Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 January 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

January 23[edit]


Lately I have been walking by the river every week or so. There are groups of vertical supports sticking out of the water where piers once existed. One group always has a bunch of seagulls, one per pole. The other groups of supports generally have no gulls or just one or two. Why would they pick that particular group of poles over another group? Why do 80% of the gulls stick together in a group and the rest go off alone? t h b 02:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I blame society and making the outcasts stay alone seperate from others... or giving the rich and powerful ones more room from the overcrowded masses. Either way I still blame society :p. --antilivedT | C | G 06:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that gulls establish a pecking order by fighting over the 'best' perches (with 'best' being decided by some strange gull logic that's beyond me - sometimes it's the highest perch, which does make sense, sometimes not). Ever see a gull swooping down and trying to displace another gull from its perch? The gulls that successfully fight off their aerial attackers get to stand where they want - the others don't and have to make do with what's available. The lower down the pecking order you go, the less choice. There's an age aspect to it too - a juvenile (brown) gull will almost never challenge an adult for a perch and will nearly always surrender a perch to an adult. This is all intraspecific, of course. Between different species, it's decided by size - a black-headed gull will always move out of the way for a great black-backed gull, for instance. Is there anything different about the poles preferred by the gulls? Is the water shallower beneath those ones in particular? If so, perhaps it means that they can see the seabed (and anything interesting on the seabed) from there? --Kurt Shaped Box 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we please stick to verifiable facts that someone else has observed? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
When you say it like that, it sounds like second-hand testimony is more valuable than firsthand experience. Vranak

Perhaps one support shakes with each incoming wave while the other is more steady ? StuRat 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't observe any fighting over resources, they all seem to be just sitting, and it's along the brackish river, so there is no perceivable difference except maybe the area they are on is close to the garbage pier, but they don't appear to go to the garbage pier. t h b 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


There is a group of ducks that lives near the river. They are usually on one of several grass lawn areas, pecking something out of the grass to eat. One lawn is made of artificial grass. This weekend they were on the artificial lawn eating something. What in the world could they have been eating from artificial turf? t h b 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Food strewn by the homeowners? Seeds blown from plants in neighbouring yards? Alternatively, stop watching all of these birds (re: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Seagulls… it can't be good for your health!. − Twas Now 02:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with the idea of seeds from trees, like those "whirligigs" that spin as they fall. StuRat 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The artificial turf is on a pier. Something might have blown there but they were digging around for at least an hour. I don't think anybody was feeding them, it was a cold day and few people were about. t h b 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Could bugs live in artificial turf? Vespine 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It could be bugs, but what would the bugs be doing there? Trying to avoid ducks? − Twas Now 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That's it. Ducking ducks. -- Barringa 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they were getting nesting material. Ducks do nest, don't they? Clarityfiend 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stick to verifiable facts that someone else has observed? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, there don't appear to be any scientific studies of what ducks pick off of AstroTurf lawns. Perhaps a lobbyist is working on getting funding for just such a valuable study as we speak. StuRat 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dammit! This is all George Bush's fault. Clarityfiend 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

They did appear to be digging and eating, just as they do on the natural lawns. I will go look if they are there again. However, they crap a lot and I don't really want to crawl around in it. t h b 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The crap is a good thing- see what they're eating. -- Sturgeonman 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Experiments for time dilation[edit]

Are there any experiments someone can do at home to see effects of time dilation? I highly doubt there are, but I just think that if there is one I can do, and it works, it would probably be the coolest thing ever. :-) Imaninjapiratetalk to me 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You could try gravitational Time dilation of General relativity by observing the difference in time kept by identical clocks; one on the roof and one in the basement. -- Barringa 04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
However, the difference in gravitation, and the difference in time, will be far outweighed by the inaccuracy of the clock. You'll almost certainly need a pair of atomic clocks to make it work.-Robert Merkel 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Or you need to excite some atoms, have them release gamma rays, and absorb those rays from the top of the building. See the Pound-Rebka experiment. I don't think this could be done as a home experiment, though. --Bowlhover 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can't do this at home, but if you take two synchronized clocks, and leave one at home, then fly around the world in fast airplanes, I believe you might be able to measure the difference. --bmk
Indirectly, the accuracy of anything that uses GPS positioning, such as an in-car navigation system, demonstrates the effects of time dilation. Without compensating for time dilation and other relativistic effects, GPS position fixes would be out by as much as 15 metres (see GPS#Relativity) and - woah, you've just missed your turning ! Gandalf61 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible, unless you have a few spare million dollars. :-) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

String theory[edit]

Is the wave like orbit of the electron around the atom, wave-particle duality,wavelength of particles in motion given by lambda = plancks const/momentum all evidence of STRING theory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

No. The electron is not in a "orbit" in the sense of planetary motion at all. See atomic orbital. DMacks 06:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
String theory is a quantum theory, so it is consistent with all of the quantum phenomena that you mention. However, none of these known phenomena provide direct and conclusive evidence for string theory - as our article says: String theory remains to be confirmed. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories. Gandalf61 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You're basically asking "is quantum physics evidence of string theory" which isn't much of a question. You might as well ask "is the rotation of the earth around the sun evidence of general relativity." No, it is something that GR needs to be able to explain in order to be a reasonable theory of gravitation; string theory needs to be able to explain the nature of quantum phenomena in order to be a theory of it. -- 16:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Scientists do not look for evidence of theories, that would be a type of bias; theory is meant to describe what is already there, and predict what will happen in given situations. The quantum phenomena that you mention are things that string theory attempts to describe. "Is a wave like orbit of the electron around the atom." I know what you mean, and you're kind of close. When a particle has not been measured, it remains a wave instead of a particle, the wave function has not collapsed. The wave is described as representing the possible states of the particle using imaginary numbers. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Are steroids like prednisone anyway related to anabolic steroids? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

They are both steroids. Can you be more specific? − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 06:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are both steroids, so how are they related? Why are they both called steroids when they produce such different effects? What do they have in common?

By virtue of being in the chemical family of steroids. No really, that's it...the molecules have a similar structure; nothing at all to do with biological effect. The structure is not specific enough to assign major medical properties to "all steroid chemicals". DMacks 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the confusion is that when people say "steroid", they usually mean "anabolic steroid". --Kainaw (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
When doctors prescribe say, topical steroids people always freak out a little bit  :) X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 16:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how many people are secretly coating themselves in topical steriods in an attempt to bulk up their muscles? Probably the same ones who call "Smiling Bob" for their free trial of "male enhancement" supplements. --Kainaw (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Working Out[edit]

I'm currently trying to lose weight, and my personal trainer tells me not to have protein shakes after we workout. Does this sound right? He said don't take any protein now, we will overload on protein after you lose the weight. But I am still damaging the muscle when we workout, so shouldnt I drink protein shakes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

You don't need to consume a lot of protein in order to build or repair muscles. Most Westerners eat too much protein, and therefore for us things like protein shakes are just empty calories. You should focus on eating a balanced diet that has a high nutrient value per calorie. That being said, I am not sure about what yourpersonal trainer said about no protein? That's not right. Protein helps you feel full, so you're less likely to overeat. Nutritious protein also contributes to your overall health. Good luck! Anchoress 06:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are trying primarily to lose weight, you are probably doing low intensity workouts for long periods of time (or should be) and using a type of muscle (slow witch / oxidative) that doesn't really need any upkeep besides a steady nutritive flux. Your trainer is right to limit calories, be they from carbohydrate, fat, or protein. tucker/rekcut 12:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with your trainer. If you lift weights you should eat proteins and carbs after to improve recovery. While losing wait you should keep your intake of protein at around 2g/kg of bodyweight to minimize loss of lean mass. Also heigh protein intake will increase your metabolic rate and keep you full longer. I see no point in skipping protein around training just becouse you are on a diet. However, you could of course eat a meal very soon after just as long as it is rich in protein.Hubas 11:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note that any answers you receive here may border on medical advice. Wikipedians are not qualified to give medical advice. Before attempting any weight loss or exercise programme, please see a qualified medical professional. There are certain, potentially life threatening conditions that may be influenced by your choice of weight loss/exercise programme - these can only be diagnosed by a competent medical professional. Please also note that a "personal trainer" DOES NOT count as a medical professional, unless they are also licensed to practice medicine in your jurisdiction. -- 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are links to some articles on the subject by one researcher: [1], [2] Frankg 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do animals cock their heads?[edit]

Why do animals cock their heads when they're confused or interested in something? Sometimes my cat will tilt her head 90° to the left or right when she's looking at me or following a bug on the wall. What for? —Angr 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about your cat, but not all animals have binocular vision. See also parallax view. Anchoress 06:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. according to Binocular vision, predatory animals like cats do tend to have it; and as you can see from her picture here, her eyes are positioned on the front of her head, not on the sides. I've heard that parallax is the reason why cats sometimes sway their heads from side to side when looking at something (especially something they're about to pounce on), but the head-cocking thing is different. I get the impression she does it when she's wondering what's going on, though that could just be anthropomorphism on my part. —Angr 06:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It might also have to do with hearing. Lots of times we cock our heads to get a different bead on a sound - distinguish direction, hear better, etc. Anchoress 07:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't humans do it too? Vitriol 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly do. Vranak
My inside budgie always cocks his head when I'm talking to him. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe Anchoress is right. Dogs will cock their heads when the sound is coming from in front of them in order to change the position of their ears and better catch the sound. --Joelmills 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sound localization#Binaural cues. Melchoir 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I was babysitting one time and the 1-year-old cocked his head to look at something - there were no unusual sounds from that direction. Clarityfiend 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Parallax distance judgement works best when the subject is in the vision plane of the eyes. Try it sometime: go to the top of a hill, and see how steep it looks. Now, tilt your head sideways -- the hill should look far less steep, and closer to the actual slope. --Carnildo 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


In the Dune novels the Bene Gesserit are taught a fictional training style know as Prana-bindu. It apparently allows them to control any muscle is there body independently. My question is, is this level of control even possible? And, are there any real world martial arts or other disciplines that practice similar abilities. Thanks! S.dedalus 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For brevity, I will be very general. There are two rather interesting parts of your brain that sit side by side. One is a layer that receives information from nerves all over your body. The other is a layer that sends signals to all the parts of your body. What is rather cool about them is that the brain cells are arranged on those layers in a very similar pattern to the way the human body is arranged. The proportions are different though. For example, in the receiving part the fingertips are huge compared to the arms because you sense more with your figertips than your arms. In the sending part, the legs are huge and the feet are rather small and often appear to be lacking toes. That is because you have a lot of control over the muscles in your legs, but very little over your feet and toes. With all of that description, you can see why I'm being so overly general. But, understanding how it works, you can see that to gain control over a new muscle will involve either losing control over another muscle or somehow forming new brain cells to add to the existing ones. It is my opinion that children are capable of quickly creating new cells or training currently unused ones. Adults have pretty mush got their brain set up and find it difficult to learn a new trick. I was just reminded of watching an old lady try to use a cell phone. She had to hold the phone in one hand and use just one finger on the other to press each button one at a time - slowly. Imagine her trying to learn the thumb-numbing practice of texting. --Kainaw (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify Kainaw's comment, learning is not a matter of gaining new brain cells, but rather it involves making connections between existing brain cells (in obscenely simple terms). − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 08:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is slightly unrelated to your original question, but is in keeping with Kainaw's comments: "the receiving part the fingertips are huge compared to the arms because you sense more with your figertips than your arms". Cortical homunculi show a map of the human body based on the amount of sensorimotor cortex dedicated to that body part (the sensorimotor cortex is the portion of the brain directly responsible for sensation and movement). In the image, the left figure shows a sensory mapping (i.e., the larger parts are most sensitive), and the right figure shows a motor mapping (i.e., the larger parts have more fine control). − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't people already control all their muscles:) What would be the point of having something if you can never use it:?Hidden secret 7 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought he meant the ability to have conscious control over any single skeletal muscle. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 16:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Controlling any muscle in the body independently is rather a tall order: muscles are connected to one another, so moving one is going to move others. Vranak

Thanks for all your help. Yes, the section on Prana-bindu mentions the ability to “bend the last joint in her little toe while remaining otherwise motionless.” The ability also apparently extends to controlling muscle groups that are not usually consciously controlled, such as the heart muscles. S.dedalus 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't actually a muscle just for the last joint of the toe, but if they are as in control as you claim, they might be able to make one:]Hidden secret 7 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkanes and their Boiling Points[edit]

Hi, I was given the graph where the number of carbon atoms are plotted against their boiling points (Alkanes), and it turns out to be a curve instead of a straight line. Why is that? Aren't they meant to be increasing proportionally? I couldn't find anything on WIKIPEDIA and my teacher challenged me to find a detailed IB / AS level answer, many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Van der Waals forces are the cause that the alkanes stay together. If the thermal motion excedes this force the stuff boils. The Van der Waals' force is dependent on the surface area of the alkane. The surface area grows slower than the mass (volume). One with the power of two the other power of three. This might help you to find good references for the problem.--Stone 09:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This paper proposes various empirical mathematical models for the boiling points of alkanes, and includes this explanation: If you plot the boiling point for the first few normal-alkanes against MW [molecular weight], it rapidly increases because the London forces increase with MW and these are the forces holding the molecules together in a liquid... But, as the chain gets longer the molecule can fold back on itself and some of the London forces are directed towards itself so the dependence of boiling point on MW diminishes. I guess this might be correct, but it could also be a post hoc rationalisation - you should try to find other sources to confirm this explanation. Gandalf61 10:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Stars in the southern sky[edit]

I've been able to see the stars in the northern sky from a perfectly black ocean or a high desert mountain top, and the southern sky from a remote bush location in southern africa. I have the completely relative perception that there are more stars in the southern sky, but I wonder if that can be true? Of course, there are different constellations, and certain elements of the northern hemisphere star map can't be seen in the south, and vice versa. I've read that there are certain vast galaxies in the southern sky, but I suppose we see them as individual stars, if we see them at all. The map of the earth has more land mass in the north and more water in the south. My question is, is the 'sky' more or less filled with the same number of visable starts all around us, from anywhere on earth we can get a clear and unpolluted view, or is there any reason that the southern sky really is filled with just more visible stars and a generally more spectacular and universal vista? Thanks if you have an interesting answer.

Somewhere in my past I picked up that there are appox 3,000 stars visible in the north and 5,000 visible in the south. I have no idea where I got that from and Google isn't helping. --Kainaw (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting question. Googling "more stars visible" and "southern hemisphere" brings up several confirmations, such as this one. All the stars we see are within our own galaxy, and apparently the centre of the galaxy is better placed for viewing from the southern hemisphere.--Shantavira 13:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Almost all the stars and other astronomical objects that can be seen with the naked eye are within our own galaxy. There are just a few objects visible with the naked eye that are outside of our galaxy, such as the Magellanic Clouds, the Andromeda Galaxy and, under exceptionally good conditions, the Triangulum Galaxy. Gandalf61 13:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It is widely regarded that the southern hemisphere is better viewing then the north. The main reason is that the densest part of out galaxy: The Galactic center is positioned at a declination of about -20 degrees. This makes it higher in the sky from southern rather then northen latitudes. There are also several other spectacular objects such as the Magellanic clouds and Omega Centauri which are only viewable from the south, why those are south and not north, I just thought it was dumb luck. Vespine 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Silicon Oil[edit]

Moeved under RF load /Please do not post a Q in more than one place!--Light current 17:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stem Cell Research Global Funding[edit]

I have searched on the 'pedia for a while, in addition to interrogating google, and I have not been able to find any data on how much funding SCR has gotten in countries other than the US of A. Except once, a few days ago. I didn't favorite it and I was on a public computer and don't have access to the history, but I know it's out there somewhere. So if someone could possibly assist me in my search, or even give me a chart, of the funding stem cell research has gotten, by country, that would be great :). -- GofG ||| Contribs 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't sufficient for your needs, but this might help. It shows every country's permissibility toward stem cell research. I might make the assumption that, based on a country's level of permissibility and GDP, one can make general conclusions as to how much they fund the research. For example, Japan is rich and permissive, so they would contribute a larger portion of their GDP (say 0.05%) to stem cell research, while a restrictive country like Germany might contribute only 0.001%. On the other hand, Iceland is more permissive than the U.S., but the U.S. might still contribute the same amount or more, since they have much more money at their disposal. Generalities… maybe useless for your purposes. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambient Infrared/Ultraviolet[edit]

About how much ambient infrared (near and far) and ultraviolet light exists that, say, a sci-fi-type organism that can only see infrared and ultraviolet light (but for some odd reason not visible light) would be able to see on Earth? What kind of change would occur from day to night, and what kind of differences would artificially lit environments have to naturally lit environments (from the extremes of being in a room shielded from natural light that's still lit to being outside with no artificial light, for example)? To anyone that takes the time to read this and respond, thanks!~ 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sunlight provides lots of near-UV and lesser amounts of the higher energy UVs (UV-A and UV-B) and essentially all UV-C is blocked by the ozone layer. Surprisingly, there's not all that much near-IR floating around (as you prove every time you use your TV clicker to mute the commercials; its pretty wimpy infrared LED is bright enough to be seen by the TV even if you're not pointing the clicker right at it.)
And UV and IR vision does exist. For UV vision, see the Claude Monet article for a reference (near the bottom) to his changed vision after he had his cataracts (and eye lenses) removed; this may also be the rather-terrestrial explanation for the character in the sci-fi story K-PAX. Our article doesn't mention it, but honey bees are widely assumed to be able to see in UV as well. And for far-IR vision, see pit viper.
Atlant 17:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Bee's purple" X [Mac Davis] (How's my driving?) 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

measurement standard of blade sharpness[edit]

Is there a standardized measurement for blade sharpness. ie scalpl, razor, kitchen knife?

I have not been able to finad an ASTM, ANSI, DIN or other standard for this measurement

Thanks Conrad A. Smith Moonraker72 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I used to work in a tool shop and we would have different things sharpened by a professional sharpening service, router, planer and saw blades, I've never heard of a standard for sharpness. That does not mean one doesn't exist. Vespine 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Often times blades are rated by minimum thickness in µm. X [Mac Davis] (How's my driving?) 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps 10 years ago I read of a man who had devised a new knife sharpening doodad and had devised a sharpness test, but I don't remember what the test was. Seems like ASTM would have devised something, like measuring the pressure required to cut a standard piece of paper. My youthful sharpening efforts usually resulted in someone saying "Wow, that knife is so sharp it would cut warm butter," so that would be the easiest test. Edison 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Better than mine, all I got was "Wow, that knife is so sharp it could cut melted butter." X [Mac Davis] (How's my driving?) 03:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting question. I can see no reason why there shouldn't be an objective test for sharpness, but Googling "blade" and "measure how sharp" produces only one hit, which is an interesting one, though there are no further hits for his "Anago Sharpness Tester".--Shantavira 09:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just search for "sharpness tester"? I did that and turned up [3] Apparently it measures sharpness in force required to cut a test sample. I also got [4], which is kind of goofy but interesting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That is cutting edge technology! Edison 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Burled wood[edit]

I have this wood burl that is about 6 by 9 by 4 that I wanted to display but I can't figure out what kind of objects or surfaces to make that will render the greatest surface area. One idea is a series of ever decreasing size bowls or maybe knife or gun handles. Where can I find some examples of what has been made out of burled wood and how it was done? -- Barringa 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Google for images of "wood turning burl bowl". You will see lots of examples. You will need a wood lathe and perhaps some unique tools to make nested bowls. Rmhermen 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tame budgies falling asleep when spoken to softly...[edit]

The topic on animals cocking their heads in response to sound reminded me of this. When I talk softly and quietly to my budgie when he's in his cage (with my face close to his), after a while I notice him starting to get sleepy - his eyelids droop, he fluffs his feathers up, he starts clicking his beak (as tired budgies do). Sometimes he even tucks his head into his back and falls fast asleep for a couple of hours. I've noticed that he does the same if I sing softly to him, or even make a low-pitched rumbling noise in the back of my throat. All the budgies I've kept as pets have done this, so it's not something particular to this bird. Anyone have any idea why I have the ability to send budgerigars to sleep (no, it's not because I'm a boring person - before anyone says it ;) )? --Kurt Shaped Box 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The alpha bird in the flock is present and taking care of them, so what's to worry about? Time to catch some Zzzzs... I think you'll find this actually a pretty common parrot behavior.
Atlant 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would guess you are producing something close to the sounds it's parent(s) made, which it finds relaxing. StuRat 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty pretty sure it's not boredom;-) --Shantavira 08:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)