Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 September 9

< September 8	Miscellaneous desk archive	September 10 >

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

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

< August September October >

September 9

anothe man law

wtf does this mean: "if it's that time of the month for your girlfriend, you are allowed to take matters into your own hands". is this condoning cheating? explain?

btw, this is jasbutal

masturbation --Nelson Ricardo 00:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that there aren't any real "man laws," just common courtesy and "good man-manners." These two you are confused about are more supposed to be funny. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

well no shit mac_davis. No, i didn't realize that there wasn't a man-legislature enacting man-laws. I really thought that I was going to be arrested when I didn't jack off because my woman was bleeding.

I thought intercourse was still possible with a menstruating woman. Jamesino 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely possible, the question is if the two partners will still be willing. Masturbation, on the other hand, is generally possible just about anytime, although perhaps not always appropriate. 惑乱 分からん 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

While menstrating, the girlfriend's hormone levels will be at a low, so not only is intercourse not as desirable (unless you like it bloody), it may not be desired either. Oh, and Mr. Jasbutal: We all appreciate your lofty, casual speech here, but let's put on our friendly hats and answer questions like real, appreciative people! Also, girls don't tend to enjoy being called "my woman" by their man, though I'm sure you're well aware of that as well.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Taking matters into your own hands is an euphemism for masturbation. But, then most men masturbate even during other times of the month. Also, having sex while she is menstruating is pretty common too. Jut put a couple towels down. As for hormone levels, it can me mixed. Hormones are sometimes low, and sometimes they spike high too. Some women are less interested, and some more interested. Also, you are forgetting about oral sex, and anal sex. Besides that, you could probably just give her a nice massage, and still be intimate. Maybe masturbate for her entertainment afterward?

Another option is that you could go out with one of your other girlfriends, or partners. As for condoning cheating, as you suggest -- There is no way to condone being dishonest, or cheating on your partner. Atom 02:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Power Pigs

Anyone know what a "power pig" is? My french math teacher talks about it very often. Could it be a french joke? Jamesino 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what immediately comes to mind for me is Power Pig, the alter ego of Orson the pig from U.S. Acres, a cartoon on Garfield & Friends. But boy would that be an esoteric reference to make. --Maxamegalon2000 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In what context does she use the phrase? Just as a general insult, or what? --Aaron 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you answer this question correctly, you get a Power Pig!" Jamesino 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a nice way of saying a reward, without refering to the cliched 'gold star' or 'brownie point'. —Daniel (‽) 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he's actually saying "You get a power, pig!"  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm dying to know this myself now. Please ask your teacher and report back to us.--Shantavira 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a powerful looking pig. Flying_pig--Light current 19:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Curious what 'French math' is... do the French do math differently? All the story problems involve baguettes, maybe? 192.168.1.1 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

By french math, I mean he teaches english math, but he is of french nationality. Jamesino 02:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. The English do do math differently. That's why they do maths instead of math (and why "innings" is singular.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they need a French math teacher to help them learn how to count in 20s.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one should learn that. The French empire has already exported their despicable counting system to the Danes... Enough is enough, we have to draw a line somewhere!! @_@ 惑乱 分からん 23:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The poster was saying his or her math teacher was French because that may provide context so that one can better arrive at an answer, perhaps. --Proficient 03:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Thank you. Jamesino 21:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Its poor pig shes saying. Sounds a bit insulting. Is her English not too good? THe French for poor is 'pauvre' which could sound a bit like 'power'.--Light current 09:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So, the question is:

Is the term Pauvre cochon a French term of endearment?--Light current 09:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The plurality of mathematics

Watch and learn: MATHEMATICS = MATHS 8-))--Light current 10:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MATHEMATICS = MATH — Michael J 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

PHYSICS? Tyrhinis 10:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry?--Light current 14:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Chemistries? --Optichan 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

what's with the empiricism???

seriously, what's with people thinking that logical, positivistic rationalism with a healthy tincture of analysis is the solution to everything and the end-all-be-all???

Here are a couple examples that I've seen in the last few days.

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Philosophical_Argument:_God

"God is omnibenevolent. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. Humans have free will."

"If God is omniscient, then he knows what we will do. If God knows what we will do, he knows our destiny. If God set our lives in motion, he is responsible for causing that destiny. If we do evil things, God is responsible for them since he had the foreknowledge of the events and still caused us."

Is this a joke? Without even looking at his contorted, convoluted arguments, it's pretty obvious that proving the existence of "God" is impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#backlog.3F

"What are the scientific chances that 2 unrelated words would sound so similar"

Where do these people get the notion that science and math can solve and prove everything? Jasbutal 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientists have discovered it is all in the genes. --Lambiam^Talk 08:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that's what they think? Solve everything is not quite the same as the best we can do. Can you think of a better way to explain things than with scientific methods (such as logic)? And why did you put empiricism in the title? That's just one aspect (or method) of science. DirkvdM 09:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

all I'm saying is that to avoid all this, the following statement should be drilled into every students head just before the profs/teachers delve into the modern wonders science has created: "There are no absolute scientific truths. There are no absolute scientific laws. In science, there is no truth or fact, just very likely theories that are themselves still approximations." Jasbutal 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your feeling, Jasbutal, and would answer both the questions you quoted with "we don't know", or "there is no definite logical right answer" - as I would yours. But to be comfortable with don't-know takes a while, and many never feel that way, or simply give up asking. So maybe one should just accept the way thing are, where no harm is done (according to how your philosophy defines harm :)). --Seejyb 13:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess my questions some time turn into rants... Jasbutal 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why specifically tell students that there are no absolute truths in science? Why not just tell them there are no absolute truths? DirkvdM 06:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

cause that's not true dirk ;) Jasbutal 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not... ;P 惑乱 分からん 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Name some absolute truths. JackofOz 09:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Pfeiffer

I thought michelle pfeiffer was a large, belligerent black man who was friends with eminem!??!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000201/

You're thinking of Mekhi Phifer.

Michelle Pfeiffer + Mia Farrow

ok, does Michelle Pfeiffer in "Dangerous Minds" (when Michelle was ~37) look like Mia Farrow in "Purple Rose of Cairo" (when Mia was ~40) ??

http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_03_img1276.jpg

http://aili.blogzine.jp/cinema/images/mia-thumb.bmp

incidentally, don't they both kind of look like Catherine Hicks in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (when Catherine was ~35) ??

http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/startrekIV26.jpeg

they're all so cute... Jasbutal 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

International standard of blanditude so no-one gets offended I guess.-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 09:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Cute isn't the word I'd use. They all look like my mom (at 35).  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You heard about MILFs, right? (Although that generally refers to others' moms...) 惑乱 分からん 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

implicit and explicit subsidies - definition

202.164.132.61 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)6456457

An explicit subsidy is directly giving a business money to do something, while an implicit subsidy is giving them some other benefit which is equivalent to giving them money. For example, railroads received land for every mile of track laid, and they could then sell some of that land. StuRat 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuck at level in Hopmon game

File:Hopmon.png

I bought a copy of this game on CD. It it unconnected with the Hopmon character. A screenshot of the game can be seen at http://www.gamealbum.com/Games/Arcade/HOPMON_223_Review.html

I like the game because of the graphics, but I have become stuck at a level thats only three or four levels into the game. I have to collect a jewel in an area thats patrolled by one or two killer robots, but however hard I try it is impossible for me to move out of the way quick enough to avoid being killed.

I have tried searching on google to find a solution, with no luck.

Has anyone played the game, or is perhaps more ingenious with internet searching than me, and can tell me how to get through this deadly situation please?

I just downloaded the free demo and played the game (for the sake of research only, of course) and I played through the first 6 levels without any problems. I'll assume you were having trouble on the 5th level, though the strategy is basically the same throughout the game (game theory anyone?):

• You slow down a little more for each jewel you pick up, so unless you're deliberately trying to make it harder on yourself, collect one jewel at a time. There are a few places with timed traps (e.g. those fireball things) that are deliberately designed to force you to run fast (thus carry little).
• Do not destroy any more gates than you need to, unless not destroying one will make it more difficult for you to escape or will lead the enemies more directly to you. This will stop enemies from coming up behind you. Doors should only be destroyed when the enemies are furthest away, or else you'll be in trouble waiting for your gun to recharge.
• Go through the level slowly, doing one thing at a time. If there's going to be a lot of bad guys in the next area, stay back in the previous room and pick them off one by one and then hide (a common "strategy" called hit and run). This is really the only strategy you have when you have to wait such a long time for the gun to recharge.

Hope this helps!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  18:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Rio

It seems that Diamond Rio has written a new Song and only played it a few times and because of it's "Political Incorrectness" it has been ostrisized and the media will not play it . What is it's Name and where can it be obtained? leetoots

It's called "In God We Still Trust", and that nebulous unified entity called "the media" won't play it because it pushes an inappropriate level of political-religious unification which isn't appropriate in a secular country like the United States and has nothing to do with entertainment and all to do with making a political statement. You can find the lyrics at any number of websites which have no problems with violating copyright. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the media don't play it, it could still probably be bought on CD, or if you'd like, obtained in various ways through other channels than the legal ones. No links here, though... 惑乱 分からん 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Blogs

Does anybody know where I could go to find a specific person on a blog? This is assuming that I know they have one but I don't know where. Thanks.

• You could stick their name (or pen name) and the blog subject in Google together with the word blog or simply ask their URL. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sound

Why won't any sound come out of my speakers?? When using Media player the music is playing according to that but no sounds comes out, and it's not my speakers either because I've tried three different sets now. Basically I think that I've put something on mute somewhere and it's effected my whole computer. Could you please tell me as many different places this can be done on my computer so I hopefully can solve the problem. Many thanks

You can sign your post by typing four tildes. That would give Jozzismint and the current date. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot but that wasn't really my question.

Some Keyboards have a mute button on them, make sure that is not on. I'm assuming that you have a Windows PC, in control panels, there is a sound manager, check its settings. Make sure the connection from your computer to your speakers is tight proper. In windows media player, make sure the mute is not on. Jamesino 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I think this would probablt be a computer/IT question in the first place, but, oh well. First (if using Windows), I would suggest to right click on the little speaker icon in the lower right hand corner of the screen (if it isn't there click the arrow and it should show) and select Open Volume Control. There is a box in that window in the lower left hand corner that says Mute All. If it is checked, uncheck it and the problem should be fixed. If that doesn't work, in that same window there is a help tab at the top. Click it and choose help topics. This might help you solve the problem. If your volume is still not working, click Start and choose Help and Support (this will be right there in the right column of the staret menu if you are using Windows XP Start Menu and not the "classic" start menu. There is a list of topics that you can choose from. If you don't think any of them cover your problems, click the search box at the top left corner and type in your problem. If you are STILL having problems, I suggest calling technical support or calling someone to come over and help you. schyler 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In WMP, there is also a little speaker icon which also represents sound level. In the beta at least, it is at the bottom of the window and slightly to the center-right. But there is a level meter, and the further right you go the louder it is, so make sure it is not clicked (mute) or it is not at the very bottom. Iolakana•T 19:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably already know this, but it's always worth looking at the obvious. There should be a tiny light on one of your speakers. (At least, I assume this is standard.) If it is not lit, then it's a power supply problem.--Shantavira 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if the little speaker icon is not in the taskbar, go START>Settings>Control Panel>"Sound and Audio Devices" something like that anyway, I'm going by memory. A window will come up and uncheck any "mutes" that are there. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Have you definately plugged your speakers into the Line Out 3.5mm port? Sounds stupid, but my computer has three and I'm always getting them the wrong way round. The front-panel audio connections are the wrong way round even now... besides that, do you get sound from other programs or just your media player? That would tell us if the problem's with the program or the OS/drivers/hardware... Tyrhinis 10:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Baseball's Hall of Fame card collection

To the Pro who knows :-)

I have an original, and complete box of BB mini cards. The box reads:

"WHO'S WHO IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES BASEBALL..." presents... Pictures & Records of the Immortals (in the) BBHoF"

They appear to be printed by B.E. Callahan, 328 Jefferson St. Chicago, IL.

The box measures: .75"T x 1.75"W x 2.5"L and contains 52 black and white cards with renderings and bios of Hall of Famers dating back to the 1870s and inducted into the HH in 1945.

It appears as if it might have been sold, at the BBHF as a souvenier in the '50s???

I have shown it to a number of sport card collectors, none of whom have any idea of its origin or value. Having never seen such cards before???

Any information concerning these cards, especially their value, and where they might find a "buyer" will be greatly appreciated.

Know you have my "Sincere THANKS!" for Your efforts!

Roger Morrison, Lindsay, Ontario, Canada

Disclaimer: I'm not a Pro, nor do I know. Nevertheless I'm posting what I consider might be helpful: Here's a google search with several leads. Here's tomfolio's site selling a product that sounds similar to the one you described. ---Sluzzelin 17:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Related ebay auctions]. None of those seem to be cards though, and unfortunately none of them seem to be going for much cash.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  18:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that explains why it's called "WWITMLB... presents... Anyways, some of those books are going for much more ($500+) at this site, so you might be able to get something for those cards, if they're in decent condition.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

reproducable goods

What's the name for goods (like music or software) that it costs the author nothing if you steal it? "digital" fits but I'm sure there's a more specific term --Froth 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Freeware? Free software? BTW, "stealing" implies a criminal act. 惑乱 分からん 17:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what i mean. In relation to piracy - as in not free sofware. Free speech as opposed to free beer. I'm struggling for an appropriate word to describe the argument for illegal file sharing that it doesn't hurt anyone because copying of digital media doesn't deprive the author of anything like stealing a car would deprive someone of a car. --Froth 17:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're depriving the author of is royalty payments. There really isn't any difference between this and, say, copying a book (with paper and ink that you provide). In this case you're not taking something physical from the author (or anyone else), but the value of the book is not the value of the paper, etc. The general term for the thing of value that's being taken in this case is intellectual property, and I think the argument that it's OK to do this has to be based on an assumption that intellectual property has no value. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, you could check out Pirate Party, a Swedish registered political party that mainly strives to reform/remove laws regarding copuyright, patent etc. 惑乱 分からん 17:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which would mean authors, photographers and musicians get nothing past the initial payment from whoever buys their work. After that, with no copyright law in place, anyone would simply copy stuff. If that party ever gets their way arty people will suffer financially. As a pro-copyright person myself, I sincerely hope they will never get their way. It may be a pain in the behind, but it protects the creators in the long run. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah but for 75 years after the author's death; able to be renewed by massive corporations with no hand in its creation??? Let's get some reasonable copyrights for intellectual property. I think that is more what the pirate party is aiming at. Nowimnthing 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Swedish Wikipedia, it appears that they will limit the copyright period to five years after the creator's death and, even more notable, legalizing all fire-sharing without commercial intent. 惑乱 分からん 19:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

'Intellectual property' is about the legal side of it. The most general term is 'information'. Then again, money is also information ... DirkvdM 06:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I must be misinformed... =S 惑乱 分からん 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The economics term for what you are describing is club good. - SimonP 00:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, when you say "money is information", are you referring to notes, coins and other representations of money? I think so, because money itself is not those things. Money is an energy. How can energy be "information"? JackofOz 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Energy? Do you mean in the sense that it's a driving force for the economy? Money is essentially information, though. When goods are produced, money is distributed to indicate who gets to get how much of those goods. And that is information. Someone makes an effort (eg produces a good) and gets money to prove that he has done that and thus has a right to get someone else's effort. (Badly put, but you get the point.) DirkvdM 06:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And if you could add up all those bits of money, and all the balances in all the bank accounts in the world, and all the spare cash people have lying around, you'd eventually come up with a total amount of "money" in the world. Which suggests there is a finite amount of money, and humans created it. And that, IMO, would be exactly the wrong conclusion to come to. Just imagine if all that "money" was somehow dematerialised in a split second. What would happen? People would start to barter for mutual interest, and life would go on. Soon, it would become convenient to establish a common medium with which many commodities could be valued, and that would be the new "money". But the new money and the old money were never the essence of the vital force at work, they were just our clumsy way of making an energetic - if you like, spiritual - force appear solid and tangible. That force is not some vague, metaphysical abstract thing. It may not be tangible, but it is very real. There is an unlimited supply of this. As much of it as you can possibly imagine can be converted into tangible abundance in the form of goods and services for all humankind. And when you've done that, multiply it by a thousand. Then, you still haven't even scratched the surface of what's available. It will never run out. The corollary of this is that there's an unlimited amount of money, far more than every human on planet Earth could possibly ever use. Yet the paradox is that the way to access the abundance is to move the focus away from accumulating money and onto the energy itself. This is like standing in a river and trying to hold on to particular handfuls of water, thinking that they are the valuable ones, while an almost uncountable number of other handfuls just go speeding by. The river is the thing, not the handfuls of water. JackofOz 12:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The second fourth of what you said makes sense to me. The rest doesn't. You don't need to explain to me what infinity is. :) But the rest would require some more explaining. Sounds like you're talking about some pecuniary god. DirkvdM 06:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I never mentioned infinity or god, but it's interesting that you equated what I was talking about with such ideas. The scientists among us would argue there is no such thing as an energy source that never runs out. I beg to differ. These ideas are not amenable to quick or easy explanation. Or any explanation at all, probably. Well, not one that I know about, anyway. Best I can say is, either you grasp this concept, or you don't. If not today, maybe tomorrow, who knows. Happy grasping. JackofOz 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless you believe in a god by faith, you can't stare science down and say "there is an energy source that will never run down" ... it's just stupid (unless you believe in a closed universe or something, in which case I guess the big squeeze could be considered the mechanism for a practically inexhaustible energy source) --Froth 22:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you provide two qualifications, which are more than enough for my purposes. I wasn't having a go at science or scientists, just wanting to short-circuit the frenzied discussion I feared would otherwise develop. Perhaps I was unwise to mention science at all. My earlier statements reflect what I believe innately to be so, and they were ultra-scientific in nature. JackofOz 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

American equivalent of Shakespeare

Was/Is there a famous playwright who/is was just as famous as Skakespeare, but was/is American?

sure, Arthur Miller. Death of a Salesman was the USA's answer to Shakespeare's sappy plays about aristocrats and their hubris. Jasbutal 19:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to say. Shakespeare lived 450 years ago, there aren't any US writers who have been around that long. We'll know in 400 years or so whether or not Miller is as famous as WS. Anchoress 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to mention Steven Spielberg, although he works in a more modern medium. 惑乱 分からん 19:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Miller and Williams will still be well-known in 450 years. {note to Wikipedians working on the 100,000,000,000,000 article Wikipedia in AD 2456: edit/correct this statement as appropiate} -- the GREAT Gavini 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they'll probably be as well known as, say, Ben Jonson or Thomas Kyd, at most. Steven Spielberg is the only person who compares to Shakespeare in terms of both popularity, variety, and (if it's a word) prolificacy, but his relentless sappiness, often flat characterization, dependence on special effects (which will be dated in a few decades), and relentless attempts to go bigger and bigger, to top himself (who watches The Guns of Navarone nowadays?) mean that most of his movies will probably not last a fraction of the time of Shakespeare's plays. The short answer to the original question is, of course, that there is no American equivalent to Shakespeare. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(who watches The Guns of Navarone nowadays?) - oh ha ha zafirolbleu .Jasbutal 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if we're going to include storytellers who work in the medium of film, Alfred Hitchcock is a better choice than Spielberg. For one thing, he wrote more of his movies than Spielberg, and IMO he did a better job of straddling the same fence WS did, between popularity and art. In particular, I think Hitchcock's character development was great, particularly for the era. And while he was born in the UK, he was a naturalised US citizen. So I don't know if he counts. And BTW I know there are other prolific directors who are also writers, Billy Wilder being an example, but IMO Hitchcock is the most iconic. Anchoress 22:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitchcock films will almost certainly last longer than (most) Spielberg films, but I don't think he's much like Shakespeare - he worked almost exclusively in one genre. Spielberg, for all his faults, is much more diverse, in terms of going from the lighthearted (from Indiana Jones to Catch Me If You Can) to the dark (Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List), from epic blockbuster (Jaws, Jurassic Park) to (rather) small thriller (Duel, Munich), from historical drama (Empire of the Sun, Amistad) to science fiction (E.T., Close Encounters, War of the Worlds), and so on. Hitchcock is comparatively limited. Shakespeare, by comparison, wrote masterpieces in all of the available, totally unrelated, genres (tragedy, comedy, and history). zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if we're emphasising range, Billy Wilder's got as much range as Spielberg, and with way more writing credits and a heap of Oscars, he could bitchslap Spielberg any day. Anchoress 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd pay to see that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of Joss Whedon's scripts, in the first few seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, were up the the Shakespeare standard. Edison 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, good one edison.

Arguments of quality aside, Whedon is merely a cult favorite only today. It's hard to believe his name will survive for 500 years, if that's what's asked. 惑乱 分からん 10:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Kushner is also up there. "G. David Shine in Hell" had me in stitches. Raul654 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen King? 1001001 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you consider that a playwright? Unlike people working for film and TV, King generally doesn't write for actors. =S 惑乱 分からん 10:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one. Shakespeare is the most famous dramatist in the English language - in fact, in all languages. I could toss around names such as Eugene O'Neill, but they wouldn't really come close. Of course, there really isn't any other British writer who comes close. When was the last time you saw a play by Kit Marlowe? B00P 08:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean like Faustus for example? DJ Clayworth 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

looking for a movie to watch

Looking to rent a movie like Maltese Falcon with a private investigator who wears a trenchcoat and some femme, and mystery and all. any ideas? Did they break the mold with Maltese Falcon ?Jasbutal 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried Humphrey Bogart's other movies? Also look at the fim credit list in the Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid article (which is a brilliant film in itself).--Shantavira 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there is even a film called Trenchcoat, but I've never seen it. Anyone know if it's any good?--Shantavira 19:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you just like the style, check out the article about Film noir, including a list of 35 of the most classic movies from the Noir era. 惑乱 分からん 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

thankx. 70.225.165.130 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Try a movie called The Black Bird. It stars George Segal as Sam Spade, Jr., who has inherited his father's San Francisco detective agency. It's now in a bad part of town, and still employs Effie Perrine (Lee Patrick, reprising her role), Sam Sr's secretary. It was her last film. It also has Elisha Cook Jr. in it. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

May not be exactly what you first expect, but try The Long Goodbye if you want to see an interesting '70s take on the genre by one of the most notable directors. After that, you might like Trouble in Mind, an '80s take on the Noir genre. 192.168.1.1 07:15 10 Dismember 2006 (UTC)

The Black Dahlia (film) has just been released - it sounds like what you're looking for. Natgoo 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinatown is one of my most favourite movies. The protagonist is a private eye, and I think he wears a trenchcoat at least some of the time.

The writer who wrote the book that the film The Maltese Falcon was based on was Dashiell Hammett and his books are still in print today. If you havnt read any Raymond Chandler yet then you are in for a treat. They are more readable than Hamnett. Both Chandler and Hammett had their novels turned into both b&w and more recent colour films (b&w films are on average better in my opinion). You could look up the articles for Chandler and Hammett and see what films were based on their novels. 81.104.12.24 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Big Sleep and Murder, My Sweet are, I believe, the most well-known adaptations of Chandler (the former in particular), and are both very good in my opinion. -Elmer Clark 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the films listed in the Femme fatale article as well as those listed in the Film noir article. There are only three films listed in both lists: The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, and The Lady From Shanghai.

looking for antoher movie ...

i wanna see gregory peck beat the shit outta someone. recommendatison? (already seen guns of navarone) 70.225.165.130 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the article, I find the old Cape Fear movie the most interesting. 惑乱 分からん 20:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

oooh! 70.225.165.130 20:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, myself, yet, but it's high on my list of movies I want to see sometime. 惑乱 分からん 20:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The one where he beat the **** of his Oscar contenders, while being a peace-and-justice-lover in the movie itself, was To Kill a Mockingbird (film). JackofOz 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

seen it. it was so boring I turned into a an african-american septuagenarian while i was watching it. Jasbutal 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How about The Bravados? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Boys from Brazil has one of the most violent scenes I've seen Peck in. - SimonP 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

tapiers

My father is 72 and in palliative care with cancer. He cant go out and time is against us. My dad is mad about tapiers and I'm desperately searching for a dvd but have had no luck. I've searched W H Smith, HMV, amazon and even London Zoo's website all to no avail. Can somebody please help me? Kind Regards Clair

dunno if you can find a dvd solely about tapirs, but this has a section on tapirs: 70.225.165.130 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00008OM6C?v=glance

I remember that David Attenborough's programs were great, when I saw them. Which disc contains the tapir sequence? 惑乱 分からん 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

dunno, I assume the first? Do a control-f "tapir", some guy talks about it.

See tapirs for our article, you might want to print that out for him, and follow the links at the bottom for more articles and pics. StuRat 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.junglewalk.com/shop/Tapir-gifts.htm has all sorts of tapir gifts-posters,mousemats,etc. I can't see any DVDs,but there are video clips online that he might like. Lemon martini 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

professional tennis requirements for women and men

I am looking for some explanation as to why men and women play unequal number of sets in professional tennis. Thanks - Franco

I'll tell you, but only if you can get me a pardon after the feminazis arrest me. Jasbutal 20:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've been wondering why men's and women's doubles matches are only best-of-3-sets and not best-of-5, like men's singles matches. Doubles tennis requires a lot less running, so their matches could be considerably longer. One possible answer is that singles is generally more fun to watch (longer rallies), but in my opinion that's a weak answer. Does anyone have a better response? (Hope you don't mind me asking another question, Franco.)

Anyway, the reason why they men and women play an unequal number of sets is probably the same reason why men and women don't compete against each other in professional sports (although there may be exceptions that I am unaware of). Oh, and if you didn't pick it up in the last paragraph, men's doubles and women's doubles are both best-of-3-sets, so that's equal. It's just singles that it's different (But why? I don't know. Anyone?). —EdGl 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

it's because they're weaker than men. it's not easy to stand out in the heat for that long .Jasbutal 22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Must be something to do with unequal stamina--Light current 22:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, women should have higher pain tolerance. 惑乱 分からん 23:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

False. women have a higher capacity for love, but a lower pain tolerance...that's the sole reason why men can't give birth. Jasbutal 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? Anyway, it cannot be the sole reason, surely there are some biological reasons in the male anatomy, as well... ;) 惑乱 分からん 23:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

wait, I mistyped. you're right it's not the reason, that fact that women give birth is evidence of the reason that they have a higher love capacity nad a lower pain tolerance...if that makes any sense at all......Jasbutal 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to offend you, but not really... What's the idea? Women grow more attached because they carry the kid inside them for nine months? That makes sort of sense, but that their pain tolerance is lower, because they must go through the painful ordeal of childbirth doesn't make sense at all... 惑乱 分からん 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

nixce logical analysis, i'm defeated Jasbutal 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyways! Women don't run 3/5 ths of a marathon or work 24 hours per week. So the 3 sets for women and 5 sets for men is sexist. But where are these "feminazis" complaining of this inequality? Thanks - Franco

I don't know much about tennis, but perhaps because men are generally stronger than women, they play more? --Proficient 03:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Langauge help

moved to Language desk--Light current 09:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

battlefront 2 copy protection

Someone in my dormitory unit owns battlefront 2 and on the dvd case it says something along the lines of "this contains software to counter piracy" .. is this some specialty DRM like starforce? --Froth 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Battlefront 2 contains SafeDisc 4, if I remember correctly. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BF2 has Safedisc/SecuROM protection (not sure which, but it's a modern revision) - thankfully these protections are free of side-effects once you close down or remove the game.

Mints

Why do cold beverages seem colder after eating a mint?--67.172.248.207 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Evaporating menthol in the peppermint oil creates a sensation of coolness (because the evaporation takes thermal energy from your mouth) --Froth 00:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a different explanation recently on the Ref Desk that it only makes it "feel" cooler, as opposed to actually lowering the temp, due to an effect on the "ion channels" of the temperature sensing nerves. StuRat 01:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Smoking a cigarette after eating a mint gives a funny sensation - hot and cool at the same time. Like pancakes and ice. :) I suppose menthol cigarettes are inspired by this, but they don't do the trick (actually, I think they're quite disgusting). DirkvdM 06:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard the thing where people say that chewing mints and smoking greatly increases your chance of getting lung cancer? Something to do with the increased saliva build up. I never miss the chance to tell my friends how stupid they are when they do it, but I'm not in any way directing my previous statement at anyone on RD!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I knew it. Mention smoking and someone has to point out it's bad for you. There simply are too many people who have this uncontrollable urge to do this. It's an addiction, I suppose. What if the same was done for cars, would that maybe help? Half a million people die each year of cars. A much bigger problem. So everytime one uses the word 'car', someone has to point out that cars are lethal and tell some story about some research someone did somewhere. Or better still, that "people say that ...". I'm not going to do this on my own, though. Or coud I automate it maybe? DirkvdM 06:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Active users

Special:Statistics says 2,192,501 users, but how many are active? By that I mean, say, at least 20 non-vandalism, non-user-page edits. An estimate would be fine. Thanks! Reywas92 23:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you also want to include "made an edit in the past month or two" in your criteria (i.e., do you mean currently active?).—EdGl 00:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Reywas92 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(I merely wanted a clarification of your question; I can't answer it for you, sorry! hehe) —EdGl 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

About 38000 in June. I think this table may give you more answers. [1]--Light current 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we're on the second most edited 'article' here. DirkvdM 06:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you get that info from the stats page? ok found it!--Light current 07:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's partly because WP:RD/Misc held the entire RD before it was split up into pieces.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ref Desk: Misc --- the most popular page on WP?

No need to count 'sandbox' so its official: THis is the most popular page on WP?--Light current 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The main language selection page then ? [2] Or do you mean the most popular article ? StuRat 07:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Never seen that one before! No, most pop 'article' (in terms of edits) according to the stats.--Light current 09:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a (rather new) list that shows the most popular articles by hits, though I'd rather not link it because I believe keeping track of such things is harmful to Wikipedia.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please list it. How would that be harmful ? StuRat 10:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

here. It tends to change by what happens to be popular that month. so Steve Irwin and Stingray is at the top for september. in august Irukandji jellyfish was number 11 probally because of a Discovery Channel show on them. Sex is always popular. Still, none of the page besides the main page (always on top) has more than 1% of total views, so it seems that most people look at unpopular pages in their respective areas of interest. Jon513 11:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure exactly why I feel they're harmful. I think the fact that we haven't had them for the past few years is one of the reasons Wikipedia has evolved in the way it has, and I believe the whole concept of hit counting (which can be interpreted as "article popularity") is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. One part of me hopes that these numbers don't make contributors start thinking that Wikipedia is a popularity contest, and the other part of me hopes that these figures will suddenly stop working because of server load, and are forgotten in the ripples of internet time.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Though at the same time, I do believe that such figures are valuable and quite interesting for studying Wikiology. I'm a little conflicted about it all.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems even Wikipedia can't escape the reason God created the internet. However, what i would like to know is, why the dickens is the Buggery Act 1533 ranked so high. Has it been in the news this month? Rockpocket 02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Buggered if I know 9-)--Light current 00:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Buggery redirects there. --Serie 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)