Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 26

Multiple murders in Scandinavia - precedent

(Starting from the vast and falsifiable premise that Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway are "all the same anyway...") Has anything like the Norway shootings happened before? Presumably a few cases of multiple manslaughter or murder happen each year: angry man kills wife or girlfriend and self; divorced dad kills his kids. But has there ever been a mass shooting, particularly one targetting minors? Have they previously endured a multiply fatal terrorist attack? Or a crime as gruesomely planned as this, which in a way reminds me of Dr Harold Shipman? Or many missing people (maybe prostitutes, drug addicts, or runaway children), who subsequently turn out to have been killed by one man, with or without his partner's knowledge and assistance? Another way of asking this is, what sort of cultural parallels are the Norwegian people grasping for now? I am reminded of the case of Silje Raedergard: the Norwegians (?= Scandinavians) have very different attitudes towards criminal justice than the Americans or the British. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been a couple of multiple shootings at schools in Finland, albeit with much lower death tolls - Jokela and Kauhajoki. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As well as the above, List of murderers by number of victims mentions the Swede Anders Hansson who killed 26 or 27 people in a hospital (though I can't find any English-language references)[1][2]; Arnfinn Nesset, a Norwegian nurse who killed over 20 patients; and Mattias Flink, a Swedish spree killer with 7 victims. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is some more detail about Hansson - described as "an odd and lonely person with learning-disabilities" - at this forum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware that the Norwegian people are grasping for any cultural parallels. The physical scale of the car bomb damage and death toll are, when related to Oslo's much smaller population than New York, comparable to the September 11 attacks. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And a single murder in Coldfoot, Alaska would, when realted to Coldfoot's much smaller population then Japan, be much more devistating then the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. What is your point in comparison here? Googlemeister (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Which of those events has anything to do with Scandinavia? What is your point? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Googlemeister asked first. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me to answer Googlemeister's question. The OP asked about a precedent to the multiple murders in Scandinavia. I wished to point out that one finds a physical precedent in the 9/11 attacks, but it is only physical. Culturally the attacks are very different. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Try this CBC News Interactive. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

tracfone's

i have a tracfone that i need some advise about so i can get my problem fix. the problem is that i have 44569 minutes and no service days left the phones main screen says that my service days have been disabled so what do i do? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.196.99 (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Have tried contacting your provider? They are far more likely to know what is going on than we are. --Tango (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Go to tracfone.com. On the contact page, there is a fill-in form for questions and comments, including service. Or there is also a toll-free (in the U.S.) telephone number to call. — Michael J 12:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I take it you really should have more days and far fewer minutes ? Sounds like a bug to me, possibly a bad SIM card. You can call them, but they will likely want proof.

Do you, by any chance, have the last message from them saying how many days and minutes were added ? I always keep those. You could forward that message on to them, and they could add those days to that date to figure a minimum you should now have.

But, of course, there's no accounting for the days you already had when the last card was added. However, if you can offer some proof, they may believe you for the additional days.

I also suspect they will need to send you a new SIM card for your cell phone, or possibly a whole new phone. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anal sex advice

How do you make it painless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.18.179 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our article anal sex? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nina Hartley has a book that deals with this. You might want to check it out. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Try not doing it!--85.211.131.158 (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sam Houstons Birthplace Marker?

I know that Sam Houston was born in Virginia, but is there a marker or anything of that sort on or near his birthplace? I am asking this as he was born in the Mountain regions and not in an actual town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.155.171 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In our article on Sam Houston, there's a photo of the marker. More information about the monument can be found here. It is located on U.S. Route 11, 5.3 miles north of Lexington. It is on the east side of the highway, after the underpass for Interstate 81/64, exit 195. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrvatska pošta

The logo of the Croatian Post Office (Hrvatska pošta) can be seen at [3]. This looks to me like a stylized form of the Hebrew letters פש, but it seems unlikely that Hebrew letters would be used. Is there any info on the origin of this logo? --Taejo|대조 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a stylised post horn, but this is just a guess. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The post horn page agrees with your guess (without any citation, though). --Taejo|대조 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh the frustration of the postman who finds his horn gorn. (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could a "Writ of Mandamus" be obtained by ACLU to Force the US Congress to Raise the Debt Limit Ceiling?

A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".[1] Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty.[2] It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if the Supreme Court issued one. Googlemeister (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Forcing Congress to pass legislation would be a clear violation of the seperation of powers. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. If you read the article mandamus, it only applies when the government official has a duty to do a certain thing. Congress does not have a duty to raise the debt limit, even if it would be a good thing to do so. Issuing such a writ would violate the separation of powers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Failure of Congress to raise the debt ceiling could violate section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution, and the the Supreme Court could declare the legislation that created a debt ceiling unconstitutional, but only if it was the only way to repay existing debt. That is not the case here. Googlemeister (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how specifically it would violate it? —Akrabbim^talk 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the items in section 8 art 1 is

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States", which coupled with, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." could possibly lead to the debt ceiling being unconstitutional, but only if it is set in such a way as to prevent borrowing to pay for servicing already existing debt. For that to happen, debt payments would probably need to be around 100% of government revenues, and by that point, it is probably an academic question since the whole system is already failing. Googlemeister (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Still not following you, but just because Congress has the power to do something doesn't mean they have to do it. In fact, they could do nothing for an entire term if they chose. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, even if the debt ceiling were unconstitutional, the remedy would not be to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Congress to pass a law raising it. A court would just declare the debt ceiling invalid. Larry Tribe recently wrote (what I found to be) a convincing op-ed in the NYT about how the debt ceiling is not unconstitutional.[4] I'm not sure if there are prominent legal minds on the other side. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal systems don't like dealing with hypotheticals which is all I suggest that my scenario is, so actual case law would be unlikely. Basically, SCOTUS would need to view the second quote as manditory. Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly not mandatory - the text of the constitution says it's a power they have (something they can do), not something they must do. The drafters of the US Constitution knew how to make things mandatory--take the census, for example ("The actual Enumeration shall be made..."). They didn't make this mandatory. It also makes no sense that "mak[ing] all laws ... necessary and proper" would be mandatory, because who decides what is necessary and proper? That would be a political question that the courts wouldn't touch. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No one really knows because this has never happened. I think it's common in states where the state constitution requires the government to do this or that to get a writ of mandamus from a court ordering the country to do that thing. If this were to end up in court, I don't think the ACLU would be the plaintiff because they don't generally deal with fiscal issues. It's more likely it would be an owner of Treasuries that would sue the government. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the executive and the legislature in these matters. It is very common for a constitution to require the executive to do certain things and a writ of mandamus can be used to force them to do it. I don't think it is at all common for a constitution to require the legislature to pass certain legislation. There would be no point in such a clause - just put whatever would have been in the legislation directly into the constitution. --Tango (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Courts have required legislatures to do stuff on occasion, such as when they rule that a state isn't fulfilling its constitution's requirements on education. This happened in New Jersey, for example. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The ultra-rightwing contingent of the Court, who put GW Bush in the White House,("Bush v Gore) and who issued the "Citizens United" ruling on behalf of corporations, are extremely unlikely to get in the way of the Tea Party zealots in Congress. A writ of mandamus is more likely to be issued by a judge to make an official do something he is required by statute to do, but he just doesn't want to do. An example might be to force a Clerk to issue a marriage license for a gay couple in a state where such marriages have become legal, or to force a racist Clerk to register a minority person to vote, or to force a city to issue a building permit for a mosque which meets all legal requirements, or to force a school district to register minority students to attend public schools. Edison (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice that the article I linked above is by one of the country's leading liberal scholars. It's not just "ultra-rightwing" judges who would refuse to issue a writ of mandamus like this- no one would, because it would make no sense. (There's no way this case would ever get to the Supreme Court anyways - it would undoubtedly lose in the lower court, and SCOTUS would never take the appeal.) The best argument for the unconstitutionality of the debt limit is based on the 14th amendment, not Congress's enumerated powers. That argument is at least somewhat plausible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern California corporations

Need a list of phone numbers and addresses for Southern California corporations based in the Inland empire, LA and Orange Counties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belle voix (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

did you try the phone book? --Jayron32 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What's a phone book, and why would anyone with internets have one? Oh, right, they throw them on your doorstep without asking... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you live in the US, you can now opt out of receiving phone books. Save a tree today![5] Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ask your local public library if they offer ReferenceUSA, Hoover's, or similar directories. There's no comprehensive free resource. Maybe you can tell us a little more about what you want the directory for, and we might be able to help you more effectively. 99.17.204.52 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

rhubarb

Not sure if I am doing this the correct way, but here goes! I have been told that rhubarb (stalks) should not be used for consumpsion after the end of July as it is a bit dodgy healthwise. Is this so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.108.91 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Where? I've never heard such a story; the leaves are always poisonous, but the growing season (as the article points out) varies widely depending on climate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Small quibble, but the leaves are more specifically toxic. Googlemeister (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone confused rhubarb with pokeweed? The two share some very superficial similarities, especially late in the season, where both have red stems and deep green leaves; though I daresay pokeweed is significantly larger and bushier. Poke salad is a known foodstuff, but requires careful preparation due to the inherant toxicity of pokeweed; usually only young poke is used so perhaps that is the source of the late-season prohibition here? Just a WAG. --Jayron32 19:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this is because the stalks, if not used when young, grow tough and inedible? There is, apparently some oxalic acid in the stalks to start with - it's what gives rhubarb its characteristic acidity. In the leaves it is concentrated in toxic proportions. It's possible therefore that older stalks also have higher concentrations of oxalic acid, but not as much as in the leaves. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any support for that theory online, but it's hard to prove a negative. I'm originally from Alaska, where there's a late growing season. Pretty sure we ate rhubarb picked after the end of the July all the time, but I guess I can't be positive. (Also, I suppose the deadline for picking could depend on the climate?) Anyways, even the leaves aren't that toxic - according to our article, you'd have to eat 5 kg of them to reach a fatal dose. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I eat new shoots of rhubarb picked in August and even at the beginning of September. The taste gradually changes as the season progresses, and earlier stalks certainly have a better flavour. Dbfirs 06:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are they sold with the leaves on, if they're at least inadvisable for consumption? Why aren't the leaves removed prior to sale? Why do we have to pay for stuff we have to throw out? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Try chopping the leaves off some stalks of rhubarb and then leaving the stalks for a few days before cooking. The ends where you've lopped the leaves will be dry and tough. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In the cooler climate where I live, rhubarb leaves are always removed before sale. Any slight drying out can be remedied by standing the stalks with their root ends in water for a few hours. Dbfirs 06:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, in the US (currently New England, previously Alaska), I've never seen rhubarb sold with the leaves still on. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think you pay extra for the leaves? If anything, you would have to pay extra for someone to go to the effort of cutting them off. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Produce is typically sold by weight. If the leaves are on, you're paying for them. However, if the leaves were cut off previously, I assume wholesalers (and therefore grocers) would just charge more for the stalks to compensate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they usually charge MORE than enough per pound to compensate for the labor. Taking a different item for comparison; I can buy a whole chicken for about one dollar per pound. If I buy boneless/skinless breasts of chicken, I pay 4 dollars per pound. In order to break even, that would imply that my chicken was 3/4 unusable material, that is patently not true. When I buy the chicken, even if I don't use the bones (not true, bones are very useful, but bear with me) it is STILL less expensive per pound of meat, by far, to buy the chicken whole and butcher it myself. --Jayron32 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But how much is your time worth? I assume the packaged chicken producers have to pay their staff. Also, are you allowing for wear and tear on your tools, and how much does it cost to dispose of the bones? DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am quite confused by your response. Are you actually claiming that I have some moral obligation to buy pre-butchered chicken just because the company that sells it needs to pay its employees? Why, in your eyes, am I not allowed to purchase a whole chicken and butcher it myself? Why do you insist that I bear some personal responsibility to the employees of that company that I be compelled to buy pre-butchered meats from them, instead of purchasing the availible whole chicken which is availible right next to it? I am thoroughly confused by your stance on this... --Jayron32 16:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading this, I think you are all violently agreeing with each other, but without noticing it ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I stand apart (as I am wont to do as I pass through this vale of woe). I never said we pay extra for the leaves, per Tango. I asked why we are charged for something whose only value is compost fodder. It's essentially no different from paying for oranges by weight: we pay for the skin, which (apart from orange zest) is routinely discarded (not into the compost, I hope, because citrus is too acidic for composts), but in that case it's inappropriate to remove the skin and just sell the pulp, unless it's canned. However, that constraint doesn't apply to rhubarb, because the leaves can easily be removed without doing any damage to the edible stalks. The growers can keep the leaves and use them for their own mulch or whatever, and we consumers only pay for what we can actually use. Win-win. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, so long as you're prepared to pay for the time and effort involved in removing the leaves, that is. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Even at my exalted salary (*cough*), the cost of my time in spending a few seconds removing rhubarb leaves is significantly less than the cost of purchasing them. But that still reinforces my point. I have to pay money for the leaves, then I have to pay in time (= money) to get rid of them. What a dumb and pointless process. I'd rather not get the leaves at all, and not pay at all, than pay twice for the privilege of throwing out that which I've just bought. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Or you can pay in money for someone else to cut them off. DuncanHill (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My point earlier is was that you basically have to pay for the leaves in money no matter what--whether you're getting them in the supermarket or not. A rhubarb plant will cost X to grow. The buyer is going to have to pay Y over the cost of production for profit margins, distribution, etc. No one is going to buy the leaves once they're cut off. So the leafless stalks should cost X+Y, and the leafy stalks should cost X+Y. If rhubarb is priced by weight, you would expect the leafless stalks to be more expensive to compensate (and probably more than compensate, because you have the new expense of cutting off the leaves). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) In the UK you can get rhubarb without leaves in supermarkets, and rhubarb with leaves in smaller shops and street markets. Same with carrots. Fresh shiny leaves make the rhubarb look good for the customers. In gardens where rhubarb is grown out of doors, you get fewer new stems as the summer goes on and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there was more oxalic acid in them. The North of England is known for its forced rhubarb in early spring, finished in sheds without light. Rhubarb in supermarkets is presumably mass grown in identical conditions throughout the year. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I remember the childhood mythology of Indian Inkweed berries being poisonous, and remember assuming the plant's warnificatory coloration color confirmed this. Reading the article on pokeweed was enlightening. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

July 27

Implied Warranty of ---HABITABILITY

I would appreciate having any of the legal citations statements or sentences in and to the above article. Virginia is the main State I am concerned about. Or, the locations of legal articles and examples of the use of this legal theory against landlords. My complete contact data is:

Kenneth L. Waldron <redacted for editor's protection> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.67.66 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have redacted your contact info -- it's not a good idea to post that sort of info in such a public forum. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Googling "implied warranty of habitability, Virginia" gave me the following page. It contains many references and statements that may be useful to you. Bielle (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DANGEROUS NOODLES!!!

I have heard that noodles especially sold in India (I DO NOT WANT TO NAME THEM)can cause harmful diseases like Cancer because of the spice powder used in them.Is it really true...??? Please refer this content...Doctor's view is appreciated. THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.236.22 (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Its down to which colouring agent they use. See Sudan I. The UK the Food Standards Agency also states: “At the levels found in these foods the risk is likely to be very small” --Aspro (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want a doctor's view, I suggest you ask your doctor. You have no way of verifying the credentials of some random person on the internet. --Tango (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does NOT provide medical advice. It's against the rules. Some spices can potentially be toxic in very high concentrations; peppermint is one such spice. I'm afraid India doesn't really have an equivalent to the United States' Food and Drug Administration, so information about the contents of this particular product are not going to be possible to turn up. i kan reed (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...any food can potentially increase or decrease your overall risk of developing cancer by a very small factor. Try searching "noodles and cancer" on Google Scholar. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Levels of vodka distillation

So it is the end of our archaeological dig and so I decided to get our assistant area supervisors treats. One of them, a huge 6' 2" fellow whom we affectionately refer to as "The Bear Jew", I got a bottle of quintuple-distilled vodka. The comments from others were that "he is going to get fucking hammered." This leads me to believe that there is something about this level of distillation that makes it more potent than less distilled (triple and such). I know nothing about vodka, so could someone enlighten me as to the different levels of distillation and what are the differences between them? What is the difference between triple and quintuple except the obvious {number of times they have been distilled}, and why is it this quintuple is going to most likely get this fine fellow drunk enough to do karaoke more so than a lower level (by which I mean make him very very drunk)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to go by what ABV or Proof percentage is printed on the label to guide you to the strength, because although 4x distillation can produce high ethanol concentrations, the main aim of multiple distillations is to get a cleaner taste. Therefore, some 4x is diluted down again. SeeVodka#Distilling_and_filtering After many years of practice I too can not drink pure XXXX vodka without getting hammered, but as practice make perfect - I will persist. --Aspro (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if it has a cleaner taste, it may just make it easier/more pleasurable to drink more of it, and therefore get more drunk. —Akrabbim^talk 20:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically marketing nonsense. Pure vodka is simply pure alcohol--no one drinks it for the "taste". Beyond the cheapest brands there is no noticeable betterment by repeated distilling. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstand the capabilities of the distillation process. Cheap American style vodka has no taste or aroma because it has been filtered out with activated charcoal. It is only fit only for teenagers to add to their lime cordials. It is not the distillation processes that does this. Subject a good brandy/whiskey/rum etc. to the same treatment and it would come out tasting like cheap American style vodka too. In Europe we often drink vodka cold and straight, in which case we want some of the flavours preserved. Depending on what its first brewed from, 3x or 4x distillation does this just fine. --Aspro (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Pure" vodka is usually about 40% alcohol, and yes, some people drink it for the taste. thx1138 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The taste? Of potatoes? With a nose that long I suppose you need to use a straw. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but calling it "American style" vodka is not entirely accurate. Absolut and Svedka are among the best selling "smooth" vodkas and they are both Swedish. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox. I think you've miss-read the posts or we didn't put it very well. Μηδείς appears to have only ever tasted American style vodka because most American vodka is too literally made according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives which defines vodka as a neutral spirit "without distinctive character, aroma, taste or colour." This sorry state was achieved in the US by passing almost any spirit through activated charcoal and is ubiquitous throughout north America. No amount of further processing can improve upon a dead spirit. Hence, I was showing by explanation that in producing true vodka, multiply distillations is no marketing nonsense as it produces vodka with some pleasant flavours and aroma that's associated with proper traditional vodka. This American way of doing things has been adopted by some other non US distillers because its a cheap way of making a tasteless ingredient for cocktails only and is what we in Europe mean by an American style vodka to differentiate it from traditional vodka - made to be drunk for its own sake. --Aspro (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You want flavor, try our latest export from Alaska: [6]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon, Julius Caesar and Jesus

It is said that Napoleon's religion teacher told him that Julius Caesar, whom Napoleon idolised, burns in Hell because he was not a Christian. How could Caesar have been a Christian when he died before Jesus was born? Was the religion teacher aware of this and using it to his advantage? Is this story even true? JIP | Talk 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Who says that? Christian teaching (at least in some denominations, I can't guarantee it is true for all of them) is that, following his death on the cross, Jesus "descended to the dead" and rescued the righteous that had come before him and hadn't had the chance to go to heaven. See Harrowing of Hell. --Tango (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So Jesus visited Hell and said "Anyone who believes in me and converts to Christianity can go to Heaven and be happy for eternity"? That's swell, but all this still assumes that before Christianity was founded, all dead people automatically went to Hell because there wasn't a correct religion for them to convert to. They had to wait anything from days to tens of thousands of years suffering Hell's torments until Jesus came along and said that a correct religion has finally been invented. If all this is true, then God mustn't be very logical-minded. =) JIP | Talk 18:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have maybe more trouble getting my head around the idea of idolizing Julius Caesar, who by my lights was a thug. But then we are talking about Napoleon....

Anyway, I don't believe any mainstream school of Christianity has ever taught that the righteous dead before Jesus were under punishment before the harrowing of Hell, though I'm not sure of that. One notion is that they were not in Heaven, but rather in a nice section of Hades known as the bosom of Abraham (Hades != Hell; Hades is just the abode of the dead). --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Jesus referred to Hades (Sheol) and Gehenna. When Christians encountered Germanic pagans, Hel (being) was amalgamated into Satan. Schyler (one language) 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian views of "Hell" are not as simple as "The guy with the pitchfork and horns pokes you while you burn", that's kinda the cartoony version of Hell. There is a wide variance among even mainstream Christian denominations over what Hell is, who goes there, and when they go there. If you want to know what the Christian view of the afterlife is from a theological perspective (as opposed to the simplistic view), the article Christian eschatology has some really good indepth reading on the issue. --Jayron32 20:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether the story is true, but you should note that basic Christian theology is that every human since Adam and Eve has deserved to go to Hell, due to inheriting the sin of Adam and Eve. It is only the sacrifice of Christ that saves those who have faith, not any sort of acquired merit. According to that doctrine, if pre-Christian pagans all went to Hell, it is only what they deserved. (Dante, by the way, placed the righteous pagans in the "first circle" of Hell, where they do not experience torments.) Looie496 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the story itself. This is supposed to have happened at the military school at Brienne-le-Château. In Napoleon: A Political Life by Steven Englund: "Even the Catholic teaching orders could not stop themselves: their monks were constantly accenting the stories and characters of Plutarch, Nepos (author of On Illustrious Men), Livy, Virgil, Cicero, etc., while at the same time ruing that these pre-Christian souls were all consigned to hell or limbo (a contradiction that sufficed to make the adolescent Napoleon lose his faith)." And in A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson: "Napoleon claimed that he personally had lost his faith by the time he was eleven. This occurred after learning that Caesar and Cato 'the most virtuous men of antiquity would burn in eternal flames for not having practiced a religion which they knew nothing.'" Johnson leaves no room for the possibility that the story is apocryphal, but precisely the same story is told about Voltaire, so take it with a grain of salt. In any case, a relevant article is virtuous pagan. LANTZY^TALK 21:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All this talk about what Hell is like got me thinking, how do people know it? I don't think anyone who has actually been in Hell has come back to tell what it's like. Have people just invented all this? This then leads into another (possibly unrelated) questions, how do people know what gods are like if they have never met them? Of course Jesus and Muhammed and the like were real people (although whether they had divine powers is up to debate), but how have people figured out all the details about such guys as Zeus, Odin, etc.? JIP | Talk 15:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The theological answer to your question is at Revelation. In summation, people know about pure faith-based information (like the nature of heaven and hell, or the status of Jesus, or the details of the Book of Mormon or the Quran or other texts) because God revealed the information to people. How did Moses know what God's law was supposed to be? God told him. How did Mohammad know to write the Quran? God told him. --Jayron32 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and in the case of Mohammed, occasionally Satan. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

July 28

jim and mary mccartney article

I am writing to inquire whether Sir Paul's father was one of the witnesses in the case of R v Wallace, the famous Liverpool murder case from 1931; I had heard this many years ago, but neither the Wallace nor James McCartney articles mention this information. It is basically a sidelight to both stories, but interesting from a "who'da thunk it" standpoint. Has SPM ever referenced this?Kleegish (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One of Wallace's chess league friends was called McCartney, whom Wallace beat on the fatal night. However unless Google Books is hiding it, he doesn't seem to have been called as a witness at the trial and none of the books about the case make a link with Jim McCartney father of Paul. It may just be a coincidence of a surname and a city. Also note that Jim McCartney was a working class man in the cotton trade and that in 1931 social class divisions would not usually have led him to socialise with the middle class insurance salesman William Herbert Wallace. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't know about his mate at the chess club; I was referring to having heard that when the Old Bill canvassed the tram stops between Wallace's home and Menlove Av, James McCartney verified that he had spoken to Wallace, who had asked him the quickest route to Menlove Av. Of course, this tended to corroborate Wallace's alibi, so of course the prosecution didn't call McCartney to give evidence; I didn't mean to imply that he had done. It was the fact that Wallace had appeared to ask several people for directions that raised greater suspicion of him than the coppers already had; they thought he was trying to be too conspicuously establishing the alibi. Of course, this implies that either Mrs Wallace was dead when he left, or Wallace had a confederate. The police went with the former because they couldn't turn up anything on the latter. Say-- do you think we can get UCOS on the case?Kleegish (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WBC and the Norway attacks

The Westboro Baptist Church surpassed my expectations with its reaction to the 2011 Norway attacks, claiming that the killings were justified because God was avenging an entirely unrelated event in the US Army: [7]. Are these people for real? Have they no shame? Has there ever been a tragedy so horrific that the WBC would express their condolence instead of celebrating it? 194.100.223.164 (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

They are for real. Their beliefs are on the extreme edges of Christianity, promoting God as jealous, vengeful and random above loving his creation (Disclaimer I am not a Christian) -- Q Chris (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with this characterisation of their version of Christianity (to which I, too, do not adhere). In addition, however, some have put forward evidence and arguments to suggest that, aside from their religious beliefs, the family at the centre of the WBC are primarily engaging in a deliberate legal strategy, in which by being outrageously but legally provocative, they goad their targets into understandable but illegal retaliation, and then profit from sueing them. More specific details can doubtless be found via the usual search engines. 90.201.110.2 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If the WBC is a Christian group at all, then they are probably toward the extreme edge of fundamentalism, spewing hate over countries and world events. The Norway terror attacks themselves remind me of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the 2010 Austin plane crash. Extremism, violent or otherwise, is present in all religious and ideological belief systems. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The WBC's and the Glen Becks of the world serve the purpose of making most of the rest of us feel reasonable and sane in our viewpoints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pricing antique car, in pieces.

Hello, I'm trying to roughly asses the value of a car that I've inherited. It is a 1939 Chevrolet coupe, consisting at minimum of full body, full frame, four wheels, all in good condition (maybe good end of 'fair'). I may have engine, seats, etc, but not sure until I can investigate in person. Can anyone help me find a baseline price for the body, frame and wheels? Estimates for a complete car in pieces are also welcome. I've done some searching and only found people selling small parts of this car, not all/most of it in pieces. Thanks in advance, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

With something that unique, you will almost certainly need a professional appraisal from an appraiser specialising in that market. You have something that has almost no value to the vast majority of people, but probably a great deal of value to a few. You're essentially paying the appraiser to find "the few."12.186.80.1 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You can see a variety of '39 Chevys on eBay. Complete running examples run from $10k-35k. I'd say a restoration project like the one you describe would be worth about $2-3k, depending the condition of the parts. --Daniel 17:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the kind of educated guess I was hoping for. Further thoughts still appreciated! SemanticMantis (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

saltires in Japan

Watching Kurosawa's Drunken Angel I noticed, not for the first time, that one panel of a paper door was marked with a saltire. Why? —Tamfang (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some shōji do not have catches on both sides of the frame. These shoji have catches, but these don't. One side of the door is entirely covered by paper and you cannot use the mutins to slide the door from the covered side. See this. I think this is what you watched in the film. It's a catch to slide the door from the covered side. This might be more understandable, but beware of the music. The catch uses two sheets of paper, so it's more durable. The covered side paper should be cut X and paste the four triangles to the paper on the other side. Oda Mari (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Government Spending

Does anyone in the Government keep tract of the value, success, worth and accomplishments all of the official “Entitlement” programs the Government fosters and supports? Does anyone actually ever summarize these programs with published results that people can view and understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the highest paid (individual’s) hourly salary amount that is paid in the US? Could the Fed Trade Commission enter the arena to dictate certain salaries are excessive in light of money & value, compared to hourly worth of services provided? Compensation and benefits packages over 300K seem excessive. Could such salaries ever be outlawed here in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't respond usefully to a barrage of questions like this. Which one is the most important to you? Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How much is the cost to the American public for the unresolved massive US Immigration Problem? How much is the cost of Public Assistance and Public Welfare costing the American Public? How much will this cost increase should the economy continue to stagger along without sufficient growth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above, there is no way to give a useful response to a barrage of questions, especially when they are so broad. I wonder, though, if you are really even interested in an answer, or are just soapboxing. Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of these questions call for opinion and/or speculation, and are therefore inappropriate here. —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States should answer one question. United States welfare state may also be useful. As to whether the US could impose a maximum salary cap, if a minimum wage is deemed constitutional, maybe a maximum would be too, but as far as I know this has never been implemented or seriously discussed, so there is unlikely to be a clear answer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As an occasional visitor to American shores (but obviously no expert on the economy), one cannot help observing the massive number of people of probably Mexican background in the worst paid service jobs. Who would do those jobs if the financially desperate immigrants (legal or illegal) weren't there? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this website (http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/). In terms of some of your questions it will show the vast difference in budgets made available between the various departments - in particular - and trying not to too political - how different the budget is for public assistance/welfare compared to departments such as Defense. ny156uk (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and obviously there are huge amounts of research into the effectiveness of different welfare programmes, but as others have noted it's a huge area so you'd need to be more specific. As a start of 10,000 here's a google scholar search http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=effectiveness+of+US+welfare+system&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart ny156uk (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Connecting TV, VCR, and STB with SCART

Here in the UK I have a TV, a VCR, and a set top box. The TV has two SCART sockets and one coaxial socket. The VCR has two SCART sockets and two coaxial sockets. The set top box has one SCART socket and two coaxial sockets.

Does anyone have any idea of the best way to connect them? I would like to use the VCR to play or record. Bear in mind that analogue is being switched off soon. 92.24.133.177 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want the VCR to be able to record digital TV, it needs to be connected to the set top box. That means your only option is to connect the set top box to connect the coaxial cable from your aerial to the set top box, then connect the set top box to the VCR by SCART and then the VCR to the TV by SCART. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This is a common set-up and it works fine for me. Unfortunately scart connectors have design flaws so it's worth ensuring you get good quality connectors and that they are perfectly aligned horizontally (I have a deck of cards supporting the cable) and pushed firmly home.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This connection diagram (from Sony) shows a typical recommended connection layout similar to your situation (just ignore the DVD). Those connections will let you record and watch different things so long as one is on analogue and the other is the output from the set top box. After analogue is switched off, you will only be able to record what you are watching from the set top box. VCR playback will be through the SCART channel (often called AV1) or through the analogue signal as output by the VCR (often channel 39). Astronaut (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, despite your link giving every combination you can think of, all the STBs have two SCART sockets, while mine only has one. I have to keep changing the SCART plug when I want to watch TV or the VCR. I've tried using a two-to-one socket, but the VCR intereferes with the STB signal even when I'm not playing a tape. 92.29.124.70 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If you connect aerial to STB to VCR to TV in one long chain, as I described, you should be able to record and watch TV at the same time (although, you'll have to record and watch the same channel). The VCR will pass the signal through to the TV. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've written down what the various SCART sockets say: for the STB its "SCART out", for the VCR its "Euro AV1" and "Euro AV2", for the TV "AV SCART" and "DVD SCART". The TV has a built in DVD.

I'm not convinced that the VCR can take SCART as input. That may be the break in the chain. However I will try tinkering with it again. Update: I have done everything I can think of to connect them in a chain as suggested, including retuning the VCR, but I cannot get them to work. The VCR instructions included a couple of pages on using a STB, but I still couldnt get them to work. The SCART signal does not seem to pass through the VCR. Perhaps it will work if I use coaxial cables between the TV and VCR instead of SCART. I wonder if the STB encodes the digital outpuit for its coaxial output socket? 92.29.124.70 (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of war

Why was Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia written in French rather than German or Hungarian? --134.10.113.198 (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

French was the language of international diplomacy in Europe at that time. thx1138 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of war is the ultimate act of non-diplomacy, but the forms of these things are still often considered important. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Zhou Enlai said that "All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means." Saturday Evening Post (March 27, 1954) (A play upon the famous maxim of Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of politics by other means.") From Wikiquote. Rmhermen (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Along with that, it's often safer to translate such things into others' languages, to avoid ambiguity. There are a number of cases where ambiguity about translating into another's language has led to diplomatic issues — notably the interpretation of Japan's mokusatsu. Translating into a "neutral" language can resolve some of these sorts of questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

French language#Current situation mentions its use in diplomacy briefly, but I'm not sure if there's a better article somewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

An equally brief mention at Lingua Franca. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Zhou Enlai was correct, and JackofOz is wrong--surprise attack is the ultimate act of non-diplomacy. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible Jesus wasn't real?

Is it possible Jesus wasn't real? I mean, they never found his body or his grave. And I don;t bewlive everything the bible says. 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. thx1138 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, we're only certain about the existence of a small smattering of people from that time period. There don't appear to be any written documents from his lifetime endorsing his existence. Early bibles as we know them didn't really appear for about 3 centuries. But then, what are you going to do with a body that supposedly just vanished into thin air? i kan reed (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To be picky, none of the biblical accounts have Jesus vanishing into thin air. Luke is the only gospel that's very specific about it, and has him rising bodily to heaven. Not that that changes the evidentiary point that the accounts are not subject to falsification by failing to find his body, no matter how thoroughly you look. (On the other hand they could be falsified, at least in their most literal meaning, by finding his body.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We have an article about this issue, Historical Jesus. Looie496 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Jesus myth theory. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, that Historical Jesus article is full of really really bad sources. The evidence is not nearly as credible as that article would have you believe. There's a lot of things stated as historical facts there that are more like "likely interpretations assuming Jesus was real". i kan reed (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to summarize, the overwhelming consensus opinion (you'll see at those articles) is that he did exist. Staecker (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, they haven't found the body or grave of Jimmy Hoffa or Amelia Earhart either. That in itself is not a valid reason to doubt someone's existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's a valid reason to doubt. It's relevant, at least. It's just not terribly compelling in and of itself. — Lomn 21:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of a body is valid reason to doubt they're dead, it's not valid reason to doubt they never existed at all. There's abundant evidence of the at least onetime existence of both Earhart and Hoffa. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And, given that one of the fundamental claims of Christianity is that Jesus is not dead, and his body left his tomb permanently on Easter Sunday, this is a pretty important distinction! 86.164.73.187 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I should probably also link to Church of the Holy Sepulchre, for completeness. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important. While the lack of his body does not in itself disprove his existence, equally it can never be used to prove any parts of "he lived, died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven". It's essentially irrelevant, because there are millions of people who were known to exist but whose bodies are no longer locatable; the presence of a body is not what we use to verify their life and works. Finding Jesus's bones now would more than upset 2,000 years of Christian teaching, but failure to find them neither proves anything about him nor disproves anything about him. It's all down to faith, as the churches have always said. On that score, at least, they're dead right. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see Tacitus on Christ for independant evidence written less than a century after the Crucifixion. This recent thread which discusses the same issue, has some other thoughts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no credible evidence his existence was a hoax. He used language whose meaning we have recovered from such things as the Dead Sea Scrolls which no second century faker would have known to insert in the Gospels as proof of authenticity. The gospels suggest Jesus' Jewish humanity far too strongly to support some Greco-Roman conspiracy theory. That a hoaxer would record such things as Eli, Eli, lama sabaqtani and "I thirst" as Jesus' last words is beyond crediting. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is a bit misguided. We're talking about religion, which is based on faith not proof. Discussing whether any aspect of any religion is possible is more or less pointless. I seem to recall that it is in the Bible somewhere that God said "proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." To the adherents of any particular religion, what their holy book or other philosophy says is the truth. To everyone else it isn't. You can believe that an undead savior can remove the evil force inside you if you just believe in him, or you can believe that a blue guy with a couple extra limbs is the leader of a whole group of gods, or you can even believe they were both messengers from the same God. This thread is essentially asking if Christianity is the one true religion or not. There is no answer to that question. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that quote about faith is from one of the Hitchhiker's books, about the argument that the Babelfish refutes the existence of God. (Man went on to prove black is white, and got himself killed in the next zebra crossing.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume that Jesus really existed because, were somebody to invent the Son of God, they would have invented a more powerful figure. That is, one who could have performed more impressive miracles and couldn't be crucified. Most of the "miracles" attributed to Jesus are things that would be relatively easy to fake, at the time. Had these been invented centuries later, after all the witnesses were dead, why not attribute miracles to him which couldn't possible be faked, like moving an entire city ? StuRat (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat along those lines, Christopher Hitchens has written that the strongest argument in support the historical existence of the Nazarene is the unbelievability of the nativity story. Had the character been created from whole cloth then he could have been from Bethlehem, whereas a nonexistent census had to be invented to match the birth of a Nazareth born charismatic rabbi with the prophecies. -- 203.82.93.27 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens discuss it midway thought this video. -- 203.82.93.27 (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to answer this question is to ask back which parts of The Bible the OP does put faith in. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 02:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm*

No serious scholar has supported the theory that Jesus didn't exist in over 50 years.AerobicFox (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How about, for example, George Albert Wells. Or would you claim that anyone who supports the theory is by definition not a serious scholar? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.81 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's little question that Jesus existed. That part doesn't require faith, other than faith in what any ancient writings have to say about anything factual. It's the "supernatural" stuff that requires faith, most notably the Resurrection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I guess the short answer is yes, it is pretty darn likely that a guy named Jesus existed and that he had followers during his life who believed he was the son of God. Believing in what it says in the Bible is a whole other question that each of us must answer for themselves, there is no way the Wikipedia refdesk can help you with issues of spirituality. However you may find this [8] an interesting read. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to leverage a disability to get my student loans canceled?

Having Asperger's/Schizotypal Personality Disorder, it would be harder for me to land a job as recruiters are trained to pick-up all the telltale signs of mental disorders.

This way, I could be left high-and-dry on student loans. However, could I possibly use my disability to make a successful case of canceling my loans? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that your IP geolocates to the United States. Federal student loans can be discharged for "total and permanent disability"[9] but it would be extremely unlikely that you would qualify. It means you would not be able to find gainful employment in any field whatsoever. As I'm sure you know, many people with Asperger's can be successful professionally, and the disability standard seems to mean that you wouldn't even be able to work at McDonald's (and I'm sure low-end recruiters are not trained to pick up on these things). I don't know anything about Schizotypal Personality Disorder, so I can't really comment about that, but it sounds like you could do some sort of work. Considering it sounds like you have managed through college, I think it would be impossible to make the case that you're totally unemployable. (As a side note, I think you have more faith in HR folks' abilities than is probably warranted.) I imagine that any private loans you may have do not even have this very narrow exemption, but it would depend on the terms of the loan agreement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that student loans are among the most difficult loans to discharge in the US. They are the only loan category that cannot be discharged by bankruptcy, for example. I find it really fairly impossible to believe that someone who graduated college could have been considered to be completely unemployable from a legal standpoint. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for a pre-existing condition. I imagine there are some possibilities for injuries or other medical conditions causing total and permanent disability after graduation although it would probably have to be rather bad (i.e. even Asperger's/Schizotypal Personality Disorder arising after graduation is unlikely to be sufficient) Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Even death doesn't necessarily guarantee you'll be rid of a student loan; I don't remember the exact details, but I've heard of people's estates paying off loans. My contract basically says I'd have to be in a permanent coma before they'd even consider discharging my loan. My only consolation is that, if many depictions of heaven, purgatory, and hell are correct, usurers get sent to the 8th level of hell. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination by disability in employment in many situations, and it includes mental as well as physical conditions. So if you can't get a job you could try suing companies and get a cash windfall that way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the same thing at all, but there was an interesting article on "student loan insurance" in the NY Times a few days ago, which pointed out that mental conditions are usually not covered under them (which is different than a lot of other insurance, and potentially discriminatory).

I'm sure there are plenty of workshops, online resources and books to help people gain employment and/or deal with specific mental conditions, especially when it is not particularly debilitating. Try some online practice Psychometric Tests. I'm sure Temple Grandin would have some books, particularly for Aspies. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I do collections for the U.S. Dept. of Justice on federally guaranteed student loans. I was surprised to see a question in my specialty area just glaring at me. I would suggest you try to pay these off. They are generally non-dischargeable, they last forever, and it is not likely you would be successful upon a discharge exemption claim, at least based on what you have stated, though I can't discount that your disability could be much more severe than it appears.

• There is no statute of limitations. The 1991 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-026, § 3, 105 Stat. 123, 124 (codified at 20 USCS §1091a) eliminated the statute of limitations as to federally insured student loans, retroactively abrogated prior applicable statute of limitations, and even served to revive expired actions. See generally Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005);
• As to dischargeability, 11 USCS § 523(a)(8) provides that student-loan debts guaranteed by a governmental unit are not included in a federal bankruptcy court's general discharge order unless excepting the debt from the order would impose an "undue hardship" on the debtor. Despite the hardship carve out, very few cases in front of the Bankruptcy Court have ever successfully invoked this exception for dischargeability effect; and
• As to disability, 20 U.S.C. § 1087dd(c)(1)(F) allows for discharge of a loan where the student borrower "becomes permanently and totally disabled, as determined in accordance with regulations of the Secretary" which is a standard I don't think you can meet with aspergers. In any event, the administrative procedures for seeking a discharge of a federal student loan on the basis of permanent disability are outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, at 34 C.F.R. § 674.61(b), which section in turn refers you to § 674.51 for the definition of "permanently and totally disabled", which provides:

The condition of an individual who--

(1) Is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that--

(i) Can be expected to result in death;

(ii) Has lasted for a continuous period of not less than 60 months; or

(iii) Can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 60 months; or

(2) Has been determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be unemployable due to a service-connected disability.--108.27.102.61 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Delay, delay, and negotiate. Once hyperinflation hits, the debt will be meaningless. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

July 29

It it worth anything?

I have found an entire case in my attic of unopened fax machine rolls for the old fax machines where the paper is rolled off a spindle. There are 40 rolls and they're in shrink wrapped plastic, unopened. These must have been obsolete by about 20 years ago. you think they're worth anything because of the age, probable scarcity and because they're unopened?--108.27.102.61 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Type the identifying information into eBay and see if the product is sold there. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that scarce, I don't think - http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=fax+paper+rolls. Also, I'd question the utility of thermal paper that has been stored in an attic.m --LarryMac | Talk 19:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow. I see they're still selling this stuff. I can't believe anyone still uses it. I guess it's right next to the Apple II Cs, Intellivision game consoles, and 8 inch floppy disk display;-)--108.27.102.61 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

this source says that thermal paper needs to be stored below 80F and is still only good for ten years. If the paper is older than ten years or if your attic gets hotter than 80F, I'd just get rid of it, if I were you. APL (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to test whether the thermal paper can still be written on using a small Magnifying glass as a Burning glass. Playing this way may give you a happy fax life. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Or hit it with a hair dryer. Saw some neat effects done with thermal paper and a hair dryer in one of my photoshop books. Heiro 19:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup on television

Hello. Where exactly is the 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup on television? (I have Dish Network.) Thanks, An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried Fox Soccer Channel or Fox Soccer Plus? If you can't find it on television you can watch it online here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tried both, and the link goes to a video that says “This match can only be viewed in certain territories. As we cannot confirm that you are within these territories, unfortuneately you will be unable to view our live footage.” Thanks anyway, An editor since 10.28.2010. 03:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You can enter your type of service and zip code information in this Dish Network page to access their "Real-Time Program Guide".--108.27.102.61 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried, it doesn't work. An editor since 10.28.2010. 03:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just a reminder, but this question is still  Not done. An editor since 10.28.2010. 00:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the question title to no longer be incredibly useless. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh...umm...(to be “blunt”) then can you please help me with my question? An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

July 30

Dreams

Is there any particular meaning to hearing a song in your dream that you haven't heard in a while? 173.2.165.251 (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but maybe. It means that which you wish. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 02:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

{http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/classicdisney/adreamisawishyourheartmakes.htm A dream is a wish your heart makes.} Edison (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure modern scholarship is that dreams have no deep meaning. They are basically the residual effects of your brain running its defrag procedure as you sleep. They mean nothing. --Jayron32 03:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a straightforward counterexample. I think just about everybody has had dreams where you are urinating very copiously, and then you wake up to find that you have a strong need to pee. This is obviously not a matter of deep philosophical significance, but it's a pretty clear case of a dream that definitely does mean something. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, real life intrudes on dreams constantly. We've all also had dreams where sounds in the real world intrude on them as well. It means someone is talking to you while you are asleep. But it doesn't mean that the dream has any deep meaning beyond that. The point is that dreams are not a window into your psyche, not a means to unlock repressed memories, and aren't a key to a past life. It's just random nonsense, though sometimes you dream you piss on yourself, and you wake up to find that you have. --Jayron32 04:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(After edit conflict :)

Oh sure, and a dream about a repetitive electronic tone can mean that your alarm clock isn't quite loud enough.

I don't think either of these are in the spirit of the thing though. They're just real-world stimulus effecting the dream world. APL (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, there wasn't any actual music playing while I was asleep, I'm sure of it. But I heard it in my dream as if it were really playing, it was so clear. I could even make out the words and the riffs. 173.2.165.251 (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything. There are a lot of theories (explanations, that is) as to the biological purpose of dreaming, but it mostly comes down to the residual effects of the brains internal maintenance; i.e. as your brain works to sort through its connections, form new ones, etc. the result ends up being a dream. They don't have any deeper meaning; if you dreamed a song it may be just that it was time for your brain to clean out that closet, as it were. Don't attach anything further to it. --Jayron32 06:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You say that with such comfortable patrician assuredness, such "think-what-I-think-and-all-will-be-well"-ness, Jayron. Far greater minds than you or I (Freud and Jung, to name two of the best known) have ventured that dreams do indeed, or can indeed, have meaning in terms of symbolic messages from the unconscious to the subconscious, in amongst all the random cleaning out. It's like a faint radio signal just detectable in among a heap of static. Hearing a song, any song, is not the thing here; it's the precise, specific song that the OP heard that's relevant. Why that particular song? He/she hasn't shared the name of the song with us, and does not need to. But there will be something about that particular song - the words most likely - that have meaning to the OP in the context of their life. Only the OP can know what that meaning is, but there's some sort of message there. It's important enough for them to come here and ask about it, so it's not nothing. We outsiders have zero right to tell the OP to disregard it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hallucination of sound is noted as very common during Sleep deprivation, see article. The OP's second post indicates they want a diagnosis of their particlar dream which we cannot give. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dreams are not literally "meaningless". If you pay attention to the dream's contents and think about what's going on in your world, you can often discern the dream's "meaning", i.e. what it symbolically represents. I think what Jayron is trying to say is that dreams don't have anywhere near the kind of significance that is often attributed to them. They are merely your mind's way of handling certain things that are "on your mind" at a given time. Lots of animals dream. It's a normal function. P.S. There seem to be related questions on 2 or 3 ref desk pages now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from our article on dreams, Jayron32's view is by no means unanimously held. However, I don't think that any advocate of psychoanalytic dream interpretation would argue for a deep meaning in remembering an old song. It's more likely that you encountered something recently that reminded you of the song, or that you are remembering a song that you liked a lot or that had meaning for you. John M Baker (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviation for "friend with benefits"

I was told that for a friend with benefits there is an abbreviation, pronounced like Phoebe. Is this true, and if so, how do you spell it? --KnightMove (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Um.....FWB? Kinda obvious, no? Heiro 11:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

So then you can get a freebie from your FWB ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Consentration Camp names of detaines

'Bold text'Bold textWhere can I search the names of detaines in consentration camps in Minto NB and Petawa ON Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.171.202 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, Concentration Camps in Canada? If you mean normal prisons you could use the search function here: [10]. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I figured out what you mean, the internment camps during the World Wars? [11] It's doubtful there is a searchable online database of exactly who was in those camps. This site [12] has some statistics, but that's it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: See List of concentration and internment camps, section "Canada". Bielle (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How much does a bottle of vintage 1540 Steinwein cost?

See here:

"Four bottles of vintage 1540 Steinwein are still in existence," he said, referring to a Riesling from the Stein vineyard in Franconia. "A bottle of Steinwein was opened in London in 1961 when it was 421 years old, and it was unbelievably still alive and drinkable."

Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: A lot. Wines that rare are usually auctioned, not sold at a fixed price. With four bottles of the 1953 fetching £132 at auction [13] one would imagine the price for the 1540 would be in the thousands. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The bottle was tasted by Hugh Johnson, author of "The Story of Wine" at the offices of Ehrmann's, the wine merchants, in July 1961[14]. Possibly Mr. H. Joseph Ehrmann is the man to ask about the remaining bottles, and according to this he is to be found in San Francisco. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Check this out for some idea of the prices rare wines can get [15]. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bassoon players' headrest

While watching Prom 21 of the BBC Promenade Concerts on TV tonight (with Midori playing Walton's Violin Concerto) I noticed that the two bassoon players had some sort of headrest attached to their chairs. They were similar to car/auto head rests/restraints but had side pieces that covered the ears. Can someone enlighten me as to their purpose? I have tried googling a few phrases but nothing arrives and the bassoon article does not have anything helpful. (unless I missed it) Richard Avery (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

When I was in wind symphony at university playing Bass Trombone our section sat immediately behind the bassoons. Bassoonists have an interesting combination of principles used in order to play their instruments. Not only is there a single combination for every note, but some combinations can play the same note; it gets quite tricky to find the right note in your minds ear. Hearing a sustained pedal b flat behind you while trying to play triplet arpeggios is almost impossible. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 23:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

July 31

Rotton Milk smell from fridge

Where I work we have this rotten smell of Milk coming from the Milk fridge. We have cleaned the fridge 3 times but the smell keeps coming back. Last time we moved the fridge, cleaned the floor underneath it, replaced the drainage pipes (we didn't know there were there and so we broke them when moving the fridge), stripped everything from the fridge (removed all the sheffs, tuck apart the ceiling and back walls, removed the fans etc) POWER WASHED every thing with a brand new power washer bought just for this job, and yet a few days latter the smell started coming back. We can't think of anything else to clean in this fridge and the next plan we have is to simply buy a new fridge (it's that bad). I was hoping someone here might have a less drastic suggestion. Oh and we used LOTS of bleach (min. 1 full 2L bottle) all three times.

86.45.217.245 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me you need to determine if the smell is actually coming from the fridge or someplace else. The obvious way to do this is to move the fridge some distance away, let it sit for a day, and see if the smell moves with it. On a home fridge there's a drainage pan which gets some nasty stuff growing in it, do commercial fridges have those, too, or does everything drain directly into the sewer ?

If the smell doesn't move with the fridge, I'd look into the drainage lines more. Does it dump into a drain in the floor ? If so, the rotten milk may be down there. Pouring bleach in alone may not do it, because it runs right down. You need a way to retain it in there for a long enough time to get the job done. I wonder if there is something you could pour down, which would clog the drain, but then eventually dissolve and unclog once you fill it with bleach.

One other thought, the companies that come in and clean up black mold may know how to deal with this type of problem. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

question (old name of China)

1)what is the old name of CHINAMathematics2011 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how old, and who was doing the naming, and what they were naming. See a whole variety at Names of China, including the section "names in non-Chinese records". ---Sluzzelin talk 03:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed your question's title to no longer be incredibly useless. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In English, the most commonly used "old" name for China was Cathay; the name survives to the modern day in the name of the Hong Kong airline Cathay Pacific. --Jayron32 04:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)