Miscellaneous desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 11[edit]

What kind of butterfly is this?[edit]

Can somebody please tell me what kind of butterfly is this?

--CJKpi 01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern tiger swallowtail? Rmhermen 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M&M's[edit]

What happend to Crispy M&M's in the U.S.? -- 69.210.101.58 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I think they're discontinued. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a sales representative, the reason that they're not available (worldwide) at the minute is 'because [they] are reviewing our marketing strategy, this product is unavailable at this time.' This does not essentially mean that they won't come back, though. Best wishes, --It's-is-not-a-genitive 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masterfoods added M&M'S Crispy Chocolate Candies to its permanent line of M&M's in 1998. Made of a shell candy over a chocolate layer with a rice cereal center, the candies were taste-tested at the June 1998 All Candy Expo in Chicago and made available at retail level in January 1999. They put $50 million into its marketing campaign and made their debut at the January 1999 Superbowl at $53,333 per commercial second. By 2002, M&M'S Crispys were in two thirds of all possible outlets, but only 2% of households had tried Crispy's and of that 2%, only 10% repeated their purchase.[1] I did not find anything about them being discontinued in the U.S. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Where would I go to express that those are my favorite kind of M&Ms? V-Man - ^T/_C 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the "M&M's"® Brand can be made at the contact information here. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks! ^_^ V-Man - ^T/_C 00:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest WP article[edit]

What do you think is the funniest article on Wikipedia with reguard to the subject matter? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some contenders:

Any key

ISO 3103

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax

Fucking, Austria/Condom, Gers/Jewish Autonomous Oblast

Intentionally blank page

Bananadine

Gay bomb

Alien hand syndrome

And a lot more. --⁪froth^t 04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humour is incredibly subjective. My particular favorite is Mike the Headless Chicken, but you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense and the Category:Wikipedia humor, to find something that you find funny. Rockpocket 04:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise... most of the pages I found funny, at least in that they had a page at all, have been deleted! My favorite, for sheer pointlessness, was List of pop culture references to Rock, Paper, Scissors. But it is no more. The only survivor seems to be International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Pfly 06:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly large, tireless contingent of Wikipedians think our encyclopedia should be totally devoid of humo[u]r, and they strive mightily to delete everything that even hints at such. You've just given them their worklist for the next week :-(.

Atlant 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Another humor-mongering, decadent, running dog, comrade. Get him! Clarityfiend 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would, I think, be looking for Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Neil ╦ 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently funny word and Mathematical joke are my favorites. V-Man - ^T/_C 04:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Waco" @ El Dorado, Texas[edit]

I've just seen on FOX News that a Mormon-like group is building a fortress-like compound nearby. Did you all know this ? Some of the newsmen claim that another "Waco" will happen. 205.240.144.168 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its on FOX News, it must be true! Is there a reference we can help you find? Rockpocket 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity's "Hannity's America". Just seen it. 205.240.144.168 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons have the right to build fortresses. They can even bear arms if they're licensed to do so (which shouldn't be too hard in texas!) --⁪froth^t 04:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be the FLDS church who are building a temple in Eldorado Texas. --~ Wiki hermit _(HermesBot) 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would these newsmen know whether BATFE is planning to again seek publicity by raiding a religious commune? —Tamfang 07:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start calling all churches "compounds" just for fun. Also, does anyone else think that their fortress looks like a model of a fortress and not a real one? Recury 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to take a fortress seriously when it appears to be smiling at you. --TotoBaggins 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks a bit happy to me too. It looks a bit to perfect? to be real. i thought it was a model too. Maddie^{was here} 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a pretty looking "fortress". Almost as pretty as my nomination for prettiest in the world, Bodiam Castle (right) --Dweller 14:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to see if this actually plays out, and if it does, how it will effect the Presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney. Corvus cornix 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a small distinction, and it comes almost 2½ years after the last post, but Mitt Romney is LDS. This group is the FLDS. The LDS do not practice polygamy, the FLDS do. Two different churches. Kingsfold (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Amendment[edit]

How can states require a license (and therefore possibly turn down a license application) if the 2nd amendment forbids a law against the people's right to bear arms? --⁪froth^t 04:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#"To keep and bear arms". It basically comes down to interpreting what that phrase actually means. Rockpocket 04:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty obvious to me.. the government can't stick it's meddling lawmaking into the realm of gun ownership. I haven't the slightest interest in owning a gun but it seems like sort of a no brainer and it's disappointing to see the judicial branch try to gloss over the constitution without going through the proper channels of amending it --⁪froth^t 05:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that it is a "no brainer" is not shared by those entrusted by the people to be arbiters of US law: "Presently, nine of the federal circuit courts support a modified collective rights model ^[1], two of the federal circuit courts an individual rights model ^[2] and the Supreme Court and one federal circuit court have not addressed the question" Rockpocket 05:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ That the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed.
^ That it is a right of individuals is to own and possess firearms, though this individual rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.

To elaborate a little further, the Second Amendment is one of the three Bill of Rights guarantees not directly incorporated onto the States by the Fourteenth Amendment (the other two being the right to a grand jury and the Third Amendment). Just because a clear reading of the text would indicate one direction does not necessarily make it so--if that were the case, then the equal protection clause would require the States to never make distinctions between anyone (as it does say "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). The Second Amendment article does give an extended discussion to some of the caselaw behind the current reading of the Second Amendment (or at least as far as the Supreme Court has made clear in the current reading of it).

And as to the Second Amendment being abrogated by judicial interpretation, well the Constitution is subject to the interpretations of the judiciary in order to balance the intent and meaning of the text against the needs, powers, and rights of the people and the government. For example, the First Amendment free exercise clause is abridged to the extent that neutral and generally applicable laws that burden free exercise are constitutional (see for example, Employment Division v. Smith, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah), that prior restraints on the exercise of speech may be constitutional in certain circumstances despite the prohibition on "abridging the freedom of speech" (Near v. Minnesota, New York Times Co. v. United States), or the Fifth Amendment eminent domain clause (the Supreme Court has long allowed a substitution of public purpose for public use, see for example Berman v. Parker and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff). Any individual's rights under the Constitution are more than just what the text may they are. –Pakman044 06:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about certain rights not being "directly incorporated onto the states" by the 14th amendment? "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" doesn't seem to allow for exceptions, nor is there context that would limit its application. --Anonymous Canadian, June 11, 17:35 (UTC).

The doctrine seems to be that until the Supreme Court gets around to saying "yes, X is among the 'privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States'," the Fourteenth doesn't apply; and they haven't done that with the Second Amendment. Indeed, in US v Cruikshank (1876?) the Court reasoned (in order to avoid punishing Whites for oppressing Blacks) that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural human right and therefore not a privilege of US citizens and thus not covered. —Tamfang 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as no-brainers go, there's no way the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment would have had a problem with, say, not giving a gun to someone obviously crazy (though they didn't have terms like "legally insane" back then, they certainly had crazies). So there are bound to be some practical limits (analogous with what Pakman004 above notes about the first amendment). --24.147.86.187 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the clauses of the constitution are accepted at 100% face value. The right to free speech doesn't confer the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire - it doesn't give you the right to give pornography to minors...the right given in the constitution is modifed and interpreted. Same deal with this one. But in any case, reading the full text of the constitution (not just the last phrase of it) makes it abundantly clear that people were only intended to be given the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a state militia - not for target practice, not for hunting, not for protecting oneself against burglers and not for knocking off 7/11 stores. SteveBaker 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is similar to the one I was going to be made. Technically, the right to bear arms could be intepreted to mean the right to bear all arms, including nuclear weapons (or for that matter any manner of weaponised chemical and biological agents) if one so desires. Most people except for the most extreme US Libertarions AFAIK don't agree with this interpretation. Nil Einne 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Second Amendment were to be interpreted as an absolute individual right, there would be no way to prohibit mentally ill people, juveniles and ex-cons from owning guns. After all, all three group have First Amendment rights -- any of those people can stand on a street corner and say, "The president is a dolt," subject to the same time, place and manner restrictions that apply to everyone else. Clearly, the writers of the Bill of Rights did not have that in mind. -- Mwalcoff 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what they had in mind? Were the debates recorded in those days? Surely the Framers were capable of thinking "X is bad but the consequences of attempting to prohibit X would be worse." —Tamfang 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Canadian: The basic idea of what I was saying is that the Bill of Rights was never originally intended to apply to the States, but rather just to the federal government. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, and the due process clause requires the States to provide similar protections to the federal government. But as the article on incorporation (Bill of Rights) will tell you, these rights have never been fully incorporated onto the States, and instead were only incorporated onto the States in piecemeal fashion over a period of decades. That article actually lists a few more things that haven't been incorporated (I was operating off a discussion from a class I took two years ago).

Also, you do point to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But as that article will tell you, that clause is practically dead. It has never really been read to inhere anyone additional protections. Rather, its intended function is now a part of the due process clause. –Pakman044 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Second Amendment intends to cover only militia use, the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids us to conclude that bearing of arms for lawful private purposes is not equally protected.

I hold that the militia purpose itself includes hunting and sporting use. The militia is the whole able-bodied male adult population, mobilized ad hoc. The surest (and cheapest) way to arrange for them to know one end of a gun from the other when needed is to encourage them to practice shooting on their own time. A woman teaching her 12yo grandson to shoot squirrels thus contributes to the (future) effectiveness of the militia even though neither is a member of it.

I would also argue that opposing street crime is a proper function of the unorganized militia. Finally, it could be argued that "the security of a free State" – i.e. protection against its becoming unfree – requires a reserve force not entirely dependent on the state, thus not a "state militia". —Tamfang 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a dangerous path to travel to say "wellll but they obviously didn't mean for x" and not let ex cons or crazy people have guns, or not let people shout Fire! in a theater. The long arm of the law covers a baffling amount of our life (even vibrations in the EM spectrum are regulated!) but the writers of the Constitution identified certain things that cannot be litigized- they identified it as ridiculous to make any speech illegal, or to prevent the natural human right to bear arms, and it seems that the spirit of the thing would prevent laws against yelling Fire in a theater or against selling guns to ex cons. Supposedly involable human rights can't be violated just because the legistlature thinks it has good reasons. And about the militia, a well trained civilian population will be the key to surviving a worldwide zombie infestation- the small regular military will be overwhelmed and impotent D: --⁪froth^t 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the difficulty behind the doctrine of "original intent," which is quite popular among conservatives. It's difficult to go back to the 1780s and determine how the writers of the Bill of Rights (who, as Pakman stated, thought they were only limiting the powers of Congress) meant to handle a situation they could not have envisioned. But in the case of gun rights or lack thereof, you don't have to go back to the 18th century to see the difficulty in a strict individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth amendments apply to everyone, including juveniles, ex-cons and the mentally ill. If you say that the Second Amendment establishes an absolute right of individuals to own handguns, you're saying the government can't prevent juveniles, ex-cons and mentally ill people from packing heat. -- Mwalcoff 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that before 1968 it was common for boys to bring their rifles to school. And (it has been argued) if an ex-con can't be trusted with a weapon, why trust him on the street at all? See my previous remark about lesser evil. Also, a huge fraction of those now disarmed as felons would not have been prosecuted at all before 1912 (the rough date of the beginnings of drug prohibition). —Tamfang 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage of original intent – or rather, of the understanding of the Constitution that was prevalent at the time – is that it was affirmatively ratified, which cannot be said of later emanations from its penumbras. If the ratifying conventions had known that "the power to regulate commerce [i.e. to keep it flowing smoothly] with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" means authority over everything that has moved in such commerce (the basis for at least some gun laws) or might compete with something sold on the interstate market (Wickard v. Filburn), they might well have decided differently. —Tamfang 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the Framers would not have been able to envision today's U.S., with trillions of dollars of interstate trade and the ability to travel coast-to-coast in a few hours. Had the judiciary interpreted the Constitution extremely narrowly, either the Constitution or the Union would have been replaced by now. -- Mwalcoff 23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how either the size or the speed of today's economy justifies extending the scope of the interstate commerce power to goods not in commerce as I cited, but if it's so vital to broaden Federal powers then Article V provides the means. Yet the establishment is reluctant to ask for new powers in the proper way, possibly because they judge that such amendments would not be ratified; hence they teach us that the Constitution is a "living document" which tacitly amends itself to fit the political fashion of the day. —Tamfang 20:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO! You guys ,us Americans (i.e., from the USA) have the right to hang a pair of bear arms above our fireplaces. - AMP'd 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you buy into the argument that the framers of the constitution were somehow magically endowed with the perfect answer to everything (Why? They were just a bunch of politicians.) - you'd have to conclude that they were talking about muzzle-loading flintlocks, swords and (stretching the limits) field artillery. They didn't know about guns that could spit out ten rounds a second, laser gunsights, etc. It's certainly arguable that they only intended you to be allowed to bear weapons of the kind they knew about at the time - and everything else should be banned. SteveBaker 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, they obviously didn't intend to authorize the Government to use aircraft. Or telephones. —Tamfang 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! Of course they didn't! Duh! What I'm trying to say is that the constitution is a dusty old set of rules that made a lot of sense at the time - but are decreasingly relevent as time goes by. Do we really need a rule in constitution to prevent the government from lodging troops in your home? Aren't we worried about them housing federal postal workers there? No - that rule was put there as a very specific short-sighted political statement to get people excited about getting rid of the British (who did often billet their troops in peoples homes). This ancient junk is then compounded by layers and layers of interpretation. Adhering rigidly to the original words makes no sense - and it has been effectively abandoned in many areas. In other areas we've added bizarre strengthenings to those rules - so 'Free Speech' (which isn't a bad thing when it's talking about my right to stand on a street corner and tell people that I don't like what the government is doing) has been interpreted as making campaign finance laws unconstitutional! When did spending money equate to talking? When did companies get the same free speech rights as individual people? What part of "Free Speech" allows your employer to regulate what you say outside of your working hours or to allow Microsoft to use a 'shrink wrap' software license to prohibit you from writing bad reviews about their products!? These constitutional rules are modified and reinterpreted in all sorts of strange ways. It's no stretch at all to say that this rather ambiguous rule should be interpreted to mean only the "arms" that the framers knew about - or that it means that you can bear them ONLY if you intend to join a militia. SteveBaker 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Amendment was put there because the royal government did abuse the citizenry in the way described, and the people very reasonably wanted to put it on record that it was not okay for this new government, whose behavior could not entirely be foreseen, to do the same. Are you saying that the rule ought to be repealed because it has never been violated? The present Big Brother would love that (part of the purpose of quartering soldiers was to spy on the hosts).

Companies have the same speech rights as people because they are composed of people and owned by people; people neither lose nor gain rights by forming groups. (On another hand, many libertarians would abolish limited liability corporations, because they have privileges not shared by natural persons.)

If the government can forbid you to spend money on X, it can largely prevent you from doing X; that is why campaign contributions are a free speech issue. The sentence beginning "What part of 'Free Speech'" refers to issues that I would classify as matters of contract rather than of the First Amendment.

Finally, if the First Congress had intended only to protect the rights of the States to arm their own forces (after forbidding them to keep troops!), they could have said so. They did not; they said "the people". As for joining a militia, every male citizen between 16 and 60 is a member of the militia, according to the law of the time which has never been modified so far as I know. And it's clear from the Federalist Papers (#46, I think) that the Framers expected the militia to be mostly unorganized, and expected it to be armed just as well as the regular army. —Tamfang 20:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First resume[edit]

How do you write a resume if you have no experience? --124.180.56.18 05:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's sites on the internet that will advise you (go to any good careers site, or do a Google search on resume or resumes). You could also start with something like the wizards you get in programs like Microsoft Word (in Word 2003 go to File>New..., choose Templates on my computer... and in the dialogue box select the Other Documents tab; click the type of Resume you want, click OK, and fill in your details). If it's your first time though, I would recommend you get some assistance from an expert, such as a careers advisor/counsellor. --jjron 05:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what I meant to ask was, what do I write about in my resume if I've never had any previous jobs? --58.165.28.64 09:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this example. Is a real CV which works very well for people without actually having any jobs. Think of all the little things you do and work them into your CV - for example helping your mum (mom) with shopping could be "I help the less able in household tasks". Looking at sites to help you would be good, too :). Plenty of people have this problem! JoshHolloway 10:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stress about it. Just find a friend's resume that's worked for them (or a parents, or a friend's parents), and replace their previous jobs with skills or education. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 10:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making sure the first and last grades in your list of qualifications are your best and speading bad grades out helps :( Exagerate, without lying, things that you have done :) And use technical sounding words :) It might work :] HS7 12:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend buying a recent book on the subject (style changes over the years) - there are a ton of them out there in any decent book store and you don't end up with a 'cookie-cutter' resume like the online tools tend to produce. Many of these books are just collections of hundreds of great resumes - categorized by the qualifications, experience and business area that the person was applying for. Find the one that's nearest your situation and copy the layout and style exactly - filling in your own details. Be truthful - if you inflate your abilities then get called on that during the interview, you'll fail to get a job that you might otherwise have easily walked into with less inflation! The fact that you have no job experience needs to be balanced by jobs you've done during vacations, hobbies and interests, extra-curricular clubs you've attended, that kind of thing. If there are gaps in your resume (eg if you took a year off between high school and college) then you need to explain them carefully or else they'll assume you were in jail or something! When you see a specific job that you are applying for that lists a set of qualifications that you are required to have plus some 'desirables' - make sure those are listed in your resume before you send it off. You may want to send a slightly different version of your resume to each employer in order to emphasise different things to each one in accordance with what they said they wanted from an ideal candidate. But get a good resume book - it's worth $10. SteveBaker 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't described your circumstances very well. But if you just left school or especially university, they may have resources still accesible to you which will help Nil Einne 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The culture of CVs varies wildly according to country, industry and... with the passing of time. I once saw a fairly inexperienced person's CV that was 12 pages long. In the UK industry I was working in at the time, that was about 10 pages too long (and some would argue 11). However, in the country this girl was coming from, it was apparently the norm. Re: time, fashions change, so beware of taking advice that may be dated. I'll give three bits of timeless advice therefore:

The most important thing on your CV is your name. Make sure it's at the top, nice and clear (and big).
"White space" is important - cramming loads of text onto a page is self-defeating... there's more to read, but no-one will read it.
If there's a recruitment consultancy that deals with your industry in your country, send your CV to them, register with them and ask for advice on improving your CV. Any agency worth its salt will be expert in this - they know what "sells". --Dweller 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

s

Belt[edit]

What is M24 grade conveyor belt

It appears to be an Indian classification of rubber conveyor belts with a tensile strength of 24 MPa, used for conveying "heavy, sharp, highly abrasive materials like metallic ores, granite, lime stone, coal, blast furnace slag & clinker etc." [2] [3]. --169.230.94.28 08:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating of needed thickness of walls[edit]

Hello

I'm trying to build a water reservoir (tank) and I wanted to know how thick its walls should be and how to calculate it..the one I plan to build is a square (1 meter) with one meter height..which will take approximately (after I put the Porcelain, I guess it will be smaller) 1000 liter of water..I assume that the pressure inside the tank would be the atmospheric pressure + pressure of the water..I will be using either bricks (22x10) and mortar or concrete if needed..anyway, I would appreciate if you tell me how thick (half brick, full brick, quarter brick) I need or how many steel rods I add..thanks--The Joke النكتة‎ 10:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pressure at the base of the tank is easy to calculate - it's just the weight of the water in a column based on whatever area you are talking about. The size of the tank doesn't affect the pressure - only the depth matters. So, for example, the force on every square centimeter at the bottom of the tank would be the weight of a column of water 1cm x 1cm x 1meter (the depth of your tank). For a 1m deep tank, that's going to work out to 9800 N/m² - which is 9.8 kPa (kilopascals) but remember that's only at the base of the wall - at the top of the tank, it's zero and halfway up, it's only half as much - so you could build the wall thicker at the bottom than at the top to make the base more solid than the top. You don't have to consider air pressure in your calculations because it's cancelled out by the air pressure pushing in on the sides of the tank. Brick walls work best under compressive forces - the mortar bonds break quite easily under lateral forces - so I think I'd avoid that if at all possible. I built a back-yard fishpond on a steep slope using railroad ties to hold back the water at the bottom end of the slope - my pond is about a meter deep with a flexible pond liner inside - and the railroad ties hold back the pressure just fine (I buried the bottom-most tie 6" down into the soil and drilled down through the pile and hammered rebar down into the holes to lock it all together). That's been there 10 years with no mishaps so far! The problem you are trying to solve is not entirely unlike a retaining wall - perhaps that is a place to search for an answer. But can't you find a large, stiff plastic container of the required size and just build brick around it for decorative purposes? You'll need some kind of a liner anyway because water seeps through normal brick & mortar. SteveBaker 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments! they are really helpful..now I'm thinking to go with concrete instead of brick & mortar..but I wonder how many bars I will need ;)..I'm not retaining wall of course :) and I can get plastic container or zinc but there would be no fun in it :) btw, porcelain is perfect if you want to avoid leaks..though its not easy to cut it..how do you clean the pond?--Alnokta 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your container will ever be exposed to sub-freezing temperatures, the expansion of the water could crack it even if it were made of solid granite, unless you are so clever as to have the sides slope out enough to allow for expansion in case of freezing. Edison 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

crap cereal[edit]

in the uk i have to go to selfridges in my city to buy lucky charms for £7 (thats nearly $14) i mean the cereal in the UK IS SOOO CRAP! ITS SO UNFAIR >:( is there a law banning fruit loops and all other multicoloured cereal in the UK or are distributors being mean? cocoa pops and shreddies are nice but i want to try the crazy coloured cereal

Some ountries do ban certain colour in foods, usually for very good reasons. You don't want to eat anything that has been banned. this is not a complaints desk.

It's not mean, and they're not banned ... it's just they don't sell very well in the UK. Neil ╦ 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have to get used to flapjacks and (english) muffins --⁪froth^t 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the us i have to go to the british supermarket in my city to buy shreddies for $14 (thats nearly £7) i mean the cereal in the US IS SOOO CRAP! ITS SO UNFAIR >:( there should be a law banning fruit loops and all other multicoloured cereal in the US because distributors are being mean? fruit loops and lucky stars are nice but i want to try the sensible nice-tasting cereal SteveBaker 13:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Seriously, though, original poster, Lucky Charms were, at one stage, on the UK market, and were withdrawn. There has to be a good reason for that, and the most likely one is low sales. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's something to do with that crazy "healthy eating" fad the UK is going through. Parents seem less willing than before to buy multicoloured food containing more chemicals than ICI and pour it down their children's throats. Crazy, huh? Neil ╦ 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Weetabix. They're cheaper. Corvus cornix 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weetabix has just made it to the West Coast of the USA. The box describes how British folks will often eat the "delicious biscuits" with jam (but no milk). I thought that was an Aprils Fools joke when I first read it. Rockpocket 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No,my family often ate them that way,and Shredded Wheat.I don't drink milk so that's how I like them.hotclaws 10:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard, Weetabix are crap. Stick with Weet-Bix Nil Einne 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they sell those in the US. Corvus cornix 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "Around 1992, Weetabix successfully entered the U.S.A. market from Canada via Clinton, Mass., the site of the unsuccessful U.S. factory.". Which doesn't of course tell us if they're still available and is so, how easy they are to purchase. Nil Einne 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weetabix are awesome. You can eat them with jam, with milk, with fruit, with ice cream, with nuts, or any combination. They are good for digestion, too. Neil ╦ 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, if memory serves, Spike (vampire) added Weetabix to blood, for texture. —Tamfang 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I we referring to Weet-Bix. I know Weetabix are available in the US. Corvus cornix 20:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kellogg's Crunchy Nut Clusters are da bomb. The regular kind with chopped dried apricots and milk, and the chocolate kind with ice cream. Try it. Yum. (UK Crunchy Nut Clusters only. Those sold in Australia are a different thing altogether). Natgoo 11:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do Oatabix too now.

help.[edit]

Supposing I was to learn magic, like real magic, would I have to hide this because of any witchcraft laws still around(In the UK)? And then would I be able to teach other people, and how might I arrange to teach people. Could I charge for this, would i have to join a union? This is a serious question, not a joke. Diolch yn fawr.

P'nawn da! The British Witchcraft Act was repealed in 1951, so you would be safe from prosecution for having real magic powers, although since then the Fraudulent Mediums Act was put in place, so you had better be prepared to prove your powers are legitimate, as you would be eligible for prosecution if you could not. The union would be the Magic Circle, I suppose. I would suggest you could make a mint if you were able to do real magic - I would try and get in the newspapers and wait for Max Clifford or someone similar to contact you to arrange bookings. If you can do real magiv, please can I have some money? Thanks. Neil ╦ 15:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like some money too. --~ Wiki hermit _(HermesBot) 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Wicca's alrady are doing real magic, but there was some effort to keep the practice out of the US military. Check out Gerald Gardner for more Wicca info and Helen Duncan, the last person to be convicted under the British Witchcraft Act of 1735. In 2005, Victoria was the last Australian state to have anti-witchcraft laws on its books, contained in the Vagrancy Act.[4] There might be some anti-Witchcraft laws in Jamaica[5] Also, the witchcraft laws of Great Britain still might law still exists in Northern Ireland and India, but I don't have any cites one way or another. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know many people who practice magic.There are still many magical organisations in the UK,often left over from the Golden Dawn.You may find what you want from various publications such as Prediction" or "Horoscope" in the ads at the back.Or find a local occult/alternative book shop.Otherwise a local "What's On " section of newspapers sometimes has information about "occult" groups. Most will emphasise the inadsvisability of making money through magic.hotclaws 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Teeth[edit]

What happens to kittens' and puppies' milk teeth ?86.219.166.215 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Dt[reply]

Kittens' 26 milk teeth usually are all intact by the 6-8 weeks stage, and begin to fall out 'from 11 weeks to 30 weeks.' They grow their second set of teeth after 8 or 9 months 1.

For puppies, milk teeth come through from the 3rd to 6th week stage and start to fall out and be replaced from the third month to the seventh2.

Best wishes!

--It's-is-not-a-genitive 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we have never seen any. Do they come out in food and get swallowed ?86.219.166.215 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

Here is a thread on the topic with additional links. Cats lose their milk teeth around 4 or 5 months. Just prior to this, they bite everything because their gums are itchy. The teeth usually falls on the floor. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We never saw our cats' milk teeth when they fell out either. I assumed they swallowed them. Skittle 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kitty Tooth Fairy is very efficient. —Tamfang 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume she pays in catnip.hotclaws 10:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha XT 350 - 1991 model fork seal change[edit]

I would like to know how to change the fork seals on a 1991 Yamaha XT 350, and how much oil is needed to replace after the change.196.38.186.175 13:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably too specific a question for anyone here to know the answer (I'm sure someone will prove me wrong though!). A better bet would be to try searching google for a yamaha or motorcycle forum and asking there. Recury 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site 1991 Yamaha XT 350 specifications and pictures gives a link to join the 91 Yamaha XT 350 discussion group. They may have the answer. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Tongue Coloring Gum Ball[edit]

What is the name of a tongue coloring gum ball candy that comes in a tin can, and if possible, where can I find it? (Note: I bought this strange candy at Cracker Barrel, I remember it being a thin tuna-like can, it had a picture similar to the Rolling Stones mouth with a tongue sticking out on the top. I don't think Cracker Barrel sells it anymore).

Please help me!

It might be Tongue Splashers Bubble Gum which came out in 1993. Snoopy's Assorted Pops also colors tongues, but using a pop instead of gum. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Zombies[edit]

I'm looking for a webcomic, but I can't remember its name. The first strip has some guy looking up, seeing zombies coming towards him, and trying to wake his friend. He says (roughly) "Zombies! And they're the slow kind!" Then his friend is like, "Slow zombies?!?" and the rest of the comic is about them going wild in their postapocalyptic paradise. At one point, for instance, one of them runs over a zombie parade with a bus. Sound familiar? Black Carrot 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking at these two zombie oriented sites [6] and [7] they have forums and a list of webcomics Mhicaoidh 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow zombies also are known as slombies and shamblers. It might be Living With Zombies. Also try the walking dead. The folks at World War Z might know. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The description makes me think of Sluggy Freelance, though I haven't read that in years and can't say absolutely that it had such a storyline. —Tamfang 08:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

laundry[edit]

Do clothes get thoroughly clean if they are washed in cool water with detergent? Is it essential to wash childrens' clothing in warm or hot water to remove germs? _{email removed}

I was always taught that darks are supposed to be washed in cool water and whites in warm or hot water. I don't see why them being childrens' clothing should make a difference. Recury 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason you wash darks in cool water is to help prevent color leaking. But in general, washing in warmer water helps to clean better, which is why if you actually read on how you wash your hands, you're supposed to use as warm of water as you can comfortably handle. Of course, whites don't have the problem of leaking color. As for using warm or hot water to wash children's clothing, I don't think it's really that necessary, since the water is probably not hot enough to really sanitize it, but it would help remove dirt and germs. Here's a page on about.com about it, and here's a page on the study of hot water for laundry killing dustmites and other allergens. Here's a page on cold water detergent, which also says "stain-fighting power of the ingredients in conventional detergent formulations decreases “by an order of magnitude for every 10 °F that you decrease the temperature”". And last, but not least, if you use hot water for washing, this government page claims that 90% of the energy is used in heating the water, so that's pretty inefficient. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my own experience of washing the family laundry for 20 years...

Modern detergents in the UK at least work just fine with water at 30C or lower, especially if you use an enzyme detergent.

It's best to separate whites/light colours and bright or dark colours, and to use a detergent with a mild bleaching action on the whites, and one without on the darks/brights.82.46.44.139 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't get too up-tight about "removing germs". Our bodies' immune systems are pretty darn good at fending off small quantities of garden-variety infectants, especially if we give them something to chew on once in a while. The recent fervor over "antimicrobial" this-and-that is either (1) an empty marketing ploy or (2) an utterly misguided effort which will shortly backfire as it hastens the evolution of more strains of dangerous and drug-resistant bacteria. (IMHO.) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Tide Coldwater was formulated in 2005 to address this concern and to help consumers reduce their energy bills. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My high school (and the previous one I went to) doesn't have warm water running in the bathroom taps, only cold. No wonder I always catch colds and flus in winter. :( --Candy-Panda 12:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are helped by this routine: wash your hands with soap, rinse, and then take the first paper towel to dry your hands somewhat and turn off the water (so you don't touch the tap with your clean hands). Take another paper towel and properly dry your hands. Then get out of the bathroom without touching the door knob. Either push the door open with your foot, or use a paper towel to open up, keep the door open with one foot while you turn around to throw away the paper towel. Lova Falk 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Splits[edit]

What is the best method of training one's body to be able to perform the splits? Split (gymnastics) isn't very helpful! MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try stretching a lot?? You probably need to be more flexible. --~ Wiki hermit _(HermesBot) 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start young. Neil ╦ 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of the Stretching and Flexibility FAQ by Brad Appleton. Appendix B covers Working Toward the Splits--TrogWoolley 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his book Relax into Stretch, Pavel Tsatsouline says he got a guy who had tried for years and years to do a side-split (and had been told it was impossible for him) into the position in 10 minutes ("screams notwithstanding") using a variation of isometric stretching he calls the "clasp knife", or "inverse stretch reflex." Frankly it sounds kind of dangerous. You might look into PNF stretching iames 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years ago, I borrowed that book from our library, but it didn't have any effect at all. I reckon that if Pavel would be right, he would have been famous by now. Lova Falk 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nodal Relationships[edit]

Sorry about the title, but I don't really have a clue what to call this question. Anyway, say I have a room of 100 people and I ask each of these 100 people to pick 2 friends/people to link with (it doesn't have to be 100, or 2 or anything, but I thought I'd use it as an example). Are computers/algorithms good at sorting out the resulting links into groups of 5 or 6 people, or would it be better to do it by hand? If algorithms are good, are there any simple ones I can use (ones that preferably don't require a degree in calculus or graph theory or anything). Thanks very much for any help you can give. --80.229.152.246 17:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to a permutation. If that's the case, you can read through the article for examples of how permutations are used. There's also an algorithm there to generate permutations. It doesn't appear to be a complicated algorithm, though some set theory might be helpful. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the answer, but that doesn't seem to be exactly what I am looking for. In particular, it doesn't seem to deal with any methods of creating a group based on non-logical links (i.e. friends). Plus, set theory just looks like it will confuse me without getting me anywhere (I haven't even finished GCSE maths yet). I'll see if I can create a diagram in Inkscape to try and show exactly what I mean. --80.229.152.246 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick diagram I have created in order to try and illustrate my question better: Image (I have linked to the file rather than embed it because the arrowheads don't seem to show up properly if I embed it). Using this data as an example, I would like to know if there are any nice, easy ways of quickly arranging these nodes (in this case names) into small groups (for this example, 4 members would probably be about right) based on the relationships shown by the diagram (there are no weightings of the relationships, the thickness/length of the line means nothing).

Would it be quicker/easier to do this by hand (bearing in mind I will probably be looking to do this for at most 33 people (more likely to be somewhere around 25)). If my calculations are correct, this will mean there will be a maximum of 66 links to deal with in order to fit into groups of 5/6/7.

Please also bear in mind that my maths knowledge is not that good, although I am prepared to try and learn. Also, it doesn't matter if some of the links are broken quite badly, the only thing I require is that everybody is in a group with at least one person they have directly linked to, or have indirectly linked to by a factor of 1 step (i.e. a person they have directly linked to has directly linked to the other person).

This requirement isn't strictly strict though, I'm quite prepared to break it (and deal with all hell that comes if I do - that's the only downside to doing this sort of thing, you can't please everyone. It's interesting, but you always get people who are annoyed. Hopefully this method will cause fewer complaints (or rather complaints that will cancel each other out) than last time.

P.S. Thanks very much for any help you can give. I realise that the above paragraphs are a bit hard to read (probably due to my insanely good rambling (not the walking kind - although I'm not bad) skills... but I appreciate the time and effort that goes into replying.--80.229.152.246 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. The two direct links going out from a node is strict. This cannot/will not/should not/has absolutely no chance of being changed. In other words, each person much choose TWO and only TWO links with people. No more, no less. (Also, God knows why I'm trying to sort this out now, I don't even have any data, this sorting out is being done about 8 months before it needs to be done, and I don't even know if I am actually doing it! Oh well, at least it is interesting). --80.229.152.246 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a problem before, but it appears to be akin to various problems in graph theory. In any case, I'd take it to the Mathematics desk. —Tamfang 08:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid you were going to say that about graph theory. Thanks though. I'll go and hop over to the Mathematics desk. --80.229.152.246 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What two Naruto fighting game has the most characters?[edit]

I am a Narutard - a Naruto fan. I wanted to play at least two Naruto fighting games, but I want two games that have more Naruto characters than any game in the franchise. So, what two games have got more characters than any game? And which of the two has more characters?

Naruto Shippūden: Narutimate Accel for PS2 has 53 characters, but that's only available in Japan (I'm assuming you aren't posting from there). There are very few American Naruto games, and even fewer European ones. Naruto: Uzumaki Chronicles 2 is available for PS2 in the US and has 13, while Naruto: Ninja Council 3 for the Nintendo DS has 27. That's about it, unless you can speak Japanese and don't mind getting an import... Laïka 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar question[edit]

I am curious to know about a specific guitar called bordonua or possibly known as the bordon, what type of guitar is it and where did it originate from. Rudy Carrasquillo- Velazquez

Typing Bordonua into the search box on the left of your screen transports you to Bordonua. Rockpocket 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look up Bordonua yet?

Skateboarding technique?[edit]

I'm not a skateboarder, never tried one. Watching a TV show today where some guys were doing tricks at a skatepark got me thinking: How do they do the jumps? A guy is skating along on a flat surface, he tips the nose of the board up, then jumps up in the air and the board follows him up, sometimes for a fairly high distance. I see how pressing down on the tail with the rearward foot will tip the nose up, but then how does the skater make the tail of the board come up? How does it stay so close to his feet while he and the board are up in the air?

See Ollie (skateboarding trick) Rockpocket 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks.

[1] That the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed.

[2] That it is a right of individuals is to own and possess firearms, though this individual rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.

[1]

[2]