially broken down into propellants (gases which will expand and carry the rest as they leave the canister), dessicants and scent. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Aluminium chlorohydrate apparently blocks the pores to prevent perspiring in deoderants that include an antiperspirant. I don't know how many deoderants are combined with antiperspirants, though - and our article does not confirm this - so it's possible it's just some sort of urban legend. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US, if it's labeled just as "deodorant", it doesn't contain any antiperspirant. StuRat (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article Deoderant. After a number of accidents the manufacturer of a stick deoderant withdrew its product that was labelled "Push up bottom before use". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could just possibly have something to do with getting rid of odor (or odour)? Hmm? Hence deodorant. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweets

Hi. I'm looking for sweets that can be identified by a two-letter (or, at a stretch, three-letter) combination. The idea is to have an obscure-seeming pair of letters, then I want the penny to drop and the reader says "Doh! Of course!". I would like "classic" sweets familiar to older folk if possible. So far I have JB and MM but I need others. Anyone? Robinh (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is MM for marshmallow or for M&Ms? Googlemeister (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And is JB for jawbreakers or for jelly beans or for jelly babies? It might help if we knew whether your interest is in U.S. or U.K. nomenclature. Deor (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cola Bottles? 131.111.248.99 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm only familiar with American candy, I can think of Baby Ruth, Kit Kat, Pay Day, Oh Henry!, Almond Joy, Milky Way, 3 Musketeers, Hershey's Kisses and of course the good old Hershey bar (although that one technically doesn't have initials). Most come from the 1920s and 30s, with the Hershey bar (originating in 1900) being the oldest. You can tell I'm a chocolate fiend! =P Xenon54 / talk / 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Thanks for these; it never occurred to me that there would be a UK/US difference; I'd prefer UK ceteris paribus. Also, it didn't occur to me that "MM" would be anything other than "M&M", or that "JB" would be anything other than "jelly baby". Thanks everyone. I really want three or four familiar, small, indivisble sweets of comparable value; I would say an M&M is swappable for a jelly baby. The reason I need these is that I'm writing a statistical paper about choice systems, and at one point I have a synthetic dataset and want a nice succinct legend on my graph. Robinh (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I love it. Choosing a methodology for a research project by "what will look nice in the legend of my graph"... LOL. Thanks for the chuckle. --Jayron32 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayron. It's not quite as bad as it looks, honest! I noticed (just before submission) that one of my formulas generalizes very nicely to matrices. It's too nice to leave out, but OTOH it's too late to actually use the formula. So I made up a dataset ("synthetic") and have just included a very brief proof-of-concept of the new formula, buried in a footnote (hence the need for brevity). But I need a backstory to make the footnote remotely plausible. And the only backstory I could invent involved letting (my) children choose different sweets. It does seem odd, now you mention it. Maybe I ought to get out more. Robinh (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Howabout: LA = Liquorish Allsorts / PM = Polo Mints / FP = Fruit Pastills / CB = Cola Bottles / FS = Flying Saucers (do they still make those?) / CC = Cola Cubes / MH = Mint Humbugs / WO - Wurther's Originals Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they still make FS. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! thank you all very much! Lots of options here! Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PB&J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism in USMC

I am an Asian-American looking to enlist in the USMC right out of high school. Will I get hazed/bullied/shat on more than my white or black trainees because I am Asian? Essentially, is there a lot of racism towards Asians in the USMC? If so, will it be less in the Army? 128.253.97.15 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You might ask General Eric Shinseki. Woogee (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Shinseki was in the Army. I would guess (this is based on movies and such) that a lot less hazing takes place in the Army than in the USMC. With harder training comes more bullying, I would guess. Then again, as I said, I don't know. I tend to recommend the Army because it's not as hard (except if you become a Ranger or something). Rimush (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This (from 2005) shows that the USMC has the highest proportion of "white" members of any branch (although I don't know if they count hispanics as white). This shows suicide rates for different services, broken down by age, gender, and ethnicity - it suggests asians/pacific-islanders (it doesn't differentiate the two) have a comparatively high suicide rate in the USMC, but a comparatively low one in the USN. Informally (which means I don't have references beyond a guy I know) I believe recruits at San Diego (those recruited west of the Mississippi) skew demographically hispanic, those at Parris Island skew demographically african american; given that matches the rough racial distribution of the US, and as the distribution of asians seems similarly biased to the west, that would suggest that there would be a higher proportion of asian american recruits at San Diego. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly this probably isn't the best place to ask that sort of question. You might try seeking out some friends of friends who have been in the area you're considering. I would imagine that your personality has enormously more to do with anything than your race, but it's unfortunately still relevant in some cases, so find someone you trust, and go from there. But I doubt anyone here can truly assuage your concerns online. Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Asians (especially South Korean and Japanese) usually have higher suicide rates, even if not in the military. Rimush (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's due to the Japanese culture, which historically considers suicide an "honorable way out", while we in the US generally consider it "the coward's way out" and a "mortal sin". So, are the people in the US armed forces cultural Japanese or culturally American ? StuRat (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know. I would guess the US military would instill some American values in a person. Rimush (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested to know now. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It was just a typo, y'know. Rimush (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One other thing to consider is that there will be an extra helping of discrimination and racism aimed at any minority from a nation where we are currently at war (or who just happens to look like it, so Sikhs could be in trouble, for instance). StuRat (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

April 23

UK Act of Settlement

The above law was enacted to ensure that no Roman Catholic, nor any person married to a Roman Catholic, would ever be allowed to occupy the British Throne as Monarch. No mention was made in that Act of any other faith group such as Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Scientology et al. So my question in this time of multiculturalism and anti-discrimination and religious tolerance and inclusivity in the UK and the rest of the European Community is simply, would the European Court of Human Rights find the UK guilty of blatant religious discrimination and persecution by its persistence in maintaing that law on its statute book? And has any such action ever been raised in the ECHR in the past? Thanks. I expect that someone will reply that Wikipedia cannot give legal advice and I won't therefore be surprised when and if that happens. But I am not actually intending marrying into the British Royal Family - just curious. 92.30.75.103 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Scottish main Catholic Bishop, last year, called for a change of this law[7], and again cited the reasons of European Law, as you give. He did not succeed, we believe. Catholics in the UK generally have not been forward in this argument as perhaps they are worried.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a link to the news item you refer to. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it religious discrimination – both heads of church are Christians (?). It was the popes straying into the political affair of state that got Europe upset.--Aspro (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This law probably won't last all that long as plans are afoot to reform it, with cross-party support[8]. The purpose of the Act was to prevent a repeat of the reign of James II of England, which led to all kinds of mayhem and bloodshed. However, the only fly in the ointment is that this could lead, many years hence, to having a Roman Catholic as Head of the Church of England, being that those who marry into the Catholic faith have (I believe) to promise to bring-up their offspring as Catholics. However, there are a great many glitches like this in the British Constitution, and they usually get sorted out by some amicable compromise in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. The way attitudes are at the moment, it is likely the law will be quickly revised if and when a heir to the throne has a successful relationship with a catholic. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is blatant religious discrimination Aspro, because whilst it is currently illegal for say Prince William to one day ascend to the throne if he marries a Catholic girl (unless she changes to ANY other religion first), it would NOT disbar him from becoming the Monarch should he marry a girl of ANY other religion, and she chooses to remain a practising member of her (even non-Christian) faith. 92.30.75.103 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but don't get stressed about it - this is not a law that is going to be invoked and will be gone soon, whoever wins the election, unless it's the British National Party. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholics do have very clear rules on Abortion and Euthanasia and on Birth Controle, to mention just a few. So the issue is far-reaching. Catholics may have something to say if the law is changed.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, while the Act of Settlement explicitly bars only Roman Catholics or their offspring from the line of succession, in practice the bar is against other religions or religious variants too. Prince Philip was Greek Orthodox, but they made sure he was received into the Church of England (and became a British national) before he married, in order to avoid any possible difficulties. Times may have moved on since then, but I'd bet good money that, even now, if the monarch or an heir with a realistic prospect of succeeding did decide to marry a Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, Buddhist or whatever, there would be a lot of behind-the-scenes kerfuffle and a sudden conversion to C of E before the wedding. Karenjc 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider it from this point of view: if you're the young lady in question, would you rather be a Catholic commoner, or the Queen of England? I have no actual experience in this matter, but I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose one to the exclusion of the other, the Holy Father would be out the door in a heartbeat!

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also consider another weird anomaly: the choice of new Anglican bishops is made on the recommendation of the UK Prime Minister, who may be of any religion he or she likes, or none at all. Imagine a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or an atheist PM - or, shock, horror, a Catholic PM - deciding who will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. In practice, it's an internal church matter, the PM agrees to whatever he's told, he/she simply forwards the recommendation to the Queen, who also agrees and signs. But in principle, a PM could object, or insert their own candidate over the heads of the Anglican church authorities. Crazy. Even if the PM is Anglican, it's still crazy in principle to have a politician involved in church matters at all. It'd be like the Pope being elected by the United Nations General Assembly rather than by the College of Cardinals. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Undead

In both Christianity and Zoroastrianism, there is the concept that in the end, the world will be destroyed and all of those who have died will come back from the dead.

1. Why is this
2. Why would you want the dead to come back to life
3. I think the bible mentions that all flesh will be reserected, so this must mean the physical bodies, hence zombies
4. Why do beleivers asume that the world will end while mankind is still around atall, the sun will die and hence earth but not for billians of years, and so it is highly unlikely that man will be around at that time anyway
5. In antiquety, they did not know for scientific sure that the world would end eventually so why scare monger people with the end of the world and zombies coming back from the dead.
6. how could people in ancient time, let alone now days beleive this tripe? Dead coming back to life, Adam and Eve and talking snakes, and other animals, etc etc etc not to mention a big invisible guy in the sky that no one has ever seen or ever will who controls everything, sees everything and who, if you sin will punish you for all eternity in a burning lake of fire...until he brings you back from the dead. Who in the old testament smote the Israelites time and again, with barbaric ferosity, and will do it again when the messiah comes, yet you have to love him like you father. Do people really beleive this? Or is it an example of the bigger the lie the more likely people are to beleive it as expressed by Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reformatted your questions, so they're easier to read and respond to (you had two No. 3's, but no 4. I assume that was just a typo). Incidentally, it sounds like you may be trying to start an argument with religious believers. While you may be succesful in that, it's not really what the reference desk is for. I exhort anyone who answers to stick to answering the questions as succinctly as possible, without other commontary, and preferably with references (i.e. papers by religious scholars, studies by anthropologists, etc.). Buddy431 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Scripture, The New Testament and The Old Testament have very definite and precise revelations on this. The first such is found in The Book of Job. The Nicean Creed which all main-line-Christian-Churches adhere to, is very precise on this issue, as is the Apostles Creed. The Final Judgement in Saint Matthews Gospel spells it out, referred to in the other Synoptic Gospels. A percentage of the revealed prophicies in the Bible (I would say 20%), have still to happen. All of this is a question of belief.

References for all of these and others are readily available. However, I shall refrain from citing them here, as I fear that Buddy431 may be right in his assesment of your reasons.

Saint Catherine of Sienna said: "For those who do not believe no explination is possible, for those who do none is necessary".

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended any one, I just honestly want to know how people can beleive that this is reality? And why most organised religions seem to want to scare people? Specifically with the world ending. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe your questions assume the faulty premise that these religions believe that people will be walking the earth as zombies. While I can not speak for Zoroastrianism, I have never once heard of this belief within Christianity. When the New Testament refers to the dead in Christ rising, it is not stating that zombies will dig their way out of their graves to feast on the brains of the living. Googlemeister (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, not all major religions do believe that the world is going to end. I believe Hindus are somewhat well known for having a cyclic world-view, believing that the world is destroyed and recreated on a regular basis (does anyone have the Wikipedia article pertaining to this aspect of Hinduism? Because I can't find it, and navigating through all the Hinduism related articles is a pain). Buddy431 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Yuga. It's also alluded to in Hindu units of measurement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Glorious Bodies is the word used. Please listen to Handel's Messiah. All the references are cited there.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My set of beliefs as a Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") teaches not that the world will be destroyed, but that it will be cleansed. It logically follows (for us) that those people and things not in harmony with God's commandments will be destroyed.

Latter-day Saints normally consider our spiritual existence to be like a three-act play, and that we are currently in Act Two. In other words, we came from a pre-existence without a physical body, we are now in mortality where we each gain one, and when we die, our spirits leave our bodies and enter the afterlife. We believe that the human spirit is immortal, and never dies. Our physical bodies do, however; and this is the part of the soul (for us, spirit + body = soul) that remains after death. So with this background, I can try to answer your questions, at least from my spiritual perspective:

1. We believe that the earth must be cleansed because it is to be inherited by the righteous. (See Matthew 5:5, for example.) We believe that those who have died will come back from the dead because for us, a righteous spirit reunited with a resurrected physical body is necessary for us to reach our eternal spiritual potential. (Or even more simply stated, we believe it because it's what our Scriptures teach.)

2. What we "want" is somewhat irrelevant, but Latter-day Saints believe that we all knew each other before birth, and this knowledge and these acquaintences have been veiled from our memories. I am really looking forward to visiting with my paternal grandparents, who both died before I was born. While it may be strange to say, I "miss" them, even though I never knew them.

3. Googlemeister above addressed this. Resurrection does not mean the random quickening of mindless dead bodies. For us, it means the reunion of a specific spirit with her/his specific body. Resurrected beings essentially retain their physical dimensions and personality.

4. There's not room here to delve into a "science v. religion" discussion here, but suffice it to say, for us, that given our belief in God, He can control the laws of nature, and perhaps even is aware of some that we aren't familiar with. We believe that the earth won't need billions of years to fulfill the purpose of its creation. Opinions (please note the word) vary greatly on this subject, and while Jesus himself did not know when he'd return (see Matt 24:36 or Mark 13:32), most Latter-day Saints likely feel that it will be within the next century or two.

5. Perhaps the simplest explanation, then, is to give the believers in antiquity the benefit of the doubt, and concede that they truly believed that at some point, the world (i.e. wickedness) would end. This end may be scary for some, but it is actually kind of comforting to those who feel that they are in harmony with God. Again, though, we don't believe in zombies.

6. Just as a belief in the things you list seems most illogical to you, a disbelief in them seems most illogical to us. It doesn't do to simply dismiss God as "a big invisible guy who no one has ever seen," because we don't accept this premise. Moses and several other prophets have seen Him, so the question becomes whether these prophets are truthful, deceptive, or insane. We tend to believe that they were truthful. You end a somewhat lengthy list of marginally accurate descriptions of God by asking, "Do people really believe this?" My answer, I guess, would be "No, not as stated." I do believe in God, though, because believing provides an explanation for this earthly existence that makes the most sense to me.

Sorry this is so long. Kingsfold (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to address the general nature of the questions posed by the OP. Despite all the specific differences, there is a common thread among many religions, namely the "belief" or "hope" that there is a life beyond this one. It's fair to say that, in general, religionists believe there is, and atheists do not. That kind of addresses points 1 and 2, specifically. Beyond that, the OP's questions reflect misunderstanding, to put it politely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will address question #6. I am not a believer in the teachings that you mention (in some cases inaccurately), but I am sympathetic to believers. I think that this kind of belief starts from the experience, which I think most people share, of the vastness and complexity of the universe, which was completely mysterious in ancient times and much of which remains mysterious even to modern scientists. To make sense of this vastness and mystery, people accept the existence of one or more transcendent and possibly supernatural forces or beings, which may take the form of deities. Once people accept the existence of transcendent and supernatural forces or beings, it is easy to accept teachings about them that nonbelievers consider myths. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikipedia has an article "Eschatology". The Greek word κόσμος can have different meanings. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/κόσμος) It can mean "mankind". (http://mlbible.com/john/3-16.htm) It can mean "world". In the Bible, Jesus referred to his followers as being no part of the world. (http://mlbible.com/john/17-14.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/17-15.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/17-16.htm) In the Bible, James said that friendship with the world meant enmity with God. (http://mlbible.com/james/4-4.htm) In the Bible, John counseled Christians that they should not love the things of the world. (http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-15.htm; http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-16.htm; http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-17.htm.) See also http://mlbible.com/matthew/24-14.htm. The Bible says that the earth will remain forever. (http://mlbible.com/psalms/104-5.htm) The Bible says that the wicked people will be removed from the earth, but that the righteous people will live forever on it. (http://mlbible.com/psalms/37-10.htm; http://mlbible.com/psalms/37-11.htm) (http://mlbible.com/proverbs/2-21.htm; http://mlbible.com/proverbs/2-22.htm) The Bible says that people who destroy the Earth will be destroyed. (http://mlbible.com/revelation/11-18.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed a lengthy list of Biblical citations that do not answer the original poster's questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Close to your questions are much of the film Religulous, which features Bill Maher asking various religious people how they can possibly believe that there was a talking snake, that Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib, that Jonah survived in the fish's belly for three days, and so on. This mostly lampoons Biblical literalism. Your "zombies" interpretation does, too. Note that many religious people are not literalists. As to "do people really believe this", well, yes, many people do, obviously. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this has some relation to the idea of the eternal return. Vranak (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Messiah

What are the criteria that need to be filled to be the Jewish Messiah? in point form so its easy for me, and what are the criteria that Jesus met, and which did he not meet, hence the schism between Jewdaism and christianity. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the Messiah is to be from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal affiliation is passed patrilinially, and although the Book of Matthew opens by tracing Jesus' lineage, it ends with Joseph, who was not Jesus' father. The various explanations of how it could be transferred to Jesus (adoption, via Mary, spiritual descendancy) are all incongruous with Jewish law, thus invalidating Jesus from being the Messiah. Moreover, the age of the Messiah will be one in which, as described by the Prophets, there will be peace, with no nation bringing war against another nation -- there has hardly been a day in the last 100 years in which there has not been war somewhere. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus referred to this in the Gospels.

Begin with Saint Luke's Gospel regarding what Jesus said to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke: 24: 13-35).

Jesus was very clear in what He said to indicate He was fulfilling what was said of The Messiah.

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Was God part of the house of David? Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

God created all, not one thing had its being but through Him (The Word): St. John 1:+

He also answered this question: "David called Him Lord; so how can He be his Son?": (Lk 20: 41-47)

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please listen to Handel's Messiah and follow the score for most of the references you seek are cited there.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is actually a list of Messianic criteria, with Biblical references, at Jewish_eschatology#The_Messiah, though you should also bear in mind that the Liberal movement rejects the idea of an individual, personal Messiah, instead focussing on the arrival of a Messianic age. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  Rabbi Jonathan Romain from the Reform movement in Britain (in practice near-identical to the Liberals mentioned above) has written, Reform subscribes to the idealised picture painted in the later books of the Bible of life in Messianic times. It is an era of peace in which justice and righteousness reign supreme and all live in harmony. In such a time swords will be beaten into ploughshares (Micah 4:3), while even in the animal world the wolf shall lie down with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6). The benefits will apply not only to Jews but to all people, and there will be universal tranquility and co-operation. (It is, of course, the absence of such world-wide peace that is one of the reasons why Christianity's claim that Jesus was the Messiah has never been accepted by Jews. Another factor is that in the Jewish understanding there is no hint that the Messiah will be an object of worship or divine, nor that the Torah will be abrogated by the Messiah's coming.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you bring up what Romain states -- because he's certainly not an acceptable source of Jewish though or philosophy from an Orthodox or Conservative perspective, and according to Alvin Reines, Reform Judaism is a polydoxy, and the only thing able to be affirmed is each individual's right to decide what is true for them and what is not. That being said (however ridiculous from a non-Reform perspective), even Reform Jews are not bidden by it...so why bother quoting it? It's not like you're quoting the Rambam or Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, on the cross, quoted Psalm 22/21: "My God, my God, why have you deserted me?...". This a clear Messianic Criteria, and deliberately so by Jesus. (Mk: 15: 33-39), (Mt: 27: 45-50). To see it you need to read Psalm 22/21, all of it, the Psalm that begins with those words above. Oh, by the way, the end of the Psalm has yet to be fulfilled!

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That validity of that can be thoroughly called into question -- if Jesus was God, who was he talking to? If he was the Messiah, and he knew it, and this was the fate of the Messiah, why was he complaining? That was his destiny, by definition. And he did not say desert -- although that would have been the correct thing to have said. He rather misquoted the verse by saying zavachtani, which translates as "sacrifice me." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone believes that Jesus was God. See Nontrinitarianism. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Jesus and Messianic prophecy. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' words are quoted exactly as he spoke them: Mt: 27, 46: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" and again in Mk: 15, 34. He had to hawl Himself up to say them on the nails; painful. Psalm 22/21, v. 16 "...they tear holes in my hands and feet, I can count everyone of my bones..." (Written at least 600 years before Christ). If you read the Gospels with an open heart then all will be clear, if not they will remain shut.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that latter advice, and all, but this preaching doesn't address the original poster's questions (or anyone else's, as far as I can see). Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. It is a definite Criteria requeted. All set out in the article page mentioned above: Jesus and Messianic prophecy. Preaching would be expounding and applying these cited references.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the Jewish Virtual Library says:

Most significantly, Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world. Concerning the more difficult tasks some prophets assign him, such as Isaiah's vision of a messianic age in which the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the calf with the young lion (Isaiah 11:6), Maimonides believes that Isaiah's language is metaphorical (for example, only that enemies of the Jews, likened to the wolf, will no longer oppress them). A century later, Nachmanides rejected Maimonides's rationalism and asserted that Isaiah meant precisely what he said: that in the messianic age even wild animals will become domesticated and sweet­tempered. A more recent Jewish "commentator," Woody Allen, has cautioned: "And the lamb and the wolf shall lie down together, but the lamb won't get any sleep."

The Jewish belief that the Messiah's reign lies in the future has long distinguished Jews from their Christian neighbors who believe, of course, that the Messiah came two thousand years ago in the person of Jesus. The most basic reason for the Jewish denial of the messianic claims made on Jesus' behalf is that he did not usher in world peace, as Isaiah had prophesied: "And nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4). In addition, Jesus did not help bring about Jewish political sovereignty for the Jews or protection from their enemies. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/matthew/21-42.htm; http://mlbible.com/matthew/21-43.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

When referring to Judaism, the word "Mashiach" is generally used instead of "Messiah". (The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one".) This will help in your searches. :)

"The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15). " (Source:JewFAQ) See also:

• Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
• Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
• Ezekiel 38:16
• Hosea 3:4-3:5
• Micah 4
• Zephaniah 3:9
• Zechariah 14:9
• Daniel 10:14

Hope that helps some. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, without researching further at this stage; the word Messiah, means; The One who is sent, directly referring to these references in Isaiah. The word Christ means; The Anointed One, referring to those references in Isaiah. The words; Son of Man, refers to those references in Daniel.

Jesus and Messianic prophecy, has good references.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Carry a knife? I do.

I'm going to see Lewis Black tonight at the New York City Center. I've been to NYC a total of 2 times in my life and don't go into large cities very often, so I'm not sure if this is a concern... Will I be able to carry a pocket knife into the show? I always carry one and I don't know what to expect. (if it's the same as planes and federal buildings, etc.) Thanks, 24.151.16.55 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought your best option would be either to leave it at home if it's likely to cause a scene, or maybe call ahead? Their contact details are at: [9]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You probably won't need it for any protection. That theater is in Central Park South, basically in one of the most affluent part of New York, and I can't imagine you'll run into any trouble. Contrawise, theaters in nice areas don't often do searches for weapons, so you likely won't be stopped for carrying it (venues in bad parts of town often do). If you do have it on your person, and are caught with it, it could be seen as uncouth or inappropriate for the location, so my advice would be to leave it at home for this trip. --Jayron32 15:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What type of pocket knife are we talking about? Is it a big old Switchblade used for self protection, or a Swiss Army knife used for cutting open bags of chips? Buddy431 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the venue, but it is just possible that they have you pass through a metal detector. They probably don't, but they just might. Unless you are very attached to your knife, why risk trouble? You could phone and ask if they allow knives or screen for weapons, but that phone call just might alarm them enough to screen when they would not have done so otherwise. Incidentally, I grew up near New York City and have been there many dozens of times, and I have never experienced or even witnessed a violent attack. As others have said, the neighborhood of that theater is one of the safest in the city and well patrolled, so you really do not need your knife. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do people still believe the city is still dangerous and unsafe? Central Park south is not a bad area. Don't drive into the city unless you enjoy paying through the nose for parking at a garage. Take mass transit - or a Hertz rental car according to Google Maps - and keep your weapons at home. --Blue387 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you pass through Airport security with a Swiss Army knife, even the simplest one: The Spartan, you will lose it! The cost is £12 to £15 for the cheepest. Not worth it to lose it. A new one can be extreemly sharp! You may be allowed to bring it in boarding luggage, not hand-held.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

At almost every concert I've ever been to, I have been frisked or had to pass through a metal detector. Usually they are looking for recording equipment or drugs, but weapons will raise alarm bells. If your knife is found it is certain to be conficated. What happens next will depend on the type of knife - a small swiss army type of penknife will be simply confiscated and you might get it back at the end of the concert if you ask nicely; carry a huge bush knife and you'll probably be held by a couple of big security guys until the police arrive. Best advice is leave it at home. Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OR here, but I went to a Lewis Black show, not in NYC, and there were no metal detectors and there was no frisking. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a cliche that carrying a weapon makes you more likely to be hurt, and I don't think it's a silly one. A willingness to hurt people will engender that same attitude in others, towards you. Vranak (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's three people that have reacted to the prospect of the original poster carrying the pocketknife as a weapon, though there has been no indication that is the reason he or she carries it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What other plausible explanation is there? Vranak (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As Buddy431 said above: "for cutting open bags of chips". I've carried a Swiss Army Knife for years, simply because you never know when you'll want a little knife, scissors, tweezers, screwdriver, etc., and difficult-to-open packaging is exactly one of the reasons. It is not meant as a weapon and would be hard to use as one. But since 9/11, when another sort of knife that's hard to use as a weapon actually was used as one, I am not allowed to take it on airplanes or into a few other places. But those other places have not included any theaters I've been to in New York or anywhere else. --Anonymous, 04:10 UTC, April 24, 2010.

Besides the airport, the only place where I wasn't allowed a knife was in a court house. Even then, once I was given a juror badge/card/whatever, they stopped caring if I had a knife. (But I should add that I don't go to a lot of concerts.) APL (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I, and most of my family have always carried swiss army knives or another multi-tool. We have all used them often and never as far as I am aware as a weapon. I use the screwdriver attachment regularly for tightening a screw inside my car that always works its way loose due to vibration, and I use the knife for opening parcels, prying up tins of paint and removing thumb tacks from my pinboard. My dad once used his to cut a piece of rope we found on the side of the road to length so we could securely attach a load to our roof rack when we discovered we didn't have enough straps. Without it we would have had to leave the load behind. At least in my experience (UK) far more people carry knives as tools than as weapons, you just don't hear as much about it. 131.111.185.69 (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Most multi-tools are useless (says the proud owner of a Victorinox SwissTool). But Swiss army knives have corkscrews! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Vranak, have you ever SEEN a Swiss Army Knife? It would make a poor weapon. I carry a Swiss Army knife at all times, and it's difficult to imagine a realistic situation where using it as a weapon would have a happy ending. I'd rather pretend I was unarmed than attempt to make a stand with a Swiss Army knife. Mostly I use it for opening things, driving screws, and occasionally prying something apart. One day I may even use the tweezers. APL (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether intended as a weapon or not, many security guys consider even a pocketknife a potential weapon and will confiscate it anyway. Security guys see the worst in everything and everybody - for example, at the last football game I went to, the cap of my water bottle was confiscated for "security reasons"! Astronaut (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have carried a knife every day (almost) for the whole of my life from age 12. I object most strongly to that freedom being taken away to the extent that even non-locking knives, nail scissors and such like are verboten. They must pry my knife from my cold dead fingers! (Except that I had to comply if I wanted to go on holiday!)Froggie34 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus fuck, people! I said a pocket knife. It's a tool. Not a weapon. I've carried a pocket knife of one sort or another since I was 12 and my brother got me my first Swiss-Army knife. I live in an area (don't bother looking up my IP, I'm far from home) where men are prepared and thus carry a pocket knife. Not so paranoid that we insist everyone else not carry anything. My normal tackle includes a Swiss-Army knife, a mini Leatherman on my key chain, a full size Leatherman on my belt, and a ~4" Spyderco lock blade. I leave some of that at home if I'm just going out to dinner with the wife but always have the Swiss Army knife on me. And yes, they all come in very handy and no, I've never used any of them as a weapon. Nor do I want to. The Spyderco is fast and easy for cutting open bales of hay, cutting rope in general, etc. The S.A. knife is handy for many things, including for the "server reboot tool" a.k.a. the toothpick. The Leatherman is handy for the pliers and the Phillips screwdriver. Among the other things I carry, because they come in handy are a Space pen, a bandana, my wallet (with a flat coin like screwdriver behind my driver's license), a pocket watch, and keys.

Thank you to those who kept a level head and had good suggestions. FYI, there were no metal detectors, LB was hilarious, the people in front weren't too tall, and, even though my wife said she had a fat ass, the chick next to me was pleasantly curvaceous. 24.151.16.55 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay but, could she have used her ass as a weapon??? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If stopped and searched on the streets of the UK you may lose it, depending on the length of the blade.

If it is packet-knife length, you may clame it back from the police station.

If it is long and obviously not a pocket knife, you will lose it and be prosecuted for holding in a public place an offensive weapon.

So, it depends on the nature of the tool/weapon, the length of the blade, and where it is carried (i.e. a public place). Some small knives can be flick-knives or tools.

The police-officer has to make up his/her mind as to its purpose.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

difference

If a man is older than woman by 9 years does it look odd?? Means will it be acceptable?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If the man is 18 it might look odd, yea. If they are both adults, probably not. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It will look more odd at younger ages, and less odd at older ages. Googlemeister (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See File:Half-age-plus-seven-relationship-rule.svg for one cultural take on the issue. Males-older-than-females is generally more acceptable in many societies. On a personal note, my parents married when she was 20 and he was 32; I don't think they've ever been "looked at oddly" for the age difference. FiggyBee (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also culture plays a role. What flies in Saudi Arabia might not be viewed well in Canada or Mongolia and v.v. Googlemeister (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "cradle robber" is sometimes applied to a man who dates or marries a much younger woman. It may be a term of envy on the part of the man's contemporaries. The half age plus seven rule would say it is fine if he is 32 and she is 23. Or if he is older than that and she is 9 years younger (like he is 70 and she is 61). In general, it is no one's business but theirs, assuming she is legal age in the applicable jurisdiction. Edison (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See Age disparity in sexual relationships. Dismas|^(talk) 21:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Name for a type of pot lid

Is there a name for pots where the lid rests inside the basin? Most pot lids rest entirely on top of the pot, but I need to find a 2q pot whose lid rests on an interior lip within the pot basin, like the lid here. (its for mother's day and mom's real specific). 160.10.98.106 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it is called a nested lid, there are not many references on google to support this, but somewhere in the recesses of my mind this emerged. Richard Avery (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a double boiler. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the only example of the type of lid I need I've been able to find. I need that lid on a two quart pot. 160.10.98.106 (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to buy her a pot lid, and claim I misunderstood. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Tefal make the sort of pots you're referring to. I have a Tefal stock pot, and the lid fits snugly on a lip inside the basin. I also have a smaller earthenware crock pot which fits the description. It may be a case of shopping around and asking the shop assistants. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also known as T-Fal, in the US. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Are these two people related?

Is Austrian mountaineer Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner related to WWII Nazi war criminal Ernst Kaltenbrunner? ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario54 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaltenbrunner is a common name in Austria (see for example soccer players Ernst, Günter, and Josef Kaltenbrunner, or writer Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner), especially Upper Austria, where Nazi-Ernst (from Ried im Innkreis) and Gerlinde (from Kirchdorf an der Krems) are from. Politician Alois Kaltenbrunner (from Ottnang am Hausruck) and writer Carl Adam Kaltenbrunner (from Enns) hail from the same state. That's not to say that they weren't possibly (remotely) related, but I can't find any mention of it from a quick look (and I'm too lazy to look for more). Rimush (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

TV gimmicks

Many HDTV makers are offering refresh rates of more than 60 HZ. I've seen up to 240 HZ. Another weird thing is Sharp is now offering TVs with yellow pixels added to the RGB color model. What's the point of these features if the broadcast or source is only 60Hz RGB in the first place? Is this just a gimmick? Another thing that sounds kind of gimmicky to me is the upscale feature on some DVD players and receivers that outputs and HD signal from a standard definition source. It's basically resampling or stretching the image. Isn't that what the TV already does in order to fill the screen? Does it matter if it's done by the TV/monitor or the source player? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Three phosphors, such as RGB, only allow reproduction of those colors which fall within the triangle encompassed by those three points in the CIE color space or some more modern equivalent. The transmitted color signals may include hues outside the triangle of the three phosphors. Color TVs in the early 1960's for instance, had poor reproduction of reds due to the lousy red phosphor then used. A cherry red in the televised scene would be reproduced on the screen as mere brick red, Today the same transmission would produce more vivid reds on today's sets withe better red phosphors. Adding some phosphor outside that triangle could in principle broaden the gamut of colors shown on the screen, with appropriate circuitry to drive the fourth phosphor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! Without changing the way color TV/DVD signals are encoded, there is absolutely no way for the TV to produce colors outside the RGB 'cube' meaningfully. There is simply not enough information in the incoming signals for the TV to do what you're claiming they do...and even if there was, our eyes literally cannot tell the difference between yellow light and a mixture of green and blue light.

The real reason for the gimmick (and I'm pretty sure it isn't much more than a gimmick or TV's would have been doing this for 20 years) is that each pixel in the TV's panel has to emit red, green and blue light - to match how our eyes work. So you have three tiny little glowing blobs - one for each color. But three is a very inconvenient number to pack into a nice dense square grid - so what to do with that fourth 'spot'? Some designs put a second green emitter there because our eyes are more sensitive to green than red or blue - and being able to emit more green light makes for a perceptually brighter picture. But our eyes are also more sensitive to red than to blue - so ideally you'd like to make some extra red light too. Hence, filling that slot with yellow is a way to make a somewhat brighter picture - but that's about all.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're making the assumption that a display device is capable of producing the full RGB gamut. I don't think that's necessarily a valid assumption; and if it's not, a fourth emitter could indeed broaden the gamut. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that, even if today your tv has extra colour-capacity that's useless because it's above the colour-information being broadcast, maybe in a year, or five years, your broadcasters will start sending more colour-precise broadcasts and THEN your tv will be ready for it! Duomillia (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only is that scenario very unlikely for bandwidth reasons, it wouldn't work. The TV would only know how to decode the format of signals now in use, not some new format with additional data. --Anonymous, 04:12 UTC, April 24, 2010.

The software would need to be upgraded, yes. Some TVs have internet access, and could be updated that way. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no possibility whatever of broadcasters "widening the color gamut". Color is described in terms of three primaries - and that's how the human visual system works. Humans are physically incapable of distinguishing yellow light (meaning light with a frequency around 570–580nm) from an appropriate mixture of red (630–740nm) and green (520–570nm) light - we are biologically incapable of doing that. The color of a Sodium-vapor lamp (at 289nm) looks exactly the same to us as the color of a photograph of a sodium-vapor lamp displayed on a TV screen that is displayed as a mixture of (roughly) 47% red and 53% green light.

That being the case, adding a yellow source to the TV is utterly incapable of generating a different perceptual response in the eye compared to a normal RGB television...EXCEPT that in order to make sufficiently bright yellows, a conventional TV might need to generate (let's say) more green light than it's green emitters are capable of. Simply making brighter green emitters - or more green emitters - would solve that problem...but that's expensive. What you have to do is to dim down the picture generally in order that there is enough 'headroom' for the green emitter to be turned up high enough to hit the right red/green ratio to get the shade of yellow you're asking for. However, adding a true yellow emitter allows you to have less bright red and green emitters and still generate a vibrant yellow. It's not widening the gamut - it's increasing the brightness range of the TV, if it happens to be limited by being unable to generate enough red or green at high brightness ranges. However making red, green and blue brighter through other technological means would be a better solution since it would also allow brighter red, green, cyan, blue, magenta and white output. That's why the yellow emitter thing is a gimmick. If they actually relied upon the yellow emitter to reach the required brightness of yellow - they'd have a TV that couldn't produce enough red or green light when called upon to make a red or a green that's as intense as the yellow right next to it. This IS a gimmick...nothing more.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If pixels were infinitely small and infinitely bright, then, yes, 3 pixels with RGB colors would be just as good as 4 RGBY pixels. However, the pixels on a large screen are not so small that you can't see them individually, especially at 720p resolution. Therefore, seeing actual yellow pixels is better than seeing alternating red and green pixels, especially for thin yellow lines displayed on the screen. It would be better yet if they could create overlapping layers of clear pixels (when off) with 16 colors, or maybe 256. However, as we currently lack this ability, they should probably just fill in the "missing pixel" from the pixel square, and yellow seems as good of a color as any. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If what you said were true - then what about cyan, white, magenta? All of those colors wouldn't be improved in the slightest by adding a yellow pixel. To the contrary, the inevitable reduction in the number of red, green and/or blue pixels would make those colors WORSE!! Also (as I'm sure you realize), it doesn't matter that the image is being transmitted at 720p - the number of pixels per inch on the screen is what matters when it comes to 'fusing' the red and green light into yellow. Most flat screen TV's have a dot pitch of between a quarter and a third of a millimeter. Remember that our visual acuity is much lower for color than it is for intensity, we have about 4.5 million cone cells - so if the TV image completely fills our field of view (you have to be sitting unusually close to the screen for that to be the case!) then you need around 4.5 million RGB triplets on the screen in order to be totally unable to distinguish the individual pixels. That's a resolution of about 2100 pixels. If the pixels are 0.3mm across then so long as your display is bigger than around 700 millimeters (27") you can't see the individual dots. The Sharp Aquos Quattron (the one with the yellow pixels) has a 52" diagonal screen. So this argument of yours is nonsense. Unless you are sitting so close to it that you can only see about a quarter of the screen at a time - you can't possibly see the individual dots even with perfect eyesight. For all that matters - they might as well be infinitely small...which means that your argument is still 100% wrong and the yellow pixel thing is still a gimmick. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

1) People can see individual pixels. We have a Q right now which clearly demonstrates that: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#HDTV_stuck_blue_pixel. Not only did he manage to spot it right away, but it's a genuine annoyance. I've had similar experiences myself.

2) Even when people are seated too far away to see individual pixels, the image will still look "fuzzier" if composed of alternating different colored pixels than a single color pixel, especially if the pixels are not quite in line with each other:

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦  <- Single color, single line

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ <- Two color, single line

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ <- Two color, two line

3) I think it's a fair comment that other colors, which don't contain much yellow, may not be as clear or as bright if the 4th pixel is yellow, depending on what the alternative 4th pixel color is. However, fixing the deficiency in yellow may be worth a reduction in those other colors, but that's a judgment call. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For 60 Hz source, the TV may interpolate to create the missing frames. While that's not as good as 240 Hz source, it can be better than 60 Hz source on a 60 Hz display. Also note that the TV doesn't solely get it's video source from broadcast TV. There's also cable, computers, DVD players, Blu-Ray, etc., some of which may offer higher frame rates than 60 Hz. StuRat (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I have watched TV broadcasts on older sets with the inferior red phosphors, and more recent sets produce more saturated reds. It is due to a phosphor change, not to a change in broadcasting. The phosphors provided in a set do not automatically reproduce all the hues and saturations present in the broadcast signal, nor is the broadcast signal automatically limited to the phosphors present in the set. Edison (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what you're saying - but don't think you understand 100% of what's going on under the hood. Let's come back to the choice of phosphor in a moment. Ignoring that, it's a matter of brightness. The TV has to compromise between saturation and brightness. If it wants to be able to produce a fully saturated red (using only the red phosphor/LED/LCD/micro-mirror) - then it has to turn the green and blue outputs off. That means that the brightness of the picture is limited by the brightness of a single color element. However, if they are prepared to compromise and use a little green and blue mixed in with the red, they'll have a brighter overall picture - but less saturated colors. This is attractive because most natural images don't have much super-saturated colors - and not many colors that happen to be pure primary colors. By NOT reserving 100% red for 100% red, you can have a brighter picture overall. It's a compromise.

Having said that, the choice of phosphor/LED color does have an impact. The human eye's green sensor is still picking up color over the frequency range that a red phosphor produces. So picking a red phosphor that's centered on the human eye's red sensor doesn't allow you to produce colors that are closer to infra-red which result in your red sensors being stimulated - but not the green sensor. So you can make a better color between red and infra-red with a phosphor that's lower in frequency than the 'center' frequency of our eyes...although now you don't have a way to maximise the amount of stimulation to our red sensors, so again, you get a dimmer picture. That's also somewhat true of blue phosphors - where choosing a blue phosphor that's closer to ultraviolet gets you purer blues. HOWEVER, you can't extend that argument to adding a yellow phosphor (or, in this case, a yellow LED) because every possible color between red and green can always be produced with an appropriate mixture of red and green.

It's interesting to look at what TV's and computer monitors put out for various primary colors. I've been using a blank CD-ROM as a "poor man's spectrometer". You can use the CD-ROM to break the light from your screen into individual colors. I did that experiment a while back on my DELL flat-scren computer monitor. When I display pure green on the screen, I get a mixture of mostly green and a small amount of red and blue showing up on my CD-ROM spectrometer. Clearly the designers favored brightness over purity and decided to create a slightly desaturated green in order to get a brighter overall picture for "natural" images. In the monitor's menu system, there is a selection widget that lets you choose between "Graphics" and "Video" settings and presets for "Multimedia", "Game", "Warm", "Cool" and "Standard". These all seem to alter the degree of saturation/brightness compromise.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

While this is unrelated to the original question since the discussion has been sidetracked by this colour discussion, I thought I should point out first, when it comes to TVs, the YCbCr colour space is usually used, the relationship with RGB is explained in the article. Now the primary reason for this interjection is that HDMI 1.3 onwards support xvYCC and Deep Colour. However not that many devices actually support either, only some expensive displays & for output devices in particular Bluray does not (although AVCHD supports xvYCC) although some computers and gaming consoles may (they also have their own alternatives for a wider gamut). The reason why I mention this should now be obvious, if you want a wider gamut, there already is xvYCC (and equivalent on computers) which you may want to combine with Deep Colour (i.e. a larger sample depth), no need to worry about the future (and as with others, I highly doubt a display which doesn't already support these will later be updated to support them. Yellow pixels isn't necessary or helpful unless you decide to only expand the yellow gamut but ignore the rest.

Now in terms of this yellow thing, a/some? DLP systems do use yellow filters, e.g. the Texas Instruments' BrilliantColour [10] [11] [12] as mentioned in our Color depth#Television color article (the section on BrilliantColour is fairly misleading IMHO but I'll let someone else with more experience in this deal with it). However this is different from the LCD case for reasons somewhat explained in the earlier linked articles and could I think potentially make a difference to the brightness perhaps allowing brighter DLPs to be made at a lower cost (the gamut still being irrelevant) brightness of course being generally quite important for DLPs, because of the way DLPs work. For a simplistic explaination see this. This could work for LCDs too as SB mentions although I don't know how much of an advantage it is. There's someone who actually saw the Sharp commenting here (see last post)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across this while looking at the yellow thing

Others have done this and continue to do so. 720 to 1080 sets - in a blind test nobody could pick the 1080 set. 120 to 240 hz sets - again, no visual difference except on your credit card statement from buying one

There's also some mention there of a well known and hopefully fairly obvious thing. Many displays in shops are contrived or even misleading, choosing the source which shows off any advantage is an obvious thing but far more insidious is screwing up the settings and calibration of a cheap TV so it looks far worse then the more expensive one then it should. And similar some of the changes may make the more expensive TV stand out and look better in a crowd, but may screw up with the accuracy of the reproduction as SB hinted at above so some people pay for a professional calibration of their TV according to the defined specs.

In terms of upscaling, the quality of upscaling definitely varies. Being close to the source may also help since it ensures nothing has happened to the signal inbetween as mentioned at Video scaler#Upscaling/upconverting DVD. I don't have a HDTV but from my research for a friend, the PS3 is said to be one of the best upscalers. Surprisingly most specific PC software including GPU supported ones (combined with the various filters GPUs generally have themselves) still aren't generally rated as good although the GPU deinterlacing options in the mid & high end ATI & Nvidia cards are fairly good. However there are various filters available for the PC which can give good results, e.g. [13] (and there are also fancy deinterlacing filters which can do better then GPU ones). Note that deinterlacing is more of an issue for broadcast sources (including HDTV e.g. 1080i for example as well as some SD broadcast TV) and older TV sources then it is for movie DVDs.

Of course you don't have to take my word from it. For example, there is a deinterlacing test pattern I used [14], while this is partially artificial, some of the stuff are clearly things you may encounter with real videos. I used it with the various GPU deinterlacing options and the difference is clear (this wasn't a double blind test but I have sometimes realised there was something wrong when the settings got screwed up). I see the above link also has a test disc for upscaling. A key point of course is it will generally vary from source to source and from viewer to viewer depending on what they prefer.

However most of my research is about a year old and I don't actually know how big the difference is in general and how many people will notice it and in particular how this compares to the displays native filters (I do have experience with deinterlacing as mentioned but IIRC I never set up the system I was testing to use the display deinterlacing or even worked out how to).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A key reason for 120 Hz, which I haven't seen mentioned yet, is that they can display 24 fps movies using judder-free 5:5 pulldown, instead of 2:3 pulldown. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% sure of this, but might a multiple of the usual 60 Hz refresh rate not also prepare the TV for showing 3D content? If not sufficient, it's at least necessary, in order to enable flicker-free display of 2 images from different viewpoints each at 60 Hz, in combination with shutter glasses. JH-man (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

April 24

NBA vs. NHL

Why are the highest/lowest number of wins/losses and longest winning/losing streaks by NBA teams more dramatic than in the NHL? I know in the past, the NHL had ties, but if you count the win percentage excluding the ties (instead of counting each tie as .500 wins, or 1 standings point, as they normally did) and count OT losses as regular losses, this pattern remains true. Also, in recent years with no ties, if you count all the losses as regular losses, this pattern also remains true. Does this mean there is more disparity between strong teams and weak teams in the the NBA than in the NHL? What would be the cause of that? Revenue differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American and don't know anything about the teams but a significant factor may be that basketball has much higher scores than ice hockey. This can lead to fewer "semi-random" results where a good team loses to a bad team which gets lucky in a few plays. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the initial premise is wrong. The worst ever NHL team was the 1992–93 San Jose Sharks at 11-71-2, while the worst ever NBA team was the 1972-73 Philadelphia 76ers at 9-73, certainly comparable in terms of shittiness. Longest NHL winless streak (losses and ties) is 30 games for the 1980-81 Winipeg Jets. The longest NBA losing streak is 24 games (over 2 seasons) or 23 games (over 1 season). The former was the 81-82 and 82-83 Cleveland Cavaliers and the latter was done by 2 teams: The 95-96 Vancouver Grizlies and 97-98 Denver Nuggets. Recently, the New Jersey Nets and Minnesota Timberwolves had an historically terrible year, which is why it seems like the worst NBA teams are worse, but that is only recentism, in that we had a rare year with TWO really horrible teams (12 wins for the former, 15 for the latter). The premise is simply wrong if applied over the history of the leagues. --Jayron32 01:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The worst NHL team was actually the Washington Capitals of '74-75, with 8 wins total, 21 points total. Take ties out of the mix over, and the totals would likely be more similar. 72.2.54.34 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression that a lousy NHL team has a greater chance of beating a really good opponent on any given night than its crummy NBA counterpart, making a losing streak easier for the latter. One factor is that the best basketball players get most of the playing time, whereas it's more spread out in hockey. It's not unheard of for a star to play 40+ minutes in a 48 minute game, whereas there are four lines in hockey. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but those impressions are just observer bias and confirmation bias. The data does not bear out the impression. Over the history of both leagues, the bad teams have been just as bad, and the good teams have been just as good. --Jayron32 03:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

COI for article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou

Please remove the comment about conflict of interest between caribbeanTongue and author and publisher at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou

Sorry about mix up.

CaribbeanTongue is independent from the author and publisher. The person asking for help probably did so after seeing the internal links comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou for some time.

Thank you for your meticulous attention. Hope one day I can join wiki's league of eagle-eye editors.

CaribbeanTongue —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribbeanTongue (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you bring this up with the person that added the COI tag? You can find such information by clicking the "History" tab at the top of the article. The appropriate thing to do would be to strike up a civil conversation with that person at their user talk page, and then reach a reasonable conclusion. It is quite likely that the two of you can work this out amongst yourselves. --Jayron32 05:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty simple case to me - on 22 April 2010, a person logged into Wikipedia using the User:CaribbeanTongue account wrote (on this very page) "Hello Wikipedia, House of Nehesi Publishers would like your expert assistance to further wikify following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou. Description: Please help by adding relevant internal links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Sincerely, House of Nehesi Publishers" - which leads us to believe that this account belongs to someone who works for the "House of Nehesi" publishers. Since House of Nehesi is the publisher of Sekou's biography, that person has a clear conflict of interest in editing our article on that person. Wikipedia's rules on conflict of interest are quite clear. Since User:CaribbeanTongue has made more edits to that article than any other editor, it is necessary for us to either remove all of those edits - or to use a standard Wikipedia template to indicate clearly to readers of the article that it has been edited by someone with a potential conflict of interest. Hence, that template does indeed belong there and we should not remove it without also removing all of the edits that User:CaribbeanTongue made to the article in direct contravention of our editing guidelines. SteveBaker (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Steve. That is exactly why I added the COI tag to the article. I also added an explanation why on the article's talk page. It is quite a new article, but not too bad an effort in my opinion. I think there is a slight emphasis of Mr Sekou's literary achievements over other aspects of his life, but what is there does seem quite well referenced. It could do with some input from uninvolved editors which would hopefully balance out the article. Tha aim of me adding the COI tag was to hopefully attract knowledgeable but uninvolved editors who are familiar with Mr Sekou's work. Astronaut (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I changed the title to avoid it conflicting with the previous question. Astronaut (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Jamaican Wine

I've been listening to an audio book recently set in Georgeian times. In it the characters vist Jamaica and drink a wine called Cilary or Sillery or something. Anyone know the correct spelling and anything about this wine? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't just be celery wine, by any chance? 131.111.248.99 (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably Sillery—see the fourth bulleted entry here. Nothing particularly Jamaican about the wine, though. Deor (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I should add that one can find a good deal of interesting information about Sillery by searching Google Books for Sillery wine—such as the assertion, by one Herbert Mayo in the early 19th century, that "a man may drink more Sillery with impunity than any other wine". Deor (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm convinced (meaning I'm not actually sure) that I'd done aHow come a WP search on Sillery and failed to find anythinbg relevant. Doh! -- SGBailey (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hairstyle Options

I currently have my hair shaved fairly short. I like this for a number of reasons. It means I don't have to worry about my hair, no work on it each morning. No hair products beyond shampoo. Lots of time between haircuts. It has been suggested to me that I try something new, but I value the simplicity of my current style. Are there any slightly more fashionable haircuts which retain most or all of the above traits? I'd be prepared to have slightly less convenience in one or all of the above areas, but I'm not keen on spending lots of time, effort or money on my physical appearance (though I'm prepared to upgrade from the almost non-existent level of each of those I spend now).

Thanks in advance, Prokhorovka (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we assume you're male ? What age ? StuRat (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. White British Male student (18-21). Prokhorovka (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, is your hair straight, wavy, or curly ? What color ? StuRat (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

An English Cut (also called a Schoolboy) is quite simple to maintain - grows long on top, parted, but clippered up the back and sides. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A short back and sides is easy to maintain. Shampooing and combing in the morning, and visits to the barber's every 10-12 weeks, is all it takes. Astronaut (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's time the Bowl cut cut came back into fashion. Easy to keep it in shape yourself, with items you can find in any kitchen. Be a leader of style and not a follower -go for one of them!--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You could always just go the whole hog and let it all hang out maaaan... Hair_musical--TammyMoet (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Straight, black. Thanks for the ideas, these look pretty good. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How many Pygmy Hippos will fit into the mass of a normal size Hippopotamus

I would like to find out the mass of how many pygmy hippos will fit into the mass of a normal size hippopotamus.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickel33 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Pygmy hippos seem to weigh about 200kg[15], whilst normal hippos weigh about 1500[16] (give or take a couple hundred depending on sex). So you're looking at something about 7-9. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass or Volume? "fit into" implies volume - but you say mass. I guess if doesn't matter if pygmy hippos and normal hippos are the same density. J. in Jerusalem (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're going on volume, it will make a difference if the pygmy hippos are whole (they don't pack together very well), or minced so you can stuff them into all the nooks and crannies of the hollowed-out big hippo. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

IPA

Hi, I've googled but can't find an answer so I hope you can help. How do you write the Asian sirname Advani (pronounced Ad-var-nee - that's the best I can do to write it phonetically) in IPA. Thanks. 86.184.106.49 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ripe for the axe

Resolved

I would much appreciate if someone could tell me the meaning of "ripe for the axe".210.66.171.178 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Ann

It means "likely to be cut..." ; it might help if you could share the context in which you read it. If I said "that lazy, mean-spirited worker is ripe for the axe," I'd mean that she was about to be fired from her job. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Google ["ripe for the axe"] and you will see both a literal usage (a tree that's at the right stage for felling) and metaphorical (referring to cutting budgets, etc.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It could also be applied literally to people, especially in historic usages, meaning they are likely to be beheaded (or perhaps executed in some other way).

Sticking with the metaphorical usage, it could mean any inefficient process or department which is likely to be eliminated for budgetary reasosns. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: This would have been a good Q for the Language Desk. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your explanations are very clear, thanks a lot.210.66.171.178 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Ann

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also a government spending programme that appears wasteful. One might say the "xyz department is ripe for the axe"124.171.209.86 (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

...after all, who wants a department named "xyz" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. If I worked at The laboratory for shuttering, reinforcement, concrete and ferroconcrete operations for composite-monolithic and monolithic constructions of the Department of the Technology of Building-assembly operations of the Scientific Research Institute of the Organization for building mechanization and technical aid of the Academy of Building and Architecture of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - (pauses for breath) - I'd much rather call it "The XYZ Department" than what its acronym actually and unbelievably was - wait for it - NIIOMTPLABOPARMBETZHELBETRABSBOMONIMONKONOTDTEKHSTROMONT. I kid you not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote Dilbert, "Can't we find a place to insert 'efficiency' into that name ?". StuRat (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And come to think of it, the "Department for Research on Gantry Robotics" might properly be called the "XYZ Department". StuRat (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

management related query

"an imp. factor which influences the balance of payment of a country is the exchange rate of its currency vis-a-vis other major currencies" briefly explain the statement.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsabhi (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you should probably do your own homework, you should read exchange rate and currency intervention. --Jayron32 14:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Simplified: An important thing, that changes the amount a country pays, is their currency's worth compared against currencies of other countries. 86.184.106.49 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. See balance of payment. 78.149.153.174 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

kindly explain d following terms

can anyone explain the terms- 1.externalities 2.incrimental capital output rate 3. administrational prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsabhi (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you want someone to direct you to the articles Externality and Incremental capital-output ratio? The third term is vague without context. What is the context for the term? As a further issue, presumably your economics teacher assigned you a textbook. In general, textbooks are better sources for this information because they are tailored to the content and level of the course you are taking. If you open the textbook and read the chapters assigned to you by your teacher that match the part of the class you are in, they often contain clear statements of definition, or the book may have a glossary which explains these terms. --Jayron32 14:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Jobs, as you like it

Are there people from one country trying to setup base for information for the other , for e.g people in UK/US wanting some information in regards to vegetation/business/photography from any other country for their business /research and need someone for assistance on a paid bassis, which eases the burden of travelling away from home on a frequent basis and also provides source of income for both.if there are where do we find them? i had a friend helping a science research by providing vital information on spread of various diseases to a research house in another..hence curious, anyone.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I can think of some possibilities:

1) An NGO might hire locals to determine which villages need food, wells, medical care, etc., prior to bringing in those resources.

2) A news organization might hire locals to scout out potential stories of interest, so they then know where to deploy their reporters.

3) A government intelligence organization might hire locals to warn them of terrorists in the area or spy on others. This job, of course, is potentially dangerous and may violate the local laws. StuRat (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Jobs again

Are there special packages offered to the third world/developing countries for employment offers in the developed countries.got to know lately,that, countries like UK/Canada etc do have such offers. How do i find my way out if i wish to work for about 3-5 years and come back to the country of my origin, how do we get there? anyone please.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US, as in all countries, the system is set up so that citizens have a much easier time getting a job than foreigners. Generally a foreigner wanting a US job has to contact the company of interest, apply for a job, get hired, and then obtain an employment visa, like an H-1B visa or an O-1 visa. They make it difficult; there are only 65,000 H1-B visas issued per year, and the employer has to claim they couldn't find a US citizen qualified for the job. (The TN visa is easier to get, but is only for Canadian and Mexican citizens.) United States visas has more information. But I don't believe the US federal government runs any particular type of program that seeks out foreign workers in general, and promotes their hire. This would be unpopular politically in any country, particularly in an era of high unemployment. (There could be exceptions, like if a country has a nurse shortage and all the hospitals get together and hire a few people to try to attract foreign nurses. This appears to be related.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think some nations have a guest worker program, where workers are brought in to work for a certain period of time, but are then expected to leave, and denied any chance of gaining citizenship. I believe Kuwait has such a program. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that many guest worker/work visa programs are only for work in jobs where there is a shortage of home applicants. Embassy websites usually have a visa section which provides links to the list of eligible jobs. Astronaut (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cameron's chicken

What point is the chicken that follows David Cameron trying to make? Cameron pulled its head off recently. 89.243.213.182 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror are backing Labour in the general election. They put some questions to David Cameron as part of the usual pre-election smear campaign and he didn't answer them, as he was too 'chicken', so they got a man dressed in a chicken suit with the paper's logo on his chest to chase him around London shouting those questions at him repeatedly. Nanonic (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For the curious...[17]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How curious. Perhaps the Mirror's staff have been watching The West Wing. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality labelling question

Are people who like their own sex who have had an operation to become the opposite sex gay? Are people who like the opposite sex who have had operations to become their own sex gay? I know labelling is kinda unhelpful but just want to know.--92.251.206.24 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

People who have had sex reassignment surgery are usually referred to as transsexuals rather than simply "gay". Those articles are both rather detailed and provide some information about the sexual orientation of the people involved. The short answer is "it's complicated and it depends". Matt Deres (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No you misunderstand. Is say, a male, who likes transwomen gay? Is a male who likes transmen gay?--92.251.142.171 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And I still say "it's complicated and it depends". Gayness and straightness are not binary options; the real world is much more complicated than that. A man who is sexually attracted to "a" male-to-female transgender may be attracted simply to the person as an individual and not particularly care about their biology/anatomy. It may be useful to keep in mind that both people's orientation may be complicated. That is to say, the male might be attracted to the transgender female because she's "woman enough" for him or he may be attracted to her because she still exhibits some male traits. In situations like this, labels are not useful. Matt Deres (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how you define yourself. If you're a guy, and you've fallen in love with a trans woman, you're still straight if you think you are. Or you could say, "I'm straight, but I'm flexible enough in my straightness to marry Jennifer, with her Y chromosome and all." Or you might say, "I'm sort of straight- I really am most attracted to trans women, which is why Jennifer and I are so well suited to each other. Well, that, and her fabulous baked goods." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes an important point I planned to make myself. A man who is nearly exclusively attracted to women is most likely to consider himselves heterosexual and even if he finds out that one of those women happens to be a trans woman he's probably not going to change his view of his sexual orientation. Similarly a man who is nearly exclusively attracted men is most likely to consider himselves gay and even if he finds out one of them happens to be a trans men he's probably not going to change his view of his sexual orientation. For a man who has always considered himselves bisexual and is attracted to both men and women and this includes trans men and trans women, they're still going to consider themselves bisexual and the question of whether a relationship with a trans man or trans woman is heterosexual or gay is rather moot. Similar examples for women of course. If someone is primarly attracted to trans women or men, things will probably be different. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is shown to be in part nonsense by specifying genders: "A heterosexual man who likes women has an operation to become a man." No operation is needed "to become their own sex." Edison (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the question is silly, I think your misunderstanding, it probably not helped by insufficient punctuation and poor word choice. The 'own sex' does not refer to the sex of the person undergoing the operation but the sex of the person who is attracted to that person. Same sex would be a better word here rather then own sex. In other words, is a man who likes post op trans women gay? Is a man who likes post op trans men gay? (the converse for women obviously.)

For example, in the first case, we are discussing a post op trans woman who formerly had the same genitialia as the hypothetical male in question (i.e. 'own sex' of the hypothetical male) and underwent operations to change their genitalia to that of the opposite sex as the hypothetical male. Note that many trans women would I think consider themselves always women both pre-op and post-op so saying they underwent operations to become women may be offensive, and even biologically the concept of sex isn't always clear.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre- or Post-op don't really have anything to do with it. A transwoman isn't a man who suddenly became a woman when their genitalia were changed. The same way with a transman. Straying into the binary, as I feel I must, a man is straight if he predominantly favors women, cis or trans; gay if he strongly favors men, cis or trans; and the same with women.

Cldod (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't try too hard to pigeonhole people. Some people fall in a gray area between labels. That's OK. If there's enough of them, maybe one day someone will invent new words to describe them. Or maybe not. There's no law that says that everyone's sexuality can be described with a single word. APL (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, some identify as being attracted to "people" rather than use the terms bisexual or pansexual. Remember these are just labels. Calling someone gay doesn't mean anything.124.171.209.86 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

April 25

Modern US army, going home, then back to war again

Hey guys,

I'm currently planning out a short story that works under the premise that a U.S. soldier in the Iraq War is sent home to the United States for a while, but will be returning to the war at a later date: A "holiday" of sorts. Are there any real-life situations in which this type of arrangement can occur? What would such an arrangement be called? Ideally such a situation will be brought about so the soldier can recover from their injuries.

On a similar note, how is the Medal of Honor awarded to soldiers who are still in active service? Do they fly home, receive the award then fly back? Is it awarded on discharge?

Thanks, ~fl 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Furlough. I don't know the answer to your second question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You might also be thinking of Stop-loss policy? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest the publicity value of the Medal of Honor would bring the soldier back for a prestige presentation. Unlikely thereafter that he would return to active front line service.Froggie34 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. All soldiers get leave to return home at some point, and they have to come back when that's over.--92.251.245.188 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think medals are usually awarded at the end of a tour of duty. The Medal of Honor is probably no different in that respect. Soldiers will almost always get some leave between tours of duty. They will also spend some time training before being sent on another tour. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that a given military unit may have multiple deployments into the same theater of war. The 3rd Infantry Division (United States) has now been deployed 3 times to Iraq, with stints at home, in between. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen evidence that a medal is a ticket out of the war. In the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the National Guard and Reserves have been repeatedly deployed in the combat zone, along with the regular professional military. In the Vietnam War, I believe it was regular forces that were deployed, and the National Guard was left home. Of course they had draftees back then. In WW2, the US Army forces in Europe did not get any furlough back home. Edison (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A few separate questions in one from 62.172.58.82

Split into separate questions, how's that? FiggyBee (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision song

1, There is a song that won the eurovisions ong contest a few years ago, it was a youtube hit with some fat guy mimeing it, I heard this version in some eauropean language, the I heard it again but in polish in poland, I heard the same song a 3rd time in south africa, but in Afrikaans, what was this song, the afrikaans lyrics where, Jy's nie die een vir my is it common for songs to be reused like this in different languages? Please provide more info concerning how songs get sold, rewritten into different languages, and who gets the credit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of "Dragostea din Tei" by O-Zone, originally in Romanian. I know there was a fat guy who mimed it (Numa Numa), and that an Afrikaans version exists. There might also be a Polish one. It never won the Eurovision song contest, though. Rimush (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-mythical animals

2, Have there been any animals like the griffin for instance, where everyone knows it does not exist, but then a specimen was found, and the mythical animal was proved to be real. if so, can you please give me examples of these, thanks and... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. Some people do believe they exist but I don't think there's been any fossils or specimens found of them - they're just mythical creatures. Chevymontecarlo. 10:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

there is the story of Black swans, or more specifically Black swan theory) - not sure how accurate the story is but the idea is basically people didn't think Black swans existed - they thought all swans were white, but then they discovered black-swans. ny156uk (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly mythical, but the coelacanth was believed to be extinct for a long time, until one was caught in the waters off South Africa in 1938. That said, I also doubt it was ever known (extinct or otherwise) by "everyone". The story of Ebu Gogo and the speculated connection to Homo floresiensis is also interesting. See Cryptid for more info on mythical creatures. Astronaut (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought that gorillas were fairly recently known as a myth, but the article gorilla doesn't mention this. I googled "mythical gorilla" and found a list of 10 such formerly mythical animals [18], although the facts stated in this list may themselves be myths. 213.122.43.218 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Zebras, giraffes, Giant squids... and on and on... Aaronite (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Giant squid is a good one.

The Okapi is often given as an example in this context. Prior to 1901 it was often considered to be either mytical or long-extinct. It was sometimes called "The African Unicorn". Nowadays they're in zoos. APL (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Check out List of megafauna discovered in modern times. APL (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also Cryptozoology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actors editing their own articles

3, There are many articles on actors and actresses on wiki, but many of them are not very good, why do famous people not improve their own articles, for instance, Mel gibson corrects and improves his own article, he wioll be able to ensure that all the info is correct, and it will still be a notable article as he is famous, the only article that I can see where it would appear this has been done is crowbar, a very good band by the way. This will also be a service to their fans, so why do they not do this? It will also help to boost their fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They do not have to do this, and many celebrities do not want to. In fact I think there are many good biographical articles of actors/actresses on Wikipedia, and there are whole WikiProjects (groups of Wikipedia editors) dedicated to actor/actress articles. Chevymontecarlo. 10:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia typically discourages people from editing articles about themselves, due to conflict of interest. It's not outright forbidden, but it's strongly discouraged. You can improve any of the articles you feel is wrong, as long as you have reliable sources to back up whatever you plan to add in the articles. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nataniel

4, There was a South African singer a few years ago called Nataniel, he was a bald, gay guy with a lovely voice, do we have an article on him or does anyone know where I can download his music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

he has a website (http://www.nataniel.co.za/cd.htm) and it has some MP3 samples you can download. His music is available on the (Uk at least) iTunes Music Store. ny156uk (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Type of knot

Resolved

My wife asked me to put a pendant on a chain to use as a necklace but the narrowness of the loop on the pendant would not allow me to slip the chain into the hole because the first link on the chain is large to accomodate the clasp. So I folded the chain in half and slipped the chain (doubled) through the narrow pendant loop and then put the other end thorugh this loop I created. In case there's difficulty in imagining what I'm saying, the pendant is now nearly fixed in the middle of the chain and won't slide because of the friction of the catch-type loop. Anyway, I was wondering if there was a name for this type of tying modality. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If I followed what you said correctly, the knot that you tied is often called a cow hitch which I've just learned I've been incorrectly calling a cat's paw. Dismas|^(talk) 13:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a cow hitch, also called a lark's head. You'd use a cat's paw to attach a sling to a hook. DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow...just wonderful. Thanx! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Song of an unknown name

Resolved

There's a wordless jazz song -- I say that because the primary instrument is a saxophone -- that I find interesting, and I want to get the name of it. I heard it played while waiting on the phone for some corporate office, and I think it's a popular piece used in movies, but I can't read music and can't describe the song in any way other than humming it, and even that doesn't even properly produce the song enough for anyone to tell me what it is, because the notes are so complex that I end up not even making it sound close enough to the real song for even myself to identify it based on my humming. Anybody have any suggestions on how to find out the name of the piece so that I can YouTube it or something to listen to it at will? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Googling 'find tune' gave me Search for Music Using Your Voice by Singing or Humming as the second entry. No idea how good it is. --ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it's "Take Five"? Here's an early kinescope of it:[19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The song that comes to mind immediately is Take Five. Could that be it ? I suggest you use the names of the movies containing the music as a method for searching. That is, look through the list of tracks in each, until you find the common tune. StuRat (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this would have been an excellent Q for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

HA!...that's it!!! I was totally asking this question without any hopes of getting an answer -- how in the world did you know what I was talking about? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow...these guys take it to a whole new level. Weird! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. :) Although this number goes back 50 years, I only really became aware of it when it was used in a series of TV ads for a luxury car called an "Infiniti" (probably referring to the payment schedule), with spokesman Jonathan Pryce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, we're good ! Two of us got it, independently, within 5 minutes of each other (ironically, based on the name), due to your description. We have JAZZ, COMMON, SAX, COMPLEX; which really narrowed it down. (The complex part probably relates to the unusual 5/4 time signature used in the piece.) StuRat (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Design ideas for an 'alien queens' wardrobe?

I was wondering if anyone on the reference desk had some suggestions on what an 'alien' or 'robot' costume for a 'female impersonator' should look like?

The 'act' involves a number of fairly energetic dance routines which rules out certain designs, and a 'modest' design would be preferable because the performer concerned is also going to be involved in doing external promotion events.

I thought I'd ask here, as Wikipedia has a number of experts on 'Future Fashion from Beyond the Stars!" XD

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The classic look would be glam rock (think of Ming the Merciless: [20] or Ziggy Stardust: [21]). A conical metallic bra is also a must: [22], in the case of a (would-be) female. To emphasize the robotic nature, perhaps some metallic face and body paint would be in order. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also been considering reviewing specfic TV sci-fi... Any thoughts? Dr Who in the early 1980's made some intresting costume choices, as did Blakes 7 (Servelan in particular). There are also 'those' uniforms in U.F.O..

NB. I know it might be a cliche but there's Magenta's later costume in 'Rocky Horror' as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(As the original poster, you don't need to indent). Assuming you want an "over the top" look, I'd go for Lost in Space, Flash Gordon and Arachnia, Queen of the Spider People: [23]. Also, the female Romulans in Star Trek: TNG and later had a certain "tranny" quality about them: [24], while the original series portrayed them as more feminine: [25]. Villains typically have the most outrageous costumes, but you should probably tell us whether this queen is good or evil, so we can tailor our suggestions accordingly (pun intended). StuRat (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See also the Klingon Kleavage Sisters. PhGustaf (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the glam rock suggestion, Patti LaBelle had some costumes you might like, in the 70's: [26], [27]. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with 'drag' tropes as I'd like to be in respect of this, but 'she' is out to spread "universal cosmic harmony, amongst compatible inteligences"  ;), Not an evil character, but still one that will go OTT if needed.

Someone else off wiki had suggested some kind of prop whose function was nominally like a wii-mote, so that when certain dance moves were made, 'sonic transductions' were generated :)

You mention spiders, I'd considered the idea of an 'alien' dragonfly for subsidiary performers, but not the main 'queen'.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This page has some interesting styles from Lady Gaga and others: [28]. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If she is to be good, I'd go with white and pastels, mainly. Glowing and/or flashing lights on the costume might be nice, too, say LEDs or chemical lights, but are only effective in the dark. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Another way to go with a good queen is the "princess" look, as in Glinda the Good Witch from the Wizard of Oz: [29]. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A wand or scepter is a nice touch, too, and you could hide the remote WII device in that. StuRat (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Scythe

Which side of a scythe blade is used for cutting, the outside (facing away from the wielder), or the inside (facing towards the wielder)? --71.144.122.18 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Inside. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The inside. The scythe is swung from right to left in front of the mower. The blade is tilted so that it can run parallel to the ground. Therefore the <handle> has to be specially shaped to facilitate use.Froggie34 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And as always, Wikpedia has an article on them. Scythe--Aspro (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you feel the aptitude, we also have an article on the professional use of this lethal gadget. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Food forests

Can you grow a food forest in a place that gets snow in winter (eg. Germany)? Do you know of any "instructions" to set one up? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought these could be grown as far north as Deciduous trees can grow. Some, allowance may needed for the 'continental effect' but a few foot of snow is not going going to bring everything to a grinding halt. The Forest_gardening article could do with a bit of expanding. There are some videos on you tube about it. What you read is going to depend a bit on local climate and exactly what your aiming for, as no one book can cover it all. Personal, if I was doing it, I would arrange things so that it would support a few livestock. Look on amazon for a proper book --Aspro (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there some foods you can get out of evergreens, such as pine nuts ? Sticking with the deciduous trees idea, a sugar maple can be tapped to produce maple syrup, during the winter. I do agree with the idea of herding, though, as reindeer and other animals can turn the sparse food produced in such regions into meat for us (sorry Santa :-) ). StuRat (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bullrushes growing round the margins of a deep carp ponds can be harvested for food in the winter too.--Aspro (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I imagine the Russian Nenets and Sami people find lots to eat in the forests but they also have to eat a great deal of animal protein and fats too. I am presuming that the OP is interested in doing this to reduce the size of his/her foot print on the planet, and I do not think therefore, that this excise would be worth doing north or south of the deciduous tree line (for want of a better term), ( I think northern larch is deciduous and its sap can be fermented into a potent brew but I'm just talking in lose general terms). But I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong on any of these things.--Aspro (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I assumed you are asking about what food can be produced in winter in climates like that of Germany and farther north. If you meant to ask what foods can be produced in summer, then the answer is "just about anything", as only tropical plants are likely to be killed by frost. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In Germany or farther north in Denmark you could develop a landscape like that of Normandy in France, with apple orchards and cattle grazing beneath the apple trees. This is sustainable and productive. Camembert, cider and calvados, mmmm! Further north/up mountains than apple trees like, the maple tree suggestion looks interesting. I think the kinds of pine trees that come pine nuts from only grow in southern Europe. There's always beech mast. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

“There's always beech mast.” that sounds like nuts to me! Aspro (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find helpful information in the article "Orchard". -- Wavelength (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There are people developing forest gardens (edible forests) in Massachusetts, which typically has colder winters than most of Germany. You can certainly grow fruit- and nut-bearing trees in these climates. I'm not sure what the northern limit would be to this kind of permaculture, but I am fairly certain that it would be a bit north of Stockholm or Helsinki. Walnut and apple trees, for example, can grow as far north as central Sweden and southern Finland. Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking Surveys for Income

Hello all, I am from the U.S. and I was wondering if taking surveys over the internet is a good idea to make money. Is it safe and secure, or does it vary by survey? I don't know who else to ask, and I thought it might be an easy way to make money. Too easy, actually. Thank you for your help as always, The Reader who Writes (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe and secure (just don't give out account numbers, have them send you a check). However, you won't make much of an income this way. Perhaps, if you're a kid, the money might seem good, though. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a member of a panel for a large reputable polling company in Canada that pays between 1-4 dollars a survey. They send me maybe 2 surveys a month. Unless you do hundreds of surveys, it's unlikely you'd ever make enough to live off. Also, they surely have mechanisms in place to make sure you don't just churn out random responses for cash. As for safe and secure, they generally don't ask for too much personal identifying info (if they do, skip it; they're out to scam you), but they will likely bombard you with targeted advertising. Aaronite (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten some spam emails lately that promise that you can make some large amount of money (Tens of thousands) by filling out surveys at home. If those are what you're thinking of, I am 100% sure that they are scams. APL (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, APL, not naive enough for that. Just a small stream of income over the summer. I'm an undergrad. Just found out a friend of a friend does them for cash. She said she uses two reputable websites, one that pays through paypal and the other through giftcards.

Thanks for your help, The Reader who Writes (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually tried out Amazon Mechanical Turk for a few weeks (its basically a clearinghouse for this sort of stuff) Its got more stuff than surveys, but its on the same idea; do some tiny bit of work, get a tiny bit of cash. And a lot of it was basically surveys (there was some data entry work as well, but it was mostly "take this survey" type stuff). After doing it for a few weeks, I realized I was basically earning about 2 dollars per hour, and decided it wasn't worth my time. And that was organized. Roaming the internet looking for surveys to take for cash seems like an even less efficient way to do it. As always, "if it looks to good to be true, it probably is". --Jayron32 04:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary keychain

I have a remote keyless system for my car that has buttons on it to lock and unlock my car doors. It's an oblong, about 1 inch by 1.5 inches by 0.5 inches. The oblong used to feature a plastic loop, to which one attaches a keychain; the loop has broken off. Any suggestions on how I could reattach it to a keychain? I am sure that supergluing a loop to it would fail within a day or two. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could get another keychain with a big flat part (like these) and glue the remote onto it with all of its bottom? Might look kind of crappy... And eventually also fall off... Maybe you could attach it onto such a flap with zip ties, or maybe use zip ties and glue. I suppose that wouldn't make it look less crappy... TastyCakes (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Superglue is pretty strong; why are you so sure? Alternatively, if there's a spot in the case with no electronics behind it, you could drill a hole and put a wire through. Or you could modify some kind of soft plastic mobile phone case so it's about the right size and put the controller in that. FiggyBee (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Put the device in a Ziploc bag, just the right size, then pierce the corner of the bag and put the key chain loop through that. You don't need to take it out of the bag to use it, just hit the buttons right thru it. You may need to occasionally change the bag. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't glue the metal key-ring to a plastic device. But you might find another plastic eyelet you could glue to the device, then reattach the key-ring to that. (You could even use a tightened-all-the-way zip-tie.)

Alternatively, you could open the thing up and see if there's any place you could drill through without damaging any of the componants. Probably not, but maybe worth a shot. APL (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You could order a new key. A dealership should be able to get hold of a replacement within a few days. It won't be cheap mind you - the dealership charged a little over €100 for a replacement key for a Renault Safrane. Astronaut (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's the option of just leaving them separate. When you put your keys in your pocket, hit the button to lock the car. When reaching in to get your keys, to eventually start the car, hit the button to unlock. Although, if yours is like mine, you'd be locking and unlocking the car while simply adjusting your position in the seat. (This happens to me all the time while I'm working in the yard with my keys in my pocket) Dismas|^(talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're lucky — in my case, I'm usually setting off the car alarm with the stupid "I want to set off the car alarm" button. Actually your note has made me reconsider whether I want the damned thing in my pocket anymore, for just that reason. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I purchased one on eBay for $20 and it came with programming instructions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What was required to program it ? The code ? Another working keyfob ? StuRat (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It involves removing and inserting the ignition key, opening and closing the doors, etc.[30] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the drilling idea and will try to pry this thing open and see if there's a good drilling spot. Thanks for the ideas. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you change the battery ?

Resolved

I have a 7-year-old one with a fading battery, yet there's no apparent screw holding it all together. Should I just jam a knife between the two sides and twist to get at the battery ? StuRat (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Examine the edges carefully, along the join between the two halves. There may well be a little slot, just big enough for the tip of a small screwdriver. If so, insert small screwdriver in the slot, and twist. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to check under any stickers. Usually they hide the screws under those. APL (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You could visit the dealership. They should be able to tell you how to open the keyfob and which battery to get. Astronaut (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually you remove the ring and there is a slot to pry the case open. The ring locks the case to keep it from opening by accident. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on Astronaut's point, often watch batteries are used... Chevymontecarlo. 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. Yes, there was an indentation along the seam where I was able to insert a screwdriver blade and twist. No screws were present. It was a common CR2032 battery, which I changed, and it now works much better. Thanks again ! StuRat (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What sea creature/oddity is this?

It was reddish-brown, roughly the size of an adult hand, and firm but yielding like soft plastic. It's a vague drawing, I know, but -- any ideas? http://imgur.com/VqjeS.png 202.10.93.229 (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mermaid's purse perhaps? FiggyBee (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It does look a lot like some of those pictures, actually. Mystery solved! Thanks a lot, FiggyBee. 202.10.93.229 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

April 26

Union

Is there such a thing as the office workers union in the UK? and if so how and where can they be contacted, and how would one join? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

List_of_unions#United_Kingdom lists many UK unions. Several have names which could indicate that they serve office workers. You could also contact the Trades Union Congress, which is the national association of trades unions in the UK. --Jayron32 12:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Unite (used to be TGWU), GMB, and PCS would probably be the main unions for office-type jobs. Many banks have company-specific unions. As Jayron said, the TUC should be able to help. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It very much depends on the workplace. Unite and the GMB are general unions and would be the best bet if there is no more specific union for your workplace, but many workplaces will have a more specific union which office workers will be able to join - e.g. the PCS for the civil service, Unison for health and education, BECTU for broadcasting, CWU for post and telecommunications, USDAW for retail, etc. I suggest asking whether any of your colleagues are in a union and, unless there's some pressing reason to do otherwise, to join that one. Warofdreams talk 13:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would anybody sensible want to join a trade union, these days anyway?

Unions seem to be loosing the power they once had, especially if some recent disputes are anything to go by in the UK  :(

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a sort of glass half full/half empty thing. The half full option is to join and encourage others to join, in the knowledge that the greater the number of members, the more powerful the union will be. The half empty option is to believe that the decline in numbers is irreversible, or if not, you're going to wait for others to reverse it before jumping on the bandwagon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese cuisine and soggy salad

I am a foodie and eat out all the time and have for the past thirty years. I eat at lots of different restaurants and lots of different cuisines and all over the U.S., though my home base is New York City. I happen to adore Japanese food so I have eaten in an absurd number of different restaurants. I wanted to know if anyone knows why every single Japanese restaurant I have eaten in, consistently, ruins their salads by serving the lettuce dripping wet. It has got to be a cultural food thing. Always, the lettuce is wet. (For those of you who don't know. in Western culinary circles, lettuce should always be dried before serving in a salad). It really annoys me because I actually think the Japanese have amazingly tasty salad dressings.--98.116.33.87 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. Haven't really noticed when I've been to Japanese restaurants, but I'm pretty sure I've had dry lettuce with ginger dressing more than once... I'll have to be more perceptive in the future. To be honest though, I doubt that sort of thing--were it cultural (very unlikely...)--would be preserved, seeing as we Americans like to shift foreign foods into our comfort zone anyway. · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, see Gadget850's reply to the question below; quite relevant, I believe. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Contact. 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Salad" as Westerners understand it isn't really a Japanese thing, and most western-style salads I've encountered in Japan use cabbage rather than lettuce. A more authentic meal accompaniment is tsukemono. FiggyBee (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on lettuce notes that the Chinese eat it cooked. I don't know much about Japanese cuisine. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Certified ethnic cuisine

Are the various ethnic foods (in grocery stores and restaurants) certified by one or more official organizations as being genuinely representative of their respective ethnic cuisines? I can imagine that economic motivations might cause some vendors to use very large supply outlets with assembly lines and not much human attention. When a store sells Russian salad dressing or a restaurant sells souvlaki, can a Russian or a Greek discern whether they are genuine? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Presuming you are referring to the US. Russian dressing is American; French dressing is American/British and the red orange version is very American. Much of the ethnic foods sold in the US are US inventions or modified for American tastes. Italian foods in the US are much heavier on sauces than those found in Italy. I have only found German cuisine properly prepared in one restaurant, and it sells American style dishes as well. I think every big Chinese buffet I have ever seen has chicken nuggets and French fries; General Tso's chicken is American/Canadian. American tacos are very different from real Mexican tacos. I think the only foods that are certified are kosher. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And Halal ? StuRat (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks— couldn't remember the term. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The European Protected Geographical Status marks are a guarantee of authenticity, although obviously they only apply to a small set of local speciality foodstuffs rather than national cuisines as a whole. FiggyBee (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely you are going to get cuisine identical to a region outside of that region. Peculiarities of food make them travel poorly. Modern mass produced and standardized and stabilized food travels well. But foods dependent on local conditions and artisanal preparation are unlikely to be found far from their region of natural production. Bus stop (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Who is the author of "Wikipedia?" What was the date of electronic publication? What is the name of sponsoring institution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.175.69 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking for general reference, see the article Wikipedia. If you're asking because you want to cite a specific article, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, and the "cite this page" link on the left of articles. But be aware that some educators don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, and many more don't consider it to be an adequate source for anything beyond background information. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think Finlay answered your question very well. Anyone who has Internet access and an unblocked IP address and/or an unblocked account can edit Wikipedia. The "date of electronic publication" is whenever someone presses the "Save page" button on the edit screen. Wikipedia is owned, but not necessarily edited, by the Wikimedia Foundation. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not too helpful to ask for the "date of publication", since this can be interpreted as the "Date of last revision" (as Scarian has done, above) or the "Date retrieved" - i.e. roughly, the time at which your browser requested the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to Finley, by the way, I really didn't mean to sound like my answer was x1000 better (which it probably wasn't). Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The servers and the Wikipedia trademark are owned by the Foundation. The copyright over the content is owned by whoever wrote it. --Tango (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all edits released under the CC-by-SA and GFDL? I remember some discussions about changing that, but I thought they decided not to...? Sorry, haven't been active in a while. · AndonicO ^Contact. 00:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but that has no bearing on the ownership of copyright. They are both merely licences to make use of copyrighted work, they do not assign ownership of the copyright to the foundation or to any other user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. Copyright is still in possession of the author, but the author agrees that under certain conditions (defined by GFDL and CC-by-SA licenses), others can use the material. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Though the question lacks context, I suspect the person is asking because she wants to cite Wikipedia in a high school or college paper. The 'cite this page' link in the left toolbar is the easiest way to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Las Vegas

Hi, basically, I want to organise a trip for my friends and I to get to Las Vegas but without flying [at all]. How much would tickets on a cruise ship cost and then the road trip from California to Nevada cost? Taking into account hotels and petrol [gas] etc. etc. Are there any sites on the web that can organise these sorts of "adventures"? Thanks very much in advance. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cruise ships mostly call in at Long Beach. It's 280 miles from there to Las Vegas; you'd generally do that in a day (it's maybe 5 hours drive, depending on traffic). The website of a car rental company will show you their vehicles, which obviously vary in size and efficiency; we can't pick which vehicle you want. Gas in California run at about $2.95/gallon (ref) and about $2.80 in Nevada. The Super8 on Koval (which is perfectly good) in Vegas costs upwards of $40/night depending on what kind of room you want (ref). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Long beach is noted. Thanks very much for all that information. Now, how would I get tickets from the UK to Long Beach? All I need is the site that offers that sort of info and I can do the "leg work". Thanks in advance! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cunard Liners and other ships from the UK sailing to the USA would generally go to New York, not to Long Beach (I don't know how good your geography is, but sailing to California would mean going a lot further; all the way down the east coast of the USA, across the Caribbean, through the Panama Canal, then back up the west coast of Mexico). If you really don't want to fly, I'd say your best option would be a liner to New York and then Amtrak through Chicago and down to Kingman, AZ, then a midnight connecting bus to Las Vegas. The ship would take a week and the cheapest option is around $2000 per person.[31] The train would take about 3 days and the cheapest option would be around $200 per person (it gets more expensive quickly if you want sleeping accomodation).[32] It'd be a heck of a trip, good luck! FiggyBee (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I highly recommend Amtrak sleeping accommodations. Even the cheapest sleepers get you meals included. Edison (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I second Amtrak - the transcontinental trains go through some spectacular places. Otherwise, if you take a transatlantic cruise, you'll have to rent a car and drive, which could take two or three very exhausting days from New York if everybody drives in shifts (no hotels at all if you don't mind leaning on each other to sleep), or a week or so if you take the scenic route. US 66 from St. Louis to Arizona is a traditional itinerary. Acroterion _(talk) 03:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

April 27

Ants in my laptop

I don't know if this would be better off in the science section or computer section but hey, when in doubt, put it in misc. Anyways my laptop (ASUS Eee) was infested with red ants (ants in your lap is a bad thing >_<). Yahoo answers etc. told me to flush them out using canned air but I can't find any in my place. Instead I put in a bag sprayed with bugspray, and left my laptop inside for a while. The thing worked but it left me with some nagging questions.

1. How can I stop ants from re-infesting my laptop? I neither have any food inside the house nor eat near my laptop so the infestation was weird in the first place.
2. Could bugspray have damaged my laptop?
3. How could I get the ant bodies out of my laptop? It's been a few days since this incident so I don't know if they're decomposing bodies will further damage the stuff inside.

--121.54.2.188 (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)