Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

September 7

fatal auto accidents

I am trying to find a comparison of the percentage of national motor cycle fatal accidents compared to the total number of motor cycle accidents and the percentage of national auto fatal accidents compared to the total number of auto accidents. can you help? thank you for your time and consideration. (e-mail address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.66.240 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - from Motorcycle_safety#Accident_rates - "Motorcycles have a higher fatality rate per unit of distance travelled when compared with automobiles. According to the NHTSA, in 2006 18.06 cars out of 100,000 ended up in fatal crashes. The rate for motorcycles is 55.82 per 100,000.[1] In 2004, figures from the UK Department for Transport indicated that motorcycles have 16 times the rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle kilometers compared to cars, and double the rate of bicycles.[2]" Exxolon (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check that link - Motorcycle_safety#Accident_rates - more useful info there. Exxolon (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edition of this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd/episodes/player radio programme - the 03/09/10 one - includes discussion of some pitfalls about interpreting transport accident statistics and would be worth listening to. 92.15.12.116 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to identify a documentary I once saw as a child

I am looking for help identifying a nature documentary I saw when I was a child (mid-'90s). It follows the communal life of a particular group of orangutans in the wild (but maybe gorillas or chimps??).

Unfortunately, I can only remember one scene -- but if you saw it, you too would never forget it:

One of the orangutans is an infant, and he is being raised by his mother or perhaps his aunt. She carries him around piggy-back style, like most orangutans do. But the weird thing is, he never outgrows this, even as he grows into a large adolescent. He never permits her to put him down -- in fact, now he can force her to carry him. Then she gets polio. Carrying him saps her of her strength, and she dies. Without her, he too dies.

Thank you for your help. I've also asked this question on www.vark.com, and also at National Geographic and orangutan and nature documentary (I know that the reference desk frowns on re-posting, but I figure this is different since it's multiple article talk pages rather than multiple reference desks). Thanks. 160.39.220.66 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall was filming chimps with her husband in Gombe around 1966 when polio struck. She kept her own child in a cage so that the chimps would not eat him. Maybe its on youtube.--Aspro (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like Flint, maybe? Wikiscient (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't help with your question, but for future reference, you should note that individual talk pages are intended solely for discussing their articles, not for discussion or questions about the topic. Good luck with finding your answer. Rojomoke (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching on youtube for keywords, its likely someone has uploaded it Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remember anything more to narrow it down? Was there a presenter on-screen? Was the presenter or voice-over male or female? Did they have a British accent? Was it David Attenborough? I'm not sure if British nature documentaries are re-dubbed in American accents for that audience. 92.15.12.116 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, they aren't- we Americans associate British accents with high intelligence, so we like them in our documentaries. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your help. It was so long ago. I can only remember that the presenter was not on-screen. Nothing else! 160.39.220.66 (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't have been orangs because they don't live communally. Other than that I don't know. The idea of a mother gorilla carrying around a full-grown adult male creates a pretty ridiculous image in my mind, though. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you live? In most of the world humans do live communally Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Oh, I get it. Orang = man in Malay. 81.131.42.80 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see in Orangutan Island they "are raised to go against their normal nature to form a society and live together in a cooperative society". There are three other orangutan documentaries or TV shows listed in the "see also" section. The Disenchanted Forest claims that they have culture, and "a rich and complex society of elders and peers provides the young with critical knowledge that is necessary for their survival". This would seem to contradict Orangutan Island's claim that they don't naturally cooperate. I'm not sure which bunch of nature-fetishists is lying, quite possibly both. 81.131.42.80 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maritime flags

can you tell me if a Scotish ensign flag is legal witch has a St Andrews flag in the corner of a red background as apost to the Red Ensign witch has a Union Jack in the corner with a red background —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lornforth (talk • contribs) 09:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article the flag shown here - which I assume is what you mean - was used by the Royal Scots Navy prior to the Acts of Union 1707. According to this site, which sells them, "it is still used unofficially by private citizens for use on water". So, its use is presumably not illegal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that one of the major reasons why the Scottish Red Ensign has been (recently) adopted is that the Scottish flag (just the white diagonal cross/saltire on a blue field) is virtually identical to the letter 'M' flag in the International maritime signal flags. The alternate meaning of the flag is "My vessel is stopped and making no way through the water", which is very confusing (and illegal in many waters) when flown from a vessel underway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking up a conversation sitting / standing up

The probability that a complete stranger strikes a conversation with you in a café or pub is much higher if you are standing that if you are seating, Why? Is it everywhere like that?--Quest09 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and yes. In Australian pubs, you'll certainly have strangers talk to you if you're alone (unless you're putting out "fuck off" vibes, which people often do without being aware of it). I agree that it's more likely to happen to standing people than to sitting people - although that depends on whether you're sitting at the bar or at a table. A person sitting at a bar is more likely to attract another single person for interlocutory purposes (and, who knows, if the conditions are right, maybe other purposes), than a person sitting at a table away from the bar. A standing person looking like they need to be taken home and looked after will probably be offered exactly that sooner or later (we are a very hospitable people). It also depends to a degree on what type of pub it is.

But I can't recall such conversations happening in cafes at all, no matter whether you're standing waiting to be served, or sitting waiting to be served, or sitting eating. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a personal space issue. Conversations between standing and sitting people can be awkward and it's considered rude to sit down with someone without an invite. If you are standing, people will move past and around you and this gives more opportunities for casual conversation. Exxolon (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During my travels, some of my best and most memorable encounters have come from sitting/standing at the bar (or the counter of a diner). It is a great way to meet people whether locals or fellow travellers. Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your sitting your likely eating or reading or doing something and don't want to be disturbed. If your standing your just loitering and doing nothing, so people feel better for disturbing you. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Social Anthropologist Kate Fox has studied such behavioural phenomena extensively, particularly in the context of British pubs, and mentions this particular one in (at least) two of her works; Watching the English and the more concise and directly relevant (to this topic) Passport to the Pub. There is (she has observed) an extensive unwritten etiquette to behaviour in pubs, which most regular pub-goers unconsciously follow without being consciously aware of most of it most of the time. One element is that a person standing at or near the bar is signalling openness to uninvited conversational approaches, particularly if alone, and standing couples (in the relationship sense) or larger groupings are approachable if not obviously engaged in close personal conversation; however, sitting at a table, particularly as a couple, indicates a desire not to be so approached unless a clear signal (such as themselves addressing someone else) is made. Obviously there is a good deal more to this and many other similar matters in the books. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can highly reccommend Watching the English. A great read and not the dry academic text you might expect from an anthropologist. Astronaut (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staragte

When is Stargate Universe comming back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Half charged (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate Universe says September 28, 2010 for America. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim prayer room in World Trade Center

Was there a Muslim Prayer room in the destroyed WTC tower 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.194.169 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be common knowledge that there were something like a half dozen chapels and prayer rooms in WTC, one of which was a Muslim prayer room, but I've not been able to find any definitive evidence or good sources about it. I'd think it quite likely, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, they possibly also destroyed some Coran left in the Muslim prayer room? --Quest09 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they would have no problem justifying having caused that "collateral damage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's that seemingly non-human "they" being associated with mainstream Islam again. Before Hitler, most of Europe's wars (and there were lots of them) involved almost everybody on both sides praying for and doing things in the name of the Christian God while fighting and killing one another and destroying each others' property. I can guarantee that millions of Bibles would have been destroyed in the process. Those who overtly choose the path of killing others in war are usually quite irrational, and don't really care whose religious icons become collateral damage. The other side, "they", are sub-human, so it doesn't matter. HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think "they" in the above referred to the perpetrators of 9/11, whom I for one do not associate with "mainstream Islam". Rojomoke (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "they" means the perpetrators. I have known a number of Muslims, and in general I find them to be kind and gentle. The 9/11 guys did nothing but give Islam a bad name, or a big black eye, to put it mildly. Every religion gets embraced by evil people from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that was hyperbole, but really? Millions of Bibles? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many do you think were destroyed in the Bombing of Hamburg in World War II? It looks like about a quarter million houses were destroyed, plus who knows how many apartments. Add a few bookstores, libraries, churches, and maybe the odd Bible storage warehouse, and you can probably get up to a million pretty easily, just from the firebombing of a few major metropolitan areas. It's a pretty common book in Europe, after all. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but Hilo did specify "before Hitler". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I was also wondering about the mechanism through which war destroyed so many bibles. There would really only be a 300-400 year window where there were enough bibles to destroy without destroying all of them. That's about 5,000 war-destroyed bibles per year for four hundred years.

But I assumed it was hyperbole and resisted the urge to be the first person to bring it up. APL (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it quite likely that the 9/11 terrorists destroyed at least one Koran, but they also killed quite a few Muslim Americans. You see, they were bad people. By the way- as a bonus answer to the question you didn't ask- this year, a major Muslim holiday happens to fall on September 11. When you see your Muslim neighbors gathering with their families and friends for a big celebration, they actually aren't celebrating the fact that 9 bad people murdered their co-religionists and their countrymen. But I'll bet someone will claim that they are. Watch your favorite politician, and see if he or she tries to misrepresent these celebrations, and then ask yourself whether you're buying into an anti-Muslim hysteria that's just some cynical politician's vote grab. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution to counter that kind of hysteria is to educate oneself; for example, to ask a Muslim to talk about his/her religion, about what Ramadan is about, etc. Not to argue back about things, but just to listen and try to understand where they're coming from. Muslims believe just as strongly in their faith as Christians and Jews and so forth do in theirs, and no religion has a monopoly on the truth. Good relations involve considering the possibility that others might be onto something that you've overlooked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Ramadan end on the 10th? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe for those who rely on calculated moon phases generally Ramadan will end at sunset of September 8 or September 9 depending on location (or if they use Mecca or their home country as their reference). Muslims will therefore celebrate on the night of September 8/9 and the day of September 9/10. However Eid ul-Fitr celebrations may last more then a day although some may scale back their celebrations this year in the US [1]. For those who rely on sighting of the moon I think it's possible Ramadan may end at sunset of September 10 and therefore the first full day of celebrations will be September 11 but I suspect it's not particularly likely in the US given it's geographical location Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the moon is over 31 hours old by now. It was sighted in South Africa this evening so we are celebrating Eid tomorrow 10 September as is most of the world. I don't think anyone is having it on the 11th; the moon phase is such that Eid would either be today or tomorrow in any part of the world. But this is getting seriously off-topic. Eid Mubarak to all, I'll catch up with all things WP on Saturday. Zunaid 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More detail: the prayer room was on the 17th floor of WTC2. There were about 60 Muslim victims. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on my screen sometimes it says radio is logged in /available.

Does that mean that anyone can log in on my emails or use my laptop . As you may gather I know very little about IT but this is a niggle in the back of my mind @btinternet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.139.101 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC) email address removed to prevent possible spamming - responses will appear on this page. Richard Avery (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not (though it's hard to be sure with so little information about what the message is and what is producing it). You can think of logging into a system like unlocking a door: if your car is unlocked that doesn't mean that people can get into your house. But I have no idea what it would mean to say "radio is logged in". --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That message is probably referring to a wireless Internet card in your computer. HP computers often display little popups with similar messages when they start up. If the message bothers you and you want to be sure you are immune from intrusion, turn on Windows Firewall, or disable your network wireless card in the Windows Device Manager. If you need followup information, please tell us what version of Windows you are running, and the manufacturer and model number of the computer you have. Also, for future computer questions you should probably utilize the Computing Reference Desk — this is the Miscellaneous desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heat

I want to make a small heating element. Would a 9v battery and flat piece of metal be good enough? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aiming at a high operating temperature you need something like Nichrome. Using a resistor of the value that will give you the Watt per second that you need, is probably easier for low temperature -see section "wire wound". If the 9 v you're thinking of is a PP3 it wont have much puff. Try a high drain alkalines like these.[2]. What are you trying to do?--Aspro (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "flat piece of metal" would indeed create heat, but all at once when it short-circuits the battery. As Aspro points out, you need a material of sufficiently high resistance that the energy is not all dissipated at once (which might have an unfortunate effect on the battery and those in the immediate neighborhood). Acroterion _(talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"style"

(Moved here from the Science desk)

what is the "style" of the chair found here

http://www.amazon.com/Rio-Brands-BRN-Promo-Chair/dp/B000VQHR7W/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=garden&qid=1283888946&sr=1-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Folding chair. ny156uk (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a Folding Lawn Chair. Buddy431 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a folding lawn chair. I've had these from time to time. They're pretty flimsy, but their light weight allows for easy transport to ball games and such. If the OP is looking for something more specific info, that might be a challenge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the title of the referenced page suggests, furniture like that is often called "web furniture" (in this case, a "web chair") because of the webbing used. Also "patio furniture". Which I can't say without thinking of an old joke: "What's Irish and stands around in your back yard?" "Paddy O'Furniture!" —Steve Summit (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3

Whats the deal with 3s? Like, people like things in 3s. And say "things come in 3s". Do they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evlwty (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article 3 (number) might provide some insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do. Two can be as bad as one; it's the loneliest number since the number one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women, I hear, can come in threes, but men generally are only good for one at a time. --Jayron32 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that does come in threes a lot is boss fights in video games. Specifically, you'll have to destroy three vital parts, or hit the difficult-to-reach weak point three times, or...anyway, I'm sure this was commented on in an article somewhere on the Internet. I was going to link to it, but Googling just turns up a lot of video games with "3" in the title... Vimescarrot (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Rule of three (writing). It suggests to me that things coming in threes in real life are just more memorable than things coming in, say, ones (because everything comes in ones, how boring). Paul (Stansifer) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Is a Magic Number: "Somewhere in the ancient, mystic trinity. You get three as a magic number. The past and the present and the future. Faith and Hope and Charity, The heart and the brain and the body Give you three as a magic number...A man and a woman had a little baby. Yes, they did. They had three in the family. That's a magic number." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Just Molly and me / And baby makes three / We're happy in My Blue Heaven." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, there's Trinity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threes cluttered up our nursery rhymes and kids stories - blind mice, bears, little pigs, musketeers, stooges. And wise men seem to come in threes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Happiness restaurant in Chicago's Chinatown district. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wedges are basically triangular and from splitting wood for clubs and canoos to rocks for obelisks and pyramids have been very useful for ages. Neither a square chip of rock nor a round pebble could achieve the same tasks. So there is a long tradition of interest in triangular objects. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Benford's law. Actually, there are more things in twos or ones than threes, but three is more unusual so you note and remember it. 92.28.242.240 (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good speech writers know the rule of three very well. Listen to your politicians. They'll often repeat similar things three times to add emphasis. Astronaut (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And good answers often come in three sentences. See above. Bye! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I can't find the article now, but we used to have one on the "comic triple", which is two straight lines followed by a joke. There is also the triple take, and I can't find that article either. And in lawsuits you can have treble damages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOing research for a Wikipedia article

I recently asked this at the help desk and received a rather unhelpful boilerplate response including a link to a page that didnt answer my question at all, so I'll ask it again here as an overall knowledge-question. I wish to contribute some content to an existing WIkipedia article. I have some books on the topic that I'd like to use as sources. Should I read all the way through the books (cover-to-cover) and then skim back to find the facts and put them where there supposed to be, or just skim the relevant paragraphs in the book and put the facts in with a citation. I know ideally I should do the former but these are rather long books and my time is limited. PS: I am not at all interested in creating an account, and have one (unused) should the need for one ever arise. 76.235.111.140 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the facts you add are useful to people's understanding of the article's subject, it does not matter whether you read and revisit, or merely pick out nuggets. Articles can, absolutely, be built piecemeal, sentence by sentence. Bottom line: whichever you prefer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand what you are writing about. If you are confident that you understand the topic adequately to be sure that you are putting valid information into the article, without reading the whole book, then okay. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

which fish is this?

Can somebody look at this image and tell me what fish is this? http://j.imagehost.org/view/0099/muru_fish --117.204.88.187 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I spotted a couple of references to "muru fish" as a type of fish eaten in India, but they all left the scientific name blank. Looie496 (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching a show...

Dinner With the Band and they were making a dish with butternut squash. It was uncooked and they were slicing it and the knives were going through like butter, easily slicing right through with little effort. Meanwhile, every time I've ever made butternut squash it very tough and difficult to cut when raw. So what the hell version of butternut squash was this? It looked exactly like the kind they have in my local supermarket, but it's obviously not, or they did something to it. It wasn't cooked though.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Even at the restaurant with razor-blade-sharp knives, it takes some work to get through those suckers. Unless they were horrifically overripe, those were cooked. → ROUX ₪ 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsu knives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes confusing, but TV shows reflect reality. They have a reality that is all their own - one that communicates. Doubtless the cooking was ancilliary to the story. Thus a struggle to cut a squash would detract from the story. So soften the squash.Froggie34 (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even 'reality' shows aren't above substituting a staged shot when the real shot didn't go as planned. They may have prepared the food like you would expect, complete with awkward wrestling with the squash and then substituted a scene shot afterward with cooked squash or fake squash or whatever.

I can't think of a way to verify that though.

Not having seen the scene in question were they using heavy knives and taking advantage of the blade's momentum? People can get surprising results by swinging heavy blades like they were cleavers. (In fact, sometimes they surprise themselves and need to go to a hospital.)APL (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A properly sharpened knife works MUCH better than a dull one; if you've ever handled a properly maintained chef's knife, it makes a WORLD of difference. It really can cut through really tough food quite amazingly. --Jayron32 02:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US legislation regarding religious hatred ?

Dove World Outreach Center's plans to hold "International Burn a Qu'ran Day" have attracted widespread criticism. However, as far as I can tell from what I have read, the only legal offence that has been discussed in relation to this event is that they will be breaking a local fire prevention ordinance that prohibits the "open burning of books", for which they could be fined. In the UK, anyone who attempted to organise a public burning of the Qu'ran (or of any religious text) would risk being charged under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which says "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". Is there no similar legislation in the US ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See our bit on hate speech in the United States. Basically, the First Amendment means that the answer to your question is "no". If they're not specifically inciting imminent violence (and they're probably not), then the free expression in question is likely protected. — Lomn 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in this article; I'm sure many other sites are also addressing the question. — Lomn 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no crime against being an utter fucking moron. General Petraeus also noted that it would probably be harmful to the troops. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this goes beyond self-contained moronishness (and as a counter-example, it is often illegal not to wear a seat belt -- a clear case of legislating against personal moronity); it has the clear potential to incite violence somewhere -- just not imminently among the people actually at the event. As I understand it, the US is really fairly unusual in leaving this sort of thing legal, so I think it deserves a little more than a "there's no crime in..." brush-off. — Lomn 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the rationale behind free speech is "there is no antiseptic like the light of day", in that not only are good ideas allowed to flourish in an environment of freedom, but the truly bad ideas become rather obviously bad. This event is no exception; it's much better to let the idiots of the world self-identify in this way. It makes it so much easier to keep track of them. --Jayron32 02:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a protest which I think must have actually gone ahead today, Fred Phelps was going to burn a Koran and an American flag - while some have proposed some kind of constitutional amendment to allow prohibition of flag desecration, it also remains legal in the U.S. I think that at least some Americans find it deeply satisfying that people can burn flags and other symbols, because it demonstrates that when other people treat them with reverence, that this is by choice and is a sincere expression of belief. Personally, I think that the comments of American officials were tremendously counterproductive, calling extra media attention to the incident and making it sound as if the government were responsible for the action. I should add that I've just done some surveying on YouTube, and as I mention in a footnote near the end of the 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy article, there are plenty of such videos of Korans burned/peed on/etc. from other countries besides the U.S. (Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, Korea...).

In a general sense, Christians oppose idolatry, and by Christian sensibilities, it could be said that those who say that someone should die or be sent to jail for simply burning some pieces of paper are making an idol out of it. While doubtless someone would get riled up, I doubt that Christians in general would see a Bible burning as a heinous offense. Christianity retains the memory of a day when Jesus was convicted of blasphemy and sent to die on a cross: the son of Man to a mockery of the sacrifice of Isaac in the name of a pitiless censorship law. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virgins

What percentage of people in Western Civilization die as virgins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar4u664 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is something that could be measured very well since medically speaking, this is not something you can determine during an autopsy for either gender. Googlemeister (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a wild assumption here about your age and status and link you to succeedsocially.com.--178.167.133.77 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Apparently about 4% of US adults (ages 20-59) reported that they've never had sex. Presumably the number who die in that condition is similar. Buddy431 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the page you linked is titled "4% of the Adult Americans Die Virgin!", it reports on a survey which found that 96% of adults questioned indicated that they have had sex at least once. Presumable the raw data would have to be linked to actuarial tables via the respondents' ages to properly estimate what fraction of people die as virgins. The page also claimed, without blinking an eye, "The average number of a lifetime female sexual partner for men was seven, while women had on average four male partners during their lifetime." So who are those men having sex with?

In Estimating Number of Lifetime Sexual Partners: Men and Women Do It Differently - Statistical Data Included, a 1999 paper from The Journal of Sex Research, the authors address the question of why men typically report having an average of two to four times as many opposite sex lifetime sex partners as do women. They say that, contrary to the consensus amongst researchers that this is due to intentional misreporting, it is actually due to differing strategies used in answering the question, with women more likely to count by enumerating partners, a method associated with under counting, and men more likely to give rough estimates, a method associated with over counting. -- ToE^T 16:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the truly perfect pitching performance

How long has a MLB pitcher managed to throw only strikes from the start of the game? I know that a perfect game involves no batters reaching base, but how many innings have had only strikes thrown? Googlemeister (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering a slightly different, but hopefully still interesting, question, the fewest pitches thrown in a complete game was 58 by Charley Barrett in 1944. Addie Joss threw a complete game in 74 pitches, the lowest pitch count for a perfect game. A great many "strike-only" innings have been thrown, as balls hit into play are counted as strikes. We also have an article on Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out three batters on nine pitches. — Lomn 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Larsen's perfect game was 97 pitches. I think he only got to 3 balls on a batter or two. (Nowadays, if he had 3 more pitches, he'd have been lifted.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There are no official records kept on pitches as such. Many teams do keep such records nowadays, for evaluation of their pitchers, and you might find some of that info by googling, but it would be anecdotal and recent. The record for strikeouts in a 9-inning game is 20, which has happened several times and I don't think any of them were no-hitters. The record for strikeouts at the start of game (as of 2007) was 9, set in 1884, and the modern record is 8. The overall record for consecutive strikeouts in any span in a game (as of 2007) was 10. You're really not likely to see a pitcher throw nothing but strikes, because if he stays in the strike zone he's going to get hit and eventually relieved. Pitchers mix up the pitch style, speed and placement; a lot of strikeouts are achieved by getting the batter to swing at something that's outside the strike zone, but that doesn't always work and the pitch is likely to be called a "ball". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In question #3 in this column from 1984, Cecil Adams scolded the very idea of trying to rank perfect games by number of pitches or the like. "The number of pitches thrown during a perfect game is no more relevant than the number of brush strokes used to paint the Mona Lisa." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A stat like that says maybe as much about the ineptitude of the opposition on that day, as the skill of the pitcher. I'm sure if Roger Clemens in his prime were to face a little league team, he could well throw 81 consecutive strikes. However, if a pitcher gets significantly above 100 pitches, he typically starts to tire and becomes more vulnerable. Bert Blyleven ridicules the pitch count thing by saying, "What happens when you get above 100? Do you explode?" Well, too often the answer is yes. Having said that, the question is, What is the highest quantity of pitches thrown in a perfect game (where known - the earliest known is Joss)? Turns out, it's David Wells, at 120, fittingly against the Twins. I suspect Bert had some mixed emotions about that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no instances where an MLB pitcher has gone through more then 1 straight inning throwing nothing but strikes because those stats are not kept? Baseball loves stats, and I figured they would have had this one. A complete game in just 58 pitches is pretty impressive though. Googlemeister (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently no known instance. I'm impressed that anyone even had that stat from 1944. But I have trouble believing it's the definitive record, as for example the shortest game ever pitched was under an hour, and the pitch count had to be very low in that one - I think they had a train to catch and they were literally swinging at everything. Consider that we don't even know the pitch counts for perfect games prior to the one tossed by Joss, and that Retrosheet has play-by-play only for certain years, and no pitch counts (except maybe for perfect games). So this info must not be easy to find. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the box score for that 1944 game: [4] Retrosheet doesn't have the play-by-play yet, and there's nothing there about pitch counts, but that doesn't prove anything. He did throw a 2-hitter and the game only went 75 minutes, so that tells us something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While baseball does track an absurd number of statistics, I think you're looking for significance where there simply may not be any. Here's another list of 3-pitch innings (naturally, all strikes). Note, however, that one could also have two consecutive innings of "just strikes" if you follow a perfect 3-strikeout inning with one that goes single-single-double-homer-single-flyout-doubleplay. Still (potentially) all strikes, but wholly underwhelming -- and as such, not tracked to the degree that one finds it highlighted as a feat of note. — Lomn 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mention it just because it's possible that some discussants may not be aware of it: Any pitch at which the batter swings is a strike, regardless of its location or of whether the batter connects or puts it in play in fair territory. Some of the above comments seemed to me to suggest, though I don't know that that was the intention, that a perfect game consisting of nothing but strikes would necessarily consist of nothing but strikeouts. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you could have 27 consecutive fly balls to the warning track, or even leaping saves of potential home runs (as with Buehrle's 9th inning) and you would have the minimum possible number of pitches, 27 - all strikes, and every one of them tempting the manager to yank the pitcher, especially if the game was close or scoreless. (Actually, that's pretty close to Bill Veeck's description of Bobo Holloman's no-hitter, although it wasn't a perfect game.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Blyleven might want to talk to Dave Dravecky, and Joel Zumaya, whose arms did explode, pretty much. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I recall the Dravecky footage vividly. Ouch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that had nothing to do with pitch count — that was cancer. Or at least cancer-ish. The Dave Dravecky and desmoid tumor articles appear to contradict one another on that point. Possibilities appear to be: (1) the articles assume different definitions of cancer; (2) the articles assume different definitions of desmoid tumor; (3) one or both of the articles is factually wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Know .....

Is there anyone who knows that why on all the advertisements and also even if we go into and watch showrooms, why time is always set on 10.10 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was asked some months ago. I don't recall if there was a specific answer. But as to why analog clocks are typically set on 10:10 or 8:20, as they have been for countless decades, I've always assumed it was because it made the clocks look symmetrical and attractive, and you could see the hour and minute hands clearly. Now, why they would continue to take that approach for a digital clock, can only be attributed to the "we've always done it that way" mindset. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a page on 10:08, but it got deleted. Some of it can be found under User:LarryMac/10:08. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I was supposed to work on that. Ooops. --LarryMac | Talk 11:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes has this to say about it. Basically, it looks nice. Matt Deres (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was one of the deletionists' finest hours. There was also a deletion discussion, but this suggests that the deletion discussion has itself been deleted. --Viennese Waltz 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why it's red there. Anyway, I found the discussion here. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed URL, that's why. Only just noticed it. Thanks for the link. --Viennese Waltz 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue clocks are set to 10:10 because it appears as though the hands are 'smiling', creating a more malleable mindset in the buyer. This carried over to displays of digital clocks via grandfathering. → ROUX ₪ 03:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just make up stuff you think sounds good and post it as fact. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be a total jerk. Please also don't assume that just because you have no idea what you're talking about, nobody else does either. google answers another site snopes. Perhaps you would like to try again without embarrassing yourself? → ROUX ₪ 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was uncalled for Matt Deres. The resemblance to a smile may not be the only reason why 10:10 is used but it is certainly one of the reasons. --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll note that Roux's answer would have been better had he provided the references in the first place -- and Matt Deres had already linked Snopes in his answer above -- and that I don't see a phrase resembling "malleable mindset" on any of the three pages linked. — Lomn 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try setting an analoge clock to 20 to 4 and see the sad face that results.Froggie34 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but then you've got the dope-heads giggling. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? 3:40 isn't the same thing as 4:20... Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that it was? And to be pedantic 20 to 4 does not give an exact angle. I can't be bothered to work it out but about 19 minutes to would give a more central pair of hands. Wonder how long it will be before this tired old subject comes back to haunt us?Froggie34 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Matt Deres said it was. You're right though, it should really be 10:08 rather than 10:10. --Viennese Waltz 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was what? Froggie mentioned pointing the hands to 4:20 and I linked to the article about the dope meme; I'm not sure why Googlemeister brought up 3:40 at all. Perhaps he was picturing the "sad" face and forgot what Froggie had actually written and instead had figured that he probably really meant "twenty to". An analogue clock at 4:20 would have the hands nearly on top of one another. Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No.. Froggie said 20 to 4, not 20 after 4. Also, you gonna retract your nonsense above? → ROUX ₪ 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction and no. Did you read the stuff you linked to? The first site says nothing about the "smile" and the third site is the Snopes article I already linked to, which also says nothing about the smile. The second site mentions the smile and then dismisses it in favour of the more obvious framing of the trademark angle. I'm sorry if I came off as brusque, but we're here to provide references; if you're posting an informed opinion, you need to frame it as such so that the questioner understands what bits are conjecture and which are not - if you'd said "I think..." or "It seems to me like..." then I wouldn't have said anything. Matt Deres (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing about playing the "I'm going to be dishonest about what a reference says and hope that Roux is too lazy to respond" game: you will lose. Quote: " The consensus of opinion (confirmed by Timex) is that clock and watch hands in advertisements are typically set at 10:10 so that the company's logo will be well-displayed. In addition, this position of the hands resembles a smile." Quote: "Manufacturers want you to see their product 'smiling' at you!" Those are both from the first link I provided, which you claim, intriguingly, "says nothing about the "smile""--your words, not mine. Shall I continue? Very well then. Quote: "he answer is probably quite simply that it looks better, aesthetically and practically, as the clock has a 'smile' on its face (not just a marketing gimmick, it really does look better than a 'down turned mouth' at 8.20) and, as others have said, because it keeps the hands clear of signatures and other subsidiary dials". Quote: ""I too have heard the 'smile' theory, which makes some sense from the emotional marketing perspective. Equally likely is the fact that most manufacturer's trademarks are just above the center pipe, and having the hands at 10:10 causes your eye to naturally follow to the trough, thus bringing your view right to the trademark." Which is rather a far cry from 'dismissing' the smile theory, unlike what you claimed. Do you want more? Oh good. Quote: "downward pointing hands are now seen as undesirable because they make the timepiece appear to frown" -- that would be Snopes, which you also claimed had nothing to say about it.

So, be as brusque as you like. But what you don't get to do is be rude when you don't know what you're talking about. Oh, and lying about what sources say? That is just not acceptable anywhere on WP. → ROUX ₪ 18:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions of Temple of Venus Genetrix

I have search all the articles on the Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum of Julius Caesar but cannot find the dimensions of the temple. Could you tell me what are the length and width dimensions of the Temple of Venus Genetrix?70.255.80.243 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to page 94 of The architecture of Roman temples: the republic to the middle empire by John W. Stamper: "It measured 23 meters wide by 33 meters long (78 by 112 Roman feet). This excluded the speaker's platform, which was added by Octavian and increased the podium size to 29.50 meters wide by 39 meters long (100 by 132 Roman feet)." Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waving on boats

Is there any reason why people on boats wave to other people on boats? Historical? Psychological? Practical? Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once watched the white fish fleet leave harbour in Aberdeen Scotland one late Sunday evening a few years ago. It seemed that no boat could leave harbour until the church bells signalled midnight had passed for superstition/religious/custom or luck reasons. And there were literally hundreds of folk there waving off their husbands, brothers, sons, lovers etc., etc., as they left for their perilous 2 weeks at sea, leaving behind them their alternate crew colleagues who would enjoy their 2 week off-duty sojourn. But it also turned out that many of the wives and girlfriends were making sure that their "loved" ones were actually leaving port so that they (the ladies) could relax in the arms of said alternate crew members without fear of said "loved" ones discovering their infidelities. No one seemed to care that everyone knew what was going on but I guess it was a question of what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't need to grieve over. I am sure there will be many other reasons but this one is my abiding memory. 92.30.199.74 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe it. How many did you interview on oath? Or are you just repeating what a bloke in the pub told you? 92.15.20.52 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really "good luck" or some kind of fishing season restriction? Wnt (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is totally speculative, but maybe they just wave because they're having a good time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is simply to acknowledge and recognise each others' presence - they are having the same experience of being in a particular place at a particular time, which may become important to share later, for instance if there is an accident or some other unusual occurrence. There is often the same acknowledgement of others when hikers or walkers meet or pass each other in isolated places on land. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed similar things anytime two people meet who are using atypical vehicles (i.e. not cars). Bus drivers, for example, seem to always wave at each other, despite the fact they cross each other's paths very regularly. Motorcycle drivers do it as well. I've always assumed it was a kind of communal cohesion kind of thing, where you're acknowledging your shared experience. It may even be that people are just generally friendly and use even as flimsy an excuse as this to reach out to their "friends they haven't met". Matt Deres (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public transit drivers do this in lieu of "Hey Jo, how's your day going?" that you might find in an office-based workplace. I think people on boats do this to be "Hey, I'm on a boat and it is awesome and I am including you in my awesome world. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driving Instructors do it too - as one myself I spend half my lessons waving to other Instructors... Tis just a way of aknowledging people in the same situation as yourself I suppose - the same is probably true for boat folk... gazhiley.co.uk 08:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely - I live by the Canal du Midi and tour boats loaded with day trippers pass regularly. Always the occupants wave and smile. It seems to be 'I'm having a great and exciting time please acknowledge and smile back'. Have to say that most residents simply ignore what, for them, is an everyday, routine occurance. Until, perhaps, they find themselves on a tour whilst on their holiday? Incidentally I have not noticed coach passengers waving. They seem almost morose by comparison.Froggie34 (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just plain camaraderie. The feeling that "I'm doing something that I enjoy that a lot of society doesn't, and I see you feel the same way". Dog walkers do the same with a nod, unusual car drivers do it to each other (VW Beetles and Land Rovers I've seen quite a few times). -- WORM MЯOW 10:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're excited because they're on a boat! Also, people with baby carriages always seem to acknowledge each other too, as if having a baby is some kind of secret club. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the interesting replies. I hadn't thought about the phenomenon in other situations (like bus drivers), but those observations help a lot in getting a handle on it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Post-production Test drive.

I just watched a fascinating Sky Anytime documentary showing the entire manufacture, assembly and post production test-drive of a typical 200,000 Euro sports car at Ferrari's factory and test-circuit in Northern Italy. In closing, the commentator said each car took about 2/3 months of expert construction and a waiting time per customer of 2 years. My question is, each car was shown being put through its paces on Ferrari's own private test track adjacent to the factory, and also on the open road in that region - so would a set of "test" tyres be used during said road tests, or would the customer take delivery of his/her car with it wearing the same tyres used during the road tests? Thanks. 92.30.199.74 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I would venture to guess that new t(y)ires would be put on the car, as the test t(y)ires would have been shredded by the testing. → ROUX ₪ 03:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They probably keep separate 'testing' tyres at the factory/test centre, and then fit different ones when they are transported for delivery, as Roux says, the test tyres would probably too damaged to be used safely. Chevy monte carlo - alt 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

What is "WANTYNU"?

I've seen the word WANTYNU used in some EMS blogs, but have no idea what is stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYPATROL (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are, among other things, a company that makes oxygen tank keys, from what I can tell. See [5]. It appears to derive from the phrase "We ain't nothing till you need us" (according to the website I linked). It appears to be an acronym derived from a bit of EMS culture, implying that EMS people tend to be poorly regarded up until they actually save one's life. --Jayron32 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find the print date for a dollar bill by its serial number?

Well, basically what the title says: Is it possible to determine when a dollar bill was issued based on its serial number? I know you can find out where its printed, but I'd like to know as exactly as possible when a certain bill was issued. Asav (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Bureau of Engraving and Printing has some links to other places that might provide an answer, unless there's some security issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't destroyed bills get their serial numbers re-used? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BB, sent the BEP an email a couple of days ago, but haven't received an answer yet. I was hoping there were some collectors or such out there who could point me in the right direction. As for serial numbers being reused, as in EP's question, I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen, at least not within the same series. Asav (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue drum

Tongue drum is a redirect to slit drum, but that article contains no reference to tongue drums. Is a tongue drum actually a kind of slit drum, or is it a different beast? See here for a brief description of the tongue drum. --Viennese Waltz 08:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~They're synonymous.~~ "Slit drum" is used more often in scholarly literature of musicology or music anthropology. Functionally, "tongue drum" is perhaps more descriptive, as the tongues are the resonating parts (while "slit" refers to the removed material). The tongues are also called "lips" sometimes, but I've never encountered the usage of "lip drum". Traditionally the term "slit drum" is more frequent than "tongue drum". ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, they might not be completely synonymous. Tongue drum might be a subset of slit drum, as you already hinted at. Instruments with only one slit, such as this example from Vanuatu, don't really have tongues at all, so it would be misleading to call them 'tongue drums'. Technically, a wood block is a slit drum too, but not a tongue drum. Hmm ... ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around a bit more, I stand by my claim that slit drum is found far more frequently in literature than "tongue drum", even when discussing multi-pitched, multi-tongued instruments such as the teponaztli. The term tongue drum is more specific (excluding uni-slits) but despite its potential usefulness just hasn't gained traction in academia. The term is often found in the context of DIY instrument-making, music therapy, new-age spiritualism, and to a lesser extent in marketing of percussion instrument manufacturers. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you quite finished? ;) Seriously, thanks very much for the most helpful answers. --Viennese Waltz 11:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-air collisions over major cities

The news of a near miss over London last year got me thinking. Has there ever been a mid-air collision over a major city; one that resulted in flaming debris raining down into the streets below? I know the September 11 attacks might qualify, but that was a deliberate act of terrorism and not the kind of accident/air traffic control error I am asking about. Astronaut (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See our article 1993 Auckland mid-air collision for one example that also shut down a major motorway at rush hour Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroméxico Flight 498 hit a Piper Archer and fell into a residential neighbourhood in Cerritos, California, killing 15 people and injuring a further 8. Golden West Airlines Flight 261 scattered debris over a residential area, but no-one on the ground was injured. Lastly (I think that's all, at least for commercial airliners) there's the 1960 New York air disaster, in which a DC-8 struck a Super Constellation over New York, killing six people (and I assume a dog) in Park Slope, Brooklyn. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If barrage balloons count, I would expect at least a couple of German fighters during the early 1940s to have qualified for this, but our article does not actually mention if these balloons actually downed any aircraft at all, so perhaps they were only a psychological ploy. Also, as part of an act of warfare, it might not exactly meet your accident/error criteria. Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Depends on what is a major city, but there is the Stockport air disaster in the 1960s although nobody on the ground was killed.~~ MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding barrage balloons, I'm trying to find a good source, but I have found numbers like 24 piloted enemy aircraft and 278 missiles destroyed by barrage balloons, and at least 40 Allied aircraft as well. This is just WWII; I've not seen numbers for WWI yet. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mid-air collision, but Pan Am Flight 103 made a mess of Lockerbie, where eleven residents were killed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 Phoenix news helicopter collision occurred over a park downtown. 68.104.175.130 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport wasn't a mid-air collision; Lockerbie wasn't and isn't a major city. --John (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mid-air collision, but the B-25 Empire State Building crash killed 11 people in the Empire State Building. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the question was about collisions that were mid-airs. --Anon, 15:20 UTC, September 10, 2010.

Correct, that crash would be classified as controlled flight into terrain I expect. Googlemeister (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a vague recollection of a news story about two planes colliding over New York City, and the one I was probably thinking of was in December of 1960. List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft has a lot of entries, and if you look for "collide" you can probably isolate some crashes that would be of interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of the 1960 New York air disaster. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one that popped into my head was the 1978 PSA Flight 182 collision over San Diego. Ratmangxa (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EST

I read the EST but I am confused. When do the clocks change again? Do they go forward or back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No money back, no guarantee (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This editor has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Franamax (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spring forward, fall back" is the old reminder saying. It varies between North America and Europe. See Daylight saving time for more info, but in the U.S. it's currently the first Saturday night / Sunday morning in November. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by EST you mean the same timezone of New York City, then that date is Nov 7 this year. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By EST do you mean European Summer Time? The information given there is quite clear: the clocks go back on 31 October. The dates of clock adjustments vary from one country to another.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Eastern Standard Time (but not the American and I don't only mean US one) then from Time in Australia the answer appears to be first Sunday of October, in those places that actually observe Daylight Saving Time. The clocks go forward on that date Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just ask most posters to topics like this to think a little more globally. Many large countries have EST. I still don't know which one our questioner was referring to. Most countries DON'T have fall. I DO know where Baseball Bugs is from. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All countries have fall. Not all of them call it that. The majority of native English speakers, however, do call it that. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of native English speakers = the USA, most others call it Autumn and think fall is an Americanism! MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the majority of native English speakers are from the US. Therefore it would behoove Commonwealth speakers to desist from referring to their specific usages as "international". You can't have "international" without the majority. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. What percentage of US residents would have Spanish as their native language? HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, a (not overwhelming) majority who live in a single country are more "international" than a (substantial) minority who come from ~~several~~ many countries? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say that. My point is certainly not that American English counts as "international". It's that the term is too often used to mean specifically "other than American", and this is incorrect and unjust. Commonwealth English is also not "international English"; it's just the English used in some nations. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the OP won't be back, at least not under that user ID, because he's been indef'd for block evasion. But if anyone wants to know when their clocks roll back, there is no shortage of sources of that info. If all else fails, watch the Saturday evening news as you get into October, because they nearly always say, "Don't forget, turn your clocks forward/back." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm defending the use of international (which you appear to have been the first to bring up in this discussion) but who gives a damn about native speakers? They have no more rights then non native speakers. I would also note that for a number of countries, even though they may technically have autumn/fall/whatever, it's largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the first one to bring up "international". HiLo48 said "think a little more globally". This admonition always seems to be directed at Americans, even though British posters are easily as often guilty of not doing so. Probably more so in my experience.

Native speakers is an important thing to measure because second-language speakers frequently don't use the language all that much. It's not (usually) a living thing to them; it's a subject they've studied in school. Of course this is not always true, but it suffices for a general statistical sense to see that you can't leave Americans out of "global" English usage.

As for countries that don't have fall, you're right, I wasn't really thinking about places like where you live, where I suppose there aren't really seasons to speak of? Or maybe two rainy seasons a year or something like that? I was responding to the apparent claim that there's no fall where they call it "autumn". --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "fall" vs. "autumn", EO states that "fall" is indeed primarily an American usage.[6][7] "Autumn" is still used in the USA, but perhaps more often in a poetic sense, although "spring forward, autumn back" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But don't forget that "fall" as a word for autumn was first used in the UK in the 16th century. Ref: Oxford Dictionary of Etymology (not entymology!). Richard Avery (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except there was no UK then... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Increasingly off topic I know, but then where would the pleasure be in a Ref Desk discussion? I recommend a glance at our not entirely satisfactory article on Season to see how even the notion of fall/autumn and spring aren't global Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

soccer world cup shots on goal

What is the highest number of shots on goal for both teams combined that resulted in a 0-0 tie during a world cup game? Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That question is unanswerable. Football is not like some other sports in that it is not obsessed with statistics. No official records for numbers of shots on goal are kept, they are the domain of TV broadcasters, who obviously have details of only a tiny percentage of the thousands of World Cup games that have been played since 1930. --Viennese Waltz 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do they record saves by the GK? Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, afraid not. The only officially recorded statistics are on things like the score (obviously), the scorers, bookings, sendings off and so on. By the way, and just for your information, the term GK is never used, only "goalkeeper". --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Guardian ([8]), shots on goal have been officially recorded at the World Cup since 2002. The Guardian figures pre-2002 are generally just the number of goals scored, and it's not obvious why in a few instances they've given a higher - or even a lower - figure for shots on goal. Warofdreams talk 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher - some of the shots on goal were saved. Lower - one or more goals were scored not from a shot on goal: e.g. from shots off-target but deflected into the goal, from non-shot own-goals by defenders, possibly even from the goalkeeper accidentally throwing the ball into his own net (see Gary Sprake). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The FIFA statistics on the 2010 World Cup finals are here - showing that there were seven 0-0 draws in the finals - and the information on shots is here. They suggest that, of those seven, the match between Paraguay and Japan had the most shots on goal - 20 - the next highest being the match between Portugal and Brazil which had 8. There's a report on the game here, which certainly doesn't suggest a game of high drama. The wealth of statistics on the FIFA site suggests that football is rapidly catching up with other sports in terms of the number of useless statistics collected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not useless for sports gamblers... Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Opta Sports keep statistics like this going back quite some way, but they're not available to anyone. One of their staff was dispensing various historical World Cup statistics on Twitter throughout the 2010 finals. If you sign up and ask he might be able to tell you. His username is OptaJoe. --Iae (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

age

Why do some small animals live ages like parrots 60 years or queen ants 30 years, but big animals like dogs only 15 years, when humans live 100 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bffmff34 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because 30 years in humans is different to 30 years in dogs. See Aging in dogs. Chevy monte carlo - alt 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question-asker understands that dogs age faster, he is asking why. APL (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because a creature's longevity is not dependent upon its size or mass.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it dependent on, then? --Viennese Waltz 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though there does seem on the surface anyways, to be at least some correlation between longevity and average size in mammals anyways. I don't know if these correlations apply with birds or insects though. Googlemeister (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Actually, that's not entirely true: within a given class, larger creatures do tend to have longer lives. speaking in terms of evolution, though, there are a few related theories. I think r/K selection theory might be an appropriate place to begin. that theory says that longevity and birthrate are inversely related, based on whether parents pour all of their energies into producing huge quantities of offspring (the 'breed and die' behavior of salmon or the large brood sizes of field mice), or pour all their energy into raising, teaching, and caring for a small number of offspring (as in Elephants, dolphins, and humans). the former species tend to be short-lived and the latter long-lived. Dogs are somewhere in the middle on that scale - social animals with medium sized broods that do some care and training of offspring. --Ludwigs2 15:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit mis-guided in my opinion to compare humans to, for example, ants. Humans have the ability to control much of their surroundings. We also have people devoted to improving and maintaining our health. Ants don't have that. Dismas|^(talk) 19:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to de-rail too much, but ants DO control their environments quite a bit, probably more than any other non-human animal. They can modify heat and humidity of the nest, and also have workers that maintain sanitation. They store food, grow fungus, and tend aphids. They have division of labor, and specialists for certain tasks. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so maybe ants aren't the best example. But you get my point. They can't control things as much as we can. No animal can. We have advantages that other animals do not. Dismas|^(talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Control" is not really the right variable here. What you mean is, "humans have found ways to stay alive longer." Which is probably true, and why humans are not a great example to compare to wild animals. Humans living in "wild" conditions do not live as long as humans with steady food supplies, freedom from predators, good habitats, medical care, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig is onto it. The simple answer is that "Mother Nature", i.e. evolution, made these creatures the way they are, for a variety of reasons. Someone brought up whales. A lot of whales consume tiny creatures called krill. You'd think krill would be extinct, at the rate the whales gobble them up. But they aren't, presumably because nearly all their energy goes towards reproduction - kind of like the tribbles of the ocean. So a lot of them get eaten, but enough of them survive to reproduce and replenish or expand their net population. Longevity is not really an issue for krill - perpetuation of the species is the issue. This rule applies in general to prey and predators. There are a number of endangered species of whales, because evolution did not require whales to be prolific, so more of their energy could go towards size and longevity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection can favor different life-spans in different contexts. However, the general physiology of an organism places constraints on what a species can do. Species cannot generally be long-lived, and still produce many offspring with high survival rates (see Darwinian_Demon). The general concepts at play outlined by Ludwig and Baseball Bugs are discussed by Life_history_theory, though our article could use some expansion. Also, prolific species with short life-spans are not any less susceptible to being endangered; see all the insects and spiders listed here: IUCN_Red_List_endangered_species_(Animalia), SemanticMantis (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do various mammals (perhaps excluding humans) live roughly the same number of heartbeats? I believe Isaac Asimov once wrote about this. It may be a measure of their metabolic rate. A mouse (500-700 beats per minute) might live a short span of time (perhaps 2 years as a pet) compared to an elephant (perhaps 28 beats per minute, perhaps 60-70 years in captivity) . (Milage may vary). The mouse would have about 6 x 10<exp> 8</exp> heartbeats, while the elephant would have about 9 x 10<exp>8</exp> heartbeats in a lifetime. Edison (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But humans live roughly as long as elephants and usually have a resting heart rate of 60-70 bpm. Cats have a heart rate of 120-140 and only live 12-14 years. It is probably a rough correlation, but probably not anything to bet the farm on. Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov apparently addressed this comparison in at least three books, "Asimov's Guide to science" (1972):"A rabbit may live up to 15 years, a dog up to 18, a pig up to 20, a horse up to 40, and an elephant up to 70. To be sure, the smaller the animal ... There is no question but that man's heart outperforms all other hearts in existence. ...," "The human body: its structure and operation" (1963): "Animals larger than man naturally have slower heartbeats than we do. An ox has a heartbeat of 25 per minute, an elephant has one of 20. The heart rate will also vary in a given creature with his level of activity. ...," and "Asimov's New guide to science" (1984):"Though considerably smaller than a horse and far smaller than an elephant, the human being can live longer than any mammal can. ... There is no question but that the human heart outperforms all other hearts in existence. ...". Edison (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ingredient in a receipe

I would like to know the name of the ingredient Rachael Ray used im place of honey. It was in an episode last week. It is like honey, but does not cause an effect on blood sugars and I think she waid it was produced in Mexico. Can you help me with that. Thank you, Patreicia Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.192.38 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that episode, but from your description, it sounds like she was talking about agave nectar. It's sweeter than sugar, but it can still influence your blood sugar content - just less because you use less (if that makes sense). Matt Deres (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's a discussion from WebMD about the use of diabetes and agave - apparently also in response to a Rachel Ray show. The stuff on there is mostly opinion, but it seems that some folks are sceptical about agave's good reputation. If you're concerned from a diabetes perspective, the ADA, has this page regarding it, which implies that it's better than sugar, but still something of a concern (it suggests using sugar substitutes like Splenda instead). Matt Deres (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like avage nectar's low glycemic index and high sweetness are just results of it being high in fructose. I doubt it's much different than high fructose corn syrup. Paul (Stansifer) 04:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Legal age for getting a tattoo??

I swear I see kids that are like 13 with tattoos?!? Isn't there a legal age that you have to be to get a tattoo? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just out of the ordinary.Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 00:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a list of United States tattoo laws, by state. If you're not in my country, I'll let someone else take theirs. Most states do require you to be 18 to get tattooed, or at least to have parents' permission. But (a) it isn't hard to find a shady acquaintance with a tattoo tool who will give a poor-quality tattoo even if you're underage, and (b) I've personally known 13-year-olds whose parents gave them permission. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 in the UK, too. 128.232.131.58 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been a stick-on fake tattoo? Astronaut (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My friend got a tattoo at age 12, because her family owned a tattoo shop. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone I know gave themselves a (small) tattoo using a compass needle and fountain pen ink when they were about 15. Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 20:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Workmen and traffic

(Legal question not legal advice)

Today, while walking in Bristol, UK, I noticed workmen working on the road. The road was closed to one lane and one of the workmen was controlling the traffic, stopping one direction with the "stop" hand gesture (hand risen, fingers closed and pointing skyward), while allowing the other direction to use the one lane by beckoning them on with the other hand.

Strictly speaking, would a driver be committing an offence if s/he disregarded the workman's hand gesture to stop and drove through the open lane? As far as I know, surey only police officers, traffic wardens and lollipop men/ladies are allowed to direct traffic.

nb. I'm aware workmen can control traffic using Stop/Go revolving signs, and temporary traffic lights, but surely workmen can't just use hand gestures. At least, not in a legally binding way on motorists. Sam 01:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

If you were driving you would probably see and understand just WHY the traffic was being stopped, almost certainly because it was dangerous for the workmen to have moving vehicles nearby at that point in time.--85.211.231.161 (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you decided not to heed the indications of the workman I think you would be, at minimum, guilty of careless driving and failing to show due consideration to other road users. Depending on the actual conditions you could be guilty of dangerous driving. I can't understand why you think an indicating hand is any different from a 'proper' sign. If you came upon an accident where a member of the public was directing traffic by hand to prevent further damage presumably you would be equally annoyed. It is not necessarily legally binding but is an understanding between the workman and reasonable drivers. Richard Avery (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you misunderstand. I wasn't annoyed, I was just wondering from a legal standpoint. The Highway Code mentions that police officer, traffic officers, and lollipop ladies/men have the power to control traffic, while temporary road signs and traffic lights can do the same. I was wondering if workmen without those things still have a power to control traffic or whether it was just an understanding between motorist and workman, and thus whether a driver who flouted the workman would be liable to as severe punishment as someone who ran a red light, ignored a police-man's orders etc. I imagine there is no specific offense 'ignoring a workman', but that one could be prosecuted under a more general offense, such as 'driving without due care and attention'. Sam 11:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

I can't speak for the U.K., (or even all of the U.S., for that matter), but the law in Pennsylvania is that road construction crews authorized by the state Department of Transportation — whether they are state employees or contractors hired by the state — have the authority to control traffic as needed, and you can be charged with "violating a work zone" if you do not heed them. Also, if you commit any other offenses in a work zone, the fines are double what they normally are. — Michael J 13:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of gender equality, is there a gender neutral term for "workmen". Work-person perhaps? Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worker, as in construction worker. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my part of the world, the road construction job formerly known as "Flagman" -- which appeared on orange signs as FLAGMAN AHEAD -- was renamed Flagger, and the signs changed accordingly.

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Conscription during World War 2

Were American men subject to the draft during World War 2 if they had already served in and been unconditionally discharged fron the U.S. military prior to the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.38.65 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Conscription in the United States, ALL men age 18 to 64 were compelled to register for the draft as World War II approached, and that men up to age 45 were actually drafted. If that's literally true, without qualification, then the answer to your question is YES. As a practical matter, someone serving in WWI would likely have been in their 40s by the time WWII was gearing up, and I would think it unlikely that guys of that age were put into the front lines, but anything's possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In WWII in Britain all men up to 60 (I think) had to register. Those not in exempt occupations (miners, police, etc.) were then liable to be 'called up'. As more and more men were needed so older men were called. My father, born 1901, just managed to stay ahead of the call-up; but he was a part-time Air Raid Warden instead. He stood watches several nights each week in addition to his day job as a butcher. Very tiring! And dangerous.Froggie34 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page says "The National Service (Armed Forces) Act made all able men between the ages of 18 and 41 liable for conscription; as part of the legislation it was decided that single men would be called to war before married men. Men aged 20 to 23 were required to register on 21 October 1939 - the start of a long and drawn-out process of registration by age group, which only saw 40-year-olds registering in June 1941." Older men could volunteer for the Home Service Battalions and many over-40s had obligations as reservists. In 1942, older civilian men could also be obliged to do part-time work in Civil Defence or the Home Guard [9]. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backdoor Entry

Is anal intercourse a real life phenomenon or does it only exist in imagination of second rate porno writers. Is it even possible ? I say that because human anus, unlike vagina which is designed to accommodate an external object, is vastly different anatomically, is clearly not meant for inserting objects, and a thing as large as human penis is especially painful experience for the taker. Of course gays have no other option, but how they are able to do it ? Thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend "Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women" (my emphasis), by Jack Morin, PhD (no relation), published by Down There Press, San Francisco. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down There Press? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[10] and Joani Blank suggest the name was probably intentional. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search would turn up a great deal of photographic and videographic evidence that answers your question, as well as numerous sites with detailed advice on how people go about the act. Do the numerous (108) references in the article not convince you that it is possible? On a side note, for someone who appears to be totally naive about anal intercourse, why do you make the assumption that it is an especially painful experience? Brammers (talk/c) 07:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of immense literature available about the subject. But how many of these authors have actually been through this ?

""Been through" it? You make it sound like having cancer or something. It's not like it's compulsory, even for gay men. They only do it regularly if it's pleasurable for them. It may take a little practice; some never learn to like it and never or hardly ever do it; some can hardly live without it; some are receptive only, some are penetrative only, some like it both ways. The gay world is like a Mandelbrot set of diversities within diversities. As for literature, who would choose to write about anal intercourse if they didn't have significant personal experience of it; or significant professional interest and knowledge about it; or both? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, when Farrah Fawcett died, it was from anal cancer, which most of us don't hear about every day; and some news reports, while trying to avoid getting too far into TMI territory, reported that this cancer is often correlated with anal intercourse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love the title for this question. BTW, I would assume that lubrication cuts pain out of the equation, no? And Bugs, wouldn't most gay dudes die from anal cancer? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know. I'm just reporting what the news sources said at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What news sources would that be, hopefully not any that we accept as RS on Wikipedia? The claim of a connection sounds completely ridiculous. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is not the act per se, but rather the potential for infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). The anal cancer article suggests that HPV is strongly implicated. Of course the act can't transmit the virus unless one partner is already infected. --Trovatore (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck newspaper do you read that speculates on what kind of sex acts might have contributing to someone's death? APL (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the specific source, but there are many google hits. This page include's a doctor's blog on the general subject, not drawing inferences about Farrah directly:[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Cuts out'? Doubt it. Our article has plenty of discussions of pain, none of them suggest lubrication is always going to completely eliminate the pain. Of course it's likely to reduce it. I saw a anecdotal discussion once, I thought it was in our article talk page but can't find it where it was suggested for many even when both partners are experienced and careful the initial penetration is usually at least somewhat painful. (Generally speaking most discussions I've read suggest what is realisticly common sense, use lubrication, go carefully and slowly, communicate and if it gets to painful, stop.) BTW, it's obviously not true that 'gays have no other option'. As our various articles I'm quite sure mention, there are gay men who don't enjoy anal sex either as the receiving or penetrating partner and they do clearly find other options which work for them. On the other hand, there are surely some heterosexual men who do enjoy being pegged. Talking in absolutes when it comes to anything involving humans rarely works. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as for Jon pointing out that assholes aren't meant to have objects inserted inside of them, that also brings to mind another thing... I've heard a lot about how the elasticity can be worn out due to being repeatedly entered, even in some extreme cases requiring some to wear diapers due to anal leakage. Is this true or urban myth? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a section on it. Anal_sex#Physical_damage. Brammers (talk/c) 09:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for 'gays have no other option' (presumably meaning gay men), there are certainly other options. For example, intercrural sex, oral sex and frot, not to mention many other activities that people often classify under 'foreplay', although they can be fun in themselves too. Anal sex isn't the only option for gay men, and penetrative sex is not, in general, the only way to have a fun sexy time. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would still loathe being a gay dude, since I would not like having things go up my ass, and vice-versa. I'd be miserable in being limited to the kinds of sex I could have. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be miserable being limited to sex you enjoy, rather than having sex you didn't enjoy and found unpleasant? Are you also miserable being limited in the food you can have, if you choose not to eat things you find unpleasant? Okay! 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, I wouldn't enjoy the other kinds of sex as much to make up for what I can't have. I enjoy enough foods to make up for what I don't like, I'm not unpleasantly picky (unless I'm stuck in a country where I don't have many options to suit my taste buds). 24.189.87.160 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay men don't sit around thinking "If only my partner had a vagina". They like other men for what they have to offer, not what they lack. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, true dat. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I don't understand how you can ask if it is "even possible" when you acknowledge that gays "are able to do it" and then link to a thoroughly referenced article on the topic, while still expressing doubts as to the possibility of existence. This isn't like ghosts or little green men... we have pictures... and movies. Matt Deres (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you'd do when there is such a big difference between what the writers want us to believe and what actually is. I think people just think it is "in" thing and hence response with a positive nod when the stats people come. When they say they have "done it" what they actually mean is that they are liberal mind and open to sexual innovations, it's fashionable to be on right side of sexual revolution, it's politically correct.

What "big difference"? Why would anyone want people to believe more people engage in anal sex than actually do? What possible benefit is there in that for anyone? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to be vulgar here, but I've taken dumps which were far larger than the average human penis. It certainly wasn't painful, so "a thing as large as human penis is especially painful experience for the taker" isn't true. Original research of course. 124.37.178.244 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar ? You've been the most enlightening answerer yet! A real eye-opener. Are you female or male? - that's important

That could probably be promoted to Fundamental Research. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I was going to suggest that we take a poll on how many people here have had hetero anal sex, but I can't decide whether the people who have or the people who haven't would lie more, so I guess that would be a bust. well, maybe 'bust' is a bad choice of words... --Ludwigs2 21:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sun

When in the next sola ellipse in the uk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesfours (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The next full solar eclipse in the UK will be in 2090. There will be partial eclipses before then though. See List of solar eclipses visible from the United Kingdom 1000–2090 AD#The twenty first century (2001 - 2090 AD). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bausch & Lomb Soothe PF

Will Bausch & Lomb's dry eye product 'Soothe PF' be discontinued soon because of their new 'Soothe XH' product? --Endlessdan (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not contact them direct, and ask ?Froggie34 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My doctor says they are, they cannot comment per their 1800 #. Thanks anyway. --Endlessdan (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cadillac seville gas tank and sending unit

WHAT CAR AND YEAR HAS THE SAME GAS TANK AND SENDING UNIT AS THE 1976 CADILLAC SEVILLE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.84.31 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not type in capitals; it is considered shouting. Chevy monte carlo 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Cadillac Seville, the 1970's Seville was built on the K-platform. Though it was the only production car built on that platform, it shared some commonalities with the F-platform, the best known example would be Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird. The Seville article also indicates that the car shared some design features with the Chevrolet Nova. Looking into contemporary models of one of those cars may give you some leads. --Jayron32 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a recipe just says "mustard seed," should I use whole or ground?

The recipe is here. Just seeing the phrase "mustard seed" instead of "mustard powder" made me think it meant whole seeds, but this recipe is for a sauce that is smooth so I think they may mean ground mustard seed. Is there a common naming convention to distinguish the two? Thanks. misli h 15:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That recipe isn't going to give a smooth sauce unless you blend it (as it actually says). I would take mustard seed to mean whole seeds -- many Asian recipes call for them. A well-written recipe will specify ground mustard if that's what it means. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seed implies actual seeds. Just mustard would mean paste. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may mean that you should take whole seeds and grind them yourself, thus ensuring maximum freshness of taste. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

ALL CAPS

Not sure if this is a computing, humamities, language or other question. As a regular here on the reference desks I see my fair share of posts all in caps, and have on occasion reminded them that shouting is not necessary. I'm curious though: on every keyboard I've ever used lower case is the normal situation and I have either has to hold down the shift key or press caps lock to get the all caps effect. So why do some posters press extra keys to type in all caps even though it makes their post look different from everyone elses, more difficult to read, and having seen other all caps posts attracting criticism for shouting? Astronaut (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons that I've seen/deduced:

The user is an asshole who believes what they have to say is a lot more important, profound, urgent, and thought-provoking than any of the other mindless crap that's in the way.
The user is an attention whore.
The user is not an asshole, but still thinks their question is urgent and needs to be answered straightaway. (This may be accompanied by capitalizing only part of the question.)
The user forgets that their capslock is on and somehow doesn't notice, OR the user is too lazy to turn capslock off.
(The only legitimate excuse:) The user is a senior citizen who has trouble seeing what they are typing. These people should probably be congratulated for embracing technology!
Along with the lack of punctuation that normally comes with shouting, some shout to hide their embarrassing lack of grammar skills.

Xenon54 (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOME PEOPLE JUST WANT TO WIND YOU UP, Astronaut. IT'S PERSONAL ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the posters who do so have "seen other all caps posts attracting criticism for shouting". My experience is that all-caps writing is something that inexperienced web-users do, or people parodying inexperienced web-users. Presumably they think it makes their writing stand out more, and attracts attention (which it does): they haven't learnt that the attention will be negative, and they do not know netiquette. Young users, especially, tend to the CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL view, whereas older users seem to genuinely think it makes their message more understood :/ They are swiftly disabused of this when they contribute to something like this page, but I would hardly ever attribute malice. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)One that wasn't mentioned, which I've run into in my few years of running a message board... The user is ignorant to the fact that there's anything wrong with it to begin with and doesn't know that there's anyone who is bothered by it. Dismas|^(talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the user is a Kanye West fan. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A looooooong time ago, when laptops first came out, they had badly designed keyboards that made it difficult to type with normal capitalization. Consequently (on early internet forums), some users took to typing in all caps because it looked better than typing in all lowercase in simplistic computer terminal fonts. It rapidly proved itself annoying, and so the reasonable people stopped doing it, while the people who wanted to be annoying took it up. whaddayagonnado. --Ludwigs2 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an article about this: All caps. As it explains, "It was once an inevitable byproduct of using machines with limited support for lowercase text (such as certain early Apple II models)". It tends to be the old folks like me who do it, because they think it is what they are supposed to do on a computer. Looie496 (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a bit further, before ASCII was developed in 1960, the majority of teletypes and terminals only supported capital letters. As our ASCII article says, "Before ASCII was developed, the encodings in use included 26 alphabetic characters, 10 numerical digits, and from 11 to 25 special graphic symbols.". Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And one other factor that's worth mentioning. (Sorry to keep adding things here.) To people with very weak keyboard skills, pressing two keys at the same time can be seriously difficult. Looie496 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly doubt this has much to do with it. I would guess that hardly anyone has chosen to use such a restricted character set since the mid-70s and the last time I saw a teletype machine in use was in 1978. The modern internet generation has had computers that support far more characters for a long time now and I doubt they are even aware that such restrictions ever existed. Astronaut (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it isn't the modern internet generation who are doing this. It's the clueless. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone of my age (mid-40s) who does it. He does it because he's a rather laborious typist anyway, and finds it easier just to whack the caps lock on and type the whole lot in upper case rather than do the hold-the-shift-key-down-press-the-key-to-insert-capital-release-the-shift-key thing at the beginning of each new sentence. (He also hand-writes in block caps for the most part, as his longhand script can be quite scruffy). He's intelligent, literate and not at all personally aggressive; he just doesn't seem to have effortless motor skills where writing and typing are concerned. If the subject comes up and I point out that what he does is considered "shouting", he replies that the content of what he writes speaks for itself, people need to get over their misperceptions and prejudices, he's been writing notes to people in block capitals since he left school in 1983 and he's not going to change that just because someone invented the concept of online shouting. Me, I wouldn't dream of posting online in block caps; however, my pet hate is people who respond with abbreviations, textspeak, Lolcat and similar in response to a message written in standard English. I find it exhibitionist and rude, react particularly badly when the mis-spelling is utterly unnecessary, such as "boi" for "boy", and (fairly or not) tend to categorise such people, who are mainly from the "modern internet generation" Looie refers to, as the clueless ones, and quite likely to be illiterate into the bargain. We tend to regard our own preferences as the norm, and anyone who deviates from them as incorrect. "Shouting" in caps is just another example of such an assumption. Ka renjc 09:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they're trying to deal with Space Invaders. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this, then, Karenjc: There are various ways of emphasising text, of making it stand out. There's bolding, underlining, italicising, making it small or large, using ALL CAPS, and some other ways. The norm is not to use any of these things. When they're used, they're used sparingly, for a particular effect. People are meant to sit up and take notice of them. So, WHEN SOMEONE TYPES THEIR ENTIRE TEXT IN ALL CAPS, IT REALLY HITS THE READER IN THE EYE. The writer might not be intending to come across like that, but they do anyway. I met my partner online, and when we first got chatting, he used all caps all the time. I had to ask him to stop doing it because it really put me off, and I knew enough about him to know that being put off was definitely not where I wanted to be. He quickly obliged once I explained to him that I felt like he was shouting at me every time he opened his virtual mouth. Why did he do it to begin with? When he writes with a pen, he always writes in block caps, except for his signature; it's just a preference he adopted as a child. So, when he started using computers, all caps felt completely natural to him. And he encountered enough like-minded users in the online forums he frequented to make it an acceptable practice there. So along comes Jack and says "Sorry, pal, I'm here to upset your little apple cart. You have to do as I ask, or there's no relationship". Well, anyone in their right mind would obviously immediately comply, wouldn't they. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Bizarre flaming of Jack for saying people are 'meant' to do what he does.* How dare you suggest there are conventions! Who are you to quash my freedom to use italics and caps as I please? I'll do what I want. Rah rah rah! 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some (most?) of the 8-bit machines of the 80s produce capital letters by default, and lower case when you press caps lock. My ones did, anyway (the BBC B and the Vic-20). I admit it's tenuous since these could barely go online (telnet, perhaps?), but it's a theory. They also refused to understand commands issued in lower case - for instance, on the BBC, the command print "hello world" would get the response Mistake (in lower case, ironically enough). 213.122.17.213 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a recent question in ALL CAPS - I think it was about bodybuilding - which gave me the impression that the querent (who started off writing that way, then remembered we don't like it, excused himself and continued in lower case) not only normally wrote in caps, but participated in a forum where everybody else did too. I expect there are people who routinely exchange emails in capital letters. I think it's a cultural thing, like a dialect. 213.122.17.213 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. And for the record, Jack, the person in question is my husband of 21 years. If some bizarre plague robs us of speech and reduces us to communicating only by notes or email, I hope I can be as persuasive on the caps issue as you obviously were with your partner, otherwise I may find end up a lonely cat-lady in purple in my old age (or an expert on semaphore). Ka renjc 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that yes, caps are indeed used for emphasis just like italics, underlining and so on, but they also have an additional function - they are sometimes specified for clarity, as with handwritten job applications or other official forms. It would obviously be silly to stop completing such applications in block caps now that an internet convention has arisen that it's a "shouty" thing to do, but while the perception exists that caps can legitimately be used to make your meaning crystal clear, I expect we'll still get people who prefer to use them for everything. Ka renjc 13:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the questions typed in all caps come from people in countries where other scripts (alphabets) are used. On someone using a keyboard designed for another language, it might be relatively easy to type in Latin capitals but more laborious to type in lower case. Also, the person might not be used to communicating in written English and may be unaware that using all capitals on an Internet forum is considered impolite. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo upload

I am trying to upload a photo of the Salem, Ohio Cry Baby Bridge. I uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, but would like to upload it to Wikipedia to show the photo of Cry Baby Bridge on Egypt Road in Salem. How can I accomplish this? All attempts have failed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalemccartney (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take a look at how commons images are added to other articles - it is a good way to learn how to do things in Wikipedia's markup. An example can be seen in the lead section of the river article. Astronaut (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see help:File and help:Image. images on commons can be used in wikipedia without any extra effort. --Ludwigs2 03:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You upload to commons then link from wikipedia, using the same name. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Indian Actress

Long ago I saw a photo of Indian actress Kajol. She, wearing a skirt, is sitting on a studio chair in a lawn, reading a paperback. I am dying to see that pic again. Can someone please be kind enough to tell where I can see it. Thanks. Jon Ascton (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched and found lots of images of Kajol, but none were as you describe. Astronaut (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. But I already did that, on google and all. Do you know some source else, it will be worth it. That's one of the most beautiful pics ever. Jon Ascton (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

toys

Do MacDonald make the toys in happy meals, or do they contract another company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaosusr4545 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They will buy them in. --Rojomoke (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the above response after finding that Rojomoke is a user, not a place ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help identifying a model

I'm trying to identify the model in several photoshoots. The first March Maxim 2008 by Naomi Kaltman, the second a June 2007 issue of Blender. Anyone know who she is? Lirva84 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a fashion shoot, then it should say who the models were. Otherwise, Naomi's web site is here http://www.naomikaltman.com/contact.php?pageSelect=contact (macromedia flash based website). You could ask her agent for the model's name and agency. CS Miller (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does she look anything like Avril Lavigne --Aspro (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking photos facing the sun

Are there any basic tips for taking photos when facing towards the sun? I take a number of photos of buildings, and sometimes it can't be helped when they are facing north (I'm in the northern hemisphere). As you can see from the two examples, one looks fine and the other looks kind of crappy (originally, the second one featured an extremely bright sky and really dark building, so I had to mess around with the contrast/brightness levels a bit to make it presentable, which is why it looks a bit blurry, I think). The camera I use is decent and I can manipulate basic stuff, like I said, like brightness or contrast levels, but are there any tips, either when actually taking the photo, or when doing post-photo adjustments, that would help when I have no choice but to face south? AlexiusHoratius 17:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Set it to spot or center metering mode and expose for the main subject. Also a Gray card would help.--Aspro (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I try to shade the lens (and if it's got a separate sensor, the light meter), either with my hand or by hiding behind something like a telephone pole (which works okay for shots like this, where the sun wouldn't be in the scene anyway, but is screwing with the meter). If it's something close (good for a person, not really for a large, more distant object like a building) fill flash or a fill card can illuminate the shadowed subject, bringing the scene more into the dynamic range of the camera's sensor. At various times I've tried setting the camera to spot meter (as opposed to multi-point metering) and putting the spot right on the interface between the dark building and the light sky; I'm not sure whether that really helps, but give it a try. Some folks use a short exposure (and a consequently a larger aperture) with film, but I'm not sure that this matters for a CCD - if your camera has a "sport mode" or "action mode", try that. Lastly there's high dynamic range imaging which (if done with taste and moderation) might be just what you need. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the basic tip for taking photos facing the sun is to not do it. You can minimize the damage but you're never going to get quality results that way, unless you're looking for a silhouette effect. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have it on auto exposer - this is too hit and miss . Put it on “manual” (between S and SCN on the knob on the top), use the instruction manual to set it to 'spot' and experiment by metering off different parts of the landscape. SCN on the knob stands for “scene” modes or landscape shots. Try that as well as it will give the aperture and adjust other things like colour and sharpness. Play around with 'P' as well. This will automatical choose speed and aperture but it is not always right for what you want. And browse thought this tutorial. [12]. Enjoy!--Aspro (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! competently forgot ....SCN also has Backlight setting for just this sort of problem. It'll be in the instruction manual.--Aspro (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try out HDR photography. Some people like it; some people don't. I don't like the extreme versions, but used delicately it can be effective. Probably my most successful effort at it was not all that delicate, and I didn't like it at first, but an ex-girlfriend did, and I decided it wasn't as bad as I'd thought. You can see it here if you're interested. --Trovatore (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'll look into this stuff. I had started taking photos for Wikipedia with essentially no photographic experience whatsoever, so these tips will be good for some on-the-"job" training. AlexiusHoratius 15:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salary scales for different graduate careers

Anyone know where I could find average salaries for different stages in various careers? Such as a year after graduation, then 5 years after, then ten and so on. In the UK if possible, but anything would be interesting to read. Thx :) 144.32.126.11 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Income in the United Kingdom may be of interest. schyler (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did they film it?

In the film Inception, how did they film the scene where they're in the hotel corridor and there is no gravity, and everyone just floats? Was that all computer generated? JIP | Talk 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JIP, for someone that's been around the RefDesks long enough you surely don't need to be told to RTFA and WHAAOE? Inception (film)#Filming. Note that the scene in the corridor doesn't have anyone floating, they just keeping walking on the floor/walls/ceiling. Zunaid 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2010/08/play/behind-the-special-effects-of-inception Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A blend of CGI and real footage. Most special effects are CGI based nowadays Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a website that alerts intelligent people to nutters?

Today, at my local UK supermarket, I drove very carefully between rows of parked cars looking for a suitable space for my disabled wife at about 5 MPH when suddenly a 10-12 year old boy ran out from the parked cars directly into my front end. I slammed on the brakes and narrrowly avoided hitting him before he looked up in alarm from his mobile phone which obviously was commanding his low IQ attention. He ran to an adjacently parked car where a man, presumably his parent, was also playing with his mobile phone. I opened my door and called to the man (father) that he should spend some time teaching his son how to avoid being killed by oncoming traffic by keeping his attention on the road. Result? I was afforded a mouthful of expletives that recommended that I should pay more attention to my driving. When I retorted that I had been driving at less than 5mph at which speed I had probably saved his son's life when he ran blindly in front of my car the father's response was that I should pay more attention to my driving?

My wife told me to let it go as both the father and son were probably the local "Asshole and Son".Co. Uk.

I have tried to put that episode behind me but I am still astounded that a father, who witnessed his son's stupid behaviour in moving traffic, would immediately spring to his stupid son's defence, against a non-agressive driver who had nearly killed said stupid son.

Have I been on the planet too long? And should I volunteer myself for voluntary Euthanasia????

92.30.181.122 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among my teaching colleagues, an old saying we share, after finding that the parent of one of our dopier students shows equivalent dopiness, is The apple does not fall far from the tree. It's a statement about Genetics. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a modern social phenomenon that I have noted is that modern shopping centre car parks are designed exclusively for cars, with no real provision at all made for pedestrians to to move around them safely. (Although I suspect that such provision may have made little difference for the above-mentioned 10-12 year old boy.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you threatened the father's sense of parenthood. If you had just yelled out first to the son something like, "Hey, kid, 'look both ways', huh? I damn near just hit you!" (or some other good advice, in context) the whole thing might have gone differently. And I think your question about voluntary euthanasia may be impermissible per Kainaw's criterion. WikiDao (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP, first let me congratulate you on slamming the brakes on hard at 5mph - must be pretty hard to do. I find that hard enough on a bicycle. Anyway, just let it go. It'll happen again, no doubt, and no doubt with someone else. No point in worrying about it. If the father had a go at you, it was because he was defending his kid and also himself against your accusations of bad parenting. Doesn't matter whether you were right or not - he won't see it that way - never will. Just let it go, and drive carefully. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin is constantly at work, improving the gene pool. Edison (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't really want to say that, though, considering we are talking about kids here. Idiotic parents, yes. But they are not the ones whose skulls would be popping under the wheels of the car in the OP's scenario. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parents who neglect their young are less likely to pass along their genes to future generations. Foolish/careless youngsters are less likely to pass along their genes as well. It works either way. Edison (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And people like the OP, Ed? What of them? (Note that the question does specifically ask for advice as to whether the OP should seek some means of discontinuing his life for the "good" of all. Should he? Or should the pedestrians he may happen to run over in his scorn for their idiocy be better culled for the good of all, as you appear to endorse in your response?) WikiDao (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's two references too many to genetics in this thread; see nature versus nurture. I'm not at all sure that genetics could turn somebody into an asshole (have there been any twin studies on the matter?) ... but it seems entirely plausible that upbringing could transmit bad ideas about human interaction from father to son. Then again, it seems pure subjective opinion that either one was an asshole, just because the son was careless and the father got ruffled when challenged. It's worth pointing out that you don't know what's going on in other people's lives. You assume they were preoccupied and "playing" with their phones because they're idle and anti-social and uneducated; but maybe it was because, for instance, some kind of family emergency was taking place which necessitated that they both keep in touch with others as the situation develops; or perhaps the father was in fact on the phone to the son, who is, say, chronically insecure, and he was right at the point of taking his first steps away from the parent (supported by phone communication) when you spoilt it all by frightening him with your car. Who knows? 81.131.46.171 (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are unconditionally machismo and can only think of us against them. They probably both had an IQ of 70. Wonder if either of them are reading this, lol. 92.15.25.239 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Batik Care

I have this interesting textile thing that I was given by my grandmother. It's a blue-white-black depiction of two birdlike things facing each other. It looks to me a bit like a batik---the outer borders, at least---but I can't tell. It's from the Malay peninsula, either Malaysia or Singapore. It's got some creasse in it from storage, and I'd like to get those out before I frame it and display it, but I don't want to use an iron for fear of what the heat and steam may do to it. any suggestions of a gentler method of crease removal? I was thinking put it between a table and some weighted books...67.180.150.78 (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heat would probably melt the wax if it was batik, and cause further damage. Table + weighted books seems a good idea to me - I don't think there would be any damage, at least not as much as if you were to heat it. Chevy monte carlo 18:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interior dimensions of Forum of Julius Caesar

I have read the exterior dimensions of the Forum, 160m x 75; but have not been able to find the interior dimensions of the Forum. What were the dimensions of the open space plaza, and the dimensions of the two side columnades; as well as the entrance columnade and the area behind the temple. I would appreciate it if anyone could answer this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.137.83.175 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the book I pointed you to for your previous question, it contains a floor plan of the forum on page 98. You can view that page online using Google Books, with the link I gave you before. Looie496 (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federated Department Stores, Macy's

I wanted to check background info of Federated Dept. Stores for some translation work, and entered Federal Dept. Stores in Wikipedia. This instantly led me to Macy's. According to the info, it said Macy was established as Federal Dept. Stores in 1929. However, when I checked Macy's, it went ot R.H. Macy's with much older history. Two information does not match and I am confused. How can I obtain correct info. re: Federal Dept. Stores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.152.42 (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macy's website agrees that it was called Federated Department Stores, Inc. at its inception. There seems to be some confusion on the web of the Federal versus Federated variety - and indeed you make the same error in your question, skipping from one form to the other. As it turns out, the history is convoluted. What is now Macy's inc was first formed as Federated Department Stores in 1929 - see the article Macy's, Inc.. However, the first Macy's store was, as you allude, founded in 1858 by Rowland Hussey Macy - see Macy's. That Macy's store was eventually merged with Federated Department Stores to form Macy's inc. The Macy's article provides a fairly full history of events leading to the grand unified Macy's inc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It;s not unusual for a newer company to purchase an older one, and then to take the (usually more respected) name of the older firm as the merged company's name. It happens a lot. Look at things like AT&T, which has little connection with Ma Bell but is instead what happened when SBC Communications purchased the older company in order to rebrand it's Cingular Wireless division. There's the new MINI, which is a BMW nameplate that has little connection, except the styling, to the British Motor Corporation car of the same name. The original Indian (motorcycle) company went belly up in the 1950's, but a number of other companies have kept the nameplate alive; none of these have any connection to the original company, except that they purchased the assets for the right to use the name. --Jayron32 04:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot another one, look at the history of Atari/Infogrames. That brand has gone through a very convoluted and complicated history as well. --Jayron32 04:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Rai topless ?

Please look carefully at this picture and decide with cold, unbiased logic. Can it be real ? Many (Indian) people have already given the verdict of "no", more due to her superstar status and Indianess rather than direct, unbiased observation. There is slight difference of skin color at neckline, which may well be suntan. Also fakes are seldom so large... Jon Ascton (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of the person, and cannot judge if it is a picture of her or someone who resembles her, but there are no obvious signs of it being a Photoshopped composite (one person's head on someone else's body). But some people are very good at creating celebrity fakes of that sort. Edison (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. This picture was taken for Penthouse. I think for Feb 2004. But was never added to magazine due to some controversy or something. But pic seems to be real Jon Ascton (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only reasonable response to this question is this. --Ludwigs2 03:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I think Jon can put away his tissues now. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon guys ! All I need is ur unbiased opinion...

Hard to see, but I think there is some evidence of a join at the necklace. If you also consider the extreme unlikelyhood of a major celebirty like Aishwarya Rai ("... one of the leading contemporary actresses in the Hindi film industry") actually posing naked, I am certain it a fake. Astronaut (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something quite real compare figure... Jon Ascton (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so the pic was taken for Penthouse, you say, but never actually appeared in the magazine/website [or whatever they use to publish these days]. And you are asking if it is real or not? Was it taken or not? If yes, then it's real. If no, then your question has no point. Clarify, Jon. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this and a whole bunch more at fakecelebs.com which states right up front: "The pictures displayed on this website are fake, digitally retouched and altered photos of nude celebs involved in sexual activities." Whether you want to take the word of people who run a website of fake celebrity pics, I don't know. But the pic you linked to in your question, jon, looks like it has had a face photoshopped on to it to me. WikiDao (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with things with faces photoshopped over them. I know them by thousands, but I have never put them on RD to ask. It is very unlikely that this thing is not real. Fake topless pics of every Bollywood celebrity are there on web, and one can tell them with eyes closed.

Of course, Her fakes are plentiful, I am aware of their existence already. These are fake beyond dispute. The question is this one Jon Ascton (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these breasts the same as these breasts? WikiDao (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. This is clearly unreal.

Many people in west don't know her. Had I asked this question WITHOUT telling she is Aishwarya, perhaps everybody would have said a solid YES !

BTW, who was Penthouse person in Feb 2004 ?

Why is that one pic in particular so important? WikiDao (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is there !

Ok, fair enough. I'm thinking fake on this one, but you should check back here regularly to see if someone else comes along with better reasoning or evidence either way. And thanks for the question lol! ;) WikiDao (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of Penthouse Pets of the Month, the Pet of the Month for Feb, 2004 was Avery Adams. Be aware, however, that more than one woman appears in each issue of Penthouse, and different issues are published for different markets. Our article only deals with the specific woman chosen as Pet of the Month for the American addition. Your best option is to find a back issue and check into it yourself. --Jayron32 05:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who she is, ....just WOW.85.211.162.3 (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with "fake". There are lots of other photos out there of Rai's stomach (e.g. [13][14][15]). It doesn't look anything like the "nude" picture, totally different belly button. People tend to have pretty identifiable and distinctive belly buttons. Even if Rai lost a lot of her body fat (which would be necessary, as the nude model is far more skin-and-bones than the voluptuous Rai), I don't think it would look like that. The most authoritative source would be to find whatever the source image for the face was, of course. The "looking up and out" pose is something you can see (going through photos of Rai in Google Images) that Rai does when she is at awards shows and is on the red carpet. It doesn't look to me like a Penthouse photo (which almost always has girls looking right into the camera). Almost surely fake. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is kind of unbelievable. Rai is one of the most famous actresses in the world, and if she had done any nude photography, we would definitely already know about it. It would like Julia Roberts having nude pics. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help identifying a city

Hi, would any of you know what city this is? Thanks.

http://www.thewindypixel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/DSC_6038.jpg

AlmostCrimes (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's New York City. The tall building on the right-hand side is the Empire State Building. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly taken from the upper level observation deck at the GE Building. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! That article has the same view (in panorama and by night) for comparison: Top of the Rock (featured picture!) ---Sluzzelin talk 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government benefits for British World War I widows

I would like to know if any government benefits were paid to British World War I widows. I have heard they were just given a sewing machine and expected to take in sewing to keep their families going. Is there any truth to that?Eileenmary145 (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a War Widows' Pension[16]. I suspect it was not terribly generous though. Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick Google for war widows' sewing machines - there were many results but all the ones I could see related to India[17], Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the First World War the standard pension for war widows was 13s 9d (68¾ new pence) a week. See these Parliamentary questions from 1976. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film

What is the famous scifi movie from the 20th century that combines concept-of-love discussions, humanist philosophy, man's place in the cosmos, and the directors famous ability to use film as a way to echo being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showw44535 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Blade Runner, but I'm not sure Ridley Scott is noted for coming over all existential. David Lynch is, but Dune (film) (which I've never seen) doesn't exhibit much philosophy as far as I know. Terry Gilliam often gets pretty philosophical, but I don't think Brazil (film) has anything much to say about the cosmos. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is very famous and serious, and people have read all kinds of things into it, but I don't think it features any romance (unless you count Hal's intense relationship with Dave). Humanists Carl Sagan and Joss Whedon both wrote sci-fi films, which touch on man's place in the cosmos and the concept of love, respectively, but not both at once in the same film. (Firefly/Serenity discusses the concept of love to some extent, anyway - Inara is a kind of walking discussion of the concept of love, and Kaylee has a refreshingly futuristic attitude.) 81.131.46.171 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity isn't from the 20th century though. In any case this sounds like an exam question, so the answer is "whichever one your teacher told you it was, if you were paying attention." Adam Bishop (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris (1972 film) is the best I can think of to fit that particular description, though Blade Runner would be a good choice as well. It would be better if we had some idea of the films (or types of films) you'd been discussing in class. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformational learning

what is the four stges of transformational learning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.242.26 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave your question a section header to stop it colliding with the question before. 81.131.46.171 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Transformative learning doesn't (from a quick skim read) have the four stages listed but this PDF seems to (http://www.mentoringforchange.co.uk/pdf/CtC%20-%20Trans%20Learning.pdf) they are... 'Consolidation', 'dissatisfaction, 'letting go' and 'synthesis' ny156uk (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price

What was price of 40T flat-bed European truck in 1985? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.100.62 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat doubt the price was consistent thoroughout Europe Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on exactly what make/model the truck was and what country it was in - it's a bit too general to give an accurate estimate/answer. Chevy monte carlo 18:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]