Miscellaneous desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 3

El Chapo de Sinaloa

Does anyone know any biographical info on this banda / norteno singer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.138.41 (talk • contribs)

I googled and got this. Is that what you're looking for? --JDitto 01:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse

File:Lunareclipsediagram2.gif

Today, for the US, there is a total LUNAR eclipse. Check your local weather forecasts. 205.240.146.224 05:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the U.S. moon is having an eclipse? what about the rest of the worlds moons?--ChesterMarcol 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant it was eclipsing for the US.... hey you.... yeah you.... stop looking at our eclipse!. Actually, I think I read Europe and Africa are getting the best views. Cyraan 06:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Areas near the equator usually do. This talks about tonight's thingy. V-Man737 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight's eclipse begins at 20:18 GMT, and totality lasts 74 minutes from 22:44 GMT to 23:58 GMT - see our lunar eclipse article and this BBC article. And it has a small mention on our Main Page. Gandalf61 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to understand. A lunar eclipse happens when the earth's shadow is cast onto the moon. This event happens simultaneously for every place in the world and lasts a little over an hour from start to finish. The only question is whether you can actually see it happening from where you are. Since the shadow is only cast onto the moon when the sun is on one side of the earth and the moon is on exactly the opposite side - you can immediately realise that you can never see the eclipse if it happens in the middle of the day in your time zone. If it's day - then the sun is on your side of the world - so the moon must be on the opposite side and you can't see it. But if it's night-time for you when the eclipse happens - and presuming you are in a position to see the moon at all (ie there isn't a mountain in the way), you'll see the eclipse happening. You get the best view when the moon is high above the horizon (because the sky is darker at zenith) - so you get the best view if the eclipse happens closer to midnight - and a worse view if it happens near dawn or dusk. Solar eclipses work completely differently - but that's another matter. SteveBaker 15:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, before you need to worry about viewpoint, you need to ensure that the local atmospheric conditions allow one to see the moon in the first place, or all is moot. For example, as I type, those of us in the New England region are having a bit of trouble spotting the early stages of the eclipse through the heavy snow and dense cloudcover. :p Jfarber 22:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wifey and I sat in the Hot Tub and enjoyed the view of the moon for an hour in Scotland.--88.111.98.95 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to report that I have just seen the British moon in eclipse on a beautiful clear night. Still no sign of the American one, though! Clio the Muse 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Clio. I'm very jealous. Had wanted to show the kids something astronomical, but I guess we northeastern Yanks will have to wait for the next go-round. Jfarber 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, Jfarber, and I wish you better luck next time. Several years ago my parents took me to Cornwall to see an eclipse of the sun, and all we saw was cloud and rain! Clio the Muse 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette

What is the proper alignment of fork(s), spoon(s) and knives, from left to right, in a formal arrangement (just in case)? --hydnjo talk 02:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mother taught me: Forks on the left side of the plate, smallest fork on the outside, largest fork on the inside, no more than 2 inches from the plate. Knives and spoons on the right side, knives first, largest first, cutting edge directed at plate. To the right of the knives come(s) the spoon(s). Dessert spoons to the north of the plate, handle on the right side. ... fF (plate) KkSs ---Sluzzelin talk 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link ... ---Sluzzelin talk 02:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sluzzelin, thanks for your research and timely (15 minutes) response. I asked an obscure question at each desk tonight to see how responsive we are and it seems that we're doing just fine at the Miscellaneous desk! Please don't feel that I've been evil or such, I was just trying to see how we're doing. ;-) --hydnjo talk 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the knives, forks and spoons are supposed to be arranged in order of size. The idea is that as you start eating, you start with the outermost set and with each course of the meal, work inwards towards towards the middle. This tends to result in the large knives and forks being in the center - but depending on what you are eating, it may not always be that way. SteveBaker 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steve, at least that's how I was taught. The table setter ought to have some insight as to the courses and their order so as to set the utensils in proper order from the "outside" and working in towards the plate. Damn glad that my dinner companions have no knowledge of that otherwise we'd be social outcasts. ;-) --hydnjo talk 08:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided and my mother agree with Steve and hydnjo too. Looks like I have to go back to manners school. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Miss Manners; the spoon, fork, and knife each have their own unique purpose for the evening meal:

1) The first time someone attempts to steal food from your plate a rap on the back of the knuckles with the spoon will serve as a gentle reminder.

2) The second time you may use the fork and drive it through their hand into the table.

3) If this does not dissuade them, it is time to use the knife to finish them off.

:-) StuRat 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the handles of knives have to face toward whoever uses them, or it looks like you are trying to stab them

collecting lint

In the novel "War and Peace" as Napoleon invades deeper and deeper into Russia, Julie (Princess Drubetskoy)describes spending her days scraping cloth to make lint. Presumably lint is needed for the war effort. Can you tell me what the lint is used for? 71.112.107.106 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was used to dress wounds. Clio the Muse 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the only meaning of 'lint' I ever heard as a child: what dressings were made of. Note that the lint dab page linked to above does not list this meaning. wikt:lint does, however --ColinFine 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V3i RAZR

Does the phone in the subject heading have a SIM card slot for the small Cingular SIM card. I suppose most cell phones do but i want to make sure.--logger 07:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume so, I'm pretty sure SIM sizes/shapes are standardized (but I haven't bought a new phone in a while so this may have changed), its usually the software vendor locks you have to worry about. Cyraan 08:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phone is unlocked so it should work. Thanks for the info.--logger 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual thinking

Some people such as Temple Grandin claim they think solely in pictures, but they never give much detailed information of how _actually_ they do it to form complex sentences visually. Does anyone know any source about this? Thanks. --Taraborn 12:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hard to explain it without direct thought transference... and it if that ever happens, we're in deep trouble. -88.111.29.222 12:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant something like, for example... to "translate" the sentence This movie is boring and lasts very longinto images I imagine a man pointing at the screen yawning and an hourglass running veeery slow. --Taraborn 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a visual thinker - just as you have no problem drawing a picture, when you think in words (how weird that must be!) - I have no problem producing coherent sentences when I think in pictures. Keep that symmetry in mind and all should become clear! SteveBaker 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use images quite a lot to speed up my thinking, but could you (please!!) an example of a complex sentence in the way I said? If I tell you "Yesterday I went to the cinema", how does the word "Yesterday" picture to you? Thanks to all. --Taraborn 19:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. It's like me saying: "OK - draw me complex picture - a vase of flowers say - now, what words were you using to describe to yourself that particular S-shaped curve that described the side of the vase?" ...that's a bit overly simplistic perhaps because I'm typing so I had to use words to say it and that perhaps says what it is you think. But suppose you were remembering the way light striking the side of the vase causes a complicated pattern of light shading on the side of the vase? SteveBaker 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think in words most of the time, and can't draw at all

I'm pretty sure you don't mean that you can't draw - I'm 100% sure you can draw - what you mean is that you can't draw well. That's not at all the same thing. SteveBaker 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very difficult for us to observe our own language of thought and even more difficult to express these observations to others. These questions have been captivating philosophers and cognitive scientists for a long time. The articles on private language argument, or, for a more recent concept, on language of thought might be of interest to you. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course: visual thinking. SteveBaker 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to worry about this - try to answer the following questions:

Do animals who posess no speech think in words?
Do people who have always been profoundly deaf think in sign language gestures? What if they never learned to sign?
Does my wife (who is French) think in English or French or both or neither since she was speaking exclusively French until the age of 18 and has been speaking almost exclusively English for the subsequent thirty years of her life?

For the third one, I've asked her this - repeatedly and with an effort to get a solid answer. She's definitely not a visual thinker - that much is abundantly clear. She claims not to know the answer. She says she does not translate her thoughts into either language. Her speech just comes out in whichever form is needed without special thought being required. However, interestingly, when she has to add a column of numbers without the aid of a calculator (and as many people do, she feels the need to vocalise: "Three and four, seven, and six is thirteen, carry the one...") - she can only do that in French. She can't add up a table of numbers in English without getting into a lot of difficulty! It's hilareous to watch her try! SteveBaker 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... This is becoming pretty weird. Temple Grandin says she had trouble understanding the word "under" until she made an image about her under a table during a drill, she also mentions she had trouble with more abstract concepts such as peace, she imagined a dove and so. That's what I understand for visual thinking. Can't you just give us an example of an image linked to a word or concept? PS: The example about the vase... well, you don't need "words" to "understand" an image... you just keep that image in your head and if someone wants you to describe it you do it. --Taraborn 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In popular education culture there is multiple intelligence of Howard Gardner and many others who posit theories of how people think. 'Visual thinking' is a possible subset demarcation of thinking. In education terms, some people find it easier to learn reading from a blackboard, while others find they need to talk about what they learn, and others need to feel things related to learning. Difficult to actually prove, as people are supposed to display degrees of all types of learning, but occasionally favoring styles.

In terms of the metaphor of a visual learner (thinker), images are easier to process and interpret than sounds, as awareness lends itself to visual expression. So the word 'surprise' evokes an image, and the image of someone surprised is associated with the word.It is important to remember that words define thoughts, images in this respect, are lexical. DDB 04:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite hold with what Temple Grandin says - I don't need to think of a mental picture for every word - just as verbal thinkers can recall the shape of a vase without needing to describe it in words. Visual/Verbal thinking is more to do with how you approach solving problems or how you like to explain things. I certainly don't have to think of hiding "under" a table or see a dove as a symbol for "peace". They are concepts that exist independently of the words that describe them. However, if I have to explain to a mechanic at the garage that my car is 'hesitating' during accelleration - I feel a strong desire to sketch a quick graph rather than trying to put it into words. Mathematical concepts are easier for me to comprehend if I can turn them into a geometric representation. I'm just generally much happier with pictures and diagrams than with (to me) long-winded wordy explanations. SteveBaker 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I would like not to hurt your feelings, but from what you say I guess you have a pretty common mind, and definitely not what I was looking for. Everyone finds easier to understand the concept of, for example, real numbers using a ruler to picture it (an image, yes!) instead of countless and meaningless arguments, let alone the formal definition. --Taraborn 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a difference between visual thinkers and symbolic thinkers in mathematics. On seeing the expression

x^{2}+y^{2}

a naturally visual mathematician thinks "circle" and a naturally symbolic mathematician thinks "quadratic form". Gandalf61 13:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the question being asked is not about people who think best/most clearly/as a preference in images, but about people who think solely in pictures, of which Taraborn gave an example. People who do not think in this way do not necessarily think solely in words, but they use words in their thoughts as a way of thinking more clearly. That doesn't mean these other people do not have any images in their thoughts! In answer to the question "How does Temple Grandin form complex sentences?", I'd say (judging from the under example), with difficulty. However, if Temple Grandin is able to communicate with other people in any way other than pictures, I would guess she is able to think in words to some extent, although she may need to understand a concept visually before she can use it. However, as Steve says, most people in fact think in a combination of different forms, and just have a preference for some over others. (PS, I don't use a ruler to picture the concept of real numbers, although I do use a flexible numberline for calculation. I find the concept easier to understand through mathematical definition and graphs. Beware generalisations!) :-) 86.139.237.132 22:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't type Everyone, I typed Everyone, since I expected some exceptions to the rule. Nevertheless, the concept is almost exclusively taught at elementary schools using the ruler method. Thanks to all for your responses :) --Taraborn 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she doesn't know she's thinking in words as she can't imagine any pictures to describe her thought.

Side thought - see Synesthesia. V-Man737 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three block warfare

Pl help me in finding ref material on this earliest by 5 mar 07. Will be highly obliged--202.83.175.66 15:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)<Email removed>[reply]

I assume you've already read Three Block War and the Krulak article [1] referenced there? Algebraist 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt's Natural Resources

Does Egypt have any natural resources that are unique to only Egypt? Thank you very much --(Aytakin) | Talk 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Nile Delta, threatened due to withholding of silt behind the Aswan High Dam, I can't think of any. Marco polo 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of one possible unique resource, the only quarry for imperial porphyry. Marco polo 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THere was that comet that exploded there, and primary tourist resources, and amemaits.

Sand--88.111.98.95 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lots of places have sand

Is that a "resource"? 惑乱分からん 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a while, mummies were a significant export. V-Man737 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe mummies of commoners were dug up and used as firewood at one point, they apparently burn quite well. StuRat 14:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ameriphile?

The proliferation of questions concerning the U.S.'s upcoming election got me wondering why people outside the U.S. even care. But I guess a country of our size (I'm an American) and importance (arrogance?) in the world has a lot of bearing. So, I know that there are people in the U.S. who follow the lives of the British monarchy for whatever reason and they're called Anglophiles. So is there an equivalent word for people who follow the American scene? Amerophiles, maybe? Dismas|^(talk) 19:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (in the south of England) have never heard such a term. As you suspect, anyone in Britain who follows politics much at all will be aware of US events to some extent (you do rule the world after all). If we were going to introduce a term for it, I would disagree with Ameriphile since it implies liking for America/American politics, rather than interest in it. Hope that helps. Algebraist 20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after re-reading) btw, size has little to do with it. I (who like to think I pay attention to world affairs) cannot currently remember which party rules India right now, and have no understanding of Chinese politics at all. Algebraist 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are known as masochists. Lame joke, sorry. Amerophile (or, perhaps, Yankeephile) is as good a neologism as any, though it is unlikely to achieve wide acceptance over, say, pro-American (Is there such a thing as a Germanophile or a Russophile?). And in response to the above, America does not rule the world, no matter how much it would like to take up the white man's burden. As always, I am the half devil and half child. Clio the Muse 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are Slavophiles, but that's something different. And I guess I need to make it clearer when I'm being facetious. Algebraist 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so do I. Clio the Muse 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on Russophilia and Germanophile. Found no articles on Ameriphilia or corresponding neo-synonyms thereof. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Japanophile, a hell of a lot more common. :) -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Francophile and Francophobe for the French. As a Brit living in Texas, I hear the words "Anglophile" and "Europhile" quite a bit - but I've yet to hear a term for people who love/hate America and Americans particularly. I'd go with "pro-" and "anti-" prefixes personally. SteveBaker 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word certainly exists in Serbo-Croatian and other South Slavic languages, if the ghits are anything to go by. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm US born, but have lived in Australia for almost thirty years since age eleven. There are many insults and slights I have heard in pop culture regarding US peoples, but the most positive have still been denigrating. I might have heard a few conservative peoples refer to the US as 'friends in times of (our collective) need'. DDB 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Life and Accidental Insurence Co.

I need to contact this insurence company and don't know how. Can you help me? Thank you Dorothy O'Malley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorothy omalley (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean the National Life and Accident Insurance Company? They were bought up by American General [2] some time ago. Apologies if you're after someone else. Algebraist 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places of Interest in New York State

Hello! I and my family will be visiting the US in April. We will begin in New York City, then drive to the Niagara Falls, to Washington, D.C. and back to N.Y. before we fly back to Sweden. We have no problem knowing what to do in N.Y., D.C. and the Niagara Falls. But, we will probablably have to stay overnight at motels on the road from

New York to the Niagara Falls
The Niagara Falls to Washington
Washington to New York.

We are not very familiar with what is situated between these well-known places. Are there any towns one would want to stay in, e.g. places of historical interest like battles, or other famous places? Thanks, Jacob Lundberg 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Try a stay at the Adirondacks. StuRat 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Try a stay at the Catskills. StuRat 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) Visit some American Revolutionary War sites, like Trenton, New Jersey. Once there, it's just a hop over to Independence Hall in Philadelphia where you can see the Liberty Bell. StuRat 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your way from Niagara to Washington, you may want to take I-90 west to I-79 south. Visit the attractive city of Pittsburgh. From downtown Pittsburgh, take State Route 51 south to Uniontown, then get on U.S. 40 east, which will take you by Fort Necessity National Battlefield. (It's also close to Ohiopyle State Park and Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater.) Continue on U.S. 40 east to scenic I-68 east, which ends at I-70. Exit at Maryland State Route 65 south toward Sharpsburg and the Antietam National Battlefield, site of an important Civil War battle. Harpers Ferry National Historical Park is nearby.

If cornball Americana is more your taste, there's the kazoo factory in Eden, New York, the Zippo lighter factory in Bradford, Pennsylvania (near pretty Allegany State Park) and the Little League Baseball museum in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. (You may have more appreciation for the Little League museum if you visit the excellent Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York on your way from NYC to Niagara.

One thing you might want to consider while you're at Niagara is to take a ride north on the Canadian side along the Niagara Parkway to Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ontario, a charming, colonial-era town that's a great contrast to the gaudiness of the Falls. Lewiston, New York, on the American side, is nice, too -- it's one of those towns where the McDonald's doesn't look like a McDonald's because of the strict laws on historical preservation. -- Mwalcoff 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But make sure before you get there that you have any required visas, etc. to enter Canada. Every year hundreds of tourists don't get to Niagara, Ontario, because they assume Canada is part of the US and not a separate country with its own laws. I kid you not. --Charlene 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few odd possibilities:

Corning Glass Works and the associated Steuben Glass Works (along the Quickway/Southern Tier Expressway from NYC to Niagara)
Erie Canal (along the New York State Thruway from NYC to Niagara)

In Pennsylvania from Niagara to Washington, D.C.:

Many attractions in Philadelphia including the Franklin Institute and the Philadelphia Museum of Art
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/PASHAroad.html (How can Wiki not have an article on this place? An obvious example of Systemic bias!)

Atlant 15:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good ideas, but I would point out that you really don't need to stop at a motel on the last leg of your trip, from Washington to New York. It takes only 4 or 5 hours (even allowing for traffic) to drive between the two cities. Marco polo 01:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought for the leg of the trip from New York to Niagara: the beautiful Finger Lakes. Marco polo 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, all of you! I am sure we will have a wonderful stay in the best country of the world. Jacob Lundberg 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will if you ever decide to go there.

Consider the Lake Erie wine trail [3], and Westfield, which it goes through - a charming little town famous for antiques and grapes. From there you can access Interstate 90, taking you to the city of Erie, Pennsylvania; you can check out Presque Isle State Park, which is just starting to get pretty by April. From there you can take the Interstate 79 (which I found to be very scenic during summer and autumn) to Pittsburgh, as Mwalcoff suggested. The towns along the way are all very country-style, and if you really feel like it, you can stop by to visit the (real) Amish in Sugar Grove, Pennsylvania. After that, I am clueless about travel between Pittsburgh and Washington DC. I hope what I have helps, though! ^_^ V-Man737 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]