Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 5

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.

October 5

self-efficacy - beliefs about personal competence in a particular situation.

What are the differences between self-efficacy and self-esteem? What strategies can teachers use to enhance students’ self-efficacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpp112 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Side cmt) Teach their students how to do stuff right, instead of teaching them how to feel good about doing stuff wrong? Franamax (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is probably a homework question but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll let others get into your 2nd question, but if "self-efficacy" means having confidence in your ability to be effective in what you do, that's a world away from self-esteem, which is about having respect and love for who you are. People often confuse them; if you make mistakes, do things badly etc, there's a tendency to think you're a bad person. Not so. It just means you're mistake-prone, but you yourself are still a fine human being. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As Jack said, the difference in the two is belief in your own ability, version belief in your own self worth. They may be related, but not always. For example, I am a total clutz, and don't consider myself all that talented in many areas, but I am a generally easy going guy, and usually feel pretty good about myself. I don't have a very strong sense of self-efficacy (I'm not confident in my abilities) but I have a lot of self esteem (I generally like and respect myself). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an article self-esteem here. As to helping people having the confidence to give things a try rather than just praising them for nothing I fully agree with most of the criticisms in the article, self-esteem has become a narcissistic cult producing psychos. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another, evidence-based source for concepts related to self-efficacy is Dr. Carol Dweck of Stanford U. Her 2006 book Mindset: The new psychology of success contrasts people who have what she terms a fixed mindset (e.g., the notion that intelligence or talent is essentially set at birth) and those who have a growth mindset (e.g., people who believe that by learning new information and skills, they can increase their abilities). --- OtherDave (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't let them read the Ignobel Prize-winning study Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. --Sean 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

anal irritation

Ever not wipe your anus so well after defecation and get that scratchy, burning, irritated feeling around and inside your anus? What causes that? Is it unhealthy? And how can you alleviate that? Bilodeauzx (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Wikipedia has an article about itchy assholes. Read away, and you may be informed. I certainly was. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You've no idea how good the timing of this question was, thanks!!!--Artjo (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ill advised suggestion by DMCQ removedNil Einne (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking "is it unhealthy" or "how can you alleviate that" then you should see a doctor not random people on the internet. We can't provide medical advice. As the article above demonstrates, there a lot of possible causes your problem some potentially serious, a professional can best advise you on what specific cause is the issue in your case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Life Insurance Bond Ratings

What is the bond rating factor for Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.33.205 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this (very old) and this (quite old) but I think you'll have to subscribe to S&P at www.ratingsdirect.com if you want the updated ratings. Note that the credit ratings given at the company's website are not for bonds. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy and Reliability of Wikipedia

I had a college psychology professor who told us to never get any information off of Wikipedia because since anyone can edit it, it isn't accurate. She is very well traveled and has lived in Hawaii and Europe for some years, and she said that she talked to a scholarly figure at some sort of school. The man said that he looked himself up on Wikipedia and that the article didn't even has his name correct (along with other mistakes). This was her example to prove that you should never research anything on Wikipedia for academic use because you don't have any idea who edited the article. So I want to know, is Wikipedia really an unreliable source that should be veared away from when doing academic work? Was my professor right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.126.152 (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. You should never use any encyclopedia for any serious scholarly research, except as a "launching off" point, and Wikipedia is no different in that regard. If you are doing serious research (and if you are beyond the 6th grade, you should be considering getting beyond encyclopedias ANYWAYS) you should always be working from source texts(primary sources) and analyses thereof(secondary sources). Wikipedia is a tertiary source, that is its purpose is to compile information from other reliable sources. If you are really doing research, you should be using those sources, not a derivative source like Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia can be useful in this regard. If you find a particularly well written and well referenced article, go dig up those references. Its not that you should never look at a Wikipedia article, but seriously, if you turned in a paper to your college professor, and cited an Encyclopedia Brittanica article, you should rightly be laughed out of the class. The issue is not Wikipedia per se, but its the use of properly rigorous sources. Again, find the articles and books the writers of good Wikipedia articles used, and then read those yourself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC)You could do worse than starting with Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and exploring the links from there. I'll try to find you some other stuff too. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are also guidelines at Wikipedia:Academic use and Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Here is an article with several public figues evaluating their own biographies on Wikipedia. There are examples of academics who have assigned their students to edit Wikipedia, reasoning that this is the best way to teach them its strengths and weaknesses. I am trying to find that reference. I think he was in Vancouver, and in the field of Latin American studies, but I'm not sure. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Found! BrainyBabe (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with all the above. I'd also make the point that it's easy to find errors. We did the same here for a while - we had a long list of errors we'd found in Encyclopedia Brittanica. I think that article's been deleted now, because it didn't serve any purpose other than bolstering our own egos. Just as finding tons of EB errors didn't mean that EB is crap, finding one WP error does not mean that the whole project is crap. It's a fairly arrogant and egocentric - not to mention illogical - stance for an academic to say that, because his article is not totally accurate, then the rest of the information we have here is ipso facto unreliable. That would suggest that his article is at the top of the heap in terms of importance; that may be the case in his mind, but few if any people would agree with that. I've met people of recent times who are highly intelligent, very well read, extremely articulate, have very good education including at tertiary level, have well-developed positions on social issues and current affairs, etc - and the word "Wikipedia" still means nothing to them. I explain what it's about, and they warn me it must be a scam or a load of rubbish, because a concept like that couldn't possibly work, or it would be utterly unreliable at best. That's the sort of attitude that prevails out there: "I don't know much or anything about it, therefore it's not worth knowing about". Yeah, right. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst there are people out there who deliberately add inaccuracies, there are many dedicated editors who will correct inaccuracies when they find them. Unfortunately, there are a lot more articles than there are dedicated editors, so any help is appreciated. One of the mantras here is "So, Fix It". Did the professor who's name we got wrong, fix their article, or did they just moan about how inaccurate Wikipedia was? Astronaut (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree with the general "so fix it" mentality, it is generally considered unresonable to expect people to have to correct articles about themselves. We need to get these things right and when people complain that there is a problem with an article about them, which they have the full right to be annoyed about, we need to take their concern seriously, not dismiss their concerns and tell them to fix it themselves. Also, someone editing an article on themselves, even to correct obvious inaccuracies tends to generate controversy. See WP:BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the "so fix it" argument particularly useless when we're discussing Wikipedia's overall reliability (even though I fully agree with the "if you find an error, you should fix it" sentiment) -- not that anyone in this discussion presented it as a counter-argument, but I've seen that happen countless times. If you're already familiar enough with a topic to spot a mistake, that's great, but if you reading an article in order to learn about the topic in question, you really need to know that what you're reading isn't just someone's opinion or an outright fabrication. I think reliability can be and often is an issue with Wikipedia, but I also think that in the majority of cases, it's not that difficult to figure out whether a piece of information is reliable or not. Simply checking whether it is sourced tends to go a long way. That's a bit of a burden on the average reader, but still. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another good point about the "so fix it" issue. In many ways it reminds me of how some Linux proponents like to tell people it's not Linuxes fault that it often has poor hardware support. If it's an argument about the philsophical differences or fundamentals of the design or whatever then sure it's an okay point. But if an end user is saying I don't want to use Linux because it has poor hardware support then it's not a particularly helpful especially when they already have the hardware. (The same applies to Vista of course) Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go off on a tangent here: It's not really true anymore that Linux has poor hardware support. Or at least, it's much much less true than it used to be. Not so long ago, installing any Linux distro on a new machine meant long hours, even days, of futzing around with recompiling the kernel and looking for drivers and on and on. Network cards were especially difficult to handle. Now you can just buy a laptop, download Ubuntu, and have a decent shot that it will work pretty much out of the nonexistent box. Oh, you'll still get your chance to fiddle, of course; the hardest thing I remember, last time, was figuring out how to turn off the infernal tap-to-click bug^Wfeature on the touchpad; I had to go into Xorg.conf for that, and admittedly it was easier in Windows. But the barriers to entry have come down so much that if you just want a little more control over your box than Windows gives you, it's worth checking out Linux. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I bought a MIDI interface for my son's PC - it wouldn't work under his friend's Windows XP "Media Edition" [1] - but it worked just great under SuSE 11.0 Linux...so it's not even true that "Everything works under Windows" (not even pre-Vista). But it's been years since I last had to hunt down special drivers - pretty much everything "just works" with modern Linux distro's. SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I think you're partially missing the point. I highly doubt the professor thought his article was the most important thing ever. Far more likely, he checked out the article on himself since it was the simplist thing to evaluate and the one where he could be resonable certain, without dispute, that he was correct. It's also perfectly normal that people are interested in check out articles about them. So him using his article as an example was probably not because he thought he was the most important thing ever but because it was something which he had evaluated and he knew was clearly wrong. And having someone's name incorrect is one of the more fundamental errors. Note tha I see no evidence the professor was saying the number of errors was distributed evenly acorss wikipedia. More likely, he was suggesting that wikipedia did have errors (which it does), these errors would be hard to detect to someone unfamiliar with the information and it is therefore an unreliable source. Even presuming he only ever checked out one article, that on himself (and we have absolutely no way of knowing if this was all the professor did), it is unresonable to believe that when something can get such a fundamental issue wrong as someone's name it can be perfect in other areas. Likely, the professors personal opinion of how wikipedia works also had something to do with it and while it perhaps works better then he thinks, he was ultimately correct that wikipedia is far from perfect. I note here I see no evidence that the professor was suggesting EB, or any other encylopaedia as a source instead so really it's somewhat of a moot point whether either one is better then the other. Note that while we do cover some areas better then others and the more broadbased topics may be of a better standard then articles on professors, it's difficult for the reader to know precisely whether the article is one of those that is decent or not, beyond relying on FA etc status which is beyond the understanding of most readers. The other issue is of course that by the nature of WP, at any defined moment the article you are reading could be full of shit. You can of course check out the edit history and make sure you use a permanent link to any citation but in reality, most people probanly don't and so from a general POV the professor likely also felt this was a problem and I would say he was correct in this matter too. The fact is academic work doesn't work well with citing and using stuff that is constant changing. There are of course errors in everything but definitely I would say WP, as with perhaps any broad based tertiary source like EB is far worse then more specific sources which I suspect the professor was thinking people should use. Note also that it's not as if the professor went looking for errors. Far more likely he checked out one (the article on himself) or more articles and found errors. In other words, while the professor's views on WP were likely tainted and maybe not 100% inaccurate, he was fundametally right that you have to take great care when using WP as a source in academic work, and it's probably best avoided. Also, whatever level of research the professor may or may not have done, it's not as if this was some sort of paper presented to a conference. It appears to have been more of an off the cuff remark made to a collegue based on personal experience. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is one of public perception. Almost every time I read about Wikipedia in the press, it is overwhlmingly negative, whether it mentions inaccurate information (like in this case), deliberate vandalism, or Jimbo's latest appearence on TV. Hardly any mention is made of the efforts of thousands of editors who try to ensure the facts are correct and that they can be verified elsewhere. Unfortunately, way too many commentators would rather write about the few articles that are (at that instant) "full of shit" rather than the thousands of articles that are in pretty good shape. I would suggest you can use Wikipedia for academic research, but check out the history of the article, follow up on the sources and satisfy yourself that the article is stable and accurate. Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Academics dismiss Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. It's true that not everything on Wikipedia is correct, esp. when it comes to biographical details of lesser-known people. That is usually because very few people edit such articles and very few people know the "facts" and so one person's error or misunderstanding or typo can carry a lot of weight. For articles that are heavily trafficked and contain information that many people know, the entries are usually much better—often even better than other encyclopedias, where again relying on the opinion of one or two experts can sometimes inadvertently propagate falsehoods. Use your judgment and if it matters, seek multiple sources of authority—this is good advice with any source of information.

Be aware though that your professor and practically all academics use Wikipedia for simple things like checking dates or finding quick facts. It's an open secret that professors and grad students are heavy traffickers of Wikipedia like everyone else, but they often pretend otherwise and certainly discourage students from relying on it (I've had this exact conversation with many of my professors). And it's also probably true that most academics who have graded student papers have found mangled or incorrect information that is ultimately sourced to Wikipedia—but there's mangled and incorrect information in most student papers, it's just that usually the sources of such errors are more diverse! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another problem, I think, is that an individual comes to Wikipedia for a specific purpose -- e.g., to learn more about Robert Burns, or the Treaty of Versailles, or the Tokugawa shogunate -- might land on a page edited mainly by monomaniacs, axe-grinders, the agenda-ridden, or out-and-out loonies. Adherents of some microscopic faith will exhaustively edit the page for some saint or doctrine, and by persistence wear down many editors who have lives outside of Wikipedia. The vast majority of articles may not have this problem (though I suspect more than half of all articles do). And the poor fool who reads discussion pages for articles will discover controversy over any number of crucial points, like whether it's the Catholic or the Roman Catholic church or whether the surname Macdonald should always capitalize the first D. It's like dropping into a sports bar to watch the game and hearing two people at the next table arguing about what brand of socks Shoeless Joe Jackson wore -- then returning four weeks later to find the same two psychos arguing about the same two socks. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes Wikipedia so much better than paper encyclopedias is a complex matter - some things are obvious - we aren't limited on space, we have FAR more editors - errors can be fixed immediately rather than in the next edition (or never if someone just splurge $1000 on a set of Britannica's). More subtle things are that we endeavor (not alway successfully) to list our references - you can look at the bottom of most articles and see a list of books, web sites, etc that were used in writing the article. Britannica doesn't do that. Another cool thing is that we have a "Talk" page for every single article - where you can go and ask the very people who wrote the article for more information or to query a fact. This is a powerful thing.

However, academics do get very upset with us. The reason for that (and I know because I've asked LOTS of them) isn't that Wikipedia is horribly inaccurate. When you pin them to the wall and point out all of the independent studies that show that we are no worse than the leading paper encyclopedias - and actually a LOT better than the worst of them - they switch tack and complain that students are not going to the original source material. When you point out that this would be true of any online encyclopedia - so why aren't they banning Britannica-online and Encarta? And you mention that neither of those lists it's references so that even if the student WANTED to look them up, they couldn't....well, then the REAL reason poppes out: that they are sick to death of students cutting and pasting chunks of Wikipedia into their homework (or at least simply rephrasing what we say without doing any serious work). That used to happen with paper encyclopedias too - but to a much lesser extent because of the fact that you had to go to the library to read paper encyclopedias. While you are in the library, it's just as easy to look up primary sources as it is to copy a chunk out of Britannica. But by the time their students are in the middle of their careers, most books are going to be available online anyway - so the concept of large buildings full of dead trees is on the decline. Personally, I suspect that a lot more copying from encyclopedias was going on in those days - but because there were a re great number of different encyclopedias, it would be very tough for teachers to figure out whether the essay had been copied.

But this ISN'T a problem with Wikipedia - it's a problem with how their students behave. Telling students that Wikipedia is banned because it's incorrect; is to lie to your students and shut off what is (in truth) an exceedingly valuable resource - one that has not been equalled thoughout all human history. (Try going to your local library to find out who is the voice actor for Crusty the Clown - or whether it snows on Mars (it does - but we only found that out last week!). Like it or not, this encyclopedia is around for keeps - it's going to be the number one repository of all human knowledge for the next hundred years - with things like the iPhone and the Amazon Kindle - you can literally have all of human knowledge in your pocket. The correct response to this is not to say "Don't use it" - but to start teaching students HOW to use it effectively. What they should say to students is this: "Go first to Wikipedia if you want - but for anything that seriously MATTERS - make sure to examine the list of references and go and read the original sources in the library or out on the web. If the article is inadequately referenced THEN DO NOT USE THAT ARTICLE." They tend to forget the purpose of teaching - they are there to prepare students for their working career - and failing to use Wikipedia adequately throughout their career will hurt their long-term prospects compared to people who know how to do research using modern tools.

Bonus points should be offered to students who find fault with the Wikipedia article after looking up the references. This will encourage them to actually check the facts and also let them see first-hand that Wikipedia (like all encyclopedias) is sometimes wrong.

At my son's last school (which is one of the top ten rated high schools in the whole of the USA), they now require all non-fiction essays to be accompanied by a list of references against which the essay could be fact-checked. That's the correct way to deal with the rise of the Internet - and Wikipedia in particular.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! That's an outstanding commentary, Steve. My only quibble, and it's a positive one - Wikipedia is going to be around for a lot longer than 100 years. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind returning late to the party -- after all, any addition will add to the archive. Here is another academic who is encouraging his students to USE Wikipedia -- i.e. to contribute, and thus become more critical "consumers" of information. Jim McClellan is in the field of training future journalists. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gutting a rabbit

I plan on a little rabbit hunting soon. I've found resources on how to skin the rabbit, involving chopping off feet and head and taking off the fur like a coat...but have no found a decent resources (preferably with photos) that covers what/how to remove the innards. Thanks in advance for advice. --Kickstart70-T-C 07:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhere in the first few chapters of John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Having never done this myself, I don't know how good this instructional video really is, but I'd be pretty confident about giving it a shot after watching this. (I have no doubt that I wouldn't be anywhere near as fast or neat as that guy, though!) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That helps greatly, thank you! --Kickstart70-T-C 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that different from dressing a squirrel. Google has lots of suggestions. See BassPro Shops' suggestions. It is important to bleed a slaughtered animal quickly, so blood does not coagulate in the meat, and avoid spilling intestinal contents on the meat you plan to eat. Remember step 1: "Catch the rabbit." Yum! That said, there is a rabbit which lives in my (urban) back yard which I would not dream of harming. Edison (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If all else fails, this is a good book. --Sean 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect round

Why is a perfect round of golf 18 under par when it's possible to get even lower by eagling/albatrossing some holes? 58.165.15.180 (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is explained in the lead paragraph of Perfect round like this: "(it) is the lowest score generally accepted as being in the realm of possibility among professional golfers". What I understand by this, is that whilst pros do score eagles and albatrosses, they don't do it consistently enough to push their score below 18 under par over all 18 holes. In fact, the lead paragraph goes on to say "(it) has never been achieved by a professional golfer in a professional event". From what I've seen on TV, a score of 18 under par is difficult enough to achieve over a 4-round tournament. Astronaut (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Norris could do it...with a putter. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A "perfect" round of gold would be, conceptually, a score of 18, since you would be hitting a hole in one on every hole, but I doubt if that's ever been done. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No bounce

Has anyone ever gotten a far shot into the hole without the ball ever bouncing? 58.165.15.180 (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We're going to need some context here. What ball? What hole? How far is far? Plasticup ^T/C 15:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the previous question immediately above from the same person, I suspect the questioner is talking about golf. Specifically whether anyone has ever got a hole in one (or other similarly long shot) without the ball bouncing. While I can't say for sure, my OR feeling is that the velocity of the ball and hardness of the hole lining, would cause the ball to bounce out again. Now if the ball hit the flag first and "trickled" down the flag pole, that might be a "funny". Astronaut (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not look at some examples? 190.244.186.234 (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

shafting work in ships

what are the basic principles in shating work in ships? sumal (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

12 seconds on Google (I timed it) and I found this. Phew, I think I need a rest. Plasticup ^T/C 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic Guide mirror

Are there any decent mirror sites for allmusic.com? It never works well for me. I know answers.com has some of AMG's content, but it is not complete. --71.239.110.144 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any mirror sites. It's one of the best music sites on the web, so persevere. And personally I've never had any problems accessing it. Maybe the problem is at your end. Some websites don't perform particularly well with certain browsers. Have you got the latest version of Firefox? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic does take a long time to load, sometimes. Just be patient, and hopefully eventually it will load. Their front page is very busy. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Maroon Clowns

Question moved to Science desk, where you are more likely to find editors to help. Just follow the link. Gwinva (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more of a question for the science desk than miscellaneous. If I knew how to move this question or link you there, I would. But alas, I don't. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. (In future, just cut question using "ctrl-X". Start a new section on required page and paste question: "ctrl-V". Once that is saved, you can link to it with wikilinks, as I did, or copy the url.) Gwinva (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with someone who answered, so I've moved the answer to Science desk, hope that's alright, Plasticup! Gwinva (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

virtual console

I have super mario world 3 and everytime i turn off my wii, the progress is erased. Why does this happen?--Dlo2012 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Many games of this vintage, for either technical or paradigm reasons, have no save function; you're expected to play the game the whole way through in one sitting. According to our Super Mario Bros. 3 article, the SNES and gameboy remakes were saveable, but the original NES version - as emulated on the Wii virtual console - was not. FiggyBee (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some virtual console games have a primitive save feature that Nintendo has added on for the Wii. I don't know if Mario World 3 has such a feature, but if it does you'd find it in the (HOME) menu. APL (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic bag acceptance

Can a diplomatic bag be rejected for carriage by an airline operator, and must this bag always be accompanied?

Omowright (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Our article on the subject, doesn't discuss this at all, I see. A Straight Dope dope column titled "Is there such a thing as a diplomatic pouch?" discusses them in more detail, and it seems to imply (though doesn't explicitly say so) that the bag doesn't need to be accompanied: "It's a means by which governments and their ambassadors can send items to one another without fear that the goods will be detained or inspected by foreign governments." If an ambassador sends something to his government, that means he isn't carrying it himself. Then again, he could have a courier carry the bag -- but considering that the "bag" may actually be a crate, chances are it's going to be out of his sight during transport anyway, so the point is a little moot -- on a practical level, it makes little difference whether someone is accompanying in the bag, if it needs to be checked in and is transported in the plane's cargo hold, only to emerge at the other end. Anybody could mess with it when it's out of sight; you might as well just drop it off at the airport and have someone else pick it up once the plane lands.

The Straight Dope article doesn't say anything about an airline operator refusing to carry the bag. Personally, though, I would be very surprised to hear about an airline operator doing something like that independently, without explicit instructions from a pretty influential government agency; messing with international diplomacy on the company's own initiative isn't going to endear the company to the powers that be. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says you can entrust it to the captain of the airplane (if s/he has official authorization). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Related subquestion: what is meant by inspecting? If the bag is passed through a X-ray or Geiger counter is that an inspection? What is an enemy country that still has diplomatic ties smuggles an atomic bomb into your country? Mr.K. (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That straight dope artcle says they can't be X-rayed. It also says that some countries set a maximum weight for diplomatic pouches, so that would probably eliminate your atom bombs, as they're rather bulky in real life. They're also likely to set off radiation detectors and various stages in the process, which I'm sure would cause an incident. 72.10.110.103 (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You underestimate the wily Communist! --Sean 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What's funny about that particular TIME article is that it came out and nobody seemed to follow up on it, like it was just some charming anecdote about Kennedy. Anyway, the smallest nuke on record as having actually been assembled, the US's W54, wouldn't fit into a pouch (it could fit into a footlocker, though, and could be carried by one person). One could imagine trying to get piece by piece in a series of pouches, though. The heaviest single bit would be the core but that probably wasn't too large (even the clunky old Fat Man core was only the size of a grapefruit or so). --140.247.11.21 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is not a single "diplomatic bag"; rather any container can be designated as diplomatic traffic and be protected to some extent. Until recently my parents worked in a British Embassy, and all their personal mail went to them by diplomatic bag - but I imagine with nothing especially secret in it a bag of personal mail was probably just loaded onto a plane (I believe always British Airways, a hangover from their time as a state-run enterprise) with only paper protection. By contrast, there exist the Queen's Messengers who hand-carry cases of secret documents to British missions around the world. Probably far fewer now that there is a Foreign Office email system, but I doubt that they've been disbanded entirely. These messengers are never separated from their bags - I guess in theory they could be physically assaulted and the material stolen, but if a foreign government has abandoned the pretense of diplomacy to that extent they might as well just blow up the embassy.

In summary, and to answer the actual question, I would say that some bags are accompanied and some are not, depending on their contents. The airline carrying them would generally be the country concerned's flag carrier, with an standing agreement (possibly even a legal requirement) to carry that country's diplomatic traffic. So they're highly unlikely to suddenly refuse a given bag. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

UK Universities

What would you say are some good UK universities for Engineering? I probably want to do electrical/electronic engineering but would probably prefer to do a course like that of cambridge where you just do engineering and later on specialise. So good universities for either course... Thanks --RMFan1 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much it's changed - but the University of Kent at Canterbury used to have a scheme whereby you enrolled for a particular specialisation - but your entire first year was spent doing more or less unspecialised science courses and at the end of that year you could opt to change your specialisation. That sounds like the kind of thing you're looking for. SteveBaker (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to speak with a careers advisor, who will have access to all that sort of information. I do know that Durham, a highly reputable university, offers an "integrated programme" with general engineering in first years, with specialisation later. Gwinva (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that your choice of university should be based on a number of factors, only one of which is the quality of the teaching. You can have the best engineering course in the country, and you'll still have a bad three years if you end up in a boring place where there is no social life. Look for somewhere that you can actually bear to live in. Read the articles here on Wikipedia about the cities. And invest in a copy of The Student Book. I applied to university more years ago than I care to remember, and this book was a great help to me. Good luck. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge has a very, very, high reputation for electronic engineering. Strawless (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge has a very high reputation for a lot of things, not always deserved. Depending on what matters to you, it's worth researching whether the course is offering what you want and is really going to be the best for you. For example, it isn't really best for chemical engineering even though people will generally be very happy to sign up for it (because it's Cambridge). So make sure you do the research, go on some open days (they're a really good way of getting an impression of a place and a feel for whether you'd be happy there), check up on the things they tell you on the open day (like whether hugely expensive pieces of equipment they show you actually get used), etc. 130.88.64.189 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There are university ranking tables which you can consult (for instance, from The Times). Once you have narrowed down your choices, look at the university's website for a course description to see if you like the way it's structured (how specific does it get, and at what point? Is there a year in industry / abroad option?). Don't forget to look at the entry requirements - if your A-Level average is CCC, it probably won't do much good to apply to Cambridge. — QuantumEleven 10:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes the Icelandic economy so volatile?

[2] Looks like there are unique issues. 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.78.179 (talk)

Actually, that looks like the exact same issue that is plaguing the US and Europe. An unregulated financial sector over-extended itself, and when the sub-prime crisis precipitated a credit shortage, they didn't have the short-term reserves to handle it. Plasticup ^T/C 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Iceland has gotten into a lot of trouble because of the carry trade. See this Economist story that mentions it. There are a few countries that have a high current account deficit that have also seen their currency rise in value, which is counter-intuitive normally—look at America, whose massive current account deficit caused mostly by consumer spending has caused its currency to decline over the last few years, which is the normal thing to have happen. Iceland, in contrast, has kept interest rates high to control inflation. So, in the carry trade, investors borrow a currency with low interest rates like the yen, and buy interest-bearing securities in a place like Iceland. Any bobble in exchange rates can wipe a carry trade investor out, so an appreciation in the value of the yen means that everyone dumps their Iceland bonds, which can spark a selloff of investments by domestic investors as well. Do that enough in a smaller economy and you've got problems—Iceland had a big crisis in 2006 because of this. Now they have an overvalued currency which is tanking fast as money is getting pulled out for safer investments. Darkspots (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Njal's Saga. Strawless (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)