Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Blanked the page
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/M}}{{pp-move-indef}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for accidental language links]]
[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]]
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums]]
[[Category:Wikipedia reference desk|Miscellaneous]]
</noinclude>

{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 September 13}}

{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 September 14}}

{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 September 15}}

= September 16 =

== Cars being allowed to drive through a pedestrian green light ==

In the European city where I live, there is this system in place at traffic intersections. Pedestrians waiting to cross the side street have a green man, meaning it's OK to cross, but drivers on the main street also have a green light, meaning it's OK to turn left or right into the side street. Drivers are supposed to stop at the intersection to allow pedestrians to cross. (I hope I'm explaining this clearly enough.) This system is not in place in the UK, and it seems a bit dangerous to me. Is it a commonly used system in Europe and North America? --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 08:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:In the States, at least in those states where you can turn [[right on red]], it may happen that pedestrians need to watch out for cars turning right (of course in theory it's the car drivers who should watch out for the pedestrians, but a sensible pedestrian doesn't bet heavily on that). I have never heard of anywhere where a pedestrian has a light saying it's OK to cross, across a road with a green light for cars going straight through. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 08:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::I think that's not Viennese Waltz means, but that the cars will turn right or left at the intersection and ''then'' come to the pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian crossing runs in the same direction as the car was driving before the turn. If that's what he or she meant, then that's the system in Sweden. [[User:Sjö|Sjö]] ([[User talk:Sjö|talk]]) 10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes that's what I mean, but Trovatore has also described it correctly. AFAIK tell there is no difference between your description and Trovatore's. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Oh, I think I see now. No, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the situation where (for example) a pedestrian wants to cross from south to north, on the west side of the intersection. That means the light for eastbound cars is red. However, in most places in the States, an eastbound driver can turn right (south), even though the light is red, after stopping. Of course the driver is supposed to yield to pedestrians, but a pedestrian traveling north still needs to make sure the driver has actually seen him before crossing. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 17:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:In most places in Europe where I have driven, exactly that happens; turning traffic gives way to pedestrians even if the cars have a green light but you never get a straight-through green light for cars and a pedestrian green light at the same time. The notable exceptions seems to be: the UK where there is usually a separate green phase for the pedestrians and no expectation that cars will give way to pedestrians, and Italy where many drivers seem to ignore pedestrians crossing the road anyway. At least it is not as bad as is often depicted in Hollywood movies where an American driver will almost run over a pedestrian, screeching to a halt inches from their legs with the horn blaring. [[User:Astronaut|Astronaut]] ([[User talk:Astronaut|talk]]) 11:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::It's the same thing, isn't it? It ''is'' a straight-through green light for cars and a pedestrian green light at the same time. Yes, turning traffic gives way to pedestrians but it's still a straight-through green light for cars. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I suspect Astronaut is referring to the situation where traffic going straight with a green light has to stop either for pedestrians crossing on their side of the road or at the other side of the road who also have a green light. This also seems to be how Sjö has interpreted Trovatore's comment and I actually interpret it the same way but maybe your interpretation is correct. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::No, it is not the same thing. How can you get this wrong when I clearly explained you need to give way to pedestrians when turning? If going straight, you don't need to give way to pedestrians because they are stopped by a red light - of course, that doesn't give you the right to run them over. [[User:Astronaut|Astronaut]] ([[User talk:Astronaut|talk]]) 20:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::::See above where I explain more carefully what I meant. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:You get the same thing in NZ although not just for traffic turning in to a side street but also a main road. You can see the road code [http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-driving/the-give-way-rules.html]. Nominally it applies to turning right and left (you drive on the left in NZ) but AFAIK, it's not particularly common for turning right given the way the signalling usually works, it's generally only for turning left. Note that a key point also is it's only for a green light not a green left arrow. You sometimes get signs which mention turning traffic gives way to pedestrians but increasingly (I think) they are using arrows to make it clearer. There will be two sets of lights, one with left arrows and one with normal circular lights (three sets if there is right arrows as well). If someone has pushed the pedestrian crossing, the red left arrow will stay on while the green light will come on, traffic turning right of going straight are can go but traffic turning left can't (well there's nothing wrong with going slightly to try and give room for other traffic to get past. The red left arrow will go off after a few seconds but the green left arrow will not come on. traffic turning left may now go but need to give way to pedestrians. Sometimes there may only be a green arrow or a red arrow but I don't think this is that common anymore. When there is only one set of lights, the pedestrian lights will go green before the traffic lights do. You get something similar if turning right where there are times you may turn right from a turning bay/lane giving way to traffic coming from the opposite direction and going straight through or turning left (green light but no green or red right arrow). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:In the US, at least, in general (state laws may vary from each other), drivers must ''always'' yield to pedestrians, even when pedestrians are in the wrong, due to safety issues. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::: Well, it depends on what you mean, I think. As far as I know there's no place that you can ''willfully'' run over a pedestrian. But there are circumstances, I think, where a pedestrian might be cited for failure to yield.
::: The biggest common misunderstanding in this area is what constitutes a "crosswalk". According to the California Vehicle Code, there's a crosswalk at every intersection where two roads come together at approximately right angles, except for the continuation of an "alley" (see [http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc275.htm here]), whether or not there is paint marking it, unless it explicitly says you can't cross there. A lot of drivers don't get that and will get mad at you for crossing there; they're completely wrong. But still, you can't just jump out in front of them without giving them time to stop (see [http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm here], not to mention common sense). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 05:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::Same deal in much of Canada. Vehicles may proceed only when it is safe to do so, even on green. In theory that means that if a pedestrian is crossing in the path, the vehicle is not permitted to go. For both left- and right-hand turns, the path must be clear for the turn to be legal, regardless of the color of the light. For a left turn, they may not do so unless the light is green and there are no pedestrians. Some intersections have left-turn specific lights. Right can happen at any color any time unless specifically prohibited, or in Quebec where it is not allowed on red at all. So even if there is a pedestrian walk signal, if there are no people walking, vehicles may proceed. [[User:Mingmingla|Mingmingla]] ([[User talk:Mingmingla|talk]]) 16:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::: Right turns on red lights [http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/grand_public_en/vehicules_promenade/reseau_routier/signalisation/virage_droite_feu_rouge have been allowed] in Quebec for about 10 years now, with the exception of the Montreal island. [[User:Effovex|Effovex]] ([[User talk:Effovex|talk]]) 03:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:The relevant WP page is [[Right turn on red]].(already noted by Trovatore) This is also allowed in Australia where a "Left turn on red after stopping" sign [http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/trafficfacilities/trafficsigns/images/r2-20_small.gif] is displayed. (not sure if ''every'' state allows it, [[New South Wales]] & [[South Australia]] do). See ''[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s56.html Australian Road Rules - REG 56]'' Specifically (1A). <small>₯</small> [[user:220 of Borg|'''220''']] [[Special:Contributions/220 of Borg|''<small>of</small>'']] <sup>[[User talk:220 of Borg|''Borg'']]</sup> 14:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::I suspect turn on red is not actually relevant to the Europe part of the OP's question - from what I've seen, it is usually controlled by a separate arrow. While the vehicle turn arrow is green, drivers in most of Europe are expected to give way to pedestrians crossing the side street, but in the UK the pedestrian crossing on the side street will show red. [[User:Astronaut|Astronaut]] ([[User talk:Astronaut|talk]]) 20:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

== Profits Bill W., founder of AA ==

How much money did Bill W. make from AA related literature or from AA directly?09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)~~ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/174.4.45.86|174.4.45.86]] ([[User talk:174.4.45.86|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:A good place to begin looking for copyright issues: [http://www.aa.org/lang/en/subpage.cfm?page=94 here]. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

== Shark size ==

My son constantly asks me this question and I am not smart enough to give him a decent answer. I am hoping that somebody here can give me some answers so it doesn't seem that daddy doesn't know. Any help would be much appreciated.

Why are sharks so big? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.158.236.14|217.158.236.14]] ([[User talk:217.158.236.14|talk]]) 13:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Not all sharks are big. Consider the [[Dwarf lanternshark]], for example. The size of any species is due to its evolutionary path. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, it's all about filling a particular [[ecological niche]]. In the case of the sharks people usually bring to mind ([[Hammerhead shark]], [[Great white shark]], etc.) that niche includes being an [[apex predator]]. Being large confers a variety of benefits, such as wider range of available prey, lack of predators, and increased ability to [[Thermoregulation|regulate temperature]]. However, the very largest shark (and largest fish of any kind) is the [[whale shark]], and it requires a massive size for much the same reason [[baleen whale]]s require their massive size: to house a mouth large enough to intake large quantities of [[krill]]. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 14:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

::The biggest White Shark ever was caught in Cuban coasts in the 40's (O_o) More than 20 ft and more than 3000 kg :O <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [zootalk]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 14:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies. My son is very young, I will take this in and feed him a version of it that will make more sense to his young mind. It's much appreciated.[[Special:Contributions/217.158.236.14|217.158.236.14]] ([[User talk:217.158.236.14|talk]]) 15:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Depending on his age, it opens all kinds of potential doors of discussion about the balance of nature, why there are lots more prey than predators, why predators have binocular vision, and all manner of other stuff. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:If he's too young to understand anything else, you could radically simplify it to "sharks are big because they have lots of healthy food to eat, which makes them grow big and strong". And this is basically correct, in that a lack of food often produces dwarf species. As a side benefit, this might help you get him to eat healthy food. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 06:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::So when the kid asks, "Do they like broccoli?" The father would have to lie a bit and say, "They ''love'' broccoli." Hey, that's how parents got their kids to eat spinach: "Look what it does for Popeye!" ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::<small>I '''really love''' broccoli and spinach :D</small> <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [zootalk]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:::<small>There's a better way to get little boys to eat broccoli, you tell them the broccoli stalks are trees and that if they can eat them, then they must be a real live dinosaur. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 03:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC) </small>

::<small>Does that mean you're the size of a small shark? :D</small> [[User:Lemon martini|Lemon martini]] ([[User talk:Lemon martini|talk]]) 22:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
<small>No [[User:Lemon martini|Lemon martini]], I am not... :D</small><span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [zootalk]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 12:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

: "They eat other fish and have to be big enough to catch them." (Personally, I think it's good if "Daddy doesn't know" is the answer to some questions - you're never going to be some omniscient god to him - and it should lead into a "So how can we find out?" kind of discussion, "Let's go to the library and find some books about sharks"...which will hopefully lead into shared activities. In this day and age, knowing where to find answers is more important than knowing answers. Answers are generally found in books and web-sites and that makes reading important and fun. My son loved that he and I were learning something together when that happened...we'd wind up bouncing follow-up questions around for days afterwards. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::I absolutely love that my three-year-old's response to "I don't know" is "let's look it up!" :-) He learned it when he started asking about the sounds different animals make, and we would go to online to find clips of things like koalas or prarie dogs vocalizing. [[User:Katie Ryan A|<span style="border-bottom:solid #88F">K</span><span style="border-bottom:solid #d5f">ati</span><span style="border-bottom:solid #faa">e R</span>]] ([[User_talk:Katie Ryan A|talk]]) 12:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

== What's the closest outlet seaport to Kazakhstan for the vehicles/goods coming from North America? ==

'''Kazakhstan''' is a landlocked country, and only has the port of [[Aktau]].

I made a search on [http://jocsailings.com/ Joc Sailings], and I not found the outlet seaport on that side. The website says ''"To Be Announced"'' (TBA) instead of the outlet port name.

According to [http://platesmania.com/kz PlatesMania.com], there are lots of [[Infiniti FX|Infiniti FX35]]s and FX45s in the site. Many people uploaded their taken photos to that site.

Here is a video of a Infiniti FX35 exhaust sound:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhVoWm3mL14]

In that video, a Infiniti FX35 from Kazakhstan, license plate '''Z 273 WHM''', is seen. I thought that it's imported from the USA, but it's a Japanese-manufactured car. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kiel457|Kiel457]] ([[User talk:Kiel457|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kiel457|contribs]]) 15:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:In the case of goods shipped from North America to Kazakhstan, they go by sea to one of the Russian harbors (St. Petersburg, Murmansk, Vladivostok), and then are shipped overland through Russia (normally via the Trans-Siberian Railroad). [[Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85|24.23.196.85]] ([[User talk:24.23.196.85|talk]]) 05:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

== Is "Brainyquote.com" a reliable source? ==

I have seen this website cited for quotations here on Wikipedia. Here is an example of the information offered on it [http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/henry_rollins.html Henry Rollins Quotes]. However, since the quotes themselves are not attributed to any sources how can "Brainyquotes" be a reliable source itself for use on Wikipedia? Or has this question already been decided? Thanks. [[User:Herzlicheboy|Herzlicheboy]] ([[User talk:Herzlicheboy|talk]]) 19:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

: [[:Wikiquote:Reliable sources|Wikiquote's "reliable sources" guideline]] specifically calls out brainyquote as an unreliable source, for just the reason you describe. Our own reliable sources noticeboard discussed the site [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 87|here]] and didn't think highly of its reliability either. [[WP:RSN|That noticeboard]], not this one, is the appropriate venue for further discussions of the site. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]]'''ჷ'''[[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 20:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

::Feel free to find quotes there, then simply verify them to a source and quote that source. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

== Web Cite ==

Now that [[WebCite]] has stopped functioning, are there any alternatives I can use to archive references?--[[User:Ykraps|Ykraps]] ([[User talk:Ykraps|talk]]) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

== winter 2012-2013 in the US ==

Hello!


How can I get info on the last winter (2011-2012) in the US?


I would like to have a general understanding of how the last winter in the US was, including information like:
- which state was the coldest;

- were there snow storms?

- were there any alerts given out by the government in any State?

- were there days during the week with no school due to weather condition?
- were roads closed?

- how many cancelled/delayed flights across the US?

- In general, were there any severe situation due to weather condition during the winter?

Thank you! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/200.228.16.219|200.228.16.219]] ([[User talk:200.228.16.219|talk]]) 20:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:There are articles in Wikipedia about exceptional winters in specific places, but that's kind of scatter-gun. Where have you looked on Google? Have you tried the National Weather Service, or maybe even The Weather Channel? We pay a lot of bucks to the weather bureau, so they had best have ''something'' useful. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::I will also mention that the US is ''very'' large, and the states that are affected by inclement winter weather are many, so some of these questions will yield a ''lot'' of data. Be prepared. [[User:Mingmingla|Mingmingla]] ([[User talk:Mingmingla|talk]]) 00:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:You can find the weather for a certain location and time here [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/], and also search the records in various ways. I was living in the US in that time period, and I can easily answer these questions based on experience:
:- were there snow storms? -- YES; - were there any alerts given out by the government in any State? -- YES;- were there days during the week with no school due to weather condition? -- YES; - were roads closed? --YES
:School and road closings will not be recorded in the [[NOAA]] link above, only the actual weather. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

== Facial expression ==

I know some people who pretend to hate me. However, when they see me, they often smile and their eyes become very small, indicating something like "I don't trust you". Is there a specific term for this or how would you call this? --[[Special:Contributions/89.14.121.0|89.14.121.0]] ([[User talk:89.14.121.0|talk]]) 20:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:How do you mean "their eyes become small"? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:Does "squinting" not work? --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 21:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry for my odd expression, I'm not a native speaker.--[[Special:Contributions/89.14.121.0|89.14.121.0]] ([[User talk:89.14.121.0|talk]]) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
*You may want to see a doctor. We are not allowed to give medical advice. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::I'm not looking for any medical advice at all. I just want to know why this is a common facial expression and if there are better words to describe this phenomenon.--[[Special:Contributions/89.14.121.0|89.14.121.0]] ([[User talk:89.14.121.0|talk]]) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think it is good-natured teasing. Am I right about that? If so, it is probably a common facial expression, but I don't know that it has a name. I am trying to think of better words to describe it, but so far I cannot think of any. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
::::No, not teasing. I am not sure I understand the OP's intent, but if he seriously thinks people are against him he should consult with a medical professional. If this is about some prank or joke it has no business here. We don't have references relevant to this person or his acquaintances. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 02:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::This was in no way a request for medical advice until you come out of left field to challenge the poster's mental health because he thinks some people don't like him... By my reading, he's asking if there is a name for the fake smile with narrowed eyes that geneally means "I don't like you, but I'm going to pretend for social propriety" [[User:MChesterMC|MChesterMC]] ([[User talk:MChesterMC|talk]]) 08:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:"He looked at me with narrowed eyes", or "Sam narrowed his eyes at Alice." I couldn't find any relevant Wikipedia pages, but Google and Google images support the notion that "narrowed eyes" is a term for a facial expression that conveys distrust or suspicion. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

::The Wikipedia page '''[[Smile#Real and fake smiles]]''' may help here as it makes a distinction between smiles that only use the mouth and those that also involve the muscles around the eyes.{{P|smile}}{{P|wink}} --[[user:220 of Borg|'''220''']] [[Special:Contributions/220 of Borg|''<small>of</small>'']] <sup>[[User talk:220 of Borg|''Borg'']]</sup> 13:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:::I have to say that in my opinion [[Smile#Real and fake smiles|that]] is not really applicable here. The person asking the question (89.14.121.0) is ''"not a native speaker"'' of English. The inquiry is for a name for a facial expression. (Another expression of the inquiry is when the person says ''"I just want to know why this is a common facial expression and if there are better words to describe this phenomenon."'') When the person says ''"I know some people who pretend to hate me"'', I am finding importance in the word ''"pretend"''. Therefore I find this to be a mock facial expression. I am coining the phrase "mock facial expression", but I would hazard a guess that any good answer to the inquiry would have to involve ''pretending'' to provide one facial expression while at the same time providing cues that that expression is not meant to be taken seriously.

:::It is a good question in my opinion because it involves the extreme complexity ([[WP:OR]]) of nonverbal communication, as well as possible cultural divides between commonly used nonverbal cues.{{citation needed}} I could be getting this all wrong. If I am misunderstanding, I hope 89.14.121.0 will provide further input. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::::This is exactly what I meant. Currently I'm very interested in psychology and communication. And yes, ''pretend'' is a important word in this context.--[[Special:Contributions/2.246.24.125|2.246.24.125]] ([[User talk:2.246.24.125|talk]]) 19:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:If you do a Google-images search on "fake versus real smile" you'll find lots of pairs of photographs of the same person smiling for real and fake-smiling. (My Asperger's syndrome makes it almost impossible for me to tell the difference - but I'm told that normal folk can tell fairly easily.) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

== Modern scripts ==

Besides the [[D'Nealian]] manuscript, what types of modern manuscripts are there? And how many people actively practice these types of scripts in everyday writing? What type of script do Catholic monks and nuns write in nowadays? [[Special:Contributions/164.107.103.68|164.107.103.68]] ([[User talk:164.107.103.68|talk]]) 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Does [[Western calligraphy]] help? --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Monks do not typically copy manuscripts in a scriptorium these days...but you can learn to write in [[Gothic script]] or any other medieval handwriting, if you really wanted to. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 00:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The ancient art of the [[Sofer]] is still alive and well. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

= September 17 =

== Leeches ==

How do fresh water leeches get into an Alpine lake?
[[Special:Contributions/75.37.12.197|75.37.12.197]] ([[User talk:75.37.12.197|talk]]) 00:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:Lakes drain by rivers, leeches can climb, both in water and out. They also hitchhike on fish. I am currently reading ''After the Ice Age'' by L. E. Pielou which goes into the colonization of lakes. A book on [[limnology]] (one of the most fun undergraduate courses I have had) will also cover this. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::I was about to add that they or their eggs could be carried on the feet of birds, but [http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_77/rsnz_77_05_010320.html ''A Review of New Zealand Leeches'' by L. R. Richardson, Victoria University College] says; ''"Although this means of transport ''(ie by birds)'' can be accepted for a very limited number of species, some other method of dispersal must be available to the rest. Migratory behavior has been shown for one North American species, giving an indication of the method of dispersion over continuous land masses; but the means of passage across salt-water barriers cannot yet be considered solved. Certainly, bird transport is not the solution..."'. The answer seems to be that nobody knows for certain in all cases. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 18:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

== Textile production ==

What kinds of fabric were most produced in Britain (and especially in Northern Ireland) in the early 19th century? Thanks in advance! [[Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85|24.23.196.85]] ([[User talk:24.23.196.85|talk]]) 05:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:I would expect [[wool]], but please wait for somebody else to confirm this. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 06:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::Northern Ireland was particularly known for [[Irish linen|linen]]. In the early 19th century it was produced at home by farmers, but by the middle of the century it had been industrialized - just about every town had at least one linen mill, and Belfast had dozens. Some links: [http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/886/the-story-of-irish-linen], [http://www.irishlinenmills.com/], [http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/the-belfast-linen-industry]. --[[User:Nicknack009|Nicknack009]] ([[User talk:Nicknack009|talk]]) 06:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:I can't think of a fabric that wasn't produced in Britain at that time. Linen was big business, as Nicknack points out, as was cotton. At that time, the cotton mills in [[Lancashire]] alone were producing more than 60% of the world's cotton.--[[User:Ykraps|Ykraps]] ([[User talk:Ykraps|talk]]) 07:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::So, wool, cotton ''and'' flax were all produced on a large scale in Britain, but in Northern Ireland it was mostly flax? Thanks for the info, this will help me with the research for (another) historical novel. [[Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85|24.23.196.85]] ([[User talk:24.23.196.85|talk]]) 00:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

== What do pilots do when their radio goes out ? ==

They can't communicate with air traffic controllers or airport towers to get landing clearance, so what do they do ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 11:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:[[NORDO]] talks about US procedures for that situation. - [[User:Karenjc|<font color="red">Ka</font>]][[User_talk:Karenjc|renjc]] 11:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::Couldn't they just use a cellphone?--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 12:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:::A pilot could use a cell phone but A) they'd need to know the phone number of the tower and that information isn't always at hand especially if it's a field that they've flown into a hundred times before and they don't have all of that fields info with them at the time and B) that would require something that isn't already on the plane, i.e. pilots aren't required to have a cell phone so the FAA or other governing body can't depend on the pilot having one.
:::If the radio goes out during flight, the NORDO article covers that pretty well. Though I didn't see where it mentions the practice of making circles in the air to try to get the tower's attention. While doing the circles, the pilot should be watching for light gun signals from the tower (light signals are mentioned in the NORDO article). If there is no radio, it's not actually required if the plane never had one to begin with (think old aircraft), then the pilot should call ahead to the airport that they intend on flying to if it's a [[Controlled airspace|controlled field]]. If it's uncontrolled, then they have a procedure for entering the traffic pattern and landing.
:::Stu, if you need more than what we're providing here, I can dig out my old flight manuals and get more info. I haven't flown for years but I think I still have many of my text books somewhere. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:This link "[http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atbarc/04-5.htm Lost Communications]", ''Air Traffic Bulletin''. Issue# 2004-5 August 2004, FAA seems to have all the relevant information.
:"If the failure occurs in VFR ([[Visual flight rules]]) conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable." The IFR ([[Instrument flight rules]]) (14 CFR(title14, Code of Federal Regulations), section 91.185) are rather long. ¤ [[user:220 of Borg|'''220''']] [[Special:Contributions/220 of Borg|''<small>of</small>'']] <sup>[[User talk:220 of Borg|''Borg'']]</sup> 13:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note that modern, especially large passenger, aircraft have far ''more'' communications equipment than just a 'radio' as the NORDO page mentions ''"Aircraft equipped with a [[Transponder#Aviation|transponder]] should indicate a NORDO situation by setting the appropriate transponder code: 7600"''. There are also digital no-voice systems for monitoring aircraft systems by their airline. Also used for communicating with Air Traffic Control, see [[Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System]] ₪ [[user:220 of Borg|'''220''']] [[Special:Contributions/220 of Borg|''<small>of</small>'']] <sup>[[User talk:220 of Borg|''Borg'']]</sup> 14:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so far. I didn't realize it was actually legal to fly a plane in much of the US without a radio. That seems absolutely insane to me. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 15:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Have the rules changed since 9-11 ? That is, a plane which goes silent now might well be assumed to be controlled by hijackers who plan to crash it into some building, so how do they determine if this is the case ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 15:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:I have a buddy who owns and flies a [[Pitts Special]] (which is beyond cool BTW!). His is classified as an "experimental aircraft" and has no radio (no battery, no generator, no wiring or electrical systems of any kind!) - it's perfectly legal to do that...and, no, the rules have not changed (at least in that regard) since 9-11. Technically, I suppose he '''does''' have a radio because he carries his cellphone (which he can use in flight because there are no other electrical systems to interfere with) and sometimes navigates with the GPS in his phone.
:There are specific rules about how to land at an airfield where there is a control tower - I forget the details - but it's a well-thought-out system. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::I've found it helps people understand it if it's explained like this: Flying a plane with no radio these days is a bit like driving a car without a seat belt. If the car was made before seat belts became standard or they weren't included from the factory, then it's perfectly legal to drive without a seat belt. If the plane was the same with regard to a radio, then a radio is not required.
::Steve, I forget the exact details as well but if the plane has no radio and is going into an uncontrolled field, then the pilot just observes any traffic pattern in use (i.e. looks out for other aircraft in the area and on the ground) and then joins that traffic pattern on the downwind leg. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::::But driving a car without a seat belt doesn't represent a danger to anybody other than yourself, while a plane with no radio can't be warned that it's on a collision course with another plane, has drifted into a restricted area, etc., and thus represents a serious danger to others. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 02:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::That's not necessarily the case. If you're involved in an auto accident and are not belted in, there's a greater likelihood that you'll be unable to maintain control of the car, potentially compounding the damage to other vehicles and humans. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

:::The gist of the IFR lost-comm procedures is, you follow the last instructions given to you by ATC, and then stick to your flight plan after that. [[Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85|24.23.196.85]] ([[User talk:24.23.196.85|talk]]) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
[[File:Damage to Echelon complex from 2010 plane crash.jpg|right|400px]]
:Planes that are small enough and old enough to have no electrical system would crumple like a paper airplane if you flew them into a building. I doubt they're worried about planes being hijacked into buildings. You could do more damage with a Volkswagen. [[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk:APL|talk]]) 04:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
::Like [[2010 Austin suicide attack|this one]]? (See image at right - damage done by a Piper Dakota flown deliberately into the IRS offices 9/11-style in Austin, TX back in 2010.) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I expect that plane did indeed crumple. However, it was also full of fuel, and presumably the resulting fire is what caused most of the damage, as with the 9/11 attacks. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Several hundred pounds of engine, moving at 150 mph and with a pair of handy scythe-blades rotating at close to the speed of sound on the front will make a considerable mess of most buildings. You may be unaware of it - but the 9/11 attack wasn't the first aircraft to fly into a major New York landmark. In the 1940's a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State building. The engine of that plane went right through the building (taking out several walls along the way), out the other side and landed on the roof of another building entirely! The kinetic energy of an airplane engine at cruise-speed is quite impressive. The idea that a light aircraft will crumple like a paper plane against the wall of a building is quite the wrong impression here. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I was going to comment on that at some point. [[B-25 Empire State Building crash]] As I recall, that crash also started a fire, which was soon put out. The most impressive thing is that there was relatively little damage to the building. I have to wonder, if the WTC towers had been built the same way the Empire State Building was, would they have collapsed? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

== Anglican and Catholic ==

If an Anglican man (who was previously married in an Anglican church) wants to get married again with a Catholic girl... Is that possible? Which church should they choose; Anglican or Catholic? Can he get married twice? <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [zootalk]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:With Anglicans and Catholics, you are talking about the U.K. and its current and former colonies. In the U.S., Anglicans are called Episcopalians. A couple can marry in most countries in a registry office with a judge officiating, and skip the whole "your church or mine" problem completely. In general terms, if a church ceremony is required, an Anglican church will have fewer hoops to jump through. The couple can have as many marriage ceremonies as they would like, but the first one that also creates a marriage certificate is the "real" one. I have family members married in a registry office in one province of Canada, and then married in a church in another one weeks later, as well as friends who had three marriage ceremonies in three different countries, in order to satisfy all family ties and religions in three countries. I even know of one where the man's divorce papers did not arrive in time for a huge, expensive wedding ceremony and reception. So, they hired an actor to play the minister's role without telling anyone, had the party, and then were quietly and legally married in a registry ceremony about a month later. [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:What do you mean with ''an Anglican church will have fewer hoops to jump through''?
:What about doing a ceremony like in "[[Freaky_Friday_(2003_film)|Freaky Friday]]"? What are the necessary things to take into account. <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [zootalk]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

: The laws vary widely throughout the world. In the UK, if you don't want to marry in a church, you have to go to a government run "registry office" instead. In the US, you need a judge or an ordained minister (although there are ordained ministers in the church of the flying spaghetti monster who will be happy to marry you!). It's generally agreed that on a ship at sea, the captain is legally entitled to perform the ceremony. But laws are different in different places. In most countries, there are many choices beyond purely religious ceremony - so people from different backgrounds have options. Of course whether the religion will subsequently recognize the marriage is anyone's guess.

: If this is for your story - and one of the parties to the marriage is a catholic - then there are bigger problems. The Catholic church takes a dim view of divorce and an even dimmer one of remarriage afterwards. Depending on the exact circumstances, the catholic church might very well refuse to perform the ceremony - and even if they would do it, you have to jump through a bunch of issues to get a "Declaration of Invalidity" (i.e. prove that your previous marriage was "invalid" for some religious bull-crap reason and get a priest to formally sign off on that) - and there all manner of weird loopholes and catches that may or may not screw things up for you.

: The Anglicans would, however, be more than happy to take on the job.

: For a story - maybe your happy couple are determined to do the catholic thing - and you can add more trials and tribulations for them...maybe some happy coincidence makes the church relent and to squeak through the declaration of invalidity on a technicality. A whole extra chapter there! Maybe the grief of the catholic wedding is enough to make them hire a row-boat with a captain at the helm who marries them on the edge of international waters. You can talk this problem up into any kind of complicated situation you want.

: Personally, being married by someone ordained into the [[Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]] (cost of [http://www.venganza.org/ordination/ ordination papers: $20]) sounds kinda attractive. You could have a friend do the job for you - which would open up all manner of weird and exotic locations for the ceremony!

: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::Actually, Steve, Ship Captains are rarely able to legally officiate marriages unless they have the appropriate qualifications in ''addition'' to being captain. [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/546/are-ships-captains-allowed-to-marry-people-at-sea The Straight Dope] debunks this, as do a number of other websites.
::Seems to me that smart ship captains could handle this if they wanted to. Nowadays it's so easy to get the appropriate paperwork from an outfit like the Universal Life Church or some such, they could make reality line up with people's expectations. [[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk:APL|talk]]) 04:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

:Great, you should become a writer :D... Religion and marriages and weddings are a tricky stuff. <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [zootalk]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::<small>(Already am!) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)</small>
::Again, thank you for all your help. Have someone already told you that you are great!? :D <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [zootalk]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 17:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:I have to point out that, while it is not impossible for a divorced Anglican to remarry in a CofE church, it depends on the vicar's personal choice as to whether it can happen or not. The blanket ban has ended, but it's not a given that anyone can remarry in CofE churches. However, it would generally be possible for them to remarry in a Methodist or other non-Conformist church. [http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/divorce.aspx Here's the official link]. --[[User:TammyMoet|TammyMoet]] ([[User talk:TammyMoet|talk]]) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::OK then - so we're back to the [[Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]]. I guarantee they won't have any problem with marrying this troubled couple! (Although they ''might'' insist that they dress like a pirate during the service and serve pasta at the reception :-)
::Speaking of which - it's International Talk Like A Pirate Day on Thursday! Avast! Arrrrr! (sorry, just practicing for the big day!) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

*For a [[Catholic marriage]] they'd have to ask the bishop's dispensation. Given an Anglican wedding would have been a Christian wedding he'd probably want the prior marriage viewed as [[Annulment (Catholic Church)|annulled]]. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 04:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

::The Catholic determination of annullment is really problematic. Our article lists possible reasons for annullment as:
::* ''Being too young. The absolute minimum age is 16 for males, 14 for females, but episcopal conferences can set a higher limit.'' -- This would put him in legal difficulties and label him as a sexual deviant...unless of course *he* was too young!--- '''(At the moment they decide to get married) She is 24 and he is 44'''
::* ''Antecedent and perpetual impotence'' -- Not in this novel, I strongly suspect!-- '''No, God, no!'''
::* ''Ligamen, being already married'' -- Doesn't help, now he has to get his OTHER marriage annulled too...unless it's his ex who was the bigamist! -- '''Nope'''
::* ''The situation in which one party is a Catholic and the other has not been baptized (unless a dispensation is granted)'' -- This one has possibilities. If his ex-wife is catholic - and if he's never been baptized - then maybe this can work?-- '''He is Anglican and his ex-wife is Anglican as well'''
::* ''The man was ordained to holy orders'' -- I doubt it. -- '''Negative'''
::* ''Either party made a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute'' -- His ex-wife was a nun?! -- '''Nope LOL'''
::* ''Abduction with the intent of marriage (known as raptus), is an impediment as long as the person remains in the kidnapper's power'' -- She kidnapped him! --'''Nope :D'''
::* ''Impediment of Crime, bringing about the death of one's own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage'' -- His ex murdered her previous husband? He murdered his previous wife?! -- '''Holy Gosh, no!'''
::* ''Close relationship by blood, called Consanguinity, even if the relationship is only by law'' -- He discovers that his ex is really his long lost sister! (oooh! ikky!) -- '''No, no no...'''
::* ''Close relationship by marriage, called Affinity'' -- Not sure about this one. He married his borther's ex-wife or something? This is complicated and messy stuff. -- '''I don't think so... nope'''

:: Seems like you'd have to work quite hard to put any of those into the plot without making our hero look like he's sterile or otherwise pretty seriously screwed up! The best option would be if he could demonstrate that his ex-wife was a Catholic and he was never baptized. But even then, he'd have to prove that - and it takes two Catholic courts to agree on this decision and they are picky, picky, picky! From what I can tell, it may take years for an annullment to be accepted. It's not going to be a spontanous wedding of the kind that plays well in the last three pages of a romance novel! Bottom line is that the Catholic church would fight this tooth and nail - and since our hero is evidently a man of some notability who's not a Catholic anyway, they'd almost certainly want to deny him his remarriage by any means at their disposal.
:: Seems to me like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster may be their only option. ;-) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
:::It seems to me the simple option would be if the character was not previously baptised and nor was his or her spouse ever baptised so could take advantage of [[Pauline privilege]] or if the character was baptised but their spouse was never so they could take advantage of [[Petrine privilege]] rather then worrying about getting an anulment. Okay the requirements would need to be slightly stronger than this [http://www.diocs.org/Portals/1/Documents/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf] [http://home.catholicweb.com/covingtontribunal/files/petrine_privilege_form.pdf] [http://diocese-tribunal.org/faq.php], for example I believe it would help a great deal if the earlier spouse clearly has no desire to get baptised and in fact thinks the whole thing is a big crock (for example they're a member of the CotFSM) and has absolutely no desire to live with the character any more (perhaps this exspouse realised they're a lesbian or gay). It would still take a long time and be a long convulated process, but my impression is the church would not really want to fight them on it provided it's clear that the marriage is a goner through no fault of the character and the exspouse will never be baptised. One of the intended spouses not being Catholic would not help, but I don't think it would be a barrier provided the kids will be raised Catholic. (Although my impression is that somewhat controversially, annulments seem to be granted fairly readily in some cases too.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

:: Oh [[User:SteveBaker|Steve]], I have split the novel in 4 parts, each one have their own plot. They decide to get married in the 3rd :D. I'll explain to you above... ↑ But, what about if they both have a deep faith, they wouldn't marry in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. '''¿(O_o)?'''<span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [hello, hello!]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 13:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
:::If she's a deep-faith Catholic - then she's not going to marry a divorced man - period. The catholic church is really, really clear about divorces being a huge "no-no". [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
:::[[User:SteveBaker|Steve]] so, they cannot get married, unless she is not a deep-faith Catholic... I wonder if I can mould my character a little bit? <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [hello, hello!]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 14:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

*My indirect experience with annulments is that the Church uses [[casuistry]] to achieve the desired end. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 16:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
**What about if they get tired of so much wait and decide to marry in the registry office? How is the divorce process/annulment for the Anglican Church? <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [hello, hello!]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 17:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
***Divorce in the US is a secular matter and a matter of state law. Nevada is famous as a state for offering a divorce even if only one party resides there for a week. People seeking divorce would go there for a one-week vacation and then show the clerk there motel bill for proof of residence. Other states then have to recognize the divorce's legality according to the [[full faith and credit clause]] of the Constitution. Churches can object and punish or expel their members, but that has no legal import. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 19:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
****The Spaghetti Monster seems like a ''funny way to have fun'' :) [[User:SteveBaker|Steve]], do they have to get dressed like pirates during the service and serve pasta at the reception or was just a joke. <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> [[User:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#000;"><small>'''Miss Bono'''</small></span>]][[User talk:Miss Bono|<span style="color:#c30000;"><small><sup> [hello, hello!]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 19:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

::: In the UK, registry office weddings (which is what I had 25 years ago) are completely non-religious. You get told how serious marriage is - that it's a legal contract. You get to say whatever vows you feel like saying - then you go sign some legal paperwork - and you're married - and no religious bullshit can say otherwise! If you wanted to have a religious ceremony, I believe most churches will do some kind of deal where you can re-affirm your vows or some such thing.

::: Certainly both divorce and marriage are secular matters. The church can't stop you from getting divorced. They could try to forbid it - or (as in the case of the Catholic church) refuse to actually recognize it - but that won't prevent your from legally re-marrying - and it won't necessarily prevent other religions from refusing to perform the ceremony. Similarly, you don't need a church to marry you. In fact, if you go through with a religious marriage ceremony with out getting a government-issued marriage license first then (at least throughout Europe and the USA) you aren't married.

::: But it's a messy and complicated thing. In Texas (at least) you can enter into a "common law" marriage just by spending the night with someone - providing you both agree that you're married. Many US states even allow for common-law marriage people that subsequently separate to file for "[[palimony]]" payments.

::: Another weird kink (again, in Texas - I don't know about elsewhere) is that in Texas, you are married from the point of view of the law from the time you get the marriage license - but you only have 7 days to have the ceremony performed (by a judge, religious officer or ship's captain at sea) or else the license is considered invalid. I have not idea what state that leaves you in! If you get the license but don't have the ceremony - were you married just for that week? Are you retrospectively not married? Eh?!

::: It's all a bit of a mess, quite honestly!

:::<small>But hey...this is all for a novel. Maybe our hero wants his bride to get her catholic wedding despite the protestations of the church - so he swoops in above the church in his stealth-modified personal UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. Leaving the aircraft on silent auto-hover, he [[Fast-roping|FRIES]] down to to land on a particularly ugly Gothic sarchophagus wearing his full, black Ninja gear. From there he dives headfirst through the 17th century stained glass window, finishing with a tuck-and-roll to the feet of his dearest love. He hands the bride a loaded Uzi machine pistol to hold at the Priest's head while he peels off the Ninja gear to reveal a (perfectly un-wrinkled) Armani tuxedo. Once the bands have been read, they leap onto the [[Suzuki Hayabusa]] he's previously hidden in the confessional and as they leave the church, he leans past her and uses a blow-dart to shoot the priest full of [[Flunitrazepam]]. As they leap together into his nearby class 1 offshore powerboat (he bought it as a movie prop from "''[[From Russia With Love]]''" - the director happens to be a personal friend) he yells "Your accursed Ecclesiastical jurisdiction will never catch us now suckers!". Finally, we see the confused priest stagger from the church, and at that very moment the helicopter runs out of fuel, crashing into the building to produce a gigantic fireball. The "[[Holding Out for a Hero]]" theme builds to it's climax. Roll credits, fade to black.</small>
:::<small>(This stuff just writes itself doesn't it!) :-)</small>
::: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

== Foo bird ==

What is a foo bird as in [[Neal Hefti]]s Flight of the foo birds.[[Special:Contributions/86.171.126.239|86.171.126.239]] ([[User talk:86.171.126.239|talk]]) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:All the google hits I get are variations of [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbowman/birds/humor/foo_bird.html this joke]. According to [http://www.google.no/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ct6t4TDce04C&oi=fnd&pg=PA141&dq=%22foo+bird%22&ots=BBqDJ_fq09&sig=0vJEp8IQccf7k-vceMW1ZvQGMhk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22foo%20bird%22&f=false this] I found on Google Scholar, what's supposed to be funny is the possibility of swapping initial consonant sounds in the moral of the story (foo shits/shoe fits). --[[User:NorwegianBlue|NorwegianBlue]]<sup>[[User_talk:NorwegianBlue|&nbsp;<u>talk</u>]]</sup> 20:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

: There is also a range of humorous terms that take the "Foo" or "Fu" suffix to indicate prowess - as a back-formation from "KungFu". eg "NorwegianBlue has GoogleFoo" - meaning that this person is very good at using Google. So I kinda-sorta wonder whether this is intended to mean that the Foo Bird is a very adept bird. But this is unlikely because it's a fairly recent linguistic weirdness and "Flight of the Foo birds" comes from the 1950's.

: Another possibility is that computer programmers often use the words [[Foobar|"Foo" and "Bar"]] as "metasyntactic variables" (don't worry about it - we're a weird bunch) - they derive from "FUBAR" - f**ked up beyond all recognition. A computer programmer might understand "Foo Bird" to mean - "any kind of bird you might think of will do here"...but, again, it's a bit of a stretch - the timing is all wrong and Neal Hefti doesn't appear to have come in contact with that sub-culture.

: However, the acronym "[[FUBAR]]" has been around in the military since at least 1944 - perhaps he originally wrote it as "Flight of the FUBAR" but cleaned it up to put it on the record sleeve?

: But probably this is just an invention by the Hefti - maybe he just liked the sound of the name or something? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

:SNAFU is a close relative of FUBAR and was already well-known by WWII (see [[Private Snafu]]). The term "foo" by itself has been around for a very long time. I would guess it derives from "faux" or "fool" (or maybe both). ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

::The "Fou" (pronounced foo) is a bird name in French. The "fou de bassan" ([[Northern Gannet]]) is the best known of the various species that bear the name. --[[User:Xuxl|Xuxl]] ([[User talk:Xuxl|talk]]) 14:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

::: Its mates are kept in a [[La Cage aux Folles|cage aux folles]]. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

: Another possibility is by analogy to [[Foo fighter]] - a WWII term for a class of unidentified flying objects seen from warplanes of the time. The etymology section of that article bears reading - I think it's probably the answer here. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 19:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

= September 18 =

== Prison Break ==

Who are the main characters in Prison Break?
[[User:Shelbywelch|Shelbywelch]] ([[User talk:Shelbywelch|talk]]) 01:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

:See [[Prison_Break#Cast_and_characters|here]]. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 01:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

== Prison Break ==

Who are the main charaters in the show Prison Break?
[[User:Emundt6|Emundt6]] ([[User talk:Emundt6|talk]]) 01:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

: Are you and the above editor known to each other, and has either of you clicked on [[Prison Break]]? -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 01:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:47, 19 September 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&oldid=573581733"