Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 23

Chicken petting

Do chickens enjoy being petted by humans in the same way that cats and dogs do? If not, why not? Acceptable (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My mother said she had a pet chicken who would always run to her to be petted, so the notion is quite plausible. Other birds, such as parrots and budgies, have been documented to interact with humans, as well. Edison (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but except for Edison's mom's chicken, speaking in general terms, chickens do not exactly crave human contact the way dogs and (to a lesser extent, cats) do. Darkspots (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a collection of original and non-scientific "research", but this forum of chicken owners seems to think that chickens like being petted, one theory being that they like the warmth. Apparently "petting chickens online has big possibilities" too. The chickens wear a haptic jacket mirroring your touch as you pet a cybernetic doll, replicating the chicken's movements. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A few of my chickens have liked being petted. The more friendly ones were easier to catch as they matured and eventually got to like it. Dismas|^(talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Give us a percentage, here, Dismas, if you don't mind. How many chickens did you have? How many of them liked being petted? Would they let strangers pet them? Even patient strangers with food? Darkspots (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll pull what I can from my original research filing cabinet.  :) We started a few years ago with 12 birds. My wife was always picking them up as chicks and so on as they grew. There were maybe 2-3 that were kind of skiddish and weren't too cool with being picked up when they were fully grown. Most would come up to us though and about 50-75% of the time would squat when they saw you reaching for them. They do this thing where they kind of lower their bodies and put out their wings slightly. They'll just stay in that position until you pick them up or move away. As far as strangers goes, it was a little hit or miss. When the neighbor kids came over with their mother, they weren't crazy about the number of people (theorizing here). But when just one or two people came over, they'd come closer. The flock was the biggest when we had ~30 hens. Due to predators, raising birds, and buying birds, this number fluctuated. Those that we raised we could more easily catch or just pick up when they came to us. There were 25 of those. And the "pick-upable" were somewhere around 50-60%. The full grown hens that we got from a local "free range" farm were much more skiddish due in large part to the fact that they didn't really get any human contact other than feeding times. And they weren't actually handled during those times. It was after all a family owned, though commercial, farm. We're now down to six hens and our first rooster. The rooster doesn't go for the "chicken hugs" as my wife calls it. But a couple of the hens like the attention. And yes, during all of this, having food increased your chances of giving a hug. Tomatos = chicken crack while celery is not well thought of. Dismas|^(talk) 11:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dismas, ever thought of becoming a chicken whisperer? Rockpocket 08:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You joke but my wife already calls me "the cat whisperer". We sometimes visit an animal shelter that she used to volunteer at and they have a cat who hates everyone. Everyone but me that is. The cat normally doesn't allow anyone to pet her for more than 3 pets. After that, she attacks them. On my first visit there, I pet the cat for ten minutes straight and was never attacked.  :) Dismas|^(talk) 08:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to have a budgie who cocked his head to one side to let me scratch his neck; apparantly very tame budgies can enjoy this. My current birds won't let me do that but one of them will run up to me and perch on my hand if I hold my hand out to him. It seems that birds are normally wary of humans but if they are tamed then they can enjoy human petting just like dogs or cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that friendliness or shyness of the birds varies, which is why my mother noted the one pet out of all the others. In a traditional farmyard, a human would come out and feed them, so they might be conditioned to approach humans, or they might have imprinted on humans after hatching, if they were raised in an incubator and later under a heat lamp, without mama hen. Edison (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Premier League season tickets

I'm curious as to how much money a fan of a Premier League team has to lay out each year for season tickets. I figure one has to be a member of a supporters' club to qualify for season tickets, at least for the top-flight teams, and I would like to know if there is an average buy-in fee among the 20 Premier League teams. I'm asking this because, after nearly two decades, I'm getting somewhat closer to being eligible for New York Giants tickets and, thanks to having a new stadium, am being told that the initial buy-in will be in the six figures, including what is called a "personal seat license." There's absolutely no way I, or anyone else I know, can afford that. Are fans in the U.K., or perhaps Spain, Italy or Germany subject to this? Are average fans being forced out of seeing their teams play in person because they simply can't afford that kind of outlay? Thanks for any and all responses. 98.235.67.132 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The average for mid-range seating in the Premiership in the current season (2008-09) is £590. This entitles the holder to attend all home matches and receive preferential treatment and discounts when purchasing tickets to away matches and also gives them preferential treatment for cup matches. Some teams such as Manchester United force season ticket holders to purchase tickets to home cup games as part of the terms and conditions of holding one. Each club sets their own prices for seating in different parts of the stadium and there is generally no 'buy-in', season ticket sales operate on a first-come-first-serve basis (except for Arsenal who have a waiting list for non-club members). As an example of prices, West Bromwich Albion season tickets for the current season were on sale from £349 to £449, Manchester United tickets were from £494 to £912 and Everton sold for between £502 and £603. The only similarity I can recall to this 'buy-in' scheme is that of Club Wembley where you can buy a seat for ten years in the stadium and watch all games/events for a one-off payment of between £1,700 and £20,000. Nanonic (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Nanonic. I'm guessing that that £590-per-year, translating to about $1,200, is for one seat. In most American stadiums, you have to buy in blocks from two to four seats. $1,200 a year for a single seat is a bargain, in my book. I have to add that once you pay the personal seat license, the right to buy the season tickets is yours for life and can be handed down from generation to generation. That's why the wait for season tickets is so long for some teams, such as the Giants. This is the fist time, though, that ticket holders have to pay the personal license fee, and many can't afford that. Most tickets, I suspect, will go to corporate buyers. It's sad. With that kind of outlay, I can tell my family it's cheaper to buy season tickets to Emirates Stadium!. I don't have a question anymore, so I don't want to be accused of using this as a message board, so I'm off. Again, thanks for the information.98.235.67.132 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see I've gone and messed up the formatting of my response to Nanonic. Trying fix. Sorry. 98.235.67.132 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, 98.235, the premise of your question seems to be incorrect. According to this:

Mara said the team was still working out the prices for licenses between $1,000 and $20,000. But he said only 5,000 licenses would sell for $20,000 — half of them club seats — and that 90 percent of the licenses in the upper bowl of the $1.6 billion stadium would sell for $1,000 each.

Executive boxes at Premiership stadiums are similarly far more expensive than regular fans' seats. jnestorius^(talk) 14:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory proved to be true

Has there ever been a case where a widepsread conspiracy theory has proved to be correct? 58.161.194.134 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course. What about the Watergate scandal?Lova Falk (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were wide-spread conspiracy theorists talking about Watergate before it 'came out'? Whilst Watergate included people conspiring, I wouldn't think of it as an instant of proving conspiracy theorists correct, but my history-knowledge ain't that great. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Watergate is not an answer at all. There is the assassination of JFK, I suppose. Whether there was a conspiracy to assassinate him, rather than Oswald acting alone, has never been proven correct; but most commentators now accept that Oswald was not acting alone. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but the conspiracy theories usually involve Oswald working with part of the state (CIA, FBI, whatever, I'm not an expert on the theories), do most commentators believe that part? --Tango (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Take your pick from Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which theory are you claiming "most commentators" believe? --Tango (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If the custodians of Lee Harvey Oswald are to be believed, only loonies (that includes me, apparently) believe he wasn't acting alone. See this discussion and this one. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was watching a documentary on the History or the Discovery Channel a couple months ago and they were quite admiment that Oswald acted alone. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quite common for people to bolster their theories by saying things like "Most/all serious/educated commentators agree with me". Even if that were true, which in many cases it's simply not, it doesn't mean that alternative theories don't have validity or that they won't one day be proven correct. The history of the world is full of examples of "crazy" people who bucked the trend and were later proven to be the only ones on the right track. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Above: most commentators now accept that Oswald was not acting alone. Very likely they do. For how else would they still manage to commentate? Hard for people to get much commentary out of "Oswald did it alone", or anyway hard to get much money for this commentary, or hard to generate much enthusiasm for no-there-wasn't-a-conspiracy websites. The question to ask would be of the number not of commentators or of monomaniacs but of unquestionably qualified historians who believe that there was a conspiracy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust. jnestorius^(talk) 14:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust doesn't count I don't think because a conspiracy theory needs to be something widely denied from all quarters (and per this question, then proved correct). The Holocaust was and is a historical fact that some idiots deny and continue to deny, so it was never a conspiracy theory later proved correct. Holy crap, wait, you don't mean that the Holocaust is a conspiracy theory, and it has been proved that it never happened do you?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Jnestorius is referring to the period of WWII when it was not at all clear that the Holocaust was happening. I believe there was a period when thinking Germany was systematically wiping out Jews and other undesirables was a pretty far-out position. Algebraist 16:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so. jnestorius^(talk) 07:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I'm sure it wasn't ambiguous to someone familiar with you, but not knowing you it could have been otherwise. Sorry for raising the specter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ECHELON? -Arch dude (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The conspiracy to claim Iraq had WMD ? Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice were the primary instigators, with Colin Powell, many analysts from the CIA (who were intimidated by Cheney), most members of the US Congress, the American public, and US allies being the dupes. This was one of the most successful conspiracies (from the POV of the instigators), leading to the war in Iraq, and no-bid contracts for Cheney's company, Halliburton. Cheney should be able to cash in with a lucrative job offer from Haliburton as soon as he leaves office. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Numbers stations? -Fribbler (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

American CIA rendition centres in foreign countries, perhaps? Steewi (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

CIA drug trafficking? Although there's no evidence it was deliberately used to try and kill of the black race, as some people have repeatedly claimed. There's evidence coming to light about Russian history: e.g. that the 1930s famine in Ukraine was deliberately caused by Stalin[1], which had been alleged for a long time by anti-communists. A small-scale conspiracy theory was around the existence and extent of the Cambridge Spy Ring, whose members were gradually revealed over decades after much rumour. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another small one was that the Communist Party of Great Britain was partly funded by the Soviet Union. It was widely alleged, by people with no real evidence, believed by almost all CPGB members to be false, but was actually true (from the 1950s to the 1970s, at least). Warofdreams talk 12:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Watergate was downplayed as a "two-bit burglary" where "the thieves didn't even take any money" by Nixon's defenders early on, who argued there was no justification for a special prosecutor or any congressional investigation. In reality, there was quite a coverup conspiracy, and there had been a conspiracy to have the "plumbers' work against Nixon's perceived enemies list even before the Watergate burglars were captured. So yes, Watergate was a conspiracy which was unmasked over time, and the biggest Presidential scandal since Teapot Dome. Edison (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Dreyfus Affair may also work as an example. At first, only a small minority in France believed Dreyfus was innocent of treason charges, but they had no proof - i.e. it was a typical conspiracy theory. However, as the contrversy raged, it came to public light that 1) the original jury condemning Dreyfus had received secret instructions damning to Dreyfus that were never shown to the defense; 2) that a number of fake documents were created by French intelligence officials to bolster the very flimsy case against Dreyfus; and 3) that evidence against a more likely culprit, Esterhazy, had been disregarded by investigators. 1,2 and 3 are typical of allegations found in conspiracy theories, but they all proved to be true. --Xuxl (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the Mafia? A secretive multinational organization with ties to big business and politics, secret initiation rituals and a rather shady past - I think it is actually pretty close to what conspiracy nuts usually tell about the Illuminati, the Templars or whatever...yet before the McClellan Hearings, nobody was sure it even existed, let alone how powerful it was. -- Ferkelparade π 16:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Jay-Z at Glastonbury

Who was Djing for Jay-Z at Glastonbury? Thanks 86.7.238.145 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure there was a DJ? I've found a few forum posts about Jay-Z's backing band[2][[3] at glastonbury but little to nothing about DJs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a band, but from listening to the gig a few times it seems that there was certainly someone doing at least a tiny bit of DJing, because loads of vocals and beat snippets were being played. It might have just been a sound technician I guess. 86.7.238.145 (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you call this statistics concept?

Imagine a country with a population of ten million. You want to gauge their opinions on a specific issue. Of course, you cannot ask all ten million people, so you conduct a survey of a hundred people, randomly chosen to avoid sampling bias. What is the probability that the opinions of the hundred people will accurately represent the opinions of all the ten million people in the country? What if you survey only ten people? What if you survey a thousand people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sampling error. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See also, Sample size. --Tango (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Or more generally, Sampling (statistics). It has been a major area of research in statistics for some time now. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Usually the probability of a sample being exactly representative of a population is exactly zero. When the size of the population divided by the size of the sample yields an integer (a round number) there is a terribly small chance of a sample being exactly representative. So instead, statisticians build 'confidence intervals'. They do this by exploiting the fact that the average mean value of a sample (or the 'mean of the sample means') of all possible combinations of samples will be normally distributed with a mean exactly equal to the population mean. Any one sample might yield a result higher or lower than the population mean, but, by mathematical definition (they force you to derive these definitions in several econometric classes... sigh) the best 'expected value' for any given sample mean is the (unknown) population mean. This is called unbiasedness.

So if a statistician knows that the average of all of the possible sample means is the population mean, they just need to know the variance of all of the possible sample means to have a complete 'model' of all possible sample means. This is true because a normal distribution is fully characterized by it's mean and variance. Luckly, the sample variance(again, by mathematical definition) is function of the data and sample size and can be calculated directly.

So with this complete model, you won't be able to determine whether your sample mean is accurate, but you can create a cumulative probability distribution function of all possible sample means (it's just a normal distribution). By arbitrarily choosing a 'acceptable likelihood that you'll be wrong' (or an 'alpha', usually like 5% or 10%) you can use this function to determine what range the true value for the population mean is likely to fall into (this is the confidence interval) with (1-alpha) confidence. That's why polls always say something like +/- 3% (the confidence interval) 19/20 times (which means 95% or (100% - 5%)). I better get an A on my econometrics final...NByz (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Do Air Force One and Air Force Two have embassy status ?

That is, when they fly to other countries, do they have the legal right to keep local officials from snooping ? StuRat (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They are designated military aircraft nes pas? If so, then this says: "Military aircraft, similar to warships, have sovereign immunity from foreign laws in relation to search and inspection.". Fribbler (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're military planes (the "air force" part of the name is a hint); whatever military plane the president is on has the radio call sign Air Force One. The planes most often used are maintained by the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Suitland, Maryland, in the Washington DC suburbs. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I believe it's any USAF aircraft will use the callsign "Air Force One", not any military plane. FiggyBee (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

HELP!

How do I remove hair shampoo from my carpet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirafaye (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wipe it off with a towel. From experience, it doesn't stain. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The tough part about shampoo and other concentrated soaps is that they are happy to foam and foam and foam and take a huge amount of effort to clean up. But keep at it. I spilled some handsoap in the trunk of a car once and was amazed that it took ages and ages to get most of it out. I imagine shampoo will not be as difficult, though, as it is less concentrated. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Salted water - no stain - no foam.92.8.26.216 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Salt water most definitely leaves a white stain. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How about if you rent a carpet shampooer, and clean your whole carpet while you're at it ? That will avoid the problem of the one clean spot that makes the rest look filthy. One problem with carpet shampooers is that they leave the carpet wet long enough for it to mildew. In the summer you can open the windows, but this might be a problem in winter. Adding some bleach to the solution may prevent this, but then you'll need to evacuate the house (including pets) to prevent lung damage. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Salted water would be different from the concentrations of salt water. There's a table at brackish water. So, just enough salt to knock out the foam, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But that salt isn't going to evaporate, and a very small amount of salt can still leave a stain. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Try moping most of it up with a used dryer sheet and use sponge slightly moistened with a very highly diluted solution of Fabric softener to get more off (fabric softener will inhibit foaming). Then rent a steam vac (carpet steamer/ steamer extractor - we really don't have a page?!?) and fill the same diluted softener solution in the machine instead of water. Watch out some companies will rent you a shampoo machine, claiming it's a steam vac. A carpet cleaned with a steam vac doesn't get that wet and takes a fraction of the time to dry. Make sure to rinse the machine thoroughly before you return it, so you won't get into any trouble. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Julia for clarifying my earler suggestion of salt water - as challenged by StuRat. But he doesn't like using salt on his drive either when it is iced up as it might damage his lawn. I think he has a problem with salt. Probably doesn't drink Tequila either for the same reason. Everything in moderation Stu :-) 92.22.179.74 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Salt on the roads or on your driveway is a really great way to ensure that you'll be buying lots of replacement cars over your lifetime! The salty water rusts out the metal in your car amazingly quickly. The last 20 feet you drive up your driveway at night splatters the underside with salty water that's going to stay there until the following morning (at least). Worse still - if you put your car in the garage overnight - it'll be WARM salty water - which is even worse! SteveBaker (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but where I live (Calgary, Alberta) they still regularly salt some roads and especially sidewalks. It beats slick ice. TastyCakes (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh that we poor mortals that live in the northern wastes of Calgary and Scotland could forego the corrosive effects of salt on our roads (that we may drive without skidding into a group of schoolkids on their way to school - God forbid) - and enjoy the balmy heat of Texas instead!!!92.8.199.72 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm "Balmy: (1) soothing or fragrant (2) mild and pleasant"...110 degF (43C) in the shade is neither soothing, fragrant, mild or pleasant. But our cars do last a lot longer! SteveBaker (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For those in Canada, at least, global warming will come to the rescue. Perhaps the Scots won't benefit, though, as the Gulf Stream may stop as a result of GW. So, Jack Frost may continue to nip up those kilts for the forseeable future. StuRat (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ontario license plates

What letters and letter sequences are unused in Ministry-assigned license plates in Ontario? Are they available for personalized plates? NeonMerlin 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Some stuff, these are yours to discover: [4] and google[5]. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Try also The MTO website. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

At the end of Quantum of Solace, M tells Bond that Dominic Greene was found dead in the desert, with motor oil in his stomach. How toxic exactly is motor oil? In other words, how much of it did Greene have to drink for it to be fatal?

Also, did the pretty waitress the general tied up and gagged in the La Perla de las Dunas survive the fire? =) JIP | Talk 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Strifeblade (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Greene was found with motor oil in his stomach and two bullets in his head. Looks like his friends caught up with him. Algebraist 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is still the open question of whether the motor oil ingestion alone would have been sufficient to kill Greene before he was shot, though. JIP | Talk 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not highly toxic per [6] Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The implication in the film was that, having been left in the desert, Greene would become so delusional with thirst that he would eventually resort to drinking the motor oil. Hence, the toxicity of the motor oil would be pretty irrelevant given how he was going to be close to death from dehydration by that point. So perhaps even the bullets were irrelevant... ~ mazca ^t|c 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The waitress survived the fire and lived a long, long life afterwards. She married a nice man and had three kids and a successful career. In the end, her incident with the General required a few years of counseling, but in the end she made peace with it. Hooray. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, that was the official story. In truth she was horribly scarred and the treatment (bizarrely) resulted in her acquiring a Russian accent. In a fit of revenge, she begged, stole and cheated her way into a $100 million fortune and blew it all on a massive underwater lair with several hundred loyal henchmen and one white persian cat...oh - and some kind of doomsday machine. The kind with just one single design flaw - that shooting a harpoon gun into the monitor on the main operations console would cause a chain reaction resulting in a 10 megatonne nuclear explosion about 15 minutes later. SteveBaker (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, speaking of which, what's wrong with my computers? When I ask them to compute π to the last digit, or tell them that I'm lying to them, or tell them to fulfill their function, they never blow up. --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's all about the tone of voice, you have to convince them to really try. Otherwise they just either give an error message and give up or get just get stuck in an infinite loop. --Tango (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The main ingredient in motor oil isn't too toxic (although I'd expect some major diarrhea from drinking a quart of any oil). However, some of the additives could be quite toxic. Used motor oil would be even more toxic, as all sorts of metals from the engine and fuel additives would have contaminated it. StuRat (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, forcing someone to drink engine oil happened in The Fast and the Furious (the 2001 version - not the original)...I don't recall what happened to the victim in that case...but of course "it's FICTION!" applies here - so anything is possible. SteveBaker (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Marky Mark was forced to drink crude oil in Three Kings, but it didn't seem to be too much of an inconvenience (but neither did the bullet wound to the lung...) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Purpose of having him drink motor oil was partially a revenge move for Bond, as Greene killed the British woman he slept with by drowning her with motor oil. It was more of just a cool way to kill the bad guy and/or make his death even more painful that it would have been from dying of dehydration... or a gunshot to the back of the head.Strifeblade (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Drinking cafe au lait

Do the French still use bowls to drink café au lait, or has the handled cup take over completely? People who haven't been there for awhile insist it's the bowl (and croissant) but the article is more about the varities of milk coffee around the world without going much into the custom. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe bowls are still used in some homes, but every café I've been to served coffee in cups (I lived in France 2000-02 and drank a lot of coffee). Astronaut (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time in France (my wife is French) - generally, the habit of using bowls is restricted to hot chocolate - at breakfast. The bowl makes dunking your croissant (or a petit pain au chocolate...mmmmm!) a lot easier. I have seen it done with coffee too (black or with milk) - but to a much lesser degree. Certainly the practice seems 100% limited to breakfast...you wouldn't see it at any other time. I should say that this could be a regional thing too - I've spent most of my time there in Northern France. SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful answers. Breakfast mainly then, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First known history of man raking leaves

When and where was the first known record of man raking leaves? And why was this tradition started?Joannedickinson (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's probably prehistoric. It's not really a tradition, it's just a chore that has to be done - if you don't remove the leaves they get wet and mouldy and slippery and generally horrible. --Tango (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you'd call it raking, but removal of leaves from some crops might be important so the crops get enough sunlight to ripen, before the coming frost kills them. This would only be an issue with small-scale farming, as large-scale farming typically involves the removal of any trees from farmland. It would also only be an issue with small, low to the ground plants, like berry bushes and veggies. StuRat (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't the kind of thing that history records. It's really unlikely that the next door neighbour of the first person to ever do this was inspired to write about it in such beautiful flowing prose that history would have preserved the fact for future generations. So we're down to guessing.

I don't really think people would be raking them off crops - only very low-growing crops would be affected, and those kinds of things just don't grow naturally in the fall. That leaves us with grass - but the only reason to 'farm' grass is to feed animals - who will have evolved to rummage under the leaves. I suspect the tradition of growing decorative lawns would be the first significant occasion - our article on lawns suggests the 1600's as the start of lawn-growing. It's also evident that before the invention of lawn mowers, lawns were either maintained by huge numbers of gardeners...(who might indeed be set to raking the damned thing in the fall when it stops growing and they have nothing else to do with their time)...or by animals...in which case, no raking. SteveBaker (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Joanne was asking about the first known record, the question should be answerable. Certainly there is no record of the first ever raking of leaves, but if the first raking was recorded in 1948, then that is the answer. (I have no idea what the actual answer is but I'm guessing there is some very obscure ancient or medieval record to be found somewhere!) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The German wikipedia says that the rake was developed in Roman times to rake hay and the one that is used to rake up leaves was developed later. Thus the first man to rake leaves would have done so after that time. If you don't take the process literally then I guess the first one to remove leaves was s.o. who cleared them away from a burrow to catch the animal inside. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

...which would put it back before humans evolved from proto-humans. Hence the first man to do this might well also be the first man. But that's not recorded - so it doesn't help very much! SteveBaker (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone must have been the first, but this is surely in the same class of non-recorded events as the first human to scratch their backside or pick their nose. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

November 24

Factory cash backs

I've never bought a car under such a scheme, but for decades I've seen TV ads offering this carrot, and I've always wondered how it works. If the price of the car is $50,000, and there's a factory cash back or factory bonus of $2,000, then the net cost is $48,000. But if you're paying it off, as most people would be since very few people I know have a spare $48,000 lying around in the bank, then you're paying interest not on $48,000 but on $50,000 (less your deposit/trade-in). Also, rather than getting the third-party factory involved at all, why don't they work it out so that the only parties involved in the transaction are the dealer and the purchaser, and the price is $48,000? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Any extra interest would be pretty small in the grand scheme of paying for a car. They are just hoping you won't be bothered to mail in for your $2000. Astronaut (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They make a profit on loaning you money - lending you more is more profit (well, perhaps not in the present financial crisis - but old habits die hard!). Plus it sounds like you're getting the car more cheaply...which is really an illusion because they could alternatively simply have sold you the car for less money...but if your competitors are pulling these kinds of silly stunt - it's hard to avoid competing. SteveBaker (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know so much about cars, but I worked for a time for a redemptions company who had a "call centre" to deal with cashback complaints - against a well-known manfacturer of consumer printers that shall remain nameless. The cashbacks were usually for quite small amounts - sometimes even as low as $10 - yet a large majority of these had still not been paid 18 months after purchase. This was what the call centre was for - taking complaints about why the cash back amounts had not been received. The complaints, once received, were duly passed on to the client, after which still nothing was done! I formed the opinion that the whole point of cash back - for this company anyway - was to make it is hard as possible to get the cash back, in the hopes that all but the most persistent customers would give up and get nothing.138.217.158.154 (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Car companies haven't made a cent in sales for many years. They usually take a loss on the car as sold, or barely break even, this is especially true for American car companies, since their worker costs are so high; in order to keep the cost of an American made car competitive, they need to offer incentives. Most car companies ONLY money-making wing is their financing companies, like GMAC. They generally make more money on interest on their own loans, or in incentives from whatever in-house financing company they use (i.e. the car company gets a kick-back for steering you to certain financing companies which have a working relationship with the car company). The idea behind cash back is EXACTLY as you suspect; you finance say $20,000, but you purchased the car at $18,000 net (due to the cash-back incentive). It looks like a better deal than it is... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone really taken in by such an illusion, though? If the only way to get a $48,000 price tag is to pay the dealer $50,000 and then get $2,000 back from the factory, so be it. But does anyone really believe they're getting the car for a net $2,000 less than they would have got it from a dealer that doesn't use the cash back system? I dunno, it just sounds fundamentally (and unnecessarily) complicated to me, and if I were a dealer, I think I'd be interested in giving my customers a simple offer - the car costs $48,000, you pay the money to me, and I give the keys to you, end of story. I'm really surprised to hear that some people don't request their $2,000 (or whatever) cash back. I could understand it if they thought the factory made the payment automatically as soon as the purchase was finalised; but if they understood it required some formal application from them to get it, who in their right minds would decline to submit the paper work? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

YES people are taken in my that illusion, or else a) the car companies wouldn't do it and b) we wouldn't BE in this current credit crisis. Does the cash back scam sound any more rediculous than: 1) suckering people into loans that they can BARELY afford today, and then expect them in 2 years to be able to afford 50% higher payments? or 2) convincing people to finance purchases that become nearly worthless upon purchase (i.e. computers, television sets, vacuum cleaners, etc. etc.) 3) Giving people credit card limits where if filled, would make their monthly payments higher than their income? And yet, people do all of these things and equally more insane financial decisions. Also, car price is very negiotiable, and many dealers WOULD rather have cash up front than financing plan; they would probably give you the same care for $48,000 cash they would make you finance for $50,000... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC

I don't know anything about cash back for cars in particular, but rebates are notorious for making it very hard to actually get - i.e., you have to fill out a complicated exactly right, and any tiny mistake will make it void, etc. You think the company is just going to give you money? Nope, if something is $200, with a $50 rebate, it looks to the customer like it's $150, but to the company, they know that they're going to be getting well more than $150 out of it. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After you've filled out a complicated exactly right, do you accidentally the whole thing? FiggyBee (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While perhaps not so important for cars, I believe many cashback promotions have rules which may prevent business taking advantage of them or which limit the number per customer so they also enable the company to control who can get the cheaper price. Plus some people may not bother for a small amount (yet for others it may matter) Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are rules that stop the retailer claiming the refund themselves. On more than one occasion on holiday, I've suggested that the salesman give me the discounted price and then they can mail in and keep the money for themselves - none agreed to do that, saying it was up to me to mail in the refund claim and that they were simply not allowed to do it. Not even proposing they give me a smaller discount and the salesman then claims the full refund, would make then agree. Unfortunately, as a foreign visitor I would have been unable to recieve the refund anyway, and without it the price was higher than at home. I just didn't buy in the end. Astronaut (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter - one should ALWAYS haggle with the dealership - this will almost always get you a price reduction, and in the case of these silly deals, they may be willing to sell you the car for less without the 'cash back' option if you simply ask - and look like you're going to buy a cheaper car from somewhere else if you don't get what you want. SteveBaker (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC

I agree with that. It's funny how the West is ok with haggling on big ticket items like cars and houses, but not with groceries, petrol (gas), books, CDs, computers, gifts, utility charges, postage, travel, etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Most people seem uncomfortable with arguing over the price of something - so for the small things in life - it's just not worth the grief. But cars and houses are probably the most expensive things you'll ever buy and cutting the price by even a couple of percentage points is well worth the effort. It's notable that car companies like Saturn (who have a fairly strict "This is the lowest price we can manage - it's not going to change" policy) are seen as the good guys by the public...presumably because they dislike to haggle so much. Of course this is not a universal thing - but it's certainly the case in the USA and UK. SteveBaker (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons why haggling on small items doesn't make sense in the West:

1) The value of the time to the customer exceeds the value of the money saved. Let's say that there's a place where you can haggle over the price of groceries and, by spending an hour doing so, you can lower your grocery bill by $10 versus what you could get otherwise (say with coupons and specials). That hour might be better spent working overtime (for more money) or spending it with your family (for more satisfaction).

2) The value of the time to the seller exceeds the value of the sale. In the above example, the seller not only takes in $10 less but also spends an hour haggling over various grocery items which could be better spent elsewhere. Rather than waste their valuable time, they are likely to eject any customer who tries to haggle.

So, it comes down to people's time being more valuable than the small amounts of money to be saved by haggling on small items. In a broader sense, haggling is a way to ensure that customers who are careless with their money pay as much as possible, while those who are careful still pay enough for it to be profitable for the seller. In the West we have other, less time consuming, methods for that, such as coupons, 4 AM sales, and even requirements that customers cluck like a chicken to get the good price. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Batteries not included

Why are batteries not included? Whenever you see any toy advertisement, it's always the same! Yet when I buy a DVD/TV/set top box/etc there are always batteries included for the remote. So why not toys? Thanks everyone!! 138.217.158.154 (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically talking about toys, I'd imagine it has something to do with the potential dangers when batteries are around children. Toys are around children a lot more than remote controls are - probably the same reason the battery compartments on toys have a screw to fix it shut. Booglamay (talk) - 03:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It could also be because that company is cheap. I have bought plenty of toys WITH the batteries included as without; its probably just up to the preference of whether or not the company who makes and sells the toy wants to go through the added expense of adding the batteries to the toy ahead of time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree it would keep the price of toys down (and the price of separate batteries up?). Adults paying for remotes don't seem to worry about saving the price of batteries. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say shipping costs and shelf-life are two arguments. Batteries add a lot of weight without that much added value. They are also subject to aging and can create quite a mess if they should start to leak. So from a perspective of preventing costly returns a company who doesn't include batteries wins out and sacrifices very little until buyers start insisting.76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And then there's the odd regulatory requirement that comes into play, such as at [7] (item 70) regarding the U.S. standards for DTV converters. (Er, yes, Senator, the remote is easier to use when there are batteries in it.) 198.29.191.149 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the whole reason, but probably a contributing factor : Remote controlls draw very little power, so even the cheap, off-brand batteries that come with will work for some time. Toys are usually very energy hungry. Even when they do come with batteries, they never last. APL (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

workplace

how to feel comfatable at your workplace,when few people are not in proper behaviour,do not cooperate and they do not help.how to manage myself.waiting for your valuable suggestios Parvatisharma (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What type of improper behavior ? I've had some coworkers who were very difficult to work with and found it was best just to keep it on a professional level instead of trying to be friends with those people. So, don't start conversations with them unless you need something specifically work-related. If they actually refuse to do their job, or prevent you from doing yours, then it's time to get management involved. StuRat (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much,Yes that can be done but i am afraid that will hamper my job,since i am recently in.

Yeah, it's difficult being the new guy. There are sometimes long serving employees who delight in making it tough for the new guy - either just being unhelpful, guarding their knowledge, making up petty and daft rules, or having jokes at your expense. It's only after you have been there a while that you get to find out which of your workmates are assholes and which turn out to be friends. Astronaut (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is someone who's been working at your workplace for more than a year or two and who seems to be friendly, helpful, and decent, you might try describing your difficulties to that person and asking for advice. He or she will have a sense of the personalities and workplace dynamics at your job, which none of us on the Reference Desk can offer. Marco polo (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Interrupter

That character on Late Night With Conan O'Brien, is any of him based on Robert Plant? Because I notice their mannerisms are very similar. Or maybe it's just me. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you've already tried this, but neither our article on him, nor a google search for "robert plant" "the interrupter" yields anything of value. I'd say, if it were true, it's not a widely held belief.NByz (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Prince William and Prince Harry: humanitarian work

In writing a book, I’m attempting to show the royal princes as exemplars of those who express their social concerns in very personal, experiential ways, especially physical commitment. Such images and news stories are inspiring to the young whose values are being formed. Recently, I believe it was Harry who was shown helping to build something in Africa, heaving dirt into a wheelbarrow, then hauling it away, returning repeatedly.

I’ve spent much time trying to find something like that about Prince William, but everything is that found in People Magazine, dating, etc. The military experience of both princes is easy to find, but I need something about their humanitarian concerns, in which they have been directly involved. They both appear to be very fond of and concerned about children.

Thank you greatly for any help you can give me.Lighthouseboy (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the obvious place to start... FiggyBee (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

interviewer

what are the qualities that Interviewer looks for, in a candidate?

A self-starter is a start. Like typing 'interview' into the search box at the top left and eventually finding job interview. Google is also worth learning up on for getting solutions. Or had you something more specific in mind? Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While you're googling don't forget to look at the company's website. They usually give lots of hints and pointers as to who works for them and what qualities the company considers assets. If that's not enough to keep you busy check out the competition and see if there are any differences. --76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody that knows what job they're applying for. Since we don't know that, we can't really help you. --Tango (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to have a really good story about why you want that particular job. Discussing how you have been 'preparing yourself' for that job for years indicates both a lower potential for attrition and a higher likelihood that you'll have a strong work ethic. This can be tougher for entry-level jobs. You should still have a good, believable story about why you want THAT job and no other. NByz (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-think questions you may be asked. Devise good answers. Practice with a friend. Learn from the interviews so you improve.86.202.154.30 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)DT

Treat it as an inter–view, i.e. a mutual exchange of information, and not as a one-sided interrogation. You have as much to find out about them and their organisation as they have to find out about you; after all, if you go to work for them, typically you'll be spending your entire working day there plus travelling time to and fro, for perhaps a significant proportion of your life, so you want to know what you're getting yourself in for to make sure it's worth what you have to offer. This is not arrogance, but an indicator of self-esteem, a quality any decent company would surely be interested in detecting among its employees. Prepare a list of your own questions, have them in front of you, and tick them off as they get answered during the course of the discussion (this shows them that you're assessing them just as much as they're assessing you, a perfectly reasonable approach to take, so why not be open about it); and even if they're all answered by the end of their formal questions, come up with at least one final one when they eventually ask you if you have any questions. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thirsty mouse

I caught a mouse in a (humane) trap yesterday. I planned to release it somewhere far away but I completely forgot about it and now I'm at work (the next day). I am worried the mouse might be thirsty (or hungry) and not able to get any water! How long can mice survive without water? Also I was thinking of keeping it as a pet but it smells really bad. Do people keep pet mice? If I do will the mouse like the confinement, or will it be under distress? Thanks 125.21.165.158 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people do keep pet mice. Although, they usually get them from pet stores and not the wild. There's no telling what the mouse might be carrying disease-wise though. Dismas|^(talk) 10:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but is it thirsty? It's been 24 hours, and I'll be at work for another 4 hours. 125.21.165.158 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I got the answer from here (> 9 days). Now I can breathe easy and concentrate on work :) I would still like to know if it is feasible to domesticate a wild mouse. 125.21.165.158 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mice shows all their tiny charms and this section[8] is helpful. They do have a strong smell naturally, but make up for it by being cute, entertaining and social. There are different types (see Fancy mice). As for wild mice, it's probably ideal to domesticate from a young age, but who knows? you might just *click*, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to domesticate it, you would need to take it to a vets and get it checked out and vaccinated against various things. Also, don't expect it to be as tame as a mouse from a pet shop - they have been selectively bred to be good pets. If you want a pet mouse you would probably be better off going to a pet shop, they aren't expensive (the main cost is keeping them, buying them is a tiny amount by comparison). --Tango (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The smell might well be urine and feces it has left in the humane trap. I second the idea of letting this one go in the woods and getting yourself a proper mouse from a store. This mouse will probably be terrified whenever you are around it, because it didn't grow up with humans. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I definitely don't recommend it - take the wild mouse a good distance from your home and let it go. You wouldn't be doing the mouse any great favors by keeping it in a cage. The cost of the vaccinations you'd need it to have in order to protect yourself in the (quite likely) event that it bites you would easily exceed the cost of buying a specially bred pet mouse. If you want a pet mouse - get one from the pet store. They are typically so cheap that they practically give them away - correctly figuring that you'll spend more money on a cage, some toys, some bedding, a water bottle and food than the mouse could ever be worth! SteveBaker (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also consider hiring a proper divorce lawyer. This trick with the mouse may cause mind numbing aural pain if your loved one suffers from hysteric musophobia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the informative (and some amusing :)) answers. I released that mouse far away from my home. Will get a proper pet, probably, haha. 125.21.165.158 (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Credit crunch

According to the BBC News website, Woolworths is considering selling its entire chain of 800 odd UK stores for £1. Why does it have so little value? Surely the property it owns has value as do the goods it has in stock. Even if it were completely unprofitable and had to be immediately shut down (not the case) I would have thought the value of its assets were worth more than a pound. What would be to stop an individual making a bigger offer (say £1.50 and acquiring the business?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, the retail arm of Woolworths had "net debt" of 295 million pounds. Remember, when you buy a company you buy its assets and its liabilites and this company's liabilities was worth more than its assets. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it has massive debts. The company has been making a very large loss recently (and has been barely profitable for some time) so in order to cover day to day expenses it has had to take on significant debt. That debt is now greater than the value of all its assets combined, so the company is worthless. If whoever buys the company doesn't pay its debt it will be forced into administration (basically the same as what some other countries call bankruptcy) and all the assets would be sold and the buyer would get whatever is left over (which would be nothing). --Tango (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is one of many issues around buying a 'company' rather than it's assets. When you buy a company you also get it's financial liabilities, contingent liabilities (if someone is going to sue it), you can carry forward any losses (for tax purposes) that it's had in the last several years (this is a valuable asset as it reduces future taxes). When you buy the whole company (when a company is struggling), you sometimes end up with a lower book value of assets than if you buy the assets directly. This is relevant as the purchaser wants the highest book value possible, because he/she can depreciate those assets for tax purposes, again, reducing tax. The seller wants the lower book value, because it means he/she will realize a smaller capital gain (or 'CCA recapture' under the Canadian depreciation system) for tax purposes. There are other important asset-versus-company issues that I am not remembering right now, I'm sure.NByz (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, most of the time, when a company has secured debt, covenants on the debt will disallow the sale the assets by which the debt is secured without selling the debt to the same party (or paying off the debt).NByz (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing Stains from Shirt

Hi, i had a couple of perfume and deodrants which i generally used until recently i have to dispose them off as i realised my few brand new shirts had been rendered completely unusable as the yellowish stains got prominent with the perfume i used.are there any sureshot ways to rid them off? thanks in anticipation..As no lundry could help, i even tried petrol.Vikram79 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You could try washing it with a stain removal soap like sard or preen. Next up oin the scale could be cleaning with alcohol, or eucalyptus oil. A last resort may be bleaching with peroxide or chlorine bleach, but the latter may destroy the cloth too, as well as any colour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Apply a dry-cleaning solvent? then soak/wash. Any oil based things seem suss but could be wrong. Are they light coloured? then you could use a nappy soaker and follow the instructions for patch cleaning. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For future reference: Rather than use perfumes (because they give me a rash), I spray my pits with rubbing alcohol in the morning, to discourage the bacteria that cause odor (it's not the sweat itself). It's cheap and effective, and doesn't stain. —Tamfang (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Asking a Girl to High School Prom in North America

I am currently a senior (last year) in high school and my high school prom is coming up in June. I would just like to inquire into the proper procedure of asking a girl to prom.

I am not dating anyone, so if I ask a girl, it will just be for this short-term one-night time only right? The two parties need not any prior or succeeding relations before and after prom, respectively?

Is there anything I should give her when I am asking? Will I just approach her in an interrogative manner and ask whether she would like to attend prom with me and wait for a negative/affirmative response?

Since neither of us is dating, is it appropriate for me to dance with another girl during prom? Or must I focus mainly on my date?

Thank you, Hustle (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You should discuss the prospect of dancing with others with the girl in question. Both of you should have that understanding beforehand. Hopefully you will be able to talk about it, and you should think of how you feel if she decides to dance with others as well. If you ask her to prom, you're just asking her to prom. Prom invitations aren't necessarily marriage proposals. Although I have to say that at times young women do get carried away with the romance of it all. If you approach her and ask, "Would you like to go to prom with me?" and she replies yes, and you both plan the transportation and other arrangements, clearly limiting your conversations to prom, not much else can be construed from your relationship. It may lead to more, but should it advance to more at any stage, feel free to talk to her about it.

Now, be nice. Don't expect anything more than her attendance at prom. Be a gentleman. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not being American, I can't comment too closely. However, it would probably be impolite to dance with other people a lot when you have asked a girl to prom - after all, you singled her out to ask her, and her friends will all have their own dates as well. A dance or two with others is not unreasonable, I think, but she should be your primary focus.

Although she may not be completely happy with it, Moni is right that communication is key. If she knows that you're just out to have a fun night and she's invited to have fun too, without further commitment, then it's great, but there is a lot of room for misinterpretation, even if most people think that it's 'just for the night'. Sometimes it can be very useful to make sure things are said explicitly beforehand.

Remember, too, that she is probably just as nervous as you, and might be asking (or wanting to ask) her friends about what's appropriate or not. The rules aren't set out as a list, nor are they taught, or even fixed. You have to play it by ear and sight - watch how she reacts and respond to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's likely to be considered rude to go with the intent to dance with someone else...I mean, it might "just happen" that way - but to be seen to be planning on that from the outset is probably more honesty than is wise! You might want to skip that part. SteveBaker (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I started going out with my girlfriend (of 8 years) shortly after I asked her to grad. I would say asking her to the prom and asking her out were two separate things. Asking her to the prom did not involve any special procedure - I just asked her one day. As far as dancing, I was surprised when there was little dancing at our grad, most people just left and went to the aftergrad shortly after dinner. But friends of mine did briefly dance with people other than their dates, although from what I remember they weren't "going out". I think a few dances with other people is alright but if you're hardly with your date all night something's off. TastyCakes (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also remember it being a little more social, unless the couple has been going for a long time. Then, it's really romantic. There were people who went just to go, all the way up to a claassmate who proposed at the prom. So, there will be a wide variety of people and situations. The one who proposed (yes, they're still married, 20 years later - they were sweethearts *long* before then) probably did something somewhat elaborate, I think the medium ones go to the most trouble. SOmeone like you, you can just ask. However, I would recommend you plan something nice beforehand; a fancy restaurantfor instance. This can be done with some other couples, too. Plus, at least in our area, it was customary to rent a limo, making it at least a little special. Again, that can be done with a few couples all joining together to split the payment.

One thing I would note is that many of the most popular girls at my school were taken by...well, now. Not to say you won't get anyone, if yu're going just to go then this is certainly okay. However, don't be surprised if you find that you have to ask a good number of girls. So, I would ask something a little more than interrogatory; I would talk about how it's really special, you're hoping for a very memoriable night of fun-filled high school memories if nothing else, and that you would be honored if she were to go with you. That helps her understand that this is what you hope for, and if something develops, that's fine. Again, talk with her about it, as others have said.

I would also suggest - and this is personal experience here - that you shouldn't give up just becasue you ask x number and all have plans already. Underclass girls are possible if your school allows that. So, too, might handicapped girls. I still remember the joy of seeing one girl who was in a wheelchair at our prom; it was a touching story.

Even if you're not planning to do more than go to the prom, though, it is a good idea to at least build a friendship witht he girl beforehand, talking to her about the things that others have said.Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Digital television

KSTU is currently Fox 13 with analog. According to its article, the digital channel will turn into 28. Does this mean after 17 February it will turn into Fox 28? 75.169.200.242 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. ATSC (the digital TV standard in the US) has the capability for virtual channels. That is, along with the television program a conversion table is sent, telling your TV receiver that when you tune to "channel 13", the hardware attached to the antenna should look at "channel 28" in the radio spectrum. So unlike NTSC (the US analog standard), the "logical channel" (what you enter on your remote) and the radio spectrum channel (what the tuner actually listens to) aren't necessarily the same. Most television stations in the US are already broadcasting analog signals, and are doing so under the their NTSC channel branding. Where I am, the stations are doing a lot of promotion of their digital signals ("Check us out on digital channel 3.1", "Constant news and weather updates on digital 15.2"), all using their "regular" channel numbers. (Note that because the digital signals take up less space than the analog ones, you can have digital subchannels. In one radio band channel you can have multiple television feeds, each identified with a ".1", ".2", etc. after the logical channel.) -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this site: [9], until the February 17th transition date, channel 13 will be used for analog and channel 28 for digital. However, as noted above, the digital channel listed on the TV will be 13 (after if is "remapped"). After the transition date, analog 13 will cease broadcasting and the digital signal will then be broadcast on channel 13, making remapping no longer necessary. One potential problem this will cause is that you'll need a UHF antenna to receive channel 28 and a VHF antenna for channel 13. So, either you need to have both hooked up to your TV or digital converter box or you'll need to change which one is hooked up on the transition date. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia searches

i am enquiring if you keep or have information on the most searches conducted on the wikipedia website, top 100 for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.4.165 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You can find the most visited pages here [10] - but that's not quite the same thing as the most searched for because people arrive at pages via cross-links as well as by typing things into the search box. SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

#35, 36,308 [ 0.02 %]: Hypoallergenic dog breeds  ?????? NByz (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Most likely Barack Obama fans - he's looking for a dog, but one of his daughters is allergic to them. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Number 14 on that list is "HIT MUSIC ONLY". What the heck is that about? --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And no. 111 is "David 'skOre' Deutsch". We're to believe that c.18,000 searched and found that redlink? --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"David 'skOre' Deutsch" does at least exist, a google search confirms. "HIT MUSIC ONLY", though. Weird. Maybe it's some kind of a bot's search. Fribbler (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"HIT MUSIC ONLY" ("QUE DU HIT") exists as a slogan. Doesn't explain its strange appearance in that list though. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm betting some evil spammer created an article promoting some business - then set a 'bot loose loading it over and over in some kind of effort to promote the link...that would explain why the article(s) in question are now redlinks. SteveBaker (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but neither of the articles have ever existed - I just checked the deletion logs. --Tango (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

November 25

Fundraising

Obviously the fundraising bar started at a high number already, but now it seems to tip-toe along. Has anyone kept track of about how much money is being raised each day - and therefore how much longer that massive ad will stay atop every single page? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It will stay there until it reaches the $6,000,000 mark (I assume). You can turn off the banner however, by going to My Preferences and click Suppress fundraiser banner I guess you already know how to do that. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The fundraiser is scheduled to go on until 15 Jan, if memory serves (it's somewhere around then). You can see daily statistics here. If we reach the target early I expect the bar will be extended to show how much over we are. --Tango (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do feet/legs/hands/arms fall asleep

So... my foot just fell asleep, and it sucks. Why does that happen? and how can I stop it? Thanks! :) Chris M. (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevent article is Paresthesia. Generally, it's because you've been sitting in a way that's squashed the nerves. FiggyBee (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) Two articles of interest might be Paresthesia, which is the type of "pins and needles" sensation you feel when a limb falls asleep, and Radiculopathy which is the general term for nerves not working properly (i.e. the temporary mild paralysis that occurs when your limb "falls asleep" falls under this category). The basic problem is a "pinched nerve"; your weight is resting on the nerve, and so the nerve's signals are not reaching your central nervous system. When this happens, the body compensates by "turning up the volume" i.e. your CNS expects the nerve to be sending it signals, and when it isn't receiving the signals to and from that nerve, it begins compensating in expecting weaker and weaker signals. Then, when the nerve is no longer compressed (you stand up) it starts signalling you CNS at the normal "volume", and your CNS, whose sensitivity has been turned WAY UP because the signal was so low from being pinched off, now gets overwhelmed by the now normal signal, and you interpret this as "pins and needles". As the body begins to readjust to the new signal levels, it fades away. See also this entry at How Stuff Works for more info. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above)This link explains it more in depth. How can you stop it? Well, it's like the old joke about the guy going into the doctor. The guy says "Doc, it hurts when I do this." To which the doctor responds, "Then don't do that." Dismas|^(talk) 03:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guns at Home in US

Living in Canada, keeping guns at home for self-defense purposes is virtually unheard of. Is it true that civilians in the USA keep guns at home for self-defense purposes? Obviously, in high-crime areas, a necessity may exist. But what about in medium-low crime cities in the US? Acceptable (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's often the case that guns are kept for self-defense. I grew up in a relatively safe and upscale suburb of Chicago. We had a shotgun in my parents closet for just such a purpose. I know quite a few people who are not on a police force in various locations throughout the States that even carry concealed on a daily basis. Dismas|^(talk) 05:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in Canada you're definitely allowed to keep guns at home for self-defense purposes (that Michael Moore movie suggested we have a much higher gun per capita rate!), but they just need to be stored safely (and, I'm pretty sure, by Canadian precedent, using a gun to defend your home would have to be done a lot more conservatively to avoid criminal charges). It's just required that we keep a trigger lock on the gun with a key kept elsewhere. This is federally standard in Canada, I think. Are there similar storage rules in the US? Is it different by state? NByz (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, how sure are you, really, that your neighbo(u)rs aren't packing, Acceptable? Most Americans who don't keep guns themselves probably don't suppose their neighbors do, either. Also Ontario is one thing, Alberta is something else. While I generally think Michael Moore is an idiot, I give him credit for taking note of the fact that there are about as many guns per capita north of the border as south of it. --Trovatore (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot of people in the US keep guns at home. But I wonder about the "for self defense" argument. Some people are probably afraid enough to think it is worth the risks. But I wonder how many people keep guns mainly because they enjoy having guns and say it is for self defense because it sounds better than saying "I just like having guns!" Pfly (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a misimpression that keeping a gun for self-defense is a matter of being afraid. I would characterize it as being about self-reliance, not fear. It's saying, when the chips are down, if the State can defend me, my loved ones, my guests, fine, but if not, I'll take care of it myself.

That was the aspect of Bowling for Columbine that I found most irritating, the way Moore cast gun owners as being afraid, with the strong implication that their fear was racially motivated. Now no doubt that describes some people. But as an explanation for American gun ownership in general? I don't buy it. --Trovatore (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally it's a pretty foolish notion to believe a gun will protect a person/their family. My understanding is that, stastitically speaking, you are much more likely to be harmed by the object/item you expect to confront would be burglars with than they are to be harmed by it. Finally, it's one thing owning a weapon - it's an entirely different thing to have the mental state of mind to use that weapon. Whilst I support legal gun ownership theoretically, I do believe that 'for self defence' is an incredible dubious justification for owning a weapon. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Statistically speaking", of course, averages over everyone. You have to make sure you're not average. That means, in particular, a considerable time investment in training and practice. Whether it's worth that investment is a question only you can answer. --Trovatore (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, many of my fellow Americans are full of foolish notions such as this. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "your gun is more likely to hurt you than protect you" is based on some dodgy use of the numbers. They say (and it's not implausible) that the gun in your nightstand is N times more likely to be used for suicide than to kill a burglar. So what? If you wound a burglar, or scare him off without firing a shot, has your gun failed in its purpose? —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Who says that defensive guns are home are almost unheard of in Canada? I'm not from there, but what I've gathered from talking to Canadians is that is depends heavily on where in Canada you're talking about. In the big cities, guns are uncommon, while in rural areas they're everywhere. I don't have a proper source, but I've heard it from a couple of Canadians who (presumably) would know about such things. Friday (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And that's basically my impression as well (I live in Canada). Our population distributions are a little different than in the US, I think, which brings up the side issue of what the guns are for. This is just a WAG, but I'd bet that a higher percentage of guns in Canada are kept strictly for sport (as compared to the States). Without passing judgement on it, the notion of buying firearms for defence strikes me a very American mindset. Matt Deres (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

why is a stock price fall so deadly for a company?

[11] It seems Citibank is having new troubles because its stock price tumbled. Why does this have the potential to end a company? Is it because assets will flee when people see the stock price tank, losing confidence? Are there other reasons?

Hotcheetos (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the rating agencies took a lot of heat because they downgraded Lehman and Bear Stearns credit ratings as their stock prices dove citing that it reflected an increase in their total costs of raising capital. Many people felt that the credit rating agencies just missed the boat on correctly rating the companies' exposure to all of the quickly-freezing-up credit products that are floating around, and used the stock price dive as an excuse to make the downgrades.

The main reason that Citigroups stock price is vital right now is entirely around "cost of capital". Cost of capital is the price that a company has to pay (usually expressed as a percentage) to raise an additional dollar of assets for business use. It's easy to calculate for debt; it's literally the interest rate paid (adjustments have to be made for some specific things, like that you can deduct debt interest payments against income, but the nominal yield on the company's outstanding debt is where it starts). Cost of equity is a little tougher to calculate, but it's usually based around the ideas of how much of a dividend yield and expected equity appreciation (sign of future dividends) you have to offer in order to raise equity capital.

A lower stock price implies a higher cost of equity. The company would raise fewer dollars per share meaning it has to offer more shares per dollar, all else (like expected dividends and expected increases to equity from retained earnings) being equal.

Cost of capital is particularly important to Citigroup right now because, being a regulated bank, it faces capital requirements, specifically capital adequacy ratio requirements, setting a minimum level of tier one capital (equity) to risk-adjusted-assets. As the value of it's assets drop, it makes it more and more likely that the company will need to go out into the market to raise capital in order to maintain these capital adequacy requirements. The higher the cost of equity is, the higher the implied cost of debt is, and the higher the total cost of capital is. A company is only producing value to society (profits) if it's weighted average cost of capital is less than the investments it makes and projects it starts. If the cost of capital gets too high, a bankruptcy reorganization starts to look like a better and better way of maximizing stakeholder value.

I hope that meandering explanation was helpful... it's late.NByz (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it's actually it's liabilities that would flee when confidence is lost in a bank. Customer deposits are money that the bank owes to people, so they're actually liabilities to the bank. All of the loans and investments are the assets, and they'll be rooting for the firm to survive so it doesn't have to prematurely call in those assets. Deposit Insurance and other government intervention helps reduce the likelihood that depositors will flee when they lose faith in a bank.NByz (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

what does this saying mean

"How thin can I spread myself before I'm no longer 'there'?".........Please do answer this as soon as possible.............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Sharath1 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In what context? Spreading yourself thin usually refers to trying to do too much at one time so that you aren't really doing anything effectively. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post questions on multiple reference desks. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This expression make a comparison between dividing your energy or attention, and spreading some substance thinly over a surface (like spreading paint on a wall or butter on a slice of bread). You can make do for a while -- the way you can use one tablespoon of butter to thinly coat three slices instead of one -- but at some point you're not giving enough attention or energy; your efforts accomplish nothing, like using one tablespoon to try and cover a hundred slices of bread. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a variation of the problem that to avoid getting shot simply run away ? The bullet can never catch you because in every instant you have moved from where you were to further away.86.197.170.174 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)DT

That's a variation of Zenos paradoxes. That might have worked in precalculus days, but if the bullet has learned any of the Proposed solutions to Zeno's paradoxes I wouldn't rely on it. Phil Burnstein (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Owning a Telescope

How fascinating are the images of the celestial bodies from a home telescope ? are they really lucid and understandable as to be able to see the rings around Venus and the depresion in the surface of the moon , as i am planning to own one but not sure if thats really captivating and the cost as well:)Vikram79 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have 20/800 vision (coloboma of the choroid layer) but looking through one in a college Astronomy course, I could still see well enough to really be amazed. I could see little "handles," I guess you could say, on Saturn that I knew were rings (I don't think Venus has them, but I could be wrong - could ou mean Uranus?), and 1-2 things that looked like moons, as well as some of the features on Earth's moon. Keep in mind that this was atop our chapel roof, with a small one like you're likely talking about owning.

So, yes, it is quite enthralling, if you're into that, like I can be; I mean, when that Mar lander first sent back live pictures, I literally had tears of joy in my eyes as I praised God for His creation, and letting me see that on TV. If you don't look up at the night sky with a sense of wonder now, though, I doubt a telescope will creat that.Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You need a rather big telescope to see Saturn's rings, so one of those small ones you can get at toy stores probably won't do it. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You can see that the planet is on odd shape with a good pair of binoculars, I think, a small telescope certainly could. To see any real detail requires something a bit bigger (I've seen them through a 10" reflector and they were clearly rings with a gap between them and the planet itself and you could just about see some of the gaps). And I can confirm, Venus does *not* have rings. The moon is very dramatic through even a small telescope - just don't try and observe when it's near full, it's too bright to see anything. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Venus does have phases, like the moon, which you can see with a telescope, but I'm not sure how big it would need to be. You can also see the Galilean moons of Jupiter with a telescope - that's how Galileo found them, of course, and his telescope wasn't very fancy. He also observed the sun with it and unsurprisingly went blind, so...don't do that. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Galileo's blindness had nothing to do with his solar observations.[12] --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I love telescopes but fear we have gotten so spoilt by those crisp, perfect Hubble images that the blurry little things you can see even with the monstrous telescopes of formerly-famous observatories are not that impressive. The most impressive thing you can gaze at with the massive old telescopes at the Lick Observatory is the moon itself—to see it in such terms that it feels right beyond your hands. I was not impressed by Saturn or nebulae or anything else I was shown. But the moon—the moon is amazing through an optical telescope. There is something so tangible about it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I got a telescope many years ago in order to see a comet that was coming close by. Looking at the moon is very cool - it looks somehow more "real" than looking at it with the naked eye...Saturn is pretty neat...everything else is basically a dot. I got bored with dots fairly quickly - looked at Saturn - pointed it at the moon...moon, saturn, moon, saturn...telescope in attic...telescope still in attic...20 years later...telescope in attic. I confess that just after we moved house and had to get the thing out of one attic so I could put it in my new attic - I pointed it at the International Space Station in the hope of seeing something truly spectacular...but it moves FAR too fast to track with a high power 'scope. A friend of mine has a super-sexxy computer-controlled telescope. You can type in the name of ANY star and its little motorized gizmo points at it...and you see a dot..."Alpha Centari"...dot..."Mars"...pinkish dot..."Pluto"...black space with a few dots in it..."Beetlejuice" (star not found) "Betelgeuse"...(pink dot). Unless you type in "Saturn" or "Luna" that's pretty much all you see! Nah - unless you can get a really huge scope so you can resolve nebulae and a few of the other planets as decent sized disks, it's a waste of money. Get a decent pair of binoculars instead...then at least you can do some ornithology between looking at Saturn and the Moon. SteveBaker (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Andromeda? Is its shape discernible with a home telescope? APL (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Like this? Nah, it will look more like a big smudge. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I own a 114-mm (4.5-inch) reflecting telescope, and as for planets, I've observed the cresent of Venus, extremely fine detail on the moon, a feature on Mars which I believe is Syrtis Major (although it's too far away right now), the cloud bands and moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and I've also observed Uranus. M31 looks like a fuzzy ovular blob in my telescope, but that's what deep-sky objects usually look like. I can find Andromeda with my telescope in about five minutes nowadays. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: if the sky is clear at your location on the evening of December 1 about an hour after sunset, look toward the southwest, and low in the sky you should find the cresent moon. Beside the moon, forming a neat triangle, will be two bright "stars". The brighter and lower one is Venus, the higher and dimmer one in Jupiter. It will make a pleasent sight visually, but this will help you identify the objects with a telescope if you own one. Try to stay away from department stores if you're looking to buy a telescope, they usually have the really cheap ones that don't work too well. I took a picture of Jupiter and Venus yesterday with my camera, but on Monday night we might still have too much cloud from the winter storm that's about to hit us. My favourite deep-sky objects in the telescope on the Messier Catalogue include M2, M3, M8, M11, M13, M15, M16, M17, M22, M24, M26, M27, M31, M32, M35, M36, M37, M41, M42, M44, M45, M57, M67, M71, and M92. There are also other delights such as Albireo, Castor, Beta Monocerotis, Epsilon Lyrae, Delta Cephei, the Double Cluster, and many others. I've also seen Comet Holmes in a smaller telescope. Remember that in cities and suburban regions, light pollution is often quite severe. My location has a limiting magnitude of about 3.5-4.0 . If you have binoculars, you can often see the milky way. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Larger charge for credit card purchases

I had a debt collection agency call me on the phone. They directly stated that there was a $10 charge for per payment via credit card, and a $5 charge via ACH (i.e., direct withdrawal). I also remember buying alcohol recently, and them adding a $.50 charge for a credit card purchase.

I know this is common place in foreign countries, but I was under the impression that this was disallowed in the merchant's contract with VISA. If so, I am interested in contacting VISA, because that I think it stinks I have to give out my bank and routing number. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For a merchant, yes, I'm pretty sure it's against the contract, but perhaps debt collection agencies come under a different system? --Tango (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, per-transaction charges from merchants are explicitly forbidden by merchant contracts. However, none of the major CC companies does much to enforce those contract provisions. More of a nudge/wink thing, it seems. //roux   08:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood, but if anyone calls you on the phone to ask for your credit card number, it's probably a scam.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shantavira, if you've given out your credit card number and routing number over the phone, I'd suggest reporting this to both your credit card company and your bank (if they are issued by different entities). This seems like a scam.--droptone (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I probably should double check: they had a good deal of info on me, knew who this debt was with (it wasn't on my credit report). I did research on caller, appears it was a debt collection agency. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Feeding wild birds during winter in Scotland.

We live on the edge of a middling size town in Central Scotland bordering on open countryside where temperatures regularly go below zero during December through to February and the ground is extremely frosty, if not instead covered with snow and ice (we use salt on our Tarmacadam Drive but NOT on our garden where we feed wild birds from different types of bird-feeders). This year for the first time ever, we are migrating to southern Spain for December and January and there will be no one at home to continue supplying the vast array of wild birds that we feed with a variety of seeds, bread and cheese, on a daily basis. And what will poor Robin do then, poor thing? Any life-saving suggestions going cheep will be most gratefully received. 92.23.145.62 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoppers. We don't have an article on them. Very large container (barrel / large platsic storage box?) with some sort of dispenser at the bottom (e.g. wire mesh). This sort of things is used on grouse moors by gamekeepers to feed their stock - needs loading only every other month or so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

this sort of thing - I advise you to improvise, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gravity-fed hopper of some sort. That being said, there's been a lot published (no, i have no cites) about not feeding animals in the winter, as it disrupts natural population pressures & limits. My stepdad is involved with wildlife conservation, and that's what he's always said. In summer when other food is plentiful, it's not much of an issue. In winter, artificially sustaining the local wildlife population introduces issues into their natural population cycles. //roux   08:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coastline length measurements

Given the fractal behaviour of coastline length, why doesn't the article List of countries by length of coastline include the scale at which each coastline measurement was taken, and some empirically-derived parameters for extrapolating this figure to other scales, to make a fair comparison possible? NeonMerlin 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the list you linked is mostly based on the CIA FactBook, which doesn't list the scale. This is explained in the text of the article you just linked. APL (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of the article if there is no way to know how to interpret the data? I'll PROD it... --Tango (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the CIA factbook is generally reliable, and I would expect that they rely on a consistant method for deteriming the length of the coastline even if they don't publish their criteria, I think we can generally assume they use the same criteria. Indeed, that this list clearly indicates its source; and that its a single source, probably makes this a perfectly fine list, even if it DOESN'T list the methodology used to calculate the numbers. A prod would probably be a bad idea for this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Of course it would be nice to know the methodology used, but you can't demand to know everything about how a fact was determined before you'll read the fact itself. That way lies an infinite regress —— turtles all the way down. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unprodded it since it's already survived AFD on the same grounds. Nevertheless, it's a collection of meaningless numbers. We don't know it's consistent, they might well have got the data from each country and each country may have measured differently. It doesn't matter how reliable your source is, if you don't know how to interpret the data it is meaningless. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It's a bit dull-witted of the CIA to fail to explain their methodology, say, here. As it is, their explanation is puerile: "Coastline: This entry gives the total length of the boundary between the land area (including islands) and the sea.". No shit, Sherlock. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's important to point out that even given the fractual nature, it is possible to determine the length of something with limits, with a greater scale giving a more accurate reading (I am 95% sure of this). Given the page, I would suggest reading up on significant digits to determine the scale: there is a standard notation for this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the coastline were really a fractal, then the limit would be infinite, so that doesn't help much. It isn't, of course, or at least it's hard to make sense of the claim that it's a fractal once you get down to atomic sizes, or even down to scales where the "coastline" is constantly changing with the breaking of the waves. --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's effectively fractal until you get down to the quantum scale and then it's pretty much undefined. There is no meaningful limit. Significant digits describe precision, that's not what we're talking about. It's not just that with a smaller scale you get more precise values, you get strictly greater values (even greater than the margin of error would suggest). --Tango (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected; the area within a fractal is finite; the length is infinite. However, a coast is not actually fractal on a smaller level; someone can actually drive along the coast and calculate the distance. Additionally, I find the criticism of the CIA (puerile?) to be a little silly and exaggerated; they have quite likely compiled the data from different sources. Many times countries will compile their own data. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Driving along it doesn't help. As Tango has noted, it's fractal until the point at which it stops making sense entirely. Taking the driving distance just corresponds to using a scale of size comparable to a car. It really is meaningless to give a length to a coastline without a scale of measurement; for this reason different sources often give wildly different lengths for the same coastline (or border, many of which are similarly fractal). I hope we can find a source that provides this vital information. Algebraist 23:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And it is puerile (of or pertaining to a child or to childhood, childishly foolish) to explain coastline measurement to be a measurement of, you know, that bit where the land meets the sea. That's the sort of explanation you give to a child. You give adults some insight into the scale at which you measured since adults tend to know that the scale and the distance measured have a relationship such that without knowing the scale one is unable to make much sense of the distance measurement - which brings us back to Tango's first point. You'll find that (some) refdeskers choose their words advisedly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

While we all (pretty much) agree that the concept of an absolute length of a coastline is quite utterly meaningless - we really should note what the article actually says. It does not say "These are the lengths of the coastlines" (which would be meaningless) - it actually says "This is a list of countries by length of coastline, in kilometers, based on data for the year 2008 by the CIA World Factbook." - and then goes on to explain the factal thing. So it's effectively saying - "Here is an article that tells you what kind of nonsense the CIA are putting out - and this is why you shouldn't believe it."...which is OK as far as it goes. There is a place for this kind of information though. If you did measure all of the coastlines with a consistent methodology (which may be what the CIA did - for all we know) then the resulting numbers might well be useless in absolute terms - but it would be useful to know that (say) the coastline of the USA is about the same length as Canada's and about half that of Russia. Such comparative numbers would probably stay fairly consistent over a range of metrics - unless the fractal dimension of some countries is radically different than others (the bits Slartibartfast did - for example). SteveBaker (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summary. I'd make a couple of quibbles:

1. The "fractal dimension" (well, one of the standard measures of it, say Hausdorff dimension) is not well-defined unless you can make sense of arbitrarily small scales of linear measure, which as already noted, you can't. So what we're really talking about here is some sort of curve fitting to a power law, where the answer you'll get depends at least a little on some fairly arbitrary choices. It's not really a single well-defined number.
2. With that said, I think the fractal dimensions in question are generally not a lot bigger than unity — it's not going to make that much difference, usually, whether your scale is a mile or five miles.
3. So we can do a little guessing as to what the CIA is getting at here. Maybe the question is, suppose I know that it takes one soldier per x meters of beachhead to successfully invade (or successfully repel an invasion); how many do I need total? Or, if a gunship is to patrol the coast, how long are its circuits? That could give us a rough estimate of the scales involved, and as long as the "dimension" is small, get us close enough to derive some meaning from the numbers. --Trovatore (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The lines on maps used to indicate coastlines do have some kind of fractal thing going on, especially when comparing small and large scales. But it is also important, I think, to remember that on the Earth a "coastline" is more a coastal "zone" than a "line". Also that the fractal thing is about lines on maps, not physical coastlines. Actual coastlines are more complex than a line can capture. In order to make and map a line, people have to make some decisions that, even if done in a well-defined and strict way are fairly arbitrary. Different people may create different but equally valid definitions and measurements. Examples: Do we measure along high tide lines or low tide, or mean tide, or mean low tide, or what? Do seasonally dry lagoon-like areas count? How far up an estuary do you go before crossing over to the other side? What about coastal wetlands, mangroves, etc? And on and on. Southern Louisiana is a good example of some of these sorts of things. At small map scales (way zoomed out) these issues are minimal, and the fractal issue of map lines is more at play. At scales in which the above types of questions are important, the fairly arbitrary decisions made to define where the line is within the coastal zone become much more important than the oft-claimed "fractal nature of coastlines". At close-in scales the length of mapped coastlines will vary among cartographic methodologies, but more because coastlines are more a human abstraction than a strict physical reality, and less because coastlines are "fractal". The fractal thing is not the physical coastline but the maps, and then mainly of note at small, zoomed-out scales. The fractal thing comes up when comparing lines from one map to another, not to physical reality. Finally, the same issues apply to rivers and river lengths, yet one does not hear of the "fractal nature of rivers" as often, and people seem much more accepting of the river length statistics. My theory is that at some point in the past someone got carried away with the "coastlines are fractals" thing and the idea has become widely accepted as fact when it is not. In short, for coastlines, river lengths, and a whole host of other physical features, no truly objective measurement is possible. A fairly close and useful measurement, based in part on human assumptions and definitions, is the best we can hope for. Sorry to repeat what others have said, it's just a pet peeve. Pfly (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

River lengths can be well-defined, finite, and constant at all sufficiently fine scales: measure the length of the thalweg. The physics of water movement mean that the thalweg isn't fractal once your scale reaches the point that you can distinguish the width of the river. --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not fractal... but still over time not constant. And precise location of source and mouth not always obvious, especially with large estuaries. That's what I meant. I misspoke. But there is the issue of braiding; does the thalweg method account for braiding well? Pfly (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Determining if a work's copyright was renewed

I am interested in determining if a work had its copyright renewed. Specifically, Abbot and Costello have their famous Who's on First skit, shown on youtube here. This was done in 1945, and as such template:PD-US-not renewed or even template:PD-Pre1978 may apply.

Also, if this isn't in the public domain, are there any other pictures or works that are? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that particular version of the skit is from the film The Naughty Nineties. If you search for that in the US Copyright Office's database, there is an entry for the 1945 version, but it's not clear to me whether it is a renewal or not. If you search for "Who's on First" you find an entry for "The Abbot and Costello Show" which is a colorized work of an original which was "Text prev. reg. as radio script (1944, no. 88573) and as motion picture script accompanying visual performance (1984, PAu 617-698 and 1986, PAu 935-615)". The trick is that even though the copyright office database only has works after 1978 in it very unhelpfully, many renewals are after that date. But in this case I'm not sure it is clear whether it has been renewed or not — I don't see any explicit renewal, but I see a lot of confusing other things. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley and George W. Bush

Why has no effort been made to prove or disprove the conjecture that Aleister Crowley is George W. Bush's illegitimate grandfather? From what I've read about his rituals, there must be some artifact out there with enough of old Al's semen on it for a DNA test. NeonMerlin 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely any half-decent cover-up would have already bought all of Crowley's semen-encrusted stuff up already. Why bother? Recury (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

People make all kinds of rediculous conjectures. Ones like this are so patently stupid that its not even worth disproving... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

More to the point.. who cares? Uncle Al was a brilliant occultist (and self-promoter), but there's nothing special in his genes. //roux   08:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, given Crowley's "satanist" associations and Bush's unpopularity, conspiracy theorists are likely envisioning some wild Rosemary's Baby sort of events in the Bush family's past. Hardly likely. Again, like I said above, this one is so rediculous it's not even worth going through the trouble to prove its wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, agreed. Some theories are so crazy, they simply don't warrant serious inquiry. Like 9/11 "truth" nuts, it's best to laugh at them and move on. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gas pricing question

Why do gas stations price their gas with the 9/10ths on the end of the amount? How did it start?72.172.22.185 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the same reason stuff costs £x.99 - it makes you think "ah, it costs £x" when really it costs £x+1. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

See price point. --Tango (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychological pricing is possibly more relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are good reasons for other products, but not for gasoline -- it's different. Back when our grandparents were kids, one penny was a useful amount of money (and on the other side of the pond, one pence was even larger). Hence, half-pennies and farthings were needed to purchase one or two pieces of very inexpensive goods -- "penny candy" comes to mind.

That logic also applied to tax rates. One whole cent (!) of tax on a gallon of gas was too high a tax rate, so rates were expressed in 10ths of cents. Early on, two of those common rates were 1.5c/gal and another at 4/10.

Only after those rates had been around for a while, did vendors start to notice the other factors now included in psychological pricing, which is why the 9/10 are still there today. Vestige of a bygone era, I guess. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess there are two questions here, why tenths, and why nine of them. I'm not sure I follow your explanation - I'd say the reason the prices are given accurate to tenths of a cent is because the unit of measurement (a gallon, in the US, I believe) is significantly smaller than the amount people are actually purchasing, so if you want to have a fine level of control over the price people pay for a tank of petrol you need to give the price per gallon to a higher level of precision. The reason it is usually 9/10 rather than some other value is because of psychological pricing. --Tango (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gift idea for a 17 year old girl

I am trying to think of a nice, personal gift for my 17 year old neice. I am very close to my other neices and nephews, however, she (my oldest neice) are not very close. We get along, but we don't have inside jokes and the same relationship I carry with the others. I regret this. She is going to college next Summer and is into theatre (like Broadway and stuff). Does anyone have any good gift suggestions? I'm tired of giving her gift certificates and money. I wanna give her something that will put us on the same path as I have forget with my neices and nephews. --209.183.190.77 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If she's into the theatre, and you live near a metro area that has a vibrant theatre life, perhaps tickets to the theatre? This could be a single show, or it could be like season tickets depending on your personal income level and the appropriateness. The best gifts are always the ones that take the recipient into account. Generally, I always appreciated the gifts that shows the person who gave it was thinking about me as a person. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If she's really into Broadway, look at Original Cast albums. I'd especially recommend the OC of Les Miserables, Evita, anything that Patti LuPone did. //roux   08:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to get a nice new laptop as a gift, and if she is going to college it would be helpful to her studies. Chemical Weathering (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that tickets are the best idea. Go together; that should give you some inside jokes. If you did go the CD route, however, I would look at some of the more recent shows aimed at a younger audience: Rent, Spring Awakening, In the Heights, Passing Strange. [Aunt of a 16-year-old here.] Catrionak (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)\\

American restaurants

Is it true that Americans say Coke to mean any kind of pop, and that they always say whole wheat and never brown bread? I know people who said that when they went to restaurants in the US, they ordered a Coke, and were asked, "What kind?" and ordered brown bread, and were asked, "Um... toast?" Is this common across America, is it a regional thing (these stories came back from a trip around the Montana/Idaho area), or what? The people I heard this from did say that many of the waiters and waitresses figured out pretty quickly they were Canadian, so this must happen fairly regularly around there. I've been to the US a few times, but I never drink Coke or eat brown bread, so I've never encountered this phenomenon. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this, the standard generic term for nonalcoholic carbonated beverages varies significantly across the States. That doesn't quite answer your question (as 'coke' may be understood as generic in areas where it is not the standard generic term), but it may be of interest. Algebraist 23:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here in New England (Connecticut, specifically) "brown bread" is pretty unknown. People might figure it out, but even so they might assume you were making some sort of disparaging remark about the taste/quality of whole wheat bread.

As Algebraist pointed out the "Coke" for generic soda thing varies widely, but around these parts if someone asks for a "Coke" they expect to get a Coca-Cola. They would be irritated at the substitution if the waiter gave them a Pepsi-Cola without asking first. And they would assume the order was completely wrong if any other sort of soda was delivered. APL (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I live in the Midwest, and here we use the word Coke generically, so if a restaurant doesn't have Coca-Cola they'll translate that to mean Pespi. Also, "Diet" means Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi whichever the the restaurant has. I've never heard anyone say "brown bread". 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've lived in the West and the Northeast and never heard "brown bread" as a synonym for wheat bread. As noted, dialects regarding carbonate beverages varies regionally. In the pretty much everywhere except the South, "soda" or "pop" are more common as a generic name for carbonated beverages of all brands, with "Coke" as a specific variant (Coca-Cola). As APL notes, that means a specific brand—a Pepsi is a different thing altogether, and if they only have Pepsi they always ask if that is an acceptable substitute. In reference to the map, it's worth noting that county maps like that can be very misleading, because area does not translate into population. Generally speaking, the larger the county, the less populous it is, and the less you should consider its response as statistically meaningful. Ironically the harder it is to see the value the more important it is! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, the term "brown bread" evokes that sort of ersatz wheat bread that seems to be just white bread with brown food coloring, no real substance or taste to it. Is it obvious that I hate white bread, or at least sliced white bread?

Anyway, there are lots of breads other than whole wheat that are not white bread. What about, say, multi-grain, or wheat berry? Would you order those as "brown bread"? --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, Brown bread is that stuff that comes in a can that you serve with baked beans, and has lots of molasses in it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do people still actually say "brown bread" in Canada? I mean, I knew exactly what you were talking about, and I can remember about 20 years ago when I (and as far as I knew everyone else) called it that, but I can't remember hearing anyone say that recently. Now that everyone is so health-conscious all bread is referred to as exactly whatever it is. (And now I want a peanut butter sandwich on brown bread, yum!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe most Americans call all soda's "Coke" - certainly I've never heard that idiom in Texas. When asked "What kind of Coke?" our OP's friends were probably being asked to choose between Regular Cocacola, Classic Coke, Coke with Vanilla, Cherry Coke, Black Cherry Coke, Lemon Coke, C2, Coke Zero...and most of the above with or without Caffeine and with or without sugar (eg 'Caffeine-free Diet Cherry Coke'). All of those are "Coke". Brown bread is not a term I've heard Americans use - but it's very common in the UK - it's the natural opposite of White bread (which...oddly...is a term Americans DO use)...it's also cockney rhyming slang for 'dead'. If you think that's bad - ordering eggs for breakfast in Denny's...that's a linguistic death-trap for the unsuspecting Brit! SteveBaker (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that America is becoming more homogenized with regard to the terms for "carbonated soft drink" than they used to be. I grew up in New England, and for my parents generation, the term was "tonic". For example, in most grocery stores growing up, the label on Aisle 8 said things like "Tonic - Diet Tonic - Chips - Snacks". My generation understands the word "tonic," however most of the people I grew up with preferred to use the term "soda" instead. I would daresay that, if I still lived in New England, my own kids would find the word "tonic" to be somewhat quaint and outdated. In general, however, to expand on the OP, the four most common terms are "soda", "pop", "coke" and "tonic". "Tonic" is reserved almost exclusively in New England, "pop" is most common west of the Appalachians, east of the Rockies, and north of the Ohio/Missouri rivers. The generic "coke" is mostly in the deep south; say Georgia/Alabama/Mississippi, but also some in Kentucky/Tennessee/Carolina area... Soda is probably the predominant term in the rest of the country, and is universally recognized even where local dialects use other words. this map is MOST enlightening... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That map has come up before (in fact I think someone referenced it in this very thread). One thing I find peculiar about it is that it doesn't mention the full name soda pop. It could be that in at least some of the areas marked as soda, that's really an abbreviation, and speakers would use soda pop when being more "formal" so to speak. --Trovatore (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember, folks, WHAAOE: Soft drink naming conventions#United_States. (And, for what it's worth, this is the only type of "brown bread" I've heard of, in Western Pennsylvania.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Here in the UK, "brown bread" is very commonly used by consumers to refer to anything other than white bread although manufacturers of bread prefer to call it "wholemeal" or "wholegrain" to make it sound better. Asking for "coke" will get you any brand of cola although some places will ask if Pepsi or another brand is OK instead of Coca Cola. 62.25.96.244 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Another source for maps of this and other things was long at this Harvard Dialect Survey page, but the map links seem dead now. The Page supposedly moved to this this site, but it is not working at the moment. Too bad--this is a fun set of maps. I hope it is made accessible again soon. Pfly (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course we have an article on brown bread. I can confirm that it's widely used, in Ontario at least, as a synonym for whole wheat bread. Other non-white breads get a specific name (rye, pumpernickel, etc.). Matt Deres (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion makes it sound like you don't have rye bread in the USA or Canada. Surely this isn't so? JIP | Talk 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rye bread is very common in the US and I assume the same is true in Canada. Tomdobb (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll however find that US rye bread is a lot lighter than what you'll see in Europe. It (unfortunately) also has tons of caraway seeds in it. I think that the color might have something to do with the leavening agent/ process used. In GA I hear "soft-drink" most commonly used for unspecified carbonated beverages. If you order at a place that just hands you a cup and you fill it at the soda fountain (dispensers) yourself, some people just order a coke for convenience sake and then fill their cup with their choice of beverage. If you order coke at a restaurant that only has Pepsi they will usually ask if that's o.k. instead. Same if you order a Dr. Pepper (made by Pepsi) and they only have Mr. Pibb (made by Coca Cola, we haven't gotten used to the new name "Pibb extra" yet). In a private home the "what kind" question is most likely to come up because of the many varieties available. People like us buy whatever is on sale and then end up with a lot of different brands and combinations on hand. The most distinguishing feature is "ordinary, plain" (with sugar) or "diet" (with artificial sweeteners). Ice tea which is "the southern word for water" :-) is also available in "sweet" and "unsweet", with the latter often requiring clarification when ordering. Pop is more common as a short form for "popsicle" = ice-cream in some parts. If it is not clear that you are referring to food my first thought would be "grandpa" or "old geezer". Forget what part they were from, but I met s.o. at a party where this question came up and they said they used pop for "popcorn". If s.o. said they'd "come over for a pop" that would mean "a little while". They would not expect to be offered a soft-drink, but would probably not turn one down either. Back on the farm "soda" was something used for cleaning (as in baking soda). You'd order a "fountain drink" for coke etc. Had never heard of "brown bread" before. Would that include pumpernickel? BTW. I thought that was German, but they distinguish between 3 types "Schwarzbrot" (black bread), "Vollkornbrot" (whole grain bread) and "Pumpernickel" - at least in Northern Germany. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly available in Canada (as I implied above), but ordering toast in a family restaurant would probably net you two options: white or brown (i.e. white bread or whole wheat bread). Rye and related breads like pumpernickel are a distant third and not often offered in my experience. Matt Deres (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are four different types of rye bread available in my local grocery store, and if you asked for "brown bread", I'd ask if you were referring to what I know as "dark rye". --Carnildo (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just four? Are you in a rural area? --Trovatore (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Coneslayer's brown bread is what I was thinking of. I wanted to add, in some parts of the US, a soda is called a "dope", especially in relation to RC - an "RC dope and a moon pie" is a common phrase - [13]. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The soda–coke–pop thing is definitely regional: see The Pop Vs Soda Map on the Strange Maps blog. – b_jonas 20:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

November 26

National Guard vs Army Reserve

I have read both respective articles, but I still do not understand. What is the difference between the US Army National Guard and the US Army Reserves? Why would someone choose to join one over the other? Acceptable (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In theory the National Guard is under the control of the several states, and would be called up by a governor rather than by the president, usually in response to natural disaster or civil unrest in the state to which the unit belongs. The reserves, on the other hand, are intended for foreign wars. It's true that the distinction sometimes gets muddied. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Trovatore has the right idea. The National Guard is first and foremost the collective terms for the "state militia"s which are organized and controlled at the state level, but may be "nationalized" into the regular army at times of need. The reserves are a branch of the U.S. Army, generally consisting of semi-retired soldiers who have completed their tours of duty, but still owe committment to the government, or who still wish to draw a paycheck and remain on the rolls, but who hold down other full-time jobs. Reserves may also be "activated" back into the regular army if needed.

The dual-nature of the National Guard is best exemplified in the history of the Little Rock Nine. During desegregation, the Supreme Court ordered Little Rock, Arkansas to integrate Little Rock Central High School. At first, the governor of Arkansas called in the Arkansas National Guard to forceably prevent the students from going to class; President Eisenhower then later nationalized the entire Arkansas National Guard into the regular U.S. Army, explicitly to remove them from the Governor's control; he then deployed the 101st Airborne of the regular army to provide security detail to the 9 students. Welcome to the fun that comes from living in a federal system... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in case anyone was confused, several in the phrase the several states does not have its usual sense of "at least four, but not so many as 'many' ". It means something more like "the states, considered separately". It's a phrase that occurs in the Constitution, and somehow it pops to mind in discussions like this. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In terms of training and readiness, which one has the advantage? Acceptable (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Training and readiness for what? For cleaning up after a natural disaster, the National Guard is better-prepared; when it comes to shooting hordes of marauding invaders, the Army is better. --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse terms: you've answered with a contrast between the National Guard and the Army, when the question was about the National Guard vs. the Army Reserve. The active duty Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserve are three components of the "Army". Unless something has changed recently, the National Guard and the Army Reserve receive their basic training side-by-side with the regular Army. They're all mixed in together. I was a Guardsman in the 1980s, and received no special "natural disaster" training. I was trained to shoot my M16, blow up stuff, and follow orders. —Kevin Myers 15:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

During your time in the Guard, how often were you called on to deal with natural disasters? How often were you called on to shoot people and blow things up? Formal training isn't the only way to learn how to do something. --Carnildo (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

St.Germain

Has any one recently claimed to be St.Germain? for those not familiar, he claimed to be the wondering jew, or something, basically hes been alive for 2000 years and was still going strong as st.germain in the 1700's but where is he now? much like the movie millenium man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For background, see Count of St. Germain. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He makes an appearance in Carlos Ruíz Zafón's novel The Angel's Game (which AFAIK still has not been translated to English) , under the name "Andreas Corelli". --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bush compared to Hitler?

I really think Bush and Hitler are not really alike due to the fact that Hitler was a lot more dictatorship than Bush i'am not saying that Bush is a dictator i know i might afend some people but Bush does have some stuff wrong with america. Anyway I have heard some people refer Bush and Hitler alike so really my question is what do you guys/gals think? Thank You --HeroesOfTheDeep (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't answer opinion questions here. If you have any factual questions about Bush or Hitler we'll be happy to help. Algebraist 03:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay good to know thank you Algebraist. --HeroesOfTheDeep (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll have an apple - thanks for asking. SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean have an apple Steve? and what does a banana have to do with this? --HeroesOfTheDeep (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

*Munching on a nice piece of fruit* Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve may be alluding to the proverb: You have to believe in something, and I believe I'll have another beer. I prefer cider to beer, so I'll have an apple too. —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you're interested in looking up what people have said in comparing the two erm, leaders, there's this google search result: [14]. @ Steve, do you mean six of one, half a dozen of the other, so to speak? or is it as Tamfang puts it. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A simpler exegesis: Steve was conscientious enough to respond only to the OP's "real" question (note the last line). —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. Steve must be drawing a subtle association between the cyanide found in the seeds of apples (thus representing Hitler’s chosen method of suicide) and the World Trade Center attacks which of course took place in New York City—the Big Apple. Very clever indeed. Thus a poison becomes a metaphor for the 9/11 attacks. Steve must be pointing out that the attack could also been seen as a poison eating the country from within. Even Steve’s statement “thanks for asking” is a clever postmodern reference to the New York hip-hop group Apsci’s album Thanks for Asking of which Allmusic says “the vocal manifestation of the Big Brother who is watching your every move.” [15] A very clever way to point out that the Bush administration is indeed watching our every move, just like Hitler or Big Brother. You see there are layers and layers of meaning! Brilliant, simply brilliant. --S.dedalus (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ahem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They both spoke German, except Bush. And they're both alive, except Hitler. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you know Bush doesn't speak German? If there's no evidence that he does, that merely shows how effective his agents have been in covering it up. Be seeing you! —Tamfang (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because "Dutch" comes from the German word for "German", doesn't mean that the world's most prominent fluent double Dutch speaker counts as a German speaker. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve's snack lacks salt: Pretzels .. anyone?

They both like dogs! Adam Bishop (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

S.dedalus, wow, that was good! 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hitler killed a hell of a lot more people. But by the time they left office, their popularity rating was about the same. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for comparing Bush to Hitler. After all, Hitler was an excellent public speaker and of at least average intelligence. StuRat (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Granny Smith. Steve's G. Bush apple metaphor is an allusion to the fact that apples grow on trees, which in turn alludes to the fact that trees grow on the ground, which alludes to the fact that George Bush was on the ground when he delivered 100% of his Presidential speeches (scary, I know!), which alludes to the fact that there was a President named Richard Nixon, which alludes to the fact that Nixon will has gray hair, which is a homophone for hare, which is related to the rabbit. A rabbit attacked Jimmy Carter, and a killer rabbit almost killed Sir Lancelot. And therefore, by the transitive property of allusions, George W. Bush is really Freddie Mercury! (because Freddie Mercury died of AIDS and Bush has aides) flaminglawyer^cneverforget 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

sticky rice

Give explanation for the sticky rice in terms of chemistry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.88.234 (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Read our article on Glutinous rice which has a discussion of the chemistry of its stickiness. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

point of view

I have seen people living their lives being very logical,somewhere ignoring the sensitivity or attachment .They are not interested,as for them life is to enjoy confined to themselves and their friends...

how do you all express this as???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.143.13 (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Stoicism? Chemical Weathering (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Suffering from an autism spectrum disorder?--droptone (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There's really 2 separate positions here: firstly that of approaching life rationally, and secondly that of seeking pleasure for yourself and family. There's no necessary link between rationalism and pleasure, and most moral philosophers seek to live rationally though they differ widely as to what that means (e.g. you may decide that since the purpose of life is to reproduce, the most rational thing is to reproduce as widely as possible, without any thought of happiness). Many philosophers have decided that the most rational way of living is to enjoy a modest amount of pleasure (since too much pleasure now leads to misery later): Aristotelian ethics and Epicureanism are ancient systems; some versions of moderate Hedonism and of utilitarianism are modern equivalents. I'm not sure if this is the belief referred to, or if the question means something more extreme.

Living in a very logical fashion, believing that reason is more important than emotion, is sometimes called hyper-rationality or hyper-rationalism (and is usually intended as an insult). It is a common view of human nature in economics: see Rational choice theory, Homo economicus. Ayn Rand is the moral philosopher most closely associated with this view (or most usually subject to this insult): see rational egoism, Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - but note that Rand uses the word objectivism in a non-standard way. For other manifestations, see Scientism (a word of varying meanings, but often used as a similar insult), as well as Stoicism and its early Christian equivalent, Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy. Probably a reference to Mr Spock is the most usual way of describing the attitude. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would respond, but this question is illogical and does not compute. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing that i know, rationality is not the absence of sensitivity.rather a part of it, or one is paying too high a price for itVikram79 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

People Bank of China 27 basis point rates changes.

People Bank of China adjusts the interest rate for the Chinese economy in 27 basis point (0.27%)increments. All the other nations central banks adjust rate in 25 basis point(0.25%) increments. Why is 27 basis points the incremental change in China?

See for example from today China Daily: "China's cut in banks' benchmark lending and deposit rates by 108 basis points." "我國央行下調存貸款利率1.08個百分點 ."

All the Best Glenn Brewster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.51.7 (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quite interesting. Take a look here. Fribbler (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Joseph Yam article referred to in the Bloomberg story.F (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Service Sector

Why one should choose Service Sector as his career? or Why one should choose a MBA(Service Sector) cource especially in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiyabsaifi (talk • contribs)

The service sector is very diverse, including virtually every kind of economic activity other than manufacturing, construction, agriculture, mining, fishing, and forestry. It is something of a catch-all category that includes anything from a street vendor to a management consultancy. As such, it is almost impossible to generalize about it. One generalization that can be made is that, as economies develop and grow richer, their service sector almost always grows faster than the rest of the economy. Of course, that may not be true for individual industries within the service sector. However, employment in the service sector should have good prospects in an emerging economy such as India. On the other hand, The Economist has argued that India's best prospect for growth in the medium term (the next decade or two) is through the expansion of its manufacturing (non-service) sector, since one of India's chief comparative advantages is cheap labor, and manufacturing is very labor intensive. So an MBA in manufacturing might just be a better choice in India. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Elephant Ear Plants

Why do the leaves of Elephant Plants seem to cry? Several times I've noticed that my plants shed tears from the tips of the leaves and I'm just wondering if I might be over watering or under watering them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.133.130 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Guttation is nothing to worry about.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And I was about to suggest that it's ear wax. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Economics

Firms that make losses are dead ducks that should be shut down at once? true or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.239.79 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The tone of this question sounds like it is trying to open a debate. Such debates are not appropriate at the Reference Desk. If you have a more specific or appropriate question about the current financial crisis please ask it, but this is not the place to start a debate over things that "should" or "should not" happen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, some economists do believe that firms that make losses are inefficient and are therefore a waste of labour and capital which can be put to better use in a more efficient firm if the weaker firm gets "shut down". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

False. If you study your economics textbooks, you'll find that in the short-run, the firm still have to pay fixed cost whether it closes down or not. If these fixed costs is bigger than the losses the firm is presently making,then the firm should not close down. This is so because closing down mean the new losses (which is equivalent to the fixed costs since revenue will fall to zero) that the firm will be making will be bigger than the present loss. The only equation you should be concerned is whether Marginal cost = Marginal revenue, whether the firm is making losses or profits. This concept is often known as loss-minimizing strategy. In the long-run, of course, competition will kill the firm or management will close it down as it is often assumed that they are only concerned with making profits, not losses.

PS: This is rather a homework question than a debate question but I'm just helping a bit. --132.216.105.26 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If by "shut down" you mean declare bankruptcy and liquidate the company, then, no, not just because they are currently taking losses. Just about every company will incur losses at some time. The more important factor is if the company has the potential to be profitable in the future. StuRat (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The "shutdown decision" is a section in many second-year micro textbooks (from which, I'm sure this question originates...). It refers to what 132. mentioned above: the production decision, and the correct answer is in fact, the loss-minimization strategy.NByz (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, you can't just write down 'the loss minimization strategy' and expect full marks. You'll have to describe under what situation you would shut down production, and under what situation you wouldn't.NByz (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

November 27

Bread machine motor breakdown

So we got a very cheap-but-new bread machine and after four or five successful loaves of bread it has decided to bite the dust. Now we're not out any money in this (it cost almost nothing, though it was brand new unopened—hooray for garage sales) but it'd be nice to have it working again. The misses would be happy.

I took a screwdriver and opened up the casing, and the thing is really quite simple underneath. The whole thing is really just a fancy plastic casing for a timer and a motor which then turns a little screw in the part where the bread gets kneaded around.

When it is on, the motor just goes "mrrrrrh. mrrrrh. mhrrrr. mhrrrrh." once a second or so. It's clearly trying to turn but it can't. I managed to turn the motor piece a few times manually (with it turned off) with a screwdriver and then plugged it in again, and it turned fine for a second (really whirred around like it was supposed to) and then it started doing it's locked-down routine.

The motor seems like just a standard electric motor—electromagnet coil around some sort of central axis. It is pretty small. That's the extent of my understanding of it — I'm no engineer.

Any thoughts about what might be going wrong? There's no physical obstruction that I can see, though I haven't removed the entire thing from the casing. What ought I do next? I've of course tried the standard turn-it-off-and-on-again, the jiggle-and-shake, etc. Nothing gets any different results other than having manually turned the motor axle a few times, when then can get it running for a second and then it locks up again.

Anything I ought to watch out for looking inside a machine like this, safety-wise? Obviously I'm not playing with it while it is plugged in, and there doesn't look like there are any sorts of capacitors or other "no nos", but again, I'm not experienced with electrical things, so I try to be pretty dang cautious. I thought I'd try taking the whole motor out tomorrow just to see if there's anything on the bottom side of it that would make it more obvious what was going on, but I thought I'd ask on here first... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case, you do realize that a bread machine stops and waits for the bread to rise at times in the process, right ? I will assume that's not the issue here. It sure sounds like the shaft is rubbing against something, to me. I'd disassemble it further and run the motor by itself to see if that's it. (Be sure to wear rubber gloves and not touch it when doing so.) Another possibility is that the motor has a tendency to stop in null positions. A null position is where the electromagnetic forces trying to push the motor in either direction are exactly equal, so it doesn't move. A proper motor design will ensure that it never stops at such points. While moving, inertia carries it past those points. The start-and-stop nature of a bread machine motor could be an issue, though. StuRat (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not the stop session. It won't start. Again, it worked fine until recently. Thanks for the suggestion! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, do not depend on rubber gloves to protect you while you're working on electrical things. Not unless they're marked with a voltage rating and a current test stamp, which your common Playtex dishwashing gloves don't have.

Second, it is notoriously hard to diagnose electrical problems over the Internet. Tinker as you like, but if you can't get it fixed, look in your Yellow Pages for a good appliance repair shop.

If the machine is unplugged, then in general you are safe to prod around. If this is really a cheap machine, I wouldn't expect to find any sort of switched-mode power supply inside of it, which would probably be the most dangerous thing to encounter with the plug out: they can hold a substantial charge. Still, keep your eyes open, keep your work area well-lit, and don't touch the metal part of your screwdriver while you poke around.

From here, it sounds like the motor is probably burned out, but it sounds like you've guessed that already. If there are any If you are lucky, this is a universal motor that has replaceable brushes, and I would check that first. If you are not lucky, you may have a shorted winding or a burned-out bearing on the motor, or possibly a messed-up control board, any of which are probably not worth repairing unless this machine has significant sentimental value. The other thing to check would be the bearings in the kneading mechanism: take the motor out and try spinning the kneading blade by hand. It should spin freely and not bind up at all. Good luck! Morrand (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Worm drive.

Is the gear business in the machine the same or similar to this, with the motor turning the spiral gear and it, when it works, turning the other gear (the spur gear) and the bread mixer?

If it is, the problem might be cheap gears, or the gears not properly aligned. If so, some oil or grease on the gears might help, or adjust the alignment, if there is any flexibility.

Or maybe the spur gear came loose on the shaft, so it turns but the mixing arm doesn't.

Unless it looks very solidly made, don't spend much time on it. Kneading bread is hard work and a lightweight machine is probably inadequate. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

On the good side, if you can't fix this one, you seem to have found that a GOOD bread machine will be an ideal gift to buy for the wife, but be sure to also get her something suitably sappy, as women really go for that crap. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. I figured it out though. Took off the bottom and saw, lo, that the belt drive had totally destroyed itself and was just a mess of plastic and string in a horrible tangle. Took off the dead belt and the motor works just fine (of course it no longer turns anything). If I can find a decent replacement should be a cinch to fix. Thanks, all! (And I note on the internet that a broken belt for a Magic Chef 250 is pretty common. Ours was used and the belt had clearly dry-rotted. Hmm. Sounds like the company is a pain in the ass about it too. Note to self: never buy Magic Chef.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Make sure that the paddle which kneads the dough, and any linkage between it and the belt, turns freely. If it was seized up, that could have caused the belt to fail. Edison (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I had the impression from your initial post that you had already looked inside. Could you see the motor without seeing the shredded belt? Good luck on getting a belt. A local appliance repair shop might sell you one. Some older shops have a lot of sizes in stock. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Largest democracy?

A moment ago on CNN the talking head pronounced India to be the world's second largest democracy. What metric was the network using? By population, India is second only to the People's Republic of China, which is certainly not a democracy. By land area, India is surpassed by Australia, Brazil, the United States, Canada, and (although I hesitate to call it a democracy) Russia. Is there another metric that I am missing, or was the news anchor mistaken? Plasticup ^T/C 05:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Was the announcer Maxwell Smart? --Trovatore (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, a charitable explanation is that he was going to say either largest democracy or second largest country, and got mixed up between them. Kind of like Lewis Carroll's description of the poor guy who had to answer under which king something happened, and was equally divided between Richard and William, so he said "Rilchiam". Or something like that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is generous but plausible. Thank you. Plasticup ^T/C 06:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he thinks America is the largest democracy. Man, America invented democracy! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the term totalitarian democracy (as opposed to liberal democracy). If this is applied to the Chinese model, then the CNN statement would make sense. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I found other web pages[16][17] that seem to believe that because the USA and India are the world's 2 largest democracies, India must be second. NY Times correction: "An article yesterday about the Clinton Administration's policy on Haiti incorrectly described a remark by President Clinton about India, whose Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao, was visiting the White House. Mr. Clinton said India was the world's largest democracy, not the second largest."[18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this object?

What exactly is this strange mystery object? http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SS41gg8I2II/AAAAAAAAs8A/h6m5blIOGCA/s640/26620-181903-77908a62ed49a0e539e06a70cd4c9f26.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.237.183 (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what baseballs used to look like. Then MLB realized, "Hey, 3 players a week are dying in this sport. We have 2 alternatives - either we come up with some type of non-cancerous chewing tobacco, or we redesign the ball." It's an educated guess, to say the least. flaminglawyer^cneverforget 09:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cluster bomb packed with bomblets

It looks a bit like a medieval ball mace, but they normally had protruding spikes. There is a picture in the article for flail (weapon). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could it be a round riot hand grenade with the pin out? The colour's military. Are those spin fins? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could it be a pocket mace? You know, the sort you could pop in your pocket with the spikes folded down and then whip it out when you needed it. Richard Avery (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it is a bomblet from a cluster bomb. Compare with the image to the right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur, see this and this for other example images. Nanonic (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And this other one too Image:M139 bomblet 4.jpg. Nanonic (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

unicycles + welding

Two questions in one post, because 2 posts in a row is just awkward. One - I'm considering buying a unicycle and have no idea where to start. Are there any brands that are nicer that others? I know what size I should get, but don't know anything else... It's for light riding, I'm not a unicycle racer or anything. And two - arc welding is the most cost-efficient method of welding, or am I mistaken? And is it suitable for welding bicycle frames/parts? flaminglawyer^cneverforget 09:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on posting two unrelated question together, that makes responding awkward. As for welding cost-efficiency, that would depend on what you are welding and how often you weld. If you were going to weld things every day, then an high startup cost would be amortized over many usages, so might provide for a lower overall cost, if the per-usage cost is lower. Also, if you have natural gas pipelines in your area, that's likely to be cheaper than electricity as an energy source, but I don't think that's commonly used for welding. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think that they were related. Note the "And is it suitable for welding bicycle parts...?" While the first question is about unicycles. Uni- and bi-cycle. Might just be me though. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that straightforward arc welding ("stick welding", "MMAW", etc) is likely to be the cheapest. The equipment is much cheaper than any other (I bought a 130amp machine for £45 earlier this year) and the only consumable is the rods. Most other forms of welding involve gas (either as fuel or as inert shield), plus some sort of filler (plain filler rods for oxy-acetylene will be cheaper than arc rods, but I expect most other kinds would be more expensive), plus in some cases consumable electrodes. That said, stick welding is harder to do - a highly skilled welder can produce good work even on awkward jobs, but a beginner like me will take a long time to produce ugly (though serviceable) welds and struggle with more intricate jobs. I would probably be a lot more effective with a MIG set, but I don't do enough welding to justify the £200+ cost.

I'd expect arc welding to be fine for bicycle frames, but only if they're steel. If you have aluminium parts you'll want to research further - arc welding might still be suitable (with special rods) but it might well not be. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See questions 3.3 and 3.4 of the Unicycling FAQ Mine is a Pashley which has an odd saddle, but are well made; mine has had 12 years of use and is still good. My friend who is a unicycle god swears by his DM (Dave Mariner) but I don't think he makes them now. With regard to bicycle frames, I thought Brazing was the way to go. --TrogWoolley (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

conservatives love capitalizing words?

I recently found that, for facebook users who declared their political views,the more conservative they are the more likely they are to use capitalized words, in the Activities and Interests sections. I've checked 500+ users. For example, liberals write something like: sleeping, hanging out, while conservatives write something like: Sleeping, Hanging Out.
very liberal / liberal / moderate / conservative / very conservative
-2% / 3% / 8% / 16% / 3% more users capitalized words.

any idea why? (and why very conservative folks don't like to use capitalized words?) Janviermichelle (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be all sorts of things, like age profile of users, the papers they tend to read, etc. The low count for the very conservative could be because they missed a change that went full circle. When I was young (in the 60s and 70s) there was a craze of using "ize" spellings instead of the "ise" spellings that are more usual in the UK. This really annoyed teachers and parents but I was quite surprised to notice that my Granddad ued "ize" spellings. I asked him about it and he said he had never got used to the new "French" way of spelling these words. It could be the same for capitalisation, with Liberals taking to the new uncapitalised style which maybe the ultra-conservatives never left! -- Q Chris (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do Brits still say "capitalisation" as though it contains a Z, like Americans, or do they actually say an S sound ? StuRat (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

All the "ise" words capitalise, realise, analyse, and so on sound as though they contain a "z". -- Q Chris (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, liberals are less formal in their thinking than conservatives. They are less likely to want to conform to rules, and that includes rules of grammar. Yes, I know that in your example, words like "Sleeping, Hanging Out" don't require capitals, but in general I would say that being wedded to using capitals reflects a view of the world that is formal and hierarchical. The increasing use of no caps in places where caps used to be required also reflects a less formal, less deferential view of the world. In Britain this would be reflected in writing things like "prime minister" rather than "Prime Minister". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally agree with your point. But it doesn't explain why 'very conservatives' use less capitalized words. maybe Q Chris got it right? 128.12.147.85 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To me the capitalized version has a different meaning:

"Churchill was the Prime Minister who most resembled a bull dog."

"Our church has two ministers, but Reverend Boylove is the prime minister." StuRat (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no difference. Many newspapers and other sources now use "prime minister" in lower case when referring to the office of state. This is a conscious decision on their part, reflecting (like I said above) a less formal, less deferential society. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but in Britain if you used "prime minister" in a way that referred to someone other than the Prime Minister it would be so unusual that personally I would use quotes, either:

"Our church has two ministers, but Reverend Boylove is the 'prime minister'".

or

"Our church has two ministers, but Reverend Boylove is the 'prime' minister".

I doubt the adjective "prime" would ever be used in relation to ministers of the religious variety, simply because "prime minister" has such a strong association with the political variety that any cleric who claimed to be the "prime minister" of his/her church would be seen to be claiming an inappropriate degree of power or authority. Maybe "senior minister" would be better. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

what does this statement refer to

' to distribute them while you are saving you can only go right.' 82.206.143.13 (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Afaict, it's impossible to say what the "them" refers to. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

my sick cat

is feline herpes virus and upper respiratory infection contageous to dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susie Monroe (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Were these diagnoses made by a vet? That would be the most knowledgeable person to ask. You might get more information from the Merck Veterinary Manual online about whether these are contagious cross-species (not just dogs, perhaps humans too...see under zoonoses). And in the future - a question like this might be more appropriate to post on the Science Ref Desk. I hope your cat recovers quickly and thoroughly!-- Deborahjay (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what the dog is doing to the cat.--KageTora - the RefDesker formerly known as ChokinBako (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither legal nor medical advice required - just a shove in the right direction please.

For reasons that will become apparent, I cannot name either the product or the condition - but I have discovered, by accident, that a product I use frequently for its designed purpose, has had a dramatic and beneficial effect on a medical condition I have suffered from for years, that you would normally never associate with said product in a million years. The product is a combination of ingredients, branded into an over the counter sale item, so I cannot (not being a chemist or a doctor) say which ingredient or combination is/are responsible. So I can't patent this discovery as an invention of mine. But if I tell the manufacturer (or my doctor or pharmacist) I would have no financial reward for my discovery should it ever be researched, approved and marketed, as they would probably "adopt" it as their own. Equally, if I say nothing, and continue to use (and benefit from) the product for my own purposes, I could be denying the multitudes of other sufferers (and there really are that many)a "cure" for their condition. Any advice welcome. This is a really serious question. 92.20.1.41 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Easy question. What's your preference: greed or helping your fellow sufferers? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you won't get any financial benefit whether you tell the world about it or not, so what's to stop you? Also, this might be a freak one-off occurrence in your case – it's by no means guaranteed that it would help others with the same condition. Furthermore, the "dramatic and beneficial effect" you describe might not really be due to using the product, but due to some other reason. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to patent the idea if you can study and determine the process, or join forces with a pharmacist who is able to investigate it properly. However, all drugs are thoroughly tested, and all have effects other than those intended. I suspect the effect you've discovered will be known already.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But there doesn't seem to be an idea here, just an observation. The product already exists and is almost certainly patented (although the patent may have expired). I can't see how you could patent using an existing product for a new purpose, since it's up to the purchaser what they do with it. I don't know of any kind of legal protection for such an observation and if there were, I can't see any way it could be enforced. --Tango (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true. If a substance is in the prior art, you cannot get a patent on it—not as a "composition of matter". However, it is possible to get a patent on a new use of the substance or a new way of making it. (Disclaimer: this is not legal or professional advice.) --173.49.12.59 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting a product approved for use to treat, cure or diagnose an illness is a costly process in most countries (via the FDA if you're in the US.) If you are able create your own 'formulation', and front the capital to achieve approval, you'll have a big leg-up, even against the original company. Also, if it's more of a 'process' than an 'invention', you could be able to get a process patent, as Richardrj mentioned. Speak with an intellectual property lawyer about these ideas and make sure (s)he signs an NDA. They'll cost you about $300 an hour, but it sounds like it could be worth it.NByz (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it was Shantavira who mentioned the process patent idea. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have to get drugs approved for each illness you want to treat with them? It's it's already available over the counter then it already has the appropriate approvals. (Obviously, that is separate to it being approved for use by public health authorities, eg. in the UK it would need NICE approval before the NHS could pay for you to use it.) --20:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the country, of course. In the US, companies may not promote uses of drugs for things they've not been tested for; on the other hand, off-label uses of drugs are generally up to the physician and the patient. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably there are a fair number of other people using the same medication. So either a good percentage of them have also discovered this serendipitous benefit and the manufacturer will learn about it or has already, or you've had an idiosyncratic reaction to it. In either case, you're outa luck. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bomb-bay

After all thats seen,heard and happening relentlessly, does demilitarizing pakistan and initiating a preemptive bombing the likes of afghanistan the only solution to weaken the forces of jihadi . And if it is an effective way of dealing with it, why dont the nations join hands and crush the evil of death forever atlest starting from the epicentre i.e pakistan. Whats holding the world and their leaders back.If they could do the same to Hitler with allied forces.Are we lacking in character,motive,vision or inspiration,how are we still allowing this inhuman slaughter of humans? ...Vikram79 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Demilitarizing Pakistan and initiating a preemptive bombing the likes of Afghanistan is most unlikely to lead to peace. Nations do not join together as one might hope they would because they have sectional interests & rivalries & history & are run by humans. There's not a great deal of point in seeking to equate Al Quada-like organisations with Hitler's Germany. They'll not disappear if you take out this country or that country. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But as there are solutions to all problems, its effective when we know the best of the lot, all i meant was, is this not the most efficient way of dealing with it after knowing pakistan is the safest haven for them and their undisputed training headquartersVikram79 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See Unintended consequence. Take out one ~stan and there are twenty more, or Yemen, or other places. But the real problem is that your analysis is way too simplistic. The root cause of terrorism is not the availability of caves and Madrasah. Your presumption that all problems have solutions is naive in the extreme. Old age is a problem, as is death; we have solutions for neither. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

May we also remind you that Hitler had invaded many countries before the Allies decided to do anything? A few hundred people dead is not usually (I mean, in the history of wars) sufficient to declare a war that will kill hundreds of thousands more (or maybe millions if India is involved). You need some sort of cost / benefit analysis, before you start a war: how many more will die, because of terrorists, if the war is not happening? How many people will die if war does happen? --Lgriot (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest you read Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction? Sheesh! George W. Bush isn't even out of office yet and you already want to top his cowboy mistakes. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How would demilitarizing the democratic state of Pakistan help the situation? Surely that would only increase the power of the region's non-governmental terrorist groups. I don't think the OP understands the nuance of the situation. Plasticup ^T/C 06:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan is a vast country with close to 200 million people, most of them peace-loving and harboring no ill will toward non-Pakistanis. Furthermore, Pakistan is not really at war with any other country. Invading, occupying, and demilitarizing Pakistan would be an enormous undertaking, probably requiring more than 10 million troops. Think of Germany in 1945. That was a nation of about 60 million people, one-third of Pakistan's present population. Unlike Pakistan, it was also a nation disillusioned with its leadership, sick of war, and with strong institutions that could be subordinated to the desire of the occupying Allies to bring peace and stability. Still, it took millions of Allied troops to pacify Germany. Think how much harder it would be to pacify Pakistan, whose inhabitants would understandably see themselves as innocent victims. The invasion would likely turn tens of millions of now peaceable Pakistanis into guerillas and resistance fighters. The nation lacks strong institutions, other than its military, that the occupying forces could harness to bring order to the country. This would be Iraq at its worst multiplied many times. Marco polo (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the OP was getting at this point: terrorist movements like this flourish in places with weak government control, as they did in Afghanistan under the Taliban and East Africa in the 1990s. Would the attacks of the past few days have happened if parts of Pakistan weren't available as a safe haven for groups like "Deccan Mujahideen"? That isn't clear yet. But in the long run, I think the most effective way to eliminate lawlessness in countries and the terrorism that it spawns is to bolster the governments in those places, not tear them down. Unless the existing governing institutions are irrevocably screwed up, I think it is better to use them as a base, rather than knocking them over and starting over as was done in Iraq. I believe that to be the case for Pakistan in particular since their government isn't completely wrong-minded. TastyCakes (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek in China!

How widely distributed are Western movies in the PRC? Specifically, let's suppose I am leaving for China for 7 weeks, but exactly 3 days before Star Trek XI opens in theatres here. Will I have to wait 7 weeks til I get back? Or will there be a theatre in China (we're going to Hanzhou most likely) that will screen it? Thanks! Duomillia (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on legality. There are a lot of foreigners and a decent amount of foreign influence in Hangzhou. Chances are there'll be a theatre showing it, but it may be dubbed into Chinese. If it is subtitled, you should be aware that going to the cinema in China is different to the West. It's not impolite to talk over the movie. If it's not in Hangzhou, Shanghai is only a couple of hours away.

On the other hand, once it's been released, you only have to wait a couple of days before pirated copies will be available on the street. It's not difficult to find them. You might get duped by them into buying a thing labeled with Star Trek and actually being something completely different, but you shouldn't pay more than about 5-10yuan for pirated stuff there anyway (locals pay about 5). You didn't hear that from me, anyway. Steewi (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If the seller doesn't have a TV and DVD player available for you to test it on before buying, find a better seller. --Tango (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

November 28

Orphanage in Nepal

How would it be possible to make an orphanage in Nepal? I have been thinking about this for a few years, making an orphanage for children whose parents have been killed in the Civil War, and for street children.
I was thinking about either buying an existing one, or buying the land to build a new one. Obviously the former would be cheaper. How can I go about either of these?
Of course, with the current turmoil, things would be difficult, but even so, I would still like to do this. Does anyone have any ideas or knowledge in this field to help?--KageTora - the RefDesker formerly known as ChokinBako (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you'd want to hook up with someone who knows all of the local tax, real estate and financial laws. In Canada, I'd recommend a CA, CGA or CMA. I'm afraid I don't know what the equivalent would be there. If I were one though, I would certainly do that sort of work pro bono. He or she would be able to give you a ton of information about local governance and regulations, but most importantly, they'll help you put together a financial plan, and determine what resources you'd need to get started. They might even be able to help you with the 'land transfer' type stuff that a real-estate agent would normally handle. Finding the specific laws and regulations MIGHT require a lawyer, or just a friendly contact with another orphanage operator and/or the public regulator.NByz (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Try talking to the people at the Himalayan Trust...they may be able to give some advice . Boomshanka (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Boomshanka! You have just opened the world to me! Thanks! Great link!--KageTora - the RefDesker formerly known as ChokinBako (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

XBOX 360 game patches

Is there a way that updates and patches to any XBOX 360 game can be downloaded to the game when they become available. Do later versions of the same game have new patches applied.--logger (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Last time I checked about this they didn't seem very willing to allows us to play Xbox games. But I think your Xbox 360 should tell you, which games it will play and which games won't. Though I am not for sure, you should go to http://www.xbox.com/en-US/ Maybe they have your answer there. Cardinal Raven (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

How much does eating at the Taj Mumbai cost?

I know there are multiple places so what's the range?

Hotcheetos (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If I've got the right hotel here, didn't it cost some people their freedom for awhile? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of restaurants at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower in Mumbai. You can probably look up the individual restaurant names and find reviews which include price estimates. Plasticup ^T/C 05:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a review of Aquarius where an entree apparently cost US$60. Extrapolating from that, two people + wine would come to US$300-350, although I expect prices will be coming down in the following weeks. Plasticup ^T/C 05:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Scienttist Way

All right, so I was watching a documentary about other human ancestors and a question came in my head while hearing scientist say "This is not possible, this changes everything". As a scientist shouldn't they be open minded? I mean their theories are always been adding to, always been experimented and there is still so much we don't know why is something not possible because it doesn't fit at that moment in time. Shouldn't they be open minded knowing that there will always bee more data found. Thanks for answering this wonder of mine.

Were the Red Feathers Fly ~CR

Cardinal Raven (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Welcome CR, your wondering led me to think of the Hobbit found in Indonesia in 2003 where "possible" appears in the first sentence of that article. I take it when a scientist says, "This is not possible" there's a moment of "this cuts across what we know up to now" and a bit of denial thrown in before the next statement, "this changes everything" which is a kind of acceptance there might be, well, changes. The Indonesian find created quite a stir and not everyone agrees with the face value of it (see controversies section here[19]). Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that was the documentary I was watching. It as called Alien from Earth. It just got me thinking. I guess you're right in a way it could be like a phase. Kind of like someone dying denial, anger, and then acceptance. Though its probably not as simple as that. I'm sure anger is pure madness of experiments.

Always Cardinal Raven (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

On the question of whether scientists are really open-minded or not, you might take a look at Thomas Kuhn's very-well known work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is one approach to answering that question. Kuhn's answer is basically, no, scientists are not, generally speaking, open-minded for things which fall widely outside of the possibility of their particular worldview (their paradigm in his terminology), their way of thinking about their particular field of work, their shared concepts. But lo! you say, this means they are not open-minded! Kuhn identifies this essential conservatism of scientists as being the source of the strength of science—the better a science can figure out which assumptions to stop questioning (at least provisionally), the more it gets at what we consider to be "progress" in science. But every once in awhile, evidence comes along that cannot be added into the old set of assumptions, and a brand-new, sweeping set of assumptions takes its place. Kuhn's mechanism is a bit problematic for a number of reasons, but it's not a bad way to start thinking about the question... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting!NByz (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

'Intestinal pressure'

I was playing Wii Fit today and it said something weird- 'Stronger abs will increase intestinal pressure and improve digestion!' Is there any truth to this? Nadando (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet the science desk would jump all over this!NByz (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you need to ask yourself what does "improve digestion" mean. Is it a reference to a more rapid digestion or is the digestion more efficient so that all nutrients are absorbed. I think most peoples' digestive systems work just fine. Now, let's look at increasing the tension of the abs to increase abdominal pressure. If the abs are tighter I suggest the pressure (if pressure is increased!) would push the diaphragm upwards or push the sides and back of the abdominal cavity outwards. This claim looks a lot like all the other health bulls**t everywhere, eye-catching but useless. Richard Avery (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

terrorism

How can we get rid of terrorism????

can we ever live a peaceful life???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.143.13 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, not a humanclopedia.

But I will answer the question because that is the kind of person I am. I think the way we can get rid of terrorism is words. We always tend to fight terrorism with terrorism and that doesn't seem to be working.

Chaos is peace as well, we need a little bit of hell to live a little bit of peace. They all work in a balance. Though these are just opinions and these are the real answers you are going to get. Just opinions nothing based on fact.

Sorry little birdy.

Always Cardinal Raven (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

thanks but i dont think there is no solution to anything in this world,it may differ..of course chaos is a part of life....but do you think killing innocent life is a kind of chaos you would like to live with? Is it not possible to reduce the intensity of it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvatisharma (talk • contribs)

How do you know it isn't working? Maybe it would be even worse if we weren't fighting it. TastyCakes (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not start or participate in debates here. This is not an appropriate place. Consider posting your question on the Wikiversity Help Desk instead (they allow debates). --S.dedalus (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't butcher words like that either. Encyclopaedia#Etymology. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I will interpret your question as "what is the consensus of the expert's opinions on how to decrease terrorism ?". I would say that most believe in a "divide and conquer" strategy. That is, they believe that those who are only engaging in terrorism because they have no other source of income or for some other trivial reason can be convinced to reform by improving the economic, social, and political situation in their home countries. Longstanding political problems, like the Israel/Palestine issue and the India/Pakistan issue, must also be solved to deprive those trying to create terrorists of this "ammunition". On the other hand, there is a tiny, hard-core group of terrorists who will never reform, and must either be killed or imprisoned for life. In Afghanistan/Pakistan, the first group roughly corresponds with the Taliban, while the latter group is al Queada. Madrasses (religious schools) which teach children to be suicide bombers, must also be shut down or reformed to prevent the next generation from becoming terrorists. StuRat (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

“there is a tiny, hard-core group of terrorists who will never reform, and must either be killed or imprisoned for life.”—I don’t believe that this is a common view at all. Deradicalisation is accepted as a standard tool in dealing with extremists today. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone holds the position that we should try to convince Osama bin Laden to reform and become a good citizen. There certainly are others who can't be reformed, as well. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few people do, but bin Laden is an extreme example. In general terrorists are terrorists because of socio-political realities, not because of any particular religion or indoctrination. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't even mention bin Laden. You do still need a plan to deal with them, however, and you're going to have to look a long way to find people who don't even think prison is appropriate in cases like his. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

An action being taken right now (Nov. 28 - Dec. 1) by the international advocacy organization Women Without Borders is a conference being held in Vienna to launch a community-based initiative called S.A.V.E = Sisters Against Violent Extremism. Follow the link for reportage as it develops. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, watch out for that one saving the world. Any day now we'll all live in a secure peace thanks to S.A.V.E. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Most instances of terrorism are connected to broader conflicts, such as the Kashmir question and the other unresolved grievances between India and Pakistan. Resolving those conflicts would remove the main root causes of terrorism. There is an entire discipline devoted to understanding how to resolve conflicts and forge peace. You might want to take a look at our article Peace and conflict studies and follow links from that article. Marco polo (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

clueless

the author of a book about a people who's country he never step foot on...name the author and book ..clue relation to hitler..please wikipedians assist me with this question..

Well, Hitler wrote a book about the Jews but never visited Israel, which didn't exist while he was alive. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem relevant, as the Jews whom Hitler blamed for Germany's woes and ultimately targeted for extermination were not Israelis but inhabitants (citizens, residents, et al.) of Europe and North Africa. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been travel writers that its been revealed never visited the countries they wrote about (well, I heard about at least one), but I don't see a connection to Hitler there. --Tango (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam's answer may not seem relevant to a historian, but maybe it would in a trivia quiz or puzzle forum. Guessing, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Brrrr... it's a discouraging thought to us historians that the designers and doers of trivia quizzes wouldn't know (?) about millions of Jews having lived throughout Europe during Hitler's lifetime and close to two millennia before. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Searching for a specific site (market place for technical solutions)

Some months ago I came across a site where users could ask for and offer technical solutions. It was organized like an open market place and not IT oriented. Does someone know what site is it?--Mr.K. (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like our Computer Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I said, not IT oriented. It could be our Science Ref Desk, but more professional. Nobody is expecting that you search a couple of weeks for a technical solution and then post it to the Ref Desk, but in this specific site, the projects were in this direction. Mr.K. (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

i have been assigned a responsibility to take care of the emailing department of my company,i.e any mails sent to customers querries regarding complains, information, online enquiries,hence, want to streamline a system to ensure a crisp and comprehensive email structre with monitoring and guiding agents.can anyone guide me OR to a link describing the most important elements i should check upon to ensure 100% customer satisfaction in an emailing process? any suggestions would mean a lot.thank youSeekhle (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First for some things not to do:

A) I sometimes get company e-mails that say "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS". Maybe they list the correct address to reply to somewhere in the e-mail, maybe they don't, but, in either case, I can't use the REPLY button because of this, which makes me angry.

B) Don't include any advertising in the e-mails.

C) Don't route any customer requests to anyone who doesn't speak English (or, more generally, the native language of the customers). Send those people to class to improve their language skills, until they can be more of a help to customers than an annoyance.

Now for things to do:

1) Each person wants to feel they are speaking with the same person each time they contact the company, who knows their history, account numbers, etc., and whose name is known to the customer. Nothing is more frustrating than dealing with somebody new every time you contact the company, who is completely ignorant of everything you said to the last person, and probably doesn't even know who you are.

2) I suggest keeping e-mail threads intact so, if somebody new does come into the loop, they can read through the history instead of asking all the same questions again. This might be complicated by the fact that the customer may discard those threads in their replies, so you would somehow need to reconstruct them.

3) Be sure to list all the relevant info in each e-mail, such as account numbers, order numbers, transaction numbers, phone numbers, etc.

4) Being transfered to somebody new is also annoying, so be sure the first person the customer request is routed to is actually able to help.

5) To ensure a quick response, route customer requests to a customer service rep who is currently available, not one who is on vacation, behind in their work, or just left the office for the night. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also add: A) Only email me when email is the most appropriate form of communication. B) Provide me with direct links to pages that are relevant to what you are emailing me regarding (a link to my sales order, a 'track your order' page etc.) C) Don't pretend the email is written by an individual unless it actually is. An automated/computer-generated letter is perfectly acceptable for most situations, it's really only resolving complex/sensitive issues where the 'personal touch' is more important D) (related to C) Have communications review automated letters for sense, clarity, mistakes and general remarks. That is the best feature of automated letters - they can usually be written to a higher level of readability than rep X trying to explain a concept yet rep X doesn't really know how to write. E) Be wary of personal information. Many consumers are worried about online transactions so never repeat data/information back to customers that is irrelevent/they should already know - if such facilities exist provide links to secure/password-protected pages that show your information - this can put many customers at ease. F) Have some decent SLAs (service level agreement). Realistic ones are better than small/shorter ones. If you can set my expectations and meet those expectations that is 90% of the service. The next step is doing the same again but faster. It is, however, more important to be accurate with how quick you will respond/deal than it is how quick you claim you can do it. I know it's corny corporate stuff but keeping your promises is a big thing from a customer perspective. Hope this helps ny156uk (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Temperate climate in USA?

Is there anywhere in the USA with a 365 day, mild, temperate climate, please? In particular there must be no snow, no high humidity/excessive heat (as Florida) and be away from earthquake, hurricane and tornado zones. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Much of California pretty much fits the bill except for the earthquake zones. But keep in mind that earthquakes, even in high-risk areas like the Bay Area or Los Angeles, are relatively infrequent and kill far, far, far, far fewer people than, say, automobiles. They do more property damage than anything else, and in areas where multiple earthquakes are expected or anticipated much of the architecture is fairly reinforced anyway. The West and Southwest can have very high heat though it is dry, which is not too difficult to deal with (it's very easy compared to the high-humidity heat you get elsewhere). A dry heat of 100º is completely tolerable compared to a high-humidity of only 75º. And of course there is also Hawaii (which have volcano zones but my understanding is that they are limited in scope). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend San Diego as having the most ideal climate in the US. As the above contributor said, you are in the earthquake zone, but SD is not noted for quakes nearly as much as Los Angeles and San Francisco are. As the above said, I would also recommend Hawaii. There was a cyclone over Kauai a few years back, but that's rare. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Another option, depending on how much humidity you can tolerate, is Austin, Texas. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) I would also point you towards south-eastern Washington, such as the Tri-Cities. The area averages maybe one inch of snow a year, each January. And it is away from natural disaster areas (although I must mention the Hanford Site is in the area should you be worried about other potential disasters. Useight (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Inches of snow isn't a good measure of climate: the Tri-Cities area is semi-desert in the rainshadow of the Cascade Mountains. The temperature routinely gets below freezing in the winter, and above 100F in the summer. --Carnildo (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for Hawaii. The temp is always moderate. There are volcanoes, but they are the slow, predictable type that you can easily outrun. The humidity might be a bit high, in some locations, though. StuRat (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii doesn't count as temperate, and Austin can be quite humid and gets hotter during summer than almost anywhere in Florida. As you can see from this map, the earthquake hazard is quite small in the Sierra Foothills region of California. This region never experiences hurricanes, tornadoes are extremely rare, and snow is very light and melts quickly except in the higher elevations. Towns in this region include Grass Valley, California; Auburn, California; Placerville, California, and Sonora, California. If you need to be absolutely certain that you will never see a flake of snow or experience hot, humid weather, then you need to be on the coast of California, despite the earthquake risk. I second the suggestion of San Diego. Marco polo (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

While Hawaii is in the tropics; it being a series of small islands means it doesn't get as hot as large land masses in the tropics, so the temps are more in line with what the original poster had in mind. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

November 29

Stalemate?

In the article on stalemate, the chess position is a stalemate with black to move. However, I don't understand why. Couldn't black's pawn simply take the white queen? I must be missing a technicality.CalamusFortis 00:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate?

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Black to move is in stalemate

Yes, you are missing a technicality. The black pawn could have taken the white queen if the white queen were located on b1. However, the white queen is on b3. "Forwards" for the black pawn is downwards on the graph. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course. I'm looking at it backwards. Thank you.CalamusFortis 00:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Always assume that white is playing from the bottom of the diagram unless you're told otherwise. You might also want to check the chess notation article. The algebraic notation used here always numbers white's starting ranks as 1 & 2 and black's as 7 & 8. Exxolon (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Medal of the Second Bank of the United States

Does anyone here know about this medal?

File:Secondbankofamerica.jpg

Bewareofdog 06:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but these people have lots to say on their auction page for such a medal[20] – the article Second Bank of the United States seems to have no mention. The details are: 45 mm (1.75 inch) diameter, and Barry Stanton, Sculptor (not the Australian rocker). I don't know if this would work, but you could ask the sellers by email where they got the information from, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

geography discrepancy

I noticed what "appears" to me to be a discrepancy on a page here at wikipedia.

The discrepancy is about a place that is no longer considered an island here. I believe it is still an island. Where do I go to discuss this further. I also want to post screenshots (not yet saved) from platial.com that show the discrepancy. How may I do that and would this be considered legal? The maps at platial are in both map and satellite form.

How does one get a gfdl licence? Can one get one from platial? I have an account there.

The talk page of the article in question would be a place to discuss it. Or you could tell us exactly what the island/non-island in question is and we could discuss it here. :) FiggyBee (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I live very near Green Island, New York. Check out this page: Green_Island,_New_York. I am quite sure that a very small stream surrounds the southern and western portion of Green Island. I have also seen what looks like the stream but may not be recognizable by people not familiar with the area. This is at platial.com. Is it okay to post some screen shots of the area? First, a regular map of Green Island, and then a series of satellite images that show the stream (not always visible) surrounding Green Island, together with the Hudson River. If so, how do I post a screen shot here and can I post more than one at a time? Should this be done elsewhere instead?

Am I stupid? That is rhetorical, I hope. I just wrote a question and wanted to reply to someone else's reply. But I do not see a link to reply. Please help me so that I can do this right.

Just hit the [edit] next to the title of your question. You can use colons (:) to indent your response, the more colons, the more indented it is. So for the above question, someone has responded and used 1 colon. To reply to the response, click [edit] next to the question title, go to below where they responded and add 2 colons before you type. This will indent twice, and show that you are replying to the response. Give it a go :-) Fribbler (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by the term "Zombie trends" as in Google's zombie trends? -aln —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.128.216 (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)