< September 3	Miscellaneous desk archive	September 5 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

< August	September	October >

September 4

I Need Help Classifying My Political Views

I can't figure out what word (libertarian, right-wing, etc.) decribes my political views. Could you help me please? Also I don't know what political party (U.S.) I would most agree with. Here are some of my views:

   -I believe in government-controlled industries and a government-controlled economy.
   -I strongly oppose the hippie movement(except I agree with environmentalism)
   -I am against freedom of religion
   -I am generally in favor of freedom of speech, but compared to most americans I am "against" it
   -I believe human rights in general should be "suggestions"
   -I am against democracy, though I am not in favor of dictatorships nor totalitarian regimes
   -I am against equality

I realize that the things I have listed may seem "harsh," but that is because I can't really think of many examples, so I thought of the ones I've argued recently(which are bound to be "harsher" than most). I think of my beliefs as what provides maximum benefit to the state, and I think of most Americans' beliefs as what provides maximum freedom for the individual. What word describes me, and what party is similar? Thank you! --Life 02:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist. Try Communist Party USA. You might have issues with the equality thing, but in all Communist states thus far, some people are more equal than others. --Mnem e son 02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any significant differences from Nazism, though I don't know the Nazi position on the environment. --Maxamegalon2000 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit Nazi, but then again a bit socialist. So Communist with Nazi over/undertones?--Light current 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me a bit of what Margaret Thatcher said about society, only in reverse: "There is no such thing as society. There are individuals, and there are families, that is all". (or something like that). JackofOz 03:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Light Current, Nazi is short for National Socialists, so I wouldnt be surprised if they were a bit socialist. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say National socialism, it sound more friendly. But doesn't give Fascism a better fit? --Lambiam ^Talk 03:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might happen (suggestions of Nazism). Forget the list of stuff, those are just fun things to argue. My core belief is to provide the maximum benefit to the state as opposed to the maximum freedom for the individual. All of my political beliefs are derived from this. What would you suggest I am? --Life 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist or communist--Light current 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your core belief is the state over the individual, then you're a hard core Socialist. The core distinction between Socialism and Communism is the state - I have a friend who fled the USSR who informs me that the reason it was the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was that 'they were living in Socialism as they built Communism, at which point the state would wither and die'. Try Socialist Party USA, but I think they might be too liberal for you. --Mnem e son 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure the SPUSA is not waiting for members who are against democracy and equality. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how User:Life defines "benefit to the state". In states that do not have a democratic political system, it tends to get redefined as "benefit to the ruling class". --Lambiam ^Talk 03:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Mnemeson, you have helped me a great deal. I do think Socialist Party USA is too liberal(in the U.S. sense) for me, but I guess I am a socialist. Hurrah! --Life 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Lambiam's comment, I don't mean just the ruling class, I mean basically all citizens. However, the redefinition is something I have not considered. (And by the way, I am in favor of something similar to democracy, just not outright democracy(For example, I like the idea of a consensus; however I realize that it is not feasible. I think that "majority rules", however, is bad. Once, when looking through Wikipedia about forms of government, I became attracted to Technocracy (bureaucratic), and I think that's the best thing I've found. Sort of oligarchy, but sort of democracy.)). --Life 03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on these two points?

   -I am against democracy, though I am not in favor of dictatorships nor totalitarian regimes
      Who is entitled to citizenship?
   -I am against equality
      What divides?

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Life is a bit confused ATM. Best not press him! 8-)--Light current 04:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What hippies? Aren't they extinct, or at least on the endangered species list? Clarityfiend 05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest www.politicalcompass.org, which, through policy related questions, will plot your position on the 'political compass.' Autopilots 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHECK YOUR USERPAGE

In response to clarityfiend, forget the list. Those were just things that I find fun to argue because of their shock value, or things I've argued recently. Many of them people are viewing as incredibly exaggerated from what I intended. Ok, I'll elaborate those two points(many of you seem to make bad assumptions about them anyway). First, equality. I am against dividing based on race(that's just a bad idea). However, I am against complete gender-equality(meaning that I acknowledge that women and men are in fact different). I am also against the notion that "all men are created equal", when, obviously, some people are born with defects. For example, I feel that mental retards should not receive education, and should instead do manual labor. I also feel that if someone is born completely incapable of work that they should not be a citizen. I feel that those people with ability should be valued more highly in the society than those without. As to democracy, this was only there to say that I am against "western democracies" where people spend lots of money running propaganda through the populace and whoever spends the most wins. And, specifically in the U.S., that two parties with almost exactly the same ideals are the only parties with power. I made a comment above saying I liked the idea of Technocracy (bureaucratic).

By the way, whoever said check your userpage is insane. I said I am against dictatorship and totalitarian gov't, yet they accuse me of favoring that.

Actually forget everything I said, because now I am starting to view myself badly, because I went "on tilt". My belief is that the maximum benefit to the state should be the goal of everything. That is my core belief, from which all others are derived. I believe that the majority of you believe in the libertarian ideology, which I am against. There. --Life 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try reading either of the books I suggested in answer to another question? They would help give some structure to your ideas which seem to be all over the place at the moment. What you're describing is most similar to Communism, classical Marxist-leninist views (I mean of course what the states actually strive for, rather than the things they say they want).

The main problem for you or anyone else trying to classify your views is that you say here that your fundamental ideal is the good of the state, but you don't seem to be clear what you mean by the state. If, as you seem to suggest, the state is identical to the people, then you're a Utilitarian (or maybe a Eudaemonist?), although that philosophy led to some rather odd policies and is too woolly to have much concrete meaning - it can be used a basis for diametrically opposite ideologies quite easily.

Btw, I'm opposed to democracy and in favour of some kind of elitist state (maybe morlocks and eloi? :) ), so please don't include me in your little tantrum! :) Rentwa 19:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to teach 'mental retards' btw. More worthwhile than 'normal' people I think. It's normal people who should be put to work. Exceptional people should be educated (they benefit most) and 'retards' as you call them deserve the best we can give them as their lives are hard enough to start with. I take back what I said about reading. You need to do a bit of feeling. Why don't you see if you can get a job working with 'retards'? After you get over your initial shock at they way they may look or act you might find it interesting to be with people who aren't clever enough to have suspicious, scheming, greedy, arrogant thoughts in their heads, people who just want to be your friend and tell you about stuff and ask you about stuff. It might even help you with your current difficulties :) . Rentwa 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, you just sound like an ordinary Republican, with a slight personality disorder. Either that, or you're a test to see how partisan individuals respond to a person spouting nazi-like rhetoric. In which case it worked perfectly, with Republicans calling you a Communist, Democrats calling you a Nazi, and the British, comparing you to Margaret Thatcher. Always happy to play guinea pig for some random person on the internet--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Kid Hitler to me. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, you're a Borg.
B00P 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No ofense, but you got some problems. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

orthobionic body person

Please, do you now what is He didn't pass his exams and will have to TA again.

And... whj is orthobionic body person?

You mean the Six Million Dollar Man?--Light current 04:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He" is apparently a student at a college or university. "He did not pass his exams" means: he failed for his tests. "To TA" means: to be a teaching assistant. The noun "TA" is used as a verb here.

Without context I can only guess at the meaning of "orthobionic body". It might refer to the presence of prosthetics. There is a German prosthetics company Otto Bock that has copyrighted the word "Orthobionic". --Lambiam ^Talk 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is usually only given on creative works, and I can't see much creativity in a word. Are you sure it's not trademarked? = Mgm|^(talk) 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a lot of creative work went into coming up with that word :) . On the page I gave a link to, they have "Orthobionic®", presenting it as a registered trademark. But on this European page they have "Orthobionic ©". Maybe a difference between U.S. and European copyright laws and jurisprudence? --Lambiam ^Talk 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THats good code breaking Lambiam! So what does this character want to know FGS?--Light current 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My code-breaking engine returned this:

Please, can you tell me, what is the meaning of:

"He didn't pass his exams and will have to TA again."?

And also, "orthobionic body" means which person?

--Lambiam ^Talk 05:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with going the extra mile in deciphering the indecipherable, but this one has gone beyond the limit. IMO, such "questions" should just be deleted outright. If they can't come to the party just one little bit, they have no right to expect any response at all. I appreciate this person has a limited command of English, but I would expect a better worded question from a visitor from outer space. JackofOz 05:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This hapless user entered the questions three times. Perhaps this was the best they could do. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well its not as if were over busy right now!. In busier times, I would agree with Jack--Light current 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budderghur

In the South Mahratta Campaign of 1844-45 a officer by the name of Percy Scudmore Cunningham was present at the taking of the heights in front of & occupation of Budderghur - I would like to know where Budderghur was and what it's new name is.

Judjing by the red links, so would we! Tried Googling?--Light current 03:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got one Google hit for one "Percy Scudamore Cunningham" being listed in the East-India Register, May 1850, as an officer of the Palamcottah Light Infantry, commissioned to the rank of lieutenant on 3 June 1845. Palamcottah (Palayamkottai) is in Tamil Nadu. We have an article on the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-1818), which is said to be "a final and decisive conflict between the United Kingdom and the Maratha empire in India" – which leaves me guessing what the South Mahratta Campaign of 1844–1845 was about. Based on maps (India1760 1905.jpg, India map en.svg), there appears to be no overlap between Tamil Nadu and Mahratta. One would guess that Budderghur was in the south of Mahratta, which however had a very large extent, covering more than half of present India. --Lambiam ^Talk 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Bodhgaya perhaps?--Shantavira 07:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit too far up north for a Southern Mahratta campaign. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial combat

What would be the likely result of a C-130 Hercules being attacked by an F/A-18 Hornet? It's for a story I'm writing. The Hercules has a valuable cargo, so the Hornet only wants to force it down to the ground, not completely destroy it. Battle Ape 05:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a military expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me the only way would be to v-e-r-y carefully disable a couple of the engines with the gatling gun. I haven't a clue as to how destructive a gatling is, but I'm guessing air-to-air missiles would probably cause too much damage. Either that or open the canopy, stick a revolving red light on the front and pull it over for speeding. Clarityfiend 05:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Aw, hell, there's a traffic cop behind us." "At 30,000 feet?!" "Must have a hell of a ticket quota." Tony Fox (arf!) 06:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A missle will certainly destroy the Hercules; the 20mm gatling could be used to take out the engines, but it could just as well ignite a fuel line and blow up the aircraft, or it could hit the pilot. The safest way to force it to the ground would be to fly up from behind and ram the wing. Raul654 05:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the "safest" way??? Could a Hornet fly slow enough to station itself just ahead of and above the Hercules, then gradually lose altitude? Clarityfiend 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mabye they could just talk to them, and if they won't comply, start placing bullet where (I assume) they won't do much harm (such as wingtips and stabilizers) to prove you're serious. If the Hercules is armed, there might be more difficulties. I wouldn't recommend ramming or any other body contact. In my imagination, chances are that the Hercules might perform an unexpected manouver and actually crash the Hornet! —85.225.228.114 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Hornet could slow to the same speed as the Herc. As far as ramming it... The Hornet pilot would have to be insane, IMO. Hercs probably have thicker skin than Hornets since the Hercules has a greater probability of flying lower to the ground in hostile territory. Therefore it has to be able to withstand small arms fire as well as that from high powered rifles without breaking up from just a few rounds. For a Hornet to be safer from other gattling gun fire, it would have to be up-armored so much that it would start affecting its flight capabilities. So, in conclusion, my vote is for gattling fire to the engines. There's a chance of more destruction to the Herc than is desired but it seems the best way with the limits of the original question. Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Battle Ape 12:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. The C130 has a stall speed at like 100 knots, depending on the weight of the valuable cargo you talked about, maybe 120 knots. Its top speed is around 300 knots, and since it is a prop plane, any maneuvering to go from onew to the other is going to take time. The hornet is a fighter that could fly circles around the C130, and out maneuver it any way. But it couldn't fly slow (under 150 knots) to pace the C130 flying slowly.

I think any attempt to stop the C130 risks destroying it. So, the main battle is internal, between the people involved, and not between the two aircraft. The only hope the C130 would have is if it used side mounted guns, such as a 40mm, or 105mm howitzer. Which could theorectically blow away a hornet. But, the limited field of the side mounted guns (30 degrees or so, below and to one side would make it hard to catach a hornet, and the hornet pilot would surely see and know about side mounted guns. Another option that might surprise a hornet pilot flying above and slightly behind might be if the c130 opened the loading dock door and used a shoulder mounted RPG or something like that. Or maybe some attempt at a roll to one side to put the guns in range, certainly avoidable by the hornet pilot.

Otherwise, the motivation of the Hornet would be to get the C130 to land without destroying the cargo, and so if the cargo were really that valuable, it could not afford anything other than warning fire without risking the cargo. Any attempt at minor damage would jeopardize their mission. The C130 crew would have to value their lives more than the cargo before they would comply and land it rather than risk being shot down.

I think there are enough interesting variables there to make for a variety of plot lines, depending on who you want to win. Atom 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be an RPG that simulated air combat. Rentwa 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume you mean a Role Playing Game and not a Rocket Propelled Grenade in this case. Dismas|^(talk) 19:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although there's probably and RPG that simulates RPGs. Rentwa 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I want is for the narrator (who is onboard the Hercules) to be forced to parachute out - whether from the cargo bay door being opened, or a hole being blown in the side of the plane, it doesn't matter. It would be preferable for the Hercules to somehow land and save the cargo, as well. Battle Ape 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ram a C-130. SWAdair 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I'm still making payments on my Hornet (those babies aren't cheap, you know). And whatever would I tell my insurance company? Clarityfiend 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the pilot is new enough to the plane he could try evasive manuvers in an effort to keep from being intercepted by the F/A hornet. This could, in theory, force the plane to spend so much fuel that the pilot will have no choice but to abondon the plane, unless he wishes to attempt a "controlled" crash landing. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House names in the USA

I do several online gift exchanges where I'm the only Brit amongst lots of Americans. Every time I get lots of emails telling me I haven't put my house number in-and I notice every American address I receive has one. My house doesn't have a number,just a name-this always seems to come as rather a surprise to the Americans.So is it just a British thing or do you Yanks have house names too? Lemon martini 08:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, except maybe some rich people's homes, like Monticello. An apartment complex or subdivision has a name, but that's for the entire complex, not an individual unit. So, what's your house's name, anyway ? StuRat 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all British houses have names. In the U.S., "The White House" is a house name. It nevertheless has a house number: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Likewise, Monticello is 931 Thomas Jefferson Pkwy. So yes, they have some names, but still numbers as well. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houses have numbers for a couple reasons, A) so that we can find the house on a map and B) so that when you call the police/fire/ambulance/pizza place/etc. they can easily find your house. They simply go to the road that you live on then go to that number. Also, because of 9-1-1, the houses are supposed to be numbered according to where they are on the road. For instance, 1900 Green Mountain Rd. would be 1.9 miles from the "start" of that particular road, 1800 would be 1.8 miles and so on. So if the pizza guy knows you live at 1900, they can go to the beginning of the road and then look at their odometer to measure off 1.9 miles and even if your house doesn't have the number on it or your mailbox is unmarked as well, they still know where the hungry people are. Dismas|^(talk) 09:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Dismas says probably applies to most of the United States, but it does not apply to New England, or to most of New York and New Jersey. In the northeastern corner of the United States, there are no comprehensive urban grids and very few grids of any kind. Houses are numbered sequentially along each street, but the house number does indicate anything about the number of blocks or the distance from the beginning of the street. Partial exceptions are the numbered streets and avenues of Queens and Manhattan, New York, but in Manhattan, there is no direct correlation between street number and cross street. Marco polo 14:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous post is quite wrong. In Manhattan addresses are numbered based on how far they are from 5th Avenue. Each block between avenues accounts for one hundred numbers. Thus one block west of 5th Ave (at 6th Ave) the address is 100 West X Street (X being whatever street you're on). 200 West X St would be found exactly one block west of that at 7th Ave. Conversely, walking east from 5th Ave, you'd find 100 East X Street at Park (=4th) Ave, and 200 East at 3rd Ave. B00P 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the postcode alone will find your house to within several metres, the address is relatively redundant completely due to this, but makes it easier for the postman. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the 9-digit Zip code serves the same purpose, although we tend to use only the 5-digit Zip code which corresponds to a particular post office. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That 1900 Green Mountain Rd. is 1.9 miles from the start of the road is only a very rough estimate. For example, in my locale (Minneapolis, MN) blocks are longer in the north-south direction than they are in the east-west direction. The north-south direction works out to be approximately 10 blocks/mile, but the east-west direction is considerably less. The numbers do always increase in the same direction though and even numbers are on one side of the street while odd numbers are on the other. The numbers are also spaced (for example, 3905 to 3909 with no 3907), which I assume is to allow further growth without having to renumber houses or have numbers fall out of order. In new developments, they may try to follow a more precise numbering scheme based distance from a known point, but it certainly is not standard across the country. —Bradley 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My house is Holly Cottage.The next one down is Woodlands,then it's Spindles and Monte Rosa.None of the houses anywhere on our road has numbers and that's not unusual,particularly in villages and rural areas.Often you have to drive along looking for the name.It can get very confusing-we have near us a Holly House and Holly Lodge too... Lemon martini 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found out that houses do indeed have names, not numbers, in the UK. But I've not heard of such a thing anywhere else. Maybe it really is just a British thing. JIP | Talk 11:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, who comes up with these names for the houses? The owners? If it's the owners, does the name change when new owners move in? Or are they like boats and it's considered unlucky to change the names? Dismas|^(talk) 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owners make up names, and can choose to change them. But if the house ever had a number, then the number never goes away; often it will have a name too. But my house has no number, and there is no mechanism by which we could get one. Indeed, the road it is on has no name either. (This is not a large community). In the UK, a post code identifies, on average, 14 properties so it isn't as big a deal for the postman as you might think. Notinasnaid

Trivia: Many houses in the north of Scotland have neither a name nor a number; letters are addressed simply to a named person in that locality. House numbers in the UK do occasionally change, for example if there is infill or if a street is extended at the lower end, although I know of one case in which a new house at the lower end was numbered zero.--Shantavira 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that's cool. A lot of my relatives in Scotland live in places like that. I want to be known simply as "Gavin of Scots Peak" or something like that. In Tokyo, small residential streets aren't named and the houses aren't numbered. Most addresses consist of a three number sector code (kind of like the ones in Star Trek and a house name, but since it's often difficult even with that, maps are used a lot. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some places in America, you can address letters simply to "Joe Schmo, Rural Route 2" and then the city and ZIP code. With the introduction of 911 emergency service, a lot of houses that didn't have official numbers now do, although the actual numbering system differs among communities (see house numbering). Some office buildings and institutions, like Rockefeller Center and the Pentagon, are addresses in themselves (although the Pentagon, according to our article, apparently does have a street number.) I have seen some wealthy people put "names" of their houses on their mailboxes, but to use it in one's address would seem quite pretentious. -- Mwalcoff 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth remembering that many rural British houses will have existed long before the global postal service as we know it was functioning. Thus numbering would be somewhat redundant when you could just send your letter to John Smith at Hill House, Cobb-on-the-Wheyy and the the local postie would know exactly who it was for. Numbers are only essential when the population density of a deliversy area surpasses a certain level. Since the US is a much younger country, its not surprising they took advantage of a universal numbering system for houses. They also used a grid system when building their urban areas, often incorporating numbers and letters in a logical manner. Thus its often possible to pinpoint the geographic location of a house simply from an address. Try that in the UK!

The more recent tradition of naming newer houses is a somewhat middle class tradition in the UK. Consider the reputedly common name that many Scots give their retirement property: "Dun roamin". Hilarious. Rockpocket 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of house numbers has not always been universal in the U.S. In some areas, it was only introduced recently, after the introduction of 911 service. There's an old story: A post office got a letter addressed as follows:

Wood

John

Massachusetts

The letter was delivered. Extra-credit points for whoever can tell me where the letter was delivered to. -- Mwalcoff 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Underwood, Andover Massachusetts. But I cheated, I've seen it before. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you do need to distinguish the case where people name a house which has a number - and will not usually use it in the address - from the case where the house has no number and its name is the only way of designating it. ColinFine 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some houses which have numbers, but have also had names since they were built and are known to the post office by their names. This can happen to an extent that the name will get a letter to the door, but the number won't. It's all very confusing. Skittle 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I've mentioned this before. This discussion reminds me of when the composer Giuseppe Verdi was asked his address, and he replied "I should think Italy would be sufficient". JackofOz 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "online gift exchange". Do you just swap unwanted birthday and chistmas presents, or is it something different?

Request for radio transscript

I enjoy Longwave 252 every Sunday from Ireland 9am to 10am can I have a transscript of the articles and music from Sunday 3 September 2006

Angus McAulay

(ssh... do you want to get spammed?)

Maybe Rte Radio 1's website can help you out here. (Apparently that's what you're listening to when tuning into 252 Longwave). ---Sluzzelin 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows how to work a Canon XL2?

I have borrowed an XL2, but I have no idea how to use it.

I'm looking to get the Depth of Field effect...where a certain object is in focus, and everything inside or outside of that distance creeps towards a blur. How do I achieve this? Eg. I have a subject...say...10 metres in front of the camera....how do I get it so that the subject 10 metres away is in focus, but everything else is not?

gelo 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The things that you have control over are: How fast the film is, how well lit the subject it, how close you are to the subject, what things are in the frame of the picture (the subject, and other things), what aperature you use, what the shutter speed is, the focus you give to the picture (what things are within focus, versus out of focus), and the focal length of the lens you are using.

Depth of field is created primarily by your choice of aperature, the length of the lens, and how far you are from the subject. Large lens openings (f/2) are more sensitive to the depth of field (narrower band), and smaller aperature (f/22) will give a long/broad/wide depth of field zone. The lens you use will limit which aperature options you have. Obviously if you use a small aperature, you have to make sure that your lighting and film will work with that. Aldo the farther away from the camera, the more depth of field you can get. If you want your subject up close and things in the distance blurred, then get up close to it, and use a larger aperature.

It's been a long time since I used an analog camera, so I hope this helps, and I haven't made it more confusing. I learned from experimenting. Atom 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small Depth of Field means that the effect you want to achieve is strong. So this means: the larger the aperture, the stronger the effect. Use a large aperture, but with a correspondingly fast shutter speed or not-so-sensitive film so that you don't get overexposure. See also Depth of field#Aperture effects. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading videos - is there a trick to do it on this site?

The Junior Eurovision Songcontest is starting again and the Belgians have a massive site this year with a lot of videos. I tried recording today's pre-selection episode, but thanks to the US Open it didn't start on time and my recorder didn't record the right bit. Now, I did see videos for those shows are up on the site and I want to download them for save keeping until I'm sure they bring them out on DVD or something, but Internet Explorer isn't cooperating and Firefox doesn't recognize the plugin (and all my downloader tools don't recognize it either). Is there a way to download these? It would save me a lot of homicidal feelings toward whoever finds it neccesary to not follow the tv schedule. Any help is appreciated. (I use a Windows 98 system, please only suggestions that work for that) - Mgm|^(talk) 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the link to their website? Bearing in mind that there's a good chance the videos are only meant to be streamed, and not downloaded. --Mnem e son 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I forgot that. Will drop in that link when I get home to the favorites folder I stored the site under. - 131.211.210.10 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Geezer? (Looney Tunes?)

I could swear I remember there being a skinny, stooped, toothless old man (with a beard, maybe?) in some of the Looney Tunes cartoons, but after combing Wikipedia and performing a half-dozen Google searches, I can't seem to find a trace of him online. Am I hallucinating? Is he from some other cartoon world? -- Avocado 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I could think of was the 2000 Year Old Man TV cartoon series. (Check this picture for memory comparison). Unless you're thinking of clean-shaven Mr. Magoo... ---Sluzzelin 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not Mr. Magoo. And definitely not the 2000 year old man (gee, I'd forgotten about him!) --Avocado 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No but I think Ive seen him in Mr Magoo. Did he have a walking stick and white beard?--Light current 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um.... I don't remember. He might have. But if he had a beard, it was short. -- Avocado 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a page on old bearded cartoon geezers and Jasper Beardley should be on it too. ---84.75.129.157 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could he have been Scottish? I have some vague recollection of an old grumpy Scottish-dressed male cartoon character. --21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly... that sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm not certain.... -- Avocado 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not thinking of Groundskeeper Willie, perhaps? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly the character you're talking about, but I cannot remember any of the cartoons he was in. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an old guy leaning on a cane. His dentures ended up in his equally decrepit dog's mouth, I think. Clarityfiend 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Poopdeck Pappy from the Popeye cartoons: [1] ? Or maybe Mr. Natural ? StuRat 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the picture, I think we can safetly assume that Mr. Natural had a nice full set of (natural) choppers. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES!!! That's it. A Google image search confirms... Poopdeck Pappy s the guy I'm thinking of. Thanks, StuRat! -- Avocado 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome ! StuRat 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this file cabinet part/accessory?

In many file cabinets each drawer has a repositionable steel wire piece for keeping the files in the drawer together and upright (when the drawer is not full). It is shaped like this

          __
         /  \
 .------/    \------.
|                    |

Is there a name for this part? If so, what's it called?

I think it might be called file divider or more specifically wire file divider. ---Sluzzelin 18:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pointy out part is called a tab, and I would presume the entire sheet would be called something like a "tab divider" or "tab separator" if there was an official name for it. See file_folder for no useful information. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clever way of drawing it. Alphabetagamma 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Slogan

Instead Of Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. How bout Wikipedia ending Ignorance as we know it?
Email me at (email addr removed) if you like it.

If we knew it, we wouldnt be ignorant, would we?--Light current 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance is bliss. Russian F 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of very, very happy people out there. George Bush must be positively ecstatic. Clarityfiend 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't end ignorance. People have to do that for themselves. ColourBurst 13:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Enduring ignorance as we know it" might be better. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia: Suitly emphaziing Mr. Gulbenkian's homework since 2006? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]