Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 June 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Miscellaneous desk
< June 2 << May | June | Jul >> June 4 >
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 3[edit]

Smelly refrigerater[edit]

Hi...Recently my husband put some squid in our refrigerator, forgot about it, the bag leaked and spilled onto the bottom of the frig. It went into the seams of the refrig. I've tried everything to get the smell out. What would chemically neutralize the smell....

Baking soda is usually used to do this. Just setting an open box in the fridge should take some of the smell out. Dismas|(talk) 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal experience is that it is almost impossible to get smells out of rubber. If the smell is in the rubber stripping that seals the door, you may need to replace that stripping. Bielle 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Try freshly squeezed lemon juice for any fishy smells. If that doesn't work, see above. -- JackofOz 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If none of the above work, husband is clearly on the hook for a new fridge. I suggest dual built-in Sub-Z's. :) --TotoBaggins 13:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Try white vinegar. I've found it works wonders with lots of cleaning problems. Corvus cornix 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Bleach (applied separately from anything else!) might also help. Otherwise, you'll have to wait for nanites ;-).
Atlant 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Coffee grounds is another frequently suggested remedy. I don't know whether they're supposed to be used grounds or not, or if it makes a difference. Gzuckier 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The old trade trick is, after you washed thoroughly the fridge, wipe it out with genuine vanilla essence or put some vanilla sticks into the fridge, it should leave your fridge nice and fresh ;-).

song lyric questions[edit]

In the song "Since you've been gone" by kelly clarkson, she says -how can I put it, you put me on- Is that basically like "turn me on"? if not, please verify! :) also, what is the basic gist of the song? is she glad that he's gone, what is it? thanks much!

Google "since youve been gone lyrics" to bring up this[1] and other sites. Yes the basic gist is she's glad he (or she) (or it, perhaps a cat, dog, some kind of pet, perhaps) is gone Mhicaoidh 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
To put someone on normally means that you've been fooling them into believing something that isn't true. Dismas|(talk) 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! Thats what my two siamese cats constantly do to me. I thought I owned them but.... Mhicaoidh 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info, guys. i actually get it now. :D

Court case outcome[edit]

What does it mean when on a court case file it says "Outcome: REVERSED and REMANDED" 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See remand for a definition. And I am not a lawyer but I would think that "reversed" would mean that a previous ruling was changed to favor the other party in the dispute. But I could be wrong. Dismas|(talk) 03:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe "reversed" only means that the previous ruling is declared invalid, not that it's replaced with an opposite ruling – though the net effect may be similar. —Tamfang 21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
@ 69.156 You already got an adequate answer for "remanded" ... Tamfang also got the basics for "reversed". If you have access to a citator they usually give definitions for all of the treatments for judicial history of case law. "Reversed" simply means the Appellate Court feels the trial court issued a faulty judgment, ruling, or order, and "Remanded" means the trial court has a chance to "try again" to get it right. As Tamfang implied, "reversed" is different from "overruled" or "superceded" ... but they all imply that the adversely affected ruling of the lower court should not be considered authoritative precedent. dr.ef.tymac 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Say you've got a case in district court in which the judge rules certain evidence admissible. You appeal to a higher court challenging the admissibility of the evidence. The higher court agrees with you. It reverses the lower court's decision about that evidence and remands, or sends back, the entire case to the lower court for reconsideration, taking into account the decision that the evidence at issue should not be admitted. -- Mwalcoff 01:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Misheard lyrics[edit]

Darn it, as the Americans say, I've forgotten what the word is for misheard song lyrics. Anyone know? Mhicaoidh 03:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreen. --Joelmills 03:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Damn those edit conflicts! you just beat me to it, I was looking forward to a conversation with myself Mhicaoidh 04:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Proper name of Nature Strip?[edit]

Is nature strip the proper name for the grass area between the footpath and the kerb by the side of a road (sometimes has plants/trees)? Going from a house to the road: there's the frontyard of the house, then the footpath, then the "nature strip", then the kerb and then the road. I've also heard it being called a median strip, is this also the proper name for this? -- 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

depends where you live, in the antipodes the Australwegians call it a nature strip, the shakey isleites call it a grass verge or berm. A median strip is a grassy strip along the middle of a road / highway separating the two streams of traffic Mhicaoidh 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Often erroneously pronounced as "medium strip". -- JackofOz 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
While double-checking the two words I'm familiar with, boulevard and verge, I found that we have an article on the topic, entitled tree lawn. Anchoress 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Devil's Strip!! How wonderful! See [2]  : "What people call that strip between the street and the sidewalk turns out to depend on where they live. When I was growing up in Connecticut, we called it the "shoulder," but other terms heard around the U.S. include "tree bank" (common in Massachusetts), " berm," "right of way," "green strip" and the logical, if unglamorous, "dog walking area." According to The Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE), which pays close attention to such local lingo, "devil strip" is heard almost exclusively in Northeastern Ohio, up around Akron. DARE suggests that the term may arise from the strip's legal status as a sort of "no man's land" between public and private property. "Devil" occurs in many such folk terms, applied to plants, animals, places and things, usually those considered dangerous or unattractive, and the sense of "devil" when found in place names is often "barren, unproductive and unused." DARE notes a similar term "devil's lane," first appearing around 1872, meaning the unusable strip of land between two parallel fences, often the result of neighbors being unable to agree on a common fence. And another term, "devil's footstep," dates back to around 1860 and means "a spot of barren ground." So it's not surprising that a strip of land next to the street, unusable by anyone, would be christened the "devil strip." In fact, for Ohio, it's downright logical." Mhicaoidh 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
In the UK the only terms I've heard are "grass verge" and "verge". The owner and maintainer of both the verge and pavement (US: sidewalk) is normally the local council (or possibly the Highways Agency on major roads), although either or both can be the property or responsibility of the property owners. Thryduulf 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always heard it called the boulevarding. Gzuckier 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

how wikipedia handles it[edit]

At extreme risk of violating WP:BEANS, I'm rather a little concern on how Wikipedia handles sockpuppets. If thousands upon thousands of master sockpuppeters (using OP) vandalize simultaneously/work together to destroy articles (copyright, POVism, highly disputed edits, personal attacks etc.), simply full protect the page will cut off the openness of the encyclopedia and the wiki will not improve effctively. How will Wikipedia survive under those conditions? Is there a away to enchance/upgrade semi-protection to refute sockpuppets of banned users and sockpuppeters?-- 05:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The age old dilemma. See democracy Mhicaoidh 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No civilisation would work if there are more bad people than good people, so why do you expect Wikipedia would? --antilivedT | C | G 11:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has various technical tools at it's disposal that it is not currently using. I could require a Captcha for new accounts to edit a page - making bot edits nearly impossible. They can block all edits (even ones from account) that are from Open proxcies. And if vandalism gets really bad they can even rollback the entire site to one from the previous day. Wikipedia has not implemented many of these technical tools in order to remain more open, but if it become a problem they can do it at any time. Jon513 12:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
See No open proxies and Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Shinhan 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Male astronauts aboard the ISS[edit]

"that white stuff is clouds, right?"

Astronaut or not, men will still be men and will want to succumb to certain male urges (that is, masturbate). But does NASA allow its male astronauts to do this in space? I imagine it would be hard to keep the ejaculated fluid from flying away in no gravity and getting into the instrument panels. So are they allowed to/do they masturbate upon the space station? -- 05:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For "precious bodily fluids" see Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb Mhicaoidh 05:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Allow? Just how are they going to stop them? Clarityfiend 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Likely they're told to just be quiet about it and use the vacuum toilet. Sex in space is kinda a taboo subject at NASA. They've experimented *ahem* with some techniques, like copying dolphins, with a little success, although it's hard to find their results-- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 09:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, a Google search for "sex in space" turns up some interesting stuff. -- 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, much of what was thought to be known about NASA's space sex program is now thought to be a hoax (see Document 12-571-3570), although some believe that Mark C. Lee and Jan Davis, the only married couple ever to go into space, may have done. Laïka 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Copying dolphins? How do dolphins masturbate in space?? —Tamfang 21:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears we don't have an article on Cetacean onanism in space (yet!) However Animal sexuality#Autoeroticism (masturbation) tells us "Dolphins also rub their genitals against the ground or other surfaces to stimulate themselves." So are you saying the astronauts dry hump the windows? Rockpocket 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I was referring to astronauts having sex with each other -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 06:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm still in the dark as to how that amounts to copying dolphins. —Tamfang 04:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there some tacit assumption that a female in space is immune to the urge and thus able to remain Mistress of her Own Domain? Edison 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't you know yet: sex is only for men. Real women only have sexual needs when it's convenient and appropriate for their partners, and then only in ways that don't offend or intimidate the men. (rolls eyes) Clearly you don't know any college-aged guys - they'd fill you in on this. --Charlene 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I assume that female masturbation was not mentioned here because it's generally less likely to get the instruments sticky. —Tamfang 04:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean. On some types of instruments, it's much more likely. (Okay, so it's not technically an instrument, but you get the idea.) — SheeEttin {T/C} 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bubblegum animated gif[edit]

I'm looking for an animated gif of a boy blowing bubblegum and the bubble bursting. Anyone know any good gifs that fit this description? --Candy-Panda 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Try Google's image search. Neil  10:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking About Islam[edit]

I have three questions:

1. Are there any users of Wikipedia who are, or who claim they are, Muslims? If so, then can I have a talk to them?

2. Are the discussion pages of articles in Wikipedia suitable for writing and sending and telling messages, comments, advice, or requests about Islam or to look at something about Islam?

3. Are there any forums, blogs, chatrooms, soapboxes, or places similar to the Reference Desk, etc, on the Internet where I can do those sorts of things?

The Anonymous One 09:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1- Of course. Category:Muslim Wikipedians. They probably won't mind, but don't make an ass of yourself
2- No. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and talk pages are not forums. Take it to somewhere else.
3- Of course, it's the internet. Google it
-- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat related, a few weeks ago there was this Norwegian gathering where the arrangers had gotten in truckdrivers, homosexuals, transvestites, muslims, etc - and people could rent these just like any ordinary book, to talk to them about how they do things, their views, etc. I think that was a nice idea, better but of course not as easy to do as to simply make a webforum where you discuss this and that. 12:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Presumably the majority of users on,, and are Muslim.
If you live in a reasonably big town, you could call a local mosque and arrange to meet with the imam, who is much more likely to be educated and knowledgeable about Islam than just any random Muslim (just as any random Jew or Christian is unlikely to be an expert on any broader view of their own religions).
I once knew a 14-year-old Muslim girl who had been raised in the US, gone to mosque her whole life, wore a hijab head-dress and so on, but had never heard the terms Shia or Sunni, presumably since dealing with both just isn't part of an average Muslim's daily life. --TotoBaggins 13:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Yes, I am Muslim. The Ayatollah 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

sensors and transducers used in the ship control system[edit]

Can you tell me about the sensors and transducers used in the ship control system?

We dont appear to have anything so try Googling for Ship control systems--Tugjob 07:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Car speed limits[edit]

Question for the wiki wisebeards: Leaving aside the special issue of Germany's autobahns (and other places with no speed limit), why not just force carmakers to make cars with built-in speed limitations (in the same way buses in some countries have automatic built-in speed limitations) to comply with existing speed limit laws? Why allow the sale of consumer cars with potential speeds of 120mph or whatever in countries where this kind of speed is highly illegal as well as dangerous?

Different countries have different national speed limits - in Iceland or Singapore, 90 km/h is the max, while parts of Austria have a max of 160, so different countries would need different limiters, which would pose problems for people travelling between countries (I wouldn't want to be stuck in 90 km/h car on a road where everyone else does nearly double that and, like you say, some areas, such as Germany and Isle of Man have no speed limits at all in places). And then there are people who take part in Track days, where there is often legitimately no speed limit. Finally, different speeds are safe in different conditions: 80 mph (standard in many European nations) on a straight motorway in sunny weather is no problem at all, but 80 mph on a snowy mountain pass would be plain idiotic - some people would no doubt assume that since the car has been limited at 80 mph, this speed is somehow safe in any weather. And of course there's the cost - getting every car in the country fitted/retrofitted with a speed limiter would be very expensive, and either the government would have to pay, using up vast sums of public money, or the car owners themselves, which would lead to strong resistance from a sizable proportion of the population. Laïka 15:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite what you're thinking of, but apparently all Mercedes cars have a "Top speed (governor limited): 156 mph", as indicated at Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren#Criticism. The same may apply to other German makes...... dave souza, talk 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Presumably this applies mostly to their more powerful cars- lots of "normal" cars wouldn't have enough power to go that fast, regardless of governor. The cars mentioned above are several notches away from typical street cars. Friday (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
My Audi (an A8) has a governor which is set consistently with the speed rating of the installed tires. The dealer can apparently alter this if I fit different tires.
Atlant 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just about all cars sold in America have a speed governor to match the speed rating of the tires supplied, since a case in the 1980s where a couple of guys who'd been out drinking and driving all night long in a Ford had a blowout at some ridiculously high speed and got killed, and the jury found that in fact it was because Ford had supplied tires which were not rated for the sustained high speeds which the car was capable of and predictably blew, even though that speed was illegal. Gzuckier 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the above answers are good, and of course some cars are sold in many different places. Not everyone has the little-old-lady speed limits we see in (for example) the US. The governors described above are quite common too- I believe the car I bought a few months back is limited to 155mph. You could also ask why cars can be steered instead of running on tracks- a bad driver could, after all, steer his car into some place he's not supposed to be driving. Friday (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)\
Because there are legal circumstances where that speed can be used. I think there is a saying something like...illegal use does not preclude legal use. I forget if that is quite it, but the idea is pretty simple - just because you could break the law with X doesn't mean that X should be banned/illegal. ny156uk 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There are some Ford Rangers governed at 75 and 80 MPH. My friend had one. But in some very rural areas in between cities, the speed limit is sometimes 80 MPH, so such a low governing must be bad on those streets. Plus, even if I won't take a car above 100 MPH doesn't mean I don't like having the option. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, limiting speed could be dangerous. There are times when such speed is needed, such as passing or avoiding a collision. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time saying it because I'm libertarian but the above comment is utter bullshot. 99% of people would not and could not accelerate out of a situation which would otherwise cause an accident, don't kid yourself, most people are practically asleep at the wheel, every motorbike rider knows it. Also overtaking greatly over the speed limit is just as dangerous as speeding, how much of a hurry are you in anyway? Does your life depend on it? There is no need, ever, to be going 20km/h over your speed limit, whether its 100km/h or whatever it is, even that would be generous. And how many more fatal accidents are there far above the speed limit then accidents avoided do you suppose? Vespine 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Whilst it is impossible to deny that additional-speed is not a bigger killer than it is a life-safer it can enhance safety. If you have a car travelling at 55mph on a 70mph road and you go to overtake, the vehicle capable of doing 150mph is highly-likely to be able to overtake in a short-time than one capable of only doing 70mph (or indeed only capable of doing 100mph). I take it this is what Feba was meaning, rather than overtaking at extremely high speed. Whilst this is really more about accelaration, it would be sensible to assume that engines capable of achieving much higher speeds will be more likely to accelerate faster than those with less power. A limited engine would not 'prevent' the accelaration but it would limit the speed which itself could cause danger if a foolish driver was behind the wheel. ny156uk 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason manufacturers don't do that is simple - nobody would buy them! It would require a law to force them to - and that would require enough politicians to vote for it - and not many people would vote for that kind of politician! Let's face it - nearly everyone drives over the speed limits almost all of the time - adding a feature like that would inconvenience very nearly 100% of drivers - so it's simply not going to happen. Having said that, some cars do have software speed limiters - the MINI Cooper'S has a software speed limiter that's set at somewhere around 140mph. Quite a few of the companies that make replacement software for performance cars add software that allows you to set speed limitations. My last car was 'chipped' with after-market software (which was designed to make the car go faster - not slower!), but it had two special modes - one was called 'Teen Driver Mode' that allowed you to set (IIRC) a 55mph speed limit and another called 'Valet Parking Mode' which set a 10mph limit(!) - both modes had RPM limits too. The restrictions were of dubious value because they easy to bypass if you knew how - you switched modes by holding down various buttons as you turned on the ignition switch...then the car would stay in that mode until you repeated the operation with some other button. But in any case, 55mph is still quite fast in a 30mph area! SteveBaker 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The same reason they don't make cars that would detect your alcohol level and not run; or cars that would require you to insert a valid license into a slot; etc. Because everybody likes the idea for everybody else; but wouldn't buy that for themselves, because sometimes they may want to drive home at 90 mph when they're drunk and don't have a license, for a really good reason of course.Gzuckier 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the 55mph and 10mph limits mentioned above! I wish my car had that (though, I probably have time to make it so it does!). But back to my Ford Ranger example. It's also slightly dangerous to have it governed at such low speeds, especially if you know what happens to that car when it goes anywhere above the govern. The engine shuts off. Not in the sense that you can't move any more, but the car will slow noticebly below the governed speed, which can be dangerous if you're passing in rural areas where there's only one lane per direction. I say this because I have driven with him between cities, and it's slightly ridiculous. If it was governed at a higher speed, or have different modes set by GPS... hmm... now that could be useful. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

President Bush's Limo vs. M1A2 Abrams[edit]

Which has more/stronger armour? The president's limo or the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank? As well, can the President's limo withstand a round from the Abram's cannon? Thanks. 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the articles armored car and M1 Abrams would be useful. I would expect that a purpose-built fighting vehicle would tend to be much stronger armor-wise than a car that's been modified. I think car armor is often intended primarily to keep people safe from small arms fire. Friday (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Reading United States President's limousine, would also be a good idea. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

biking speed[edit]


what is the average biking speed along normal terrain, eg paths and roads, just like the average walking speed is 4mph, i think i heard somewhere it is 12mph?

thanks, -- 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

12mph on roads sounds about right, but there are cyclists and cyclists just as there are walkers and walkers. My normal walking speed in 3mph. I've just got back from a 6 mile cycling round trip which took an hour, but half my route was uphill and most of it was on shared paths, and the weather was hot.--Shantavira|feed me 16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, it makes a big difference if you're using a mountain bike or a road bike: on the latter I used to reckon about 15mph, but it took me a fair bit of practice to get fit enough for that and I'd be a lot slower now.... dave souza, talk 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I used to ride my bike to class and I had a spedometer. Twelve mph sounds a little fast for an average speed over average terrain (commuting in the city). Just of the top of my head I'd estimate 6-10 mph, that's still 2-3 times faster than walking. 4mph is a very brisk walk too, my gps says I walk about 3mph. -- Diletante 02:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that 4 mph is faster than most people walk. I think that 3 mph is more like it. As for bicycles, it depends on whether you mean maximum speed between stops or average speed along a route that may include stops. Diletante mentioned commuting in the city. A bicyclist commuting in a large city will have to stop for (at least some) red lights or slow to avoid hitting children, dogs, and other unpredictable moving objects. An average speed under those conditions would be much slower than the speed the same bicyclist could achieve on an open, well-paved road in the countryside. Slope and wind also matter. In my younger days, I used to make a weekly round trip on a road bike between Providence and Boston, a road distance of about 50 miles, involving a mix of city conditions and open countryside, with rolling hilly terrain. The prevailing winds in summer in this region are from the southwest, so the trip from Providence to Boston was downwind, and reverse trip was upwind. The downwind trip (from Providence to Boston) typically took 3 hours, while the return trip typically took 4 hours. So wind slowed my average speed from about 16.7 mph to 12.5 mph. Considering that about 20% of that trip was through dense urban areas, 50% through suburban sprawl, and maybe 30% through relatively open countryside, I probably achieved speeds over 20 mph downwind and over 15 mph upwind on flat, open stretches. I was fit and in my 20s in those days, but I think that a reasonably fit cyclist on a road bike can easily do 15 mph on flat, open stretches without a headwind. This would slow to maybe Diletante's average 6-10 mph in a dense urban environment, considering the need for frequent slowdowns and stops, especially on a mountain or hybrid bike, whose fat tires increase resistance. Marco polo 14:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
exactly right, i probably should have mentioned that I was riding a mountian bike and had to jump alot of curbs, do alot of 90 degree turns on streets, slow down around pedestrians, ride up/down dirt hills, and even ride elevators (this was a large college campus.) One advantage of the bike was that I could ride right up to the building and not worry about parking which helped my door-to-door average speed versus a car. IIRC my TOP speed was usually 17 mph on a downhill section of my commute. -- Diletante 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The one time that I've been able to measure the speed I have been cycling (I was keeping pace with a friend who had a speedo on his bike) I attained a top speed of 31mph on this residential street, which is very slightly down hill (all-but unnoticeable when walking) and had no traffic on it at the time. I was about 15 at the time, moderately fit and was riding a mountain bike. Thryduulf 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

dialling code for not disclosing identity of caller[edit]

I know if I want to find who has called me on the phone, I can dial 1471 But if I don't want others to find out that I called them, I know I can preface the number I am dialling with a number, but what is the number please?

141. See Last Call Return. JMiall 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Assuming your in the UK, JMiall is right. If you are in the US, use *67. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 16:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that the OP is not in the States since 1471 is four digits, starts with a 1 which is generally used for long distance calls in the States, and does not start with the * symbol as most U.S. special phone codes do. Dismas|(talk) 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
...And because 1471 is the UK "last call" number. JoshHolloway 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well in the US, it could be a four digit code, and this is often the case when someone has a rotary or pulse telephone. However, most everyone these days has touch-tone service, so generally the "*" can be identified.
To my knowledge, *67 is the per-call service in North America (which will in general prevent Caller ID units and call return service from identifying a phone number). Obviously, the phone company still has the ability to trace the number. In some locations, there is also a per-line service available, where the number is never disclosed to Caller ID or call return services. –Pakman044 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
In the UK it is possible (certainly with BT, and I presume other telcos also) to request that your number is always withheld. The person dialing 1471 will get the message "You were called today at 21:38, the caller withheld their number". If you have chosen to have your number withheld, there is a prefix you can dial to release your number on a per-call basis, but I don't know what that number is. Thryduulf 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Check your phone book, it should say in the first few pages. -- Diletante 20:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Write a letter and don't put your name on it, much easier :] HS7 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaf Vacuum[edit]

When were leaf vacuums first invented and produced? I ask this because I once came up with the idea for one, and did a report on how one would work for a school assignment. At the time I had not seen any before, and had no idea they even existed. I can't remember exactly when I did that assignment, but I think it was somewhere around 2001-2003. I think I first saw an actual leaf vacuum a few months after I did my report. Basically, I want to know if I beat them, or they beat me. --LuigiManiac 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you saw one a few months after coming up with your idea, then bearing in mind the amount of time it takes to turn a concept into a viable product, and to then make that product, it is safe to assume that they beat you in coming up with the idea. However, I do not know any specific details. Daniel (‽) 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There's an article on leaf blower. A.Z. 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been many patents on leaf or garden vacuums, often combined with choppers/shredders or burners. An early example is US Patent 2,905,963 "Leaf vacuum collector and burner" (1959); a more recent one is US Patent 5,586,359 "Leaf vacuum with rotary cutting blade" (1996). Good job re-inventing it, though! --mglg(talk) 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Are all those internet ads for real?[edit]

You know those ads that say theyll give you a free tv or a free xbox360 or ps3 if you complete certain offers of their sponsors? Are those for real?

Some are. I've known a few people to successfully pass the requirements to get free iPods from one of them. All of them have fine print which should be read and understood thoroughly though. Dismas|(talk) 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. It can take a while to get your reward, though. And you should absolutely, positively read the fine print. Carom 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it one of those sites that make you do an offer, sign 5 other people up and make them do an offer each, and then each of those 5 have to sign up 5 more people? It's probably real, but make sure you have a lot of friends. bCube(talk,contribs); 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Often they can be, but you will often find that you are paying more by signing up for the sponsors than you would by just purchasing the item that you are getting for "free", outright. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, many are, but they often mess you about, saying it is taking weeks to confirm, and that they can't tell if you signed up, and yes you did, but one of your friends didn't, never mind, he did, but they're out of stock of the iPod Video and would you mind getting a Nano instead, oh, sorry, right, well it'll be another month for the Video. It is only mildly more challenging to save a bit longer and buy it outright through normal channels. Goyston talk, contribs, play 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements are not free. Many organizations allocate a huge chunk of their budget just to reach people. Now ask yourself. Why would someone have to pay money to advertise the fact that they are giving something away for free, no strings attached? If all you wanted to do was give away free ipods all day, you could do that on the street corner. Apply this thinking to every paid advertisement you ever see. You will weed out a lot of crap that way. dr.ef.tymac 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it sounds too good to be true, it almost always is. -- 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Is it possible to be too flexible? And what would happen if you are too flexible, how is it bad for you?Maddie was here 23:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[3]. 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Maddie was here 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is possible to be too flexible. I don't know the term, but I think it's something like hyperflexion no it's not that, it's something else 'hyper'. Maybe hyperextension. or something. Essentially it's having tendons and ligaments that are either too loose or have lost their elasticity. It increases risk of injuries such as dislocated joints, and it decreases strength. Anchoress 23:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Becoming Formula One driver[edit]

What are the steps and education required to become a professional Formula One driver? And is this a competitive field? And what is the average annual salary of an average F1 driver? Thanks a lot. Hustle 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Most every driver I have read about has worked their way up the ranks starting with racing smaller vehicles similar to go-karts, see Kart racing. There are also many drivers who have had fathers and grand-fathers who were drivers like the Andrettis, though I realize now that the only ones that come to mind are in the Indy car circuit and not Formula One. As far as competition goes, I'm not sure what you're looking for since it is a competitive sport after all. And I have no idea on the third question. Though drivers like Michael Schumacher might throw off the average by quite a bit. Dismas|(talk) 00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
F1 drivers are the elite of the elite, it is one of the most competitive professions on the planet. I don't believe there are any 'from left field' drivers at F1 level, everyone rises up through the ranks from a very young age. Have a read through List of Formula One drivers, pretty much all of the current drivers started in kart racing before their teens. As for how much they earn, it's millions. Vespine 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC) . Vespine 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Heaps of hype surrounds F1, but one thing is certain, you don't get to drive F1 unless you come with considerable patronage/sponsorship. In other words, you just about have you buy your seat. Current whizzkid Hamilton is the most talented rookie for yonks, but if he hadn't been befriended by Dennis he'd be driving somewhere else right now. He's got a great car, so will be successful this year. Cars make the difference. Note the performance of Rubens Barrichello. He was second fiddle to Schumaker at Ferrari for years but still managed a few wins and lots of podiums, but soon as he went to another team, it's Rubens Who? Not remotely in the hunt. 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)