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 17

Disliking someone (not a request for medical advice)

Is it possible to become physically ill if you're around someone you dislike? Or even if you think about them? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of Evil eye?--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, someone who's put you through the wringer in the past, and now they're back. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure - that situation could put you under undue stress - and being stressed on a long-term basis can certainly make you sick. There are also all sorts of psychosomatic effects that could happen because of bad mental associations. Yes - definitely. SteveBaker (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly happened to me.--212.139.78.231 (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you're around someone who've you really dislike (or have caused you pain in the past), your fight-or-flight response can kick in, raising your blood-pressure and heartbeat and doing all sorts of nasty things (see here for a list). These things can in turn cause other nasty effects.

It can be even worse if you suffer some sort of underlying syndrome, like PTSD or some sort of social phobia. Then the stress response can get totally out of hand and many ugly things can happen 83.250.202.208 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I hope not. If it's not possible, then I'll just find someone I dislike to hang out with, and I'll never get sick again! --Trovatore (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL - A true mathematician! Dmcq (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather be sick occasionally. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Various industry news

I'm having a bit of a hard time finding sources of industry news for ATVs, snowmobiles, and dirt bikes (off highway motorcycles). Is my best bet just going to every manufacturer and going through their press releases and news sections on their web sites? My intent is to collect these items in one place on the net, whether by reprinting if allowed or through links to the articles. Sort of a one stop shop type thing. Dismas|^(talk) 07:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Size of Wikipedia by main categories

Hi, I asked this question a long time ago. Is there data on how Wikipedia's size is distributed among the Main categories? I would love to know how the amount of articles compare between categories, and things like that. So has this info been compiled yet somewhere? Or, is there someplace I could talk at to propose such a thing to be done?? Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be interesting, I wonder how one could find it out, the category system in wikpedia isn't hierarchical. I'd like to see how much overlap there is and the main kinds of things that don't fit in properly. Dmcq (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the cynic's answer. --Sean 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There's way more Colbert than that. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Actually, that's pretty much what I'm asking for, but hopefully the real thing won't look too similar to this... :P Kreachure (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Disinformation inserted by the CIA(!) lol... You can see the most visited pages here. This is exactly what you want - but only for featured articles. Here's an example from about a year ago... but for the French wikipedia. (And, while you're at it, a similar joke to the one above but also in French.) There's a little relevant stuff in this study (pdf), but it's from 2005. zafiroblue05 | Talk 08:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I love the most visited pages. Masturbation is more often visited than Shakespeare, Germany or Russia.--Lgriot (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Latin small letter reversed s?

Resolved

You can move this to language or computers, I wasn't sure which to put it under.

What is the code for the symbol that looks like a reversed lowercase s? I've found one for e and c but not for s. 199.67.16.60 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this: "ς"? In Unicode, it's ς. Tomdobb (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, it would be a mirror image of s, like ɘ is the mirror of e, and ↄ is the mirror of c. 74.230.234.231 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason you can't find it is that s is symmetrical! It looks the same backwards.... 94.27.195.51 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it "ƨ", U+01A8? MTM (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

uh, ƨcratch that... 94.27.195.51 (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Latin Small Letter Tone Two See Zhuang language#Writing systems: This was the Latin-alphabet symbol used from 1957 to 1986 for tone 2 (low falling) in the Zhuang language. Unicode point 01A8 / 01A7 for lower/upper case. jnestorius^(talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I would never have thought to look for a tone symbol, of all things. 199.67.16.60 (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The biggest point deficit overcome in NBA game?

What was the biggest point deficit overcome in NBA game? What teams played and when was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.78 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Typing Biggest comeback in NBA history into google returns the first result as one of our articles: NBA records. There, it notes that the largest comeback in a game was, and I quote, "The Milwaukee Bucks made the largest comeback in NBA history on November 25, 1977 vs. the Atlanta Hawks. The Bucks overcame a 29 point deficit with 8:43 remaining, finishing the game with a 35-4 run and a 117-115 win." However, the same article also notes that "The Utah Jazz made history on November 27, 1996 by overcoming a 34-point halftime deficit to beat the Denver Nuggets, 107-103" which would seem to qualify as also the largest comeback ever. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2005 Toyota Corolla CRS

Okay. I'm looking to buy a car, and I really want to get a 2005 Toyota Corolla XRS. I live in Western NC, and I'm willing to travel a little ways to get it (Maybe 300 miles). However, I can't find one. No matter what. And it's killing me. I want a 6-speed manual transmission, and preferably with power windows/locks. Other than that, I could care less. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWHS (talk • x) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Ebay Motors ? StuRat (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Craigslist? --Blue387 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Carmax will, for a fee, ship just about any car between any two stores... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've shipped cars from one coast of the US to the other - it's typically about $600 and happens within days. You might also prefer to find one from somewhere like Texas, NewMexico, Nevada - where there is no rust! (Although - an '05 ought to be OK). Paying for a car without seeing it is a problem - there are escrow services that handle that kind of thing cleanly and safely - but you'll want to get LOTS of up-close photos from the seller - especially of places like the driver's doors where door dings can be - also of the seats and other places where minor damage might lurk. If you can find a garage close to the seller and have them do an independant examination of the car...make sure YOU pay for that! SteveBaker (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Inquiring (but not acquiring) minds want to know: why 2005? —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is lotion necessary when using a tanning bed?

Is it necessary to use sun lotion when using a tanning bed? I don't mean the special "bronzers" that are referred to in the article, as they appear to be an optional extra with a special purpose of their own, but ordinary lotion to protect against burning, as is used on a beach. Or do people just go in without anything on their skin? Postlebury (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions you are given by the people running the salon. I would think putting sun cream on would defeat the object - it stops you tanning, not just burning. --Tango (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

People running salons generally have no idea what they're talking about, so I wouldn't take their word for much of anything. (I've seen dateline-style investigative reports of many salon owners recommending totally unsafe exposure levels, and all the ones I've interacted with aren't particularly up on skin safety.) If you care about your skin enough to use sunblock, you shouldn't be going in a tanning bed! I've never heard of anyone using sunblock when going in a tanning booth, and when I've been in a tanning booth I've never used any. (Wouldn't you rather just lay in the bed for a shorter time?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

November 18

internet joke origin

In various places I've seen a joke/troll where someone posts to a helpboard with "I accidentally the whole thing!" (sic) Does anyone know if this is a reference to a particular origin (like a TV sketch)? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So far it is a thinly posted wannabe internet meme [1] but I'm sure this posting will help spread it. It would need to be far funnier to qualify as a joke. Edison (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not even original but just a re-take of the old Alka-Seltzer ad, "I can't believe I ate the whole thing!"? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica has a surprisingly useful explanation. Of course it is forbidden to link to it, but search for "I accidentally X". Adam Bishop (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And suddenly I understand the perspective of authoritarian dictators who suppress freedom of speech :(. The reason we don't allow direct links to encyclopedia drammatica articles is because it would ruin our little project, wikipedia. Kind of like the reason China doesn't allow you to talk about what happened at Tiananman square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.250 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more to do with the amount of trolling that occurred with ED links. Certainly a lot of the articles are very useful and informative for this kind of thing, though - they're just not very encyclopedic in the classic sense of the word! ~ mazca ^t|c 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, understand, and agree with that reasoning. It's also exactly the same logic (ie based on the undesired result for the project) that China uses to crack down on people who talk about Tiananman square. I'm NOT talking about links on article pages: I'm talking about here at the reference desk or any other discussion (TALK) pages. It's EXACTLY the same as not allowing web sites to link to pictures of Tianman square. I mean, exactly the same. I don't disagree with it here at Wikipedia, I just have suddenly understood the reasoning that authoritarian dictators use, or authoritarian regimes like China, and it makes me feel very dirty. 79.122.75.250 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I would never have thought to look something up in Encyclopaedia Dramatica. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed come from 4chan. ;)Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The dramatica article notes that most people are familiar with the "whole coke bottle." Indeed. You can see the (actually really funny) link here (a jpg). (See also here for the punchline.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

United States National Debt

United States is in debt about $10,617,806,584,635.27. I know that printing out more money from the federal reserve and handing it out in our country would decrease the power of the dollar. But why don't we just print out more money and give it to countries who we are in debt to? (Japan ($580 billion), China ($390 billon) and the United Kingdom ($320 bilion) Would the same problem of decreasing bang for the buck occur. Or would it be a different problem because it is overseas? This would at least reduce our debt by 1 trillion 290 billion. What are the problems with doing this and is this even legal/ethical? Thanks for any serious answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.126.152 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Printing and internationally distributing a currency would have the same inflationary effect. More of a currency in circulation makes it relatively less valuable regardless of who holds it first. Inflation is like a tax on everyone else who holds money.NByz (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an important principle of international markets, if you increase or decrease the price of a commodity anywhere, it affects the price everywhere else. In this case, the commodity is dollars. For another example, look at oil. The argument has been made that the US should drill more wells to lower US energy prices. However, since that oil goes on the international market, it would lower oil prices in China just as much as the US. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And it wouldn't lower prices by much at all if you check out Arctic Refuge drilling controversy Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Think of it in terms of demand and supply. If the supply of something (in this case US dollars) increases with the demand being unchanged, the value of the thing decreases. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Note as well that a large campaign to print money to get out of debt would likely depress the value of the U.S. dollar much further than simple dilution would predict. Currently, the U.S. dollar is widely seen, accepted, and employed as a reserve currency — a reliable store of value backed by a large, stable economy and a sound financial system.

Attempting to print its way out of debt would lead to a worldwide loss of confidence in the soundness of the U.S.' dollar, a flight to better-managed currencies like the euro, and a plummeting value of the U.S. dollar on international markets. Countries that have been actively propping up the value of the U.S. dollar (especially China and other Asian markets, who wish to see their export goods remain affordable to U.S. purchasers) would likely cease those activities, not wishing to see their investment squandered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Which would reduce the extent to which people with to lend the US money, which would increase the cost of borrowing for the US, which would end up with them having more debt and printing more money and they would rapidly spiral into hyperinflation. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

primates

it's common in statistics in both human and primates ,,,the clue is that it has to do with their limbs ..what's the answer..if anyone knows the answer please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.99.211 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs? 81.187.153.189 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Digits? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Left handedness? --Sean 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Percentage of population that have solved the P vs. NP problem? 83.250.202.208 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

They walk upright...sometimes? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest opposable thumbs or something to do with the dna/gene commonalities. --KizzyB (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arm to leg length ratio comparisons? There is probably an official name for it. They're good for determining the habits of primates, i.e. arborial versus terrestrial... 152.16.15.23 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going with opposable thumbs. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Short fingers?

I want to learn a musical instrument just for the fun of it but my friend says my fingers are probably too small to play the piano or guitar. My index finger is about 6.5cm long (2.5"), my middle finger is 7cm (2.8") and my thumb is about 5.5cm (2.25"). I know having long fingers helps a lot with playing instruments but are short fingers really an impediment? --Candy-Panda (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe keyboard things require a wideish span between pinkie finger tip and thumb tip. Plenty of instruments may not (woodwind, percussion, brass). There's always the theremin among other things. I remember something about a musician who tried stretching their hands mechanically and ended up wrecking them, but can't think of the name. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it was Lizst :) 194.80.32.9 (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It was Robert Schumann, in fact.--Diniz(talk) 22:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My fingers are only about 1 - 2 mm longer than yours but I play the guitar without too much difficulty in that respect. The most I can stretch my fingers is from the 5th fret with my index to the 10th fret with my pinky but I haven't been hindered by my short fingers yet. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have stubby fingers but I can play guitar well enough. You might not be able to play songs by people with long fingers, but you don't need long fingers to form all the basic chords. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The harmonica requires no great length of fingers. --Psud (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alicia de Larrocha has tiny hands. Maybe she struggled with some of Rachmaninov's compositions (whose handspan was legendary), but it certainly didn't stop her from becoming an exquisite pianist. Michel Petrucciani, one of the greatest European jazz pianists ever, had to overcome all sorts of difficulties (though he never perceived them as such, and though, to be fair, his hands look normal-sized on pictures). Django Reinhardt came up with new fingerings, and continued to swing hard on his guitar, even after two of his left hand's fingers were paralyzed in a fire accident. There are plenty of examples. I recommend learning the instrument that appeals most to you, not the one that best fits your physical measurements. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Scriabin, who wrote the greatest piano music in history, had very small hands with a span of barely a ninth. That meant that he was unable to perform some of his own music, but from the accounts of people who heard him play and the piano roll recordings that exist, it's safe to say what he could play he played brilliantly. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Scriabin, who wrote the greatest piano music in history - hmmm, I think that's slightly debatable. Let's just say he wrote some great music. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take some of the blame, for my weasely "one of the greatest ... ever". Soon after typing, I reconsidered this and thought yeah he's one of the greatest ever out of a pretty large set of greatest ever. I guess I was under the influence of listening to some clips on youtube while thinking about this question and Petrucciani's remarkable and far too short biography. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd second the guitar. I have very short, stubby fingers, and there are a few weird chords I have to work around (like, say, E2) but mostly you can work out most of the basic chords. The tuning of a guitar means that you can play 2 full octaves in a 5-fret space, even for my short fat fingers. You could also look into smaller stringed instruments, like Ukulele or Mandolin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Playing keyboard instruments used to require long reach - but many modern electronic keyboards have keys that are considerably smaller than piano keys. It's just a matter of finding the right instrument. Also - how about a trombone - those things should be easy on the fingers! SteveBaker (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I 2nd the idea of getting an electronic keyboard. You can turn the disadvantage into an advantage by getting a smaller, less expensive keyboard. In particular, I'd expect models made in Asia (Yamaha, for example) would be designed for those with shorter fingers. If they are still too big, try a version designed for children. They may be the cheapest yet. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore - with the ubiquity of the MIDI interface, you can take a relatively cheap keyboard who'se "feel" and spacing happen to suit you - and hook it up to an industrial-strength synthesiser bank full of hideously expensive professional gear. SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gak! Maybe I'm a purist but I think playing electronic keyboards (even those with weighted keys) is an awful sensory experience, and I think almost all pianists agree with me. I wouldn't go this route!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... I think your just fine! My mom can play both and her finger hights are the same! -Warriorscourge (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Smaller hands are an advantage on some wind instruments, such as flute. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Long fingers can certainly be helpful for some instruments (I can stretch from the 5th to the 14th fret on a guitar, so things like bass come easy for me), but short fingers do not necessarily impair people. I know guitarists of all fingers lengths, and many have short, stubby fingers and can play circles around the big-handed ones. It's just a matter of practice and perseverance, and if you really work at it, there's no reason for smaller fingers to stop you from becoming a good (if not great) guitarist. --69.146.230.243 (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Suzuki method somtimes uses instruments designed for very young people with hands much smaller than yours. Phil Burnstein (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's it, use the Suzuki method on a Yamaha keyboard. With that combo there's snow way you'll have any trouble. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)~~

This reminds me of watching some movie in which Jeff Goldblum played a pianist and noticing that, when shown in close-up, the pianist's hands looked like a child's compared to Goldblum's. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like they used an oriental pianist. There must be some aspect of Chaos Theory which states that, if you fail to provide a physical description to casting when hiring a double, they will cast the person who least resembles your actor. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want something in the string family and are worried about reach you might also consider a Appalachian dulcimer. You can even build one yourself. They're portable, not everyone has one and you can put it on top of a piano to make it sound real grand. With an electric pick up you can even play in a band, just as you would with a guitar. The drawback is that you'd have to write your own riffs, because most of what's available for dulcimer is folk or country like. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

British ads: what do they mean?

If an ad for a room says "English speaking", do they mean "native speakers of English" or "fluent speakers of English"?

In an ad for a job, what is considered an "honours degree" (if you have a foreign degree)? Is that your first degree or only a degree with good grades? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For the first question, 'English speaking' certainly does not mean 'native speakers of English'. It could mean 'fluent speakers' but more probably means 'speaks enough to get by'. As for your second question, where is the job precisely? In English universities, and honours degree is simply a non-terrible (but still potentially pretty bad; not 'good grades' by any means) first degree, while in the Scottish system, an honours degree requires a fourth year of study. Algebraist 12:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. The job is in an institute for further education. The description said: "You will need a Honours degree in Social sciences, Health Studies or a related subject". 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's explained in British undergraduate degree classification, but if your degree is not from the UK it won't really apply, and you'll have to show if your qualifications are enough to be equivalent. The institute may be familiar with degrees frrom other countries and be able to give their opinion. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read that article, but it has no reference to recognition of foreign degrees. --80.58.205.37 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An honours degree is a 3 or four year undergraduate degree with any grade above a bare pass (in a nutshell). Just rephrasing what Algebraist said really. AlmostReadytoFly is correct in saying that if you don't have a UK degree you are going to have to have a way to show your degree is equivalent. dougweller (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That would be enough to be considered as job applicant. What about "English speaker"? Are these people, who are offering the room, some sort of Londoner rednecks? Or they just want to come well along with their potential roomies?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When considering degrees from outside the UK - it'll make a HUGE difference where you come from. Almost any full degree from a "real" US university will work - but a "granted in recognition of your life experiences" piece of order-by-mail "degree" is worthless - somewhere between those limits will be the "DeVry" type of degree. On the other hand, if you are from a country with less well known institutions - then there might be some issue. The answer is to call them up and ask - I'm sure you'll get a quick answer. As for the 'room' ad - I'm sure they just want to make sure that you speak English well enough to be understood. There is no reason to require a perfect accent and impeccable grammar - they just want to be sure they can interact with you reasonably. (Unless of course these are evil racists trying to find a reason not to rent their room to people whom they don't deem suitable for reasons that would be illegal were they to spell them out in detail!)... SteveBaker (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, an honours degree is the four-year version of the basic undergraduate degree (i.e. Bachelor's), in contrast with the standard three-year program. Not to be confused in any way with graduating "with honours". I did the first and certainly didn't do the second... :-) Matt Deres (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct for my university when I was there. An honours degree typically took 4 years and a general degree also typically took 4 years. There was a 3-year degree, called a pass degree, but I believe it was really intended as a fallback for people who tried the general program and couldn't quite pass all their courses. As well as requiring you to take more credits, the honours degree also required higher marks than the general degree, and for some courses you had to take a slightly harder version. --Anonymous, 00:02 UTC, November 19, 2008.

At the University of Victoria in Canada (I make the distinction from two posts above), a social sciences honours degree and regular degree are both 4 year degrees and require the same number of credits. An honours degree requires an additional "thesis" in each of the third and fourth years. In economics there are also two courses that are required that would only be optional in a regular BA.NByz (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think it far more likely that they are foreigners who only want to live with English speakers because they want to improve their English. Most British people are either left-liberal anti-racists, or live in fear of being subject to false accusations of racism by the rabid liberal-left, and would therefore never risk saying such a thing. Innocent foreigners from less PC countries might well say it though. Abberley2 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Second oldest organization in the world

So, for completely inscrutable reasons, me and my mate were discussing what the oldest organization in the world was. Pretty quickly it became obvious that the Catholic Church wins, hands down. So, then, naturally, the question became: except for the Catholic Church, what's the oldest organization in the world? Is there one that even comes close? Any that crosses the millenium-mark?

(Organizations, for the purpose of this question, is loosely defined as some sort of centrally organized group of people who identify as part of it, with some sort of coherent structure. Like, "Islam" doesn't count, because it doesn't have a consistent structure or clearly defined leadership or hierarchy (unlike the Catholic church, which has a pope, with cardinals working for him, governing bishops, etc. etc. You can draw a chart, basically). It's just a bunch of people that believe in the same thing, not an organization per se. Also, no governments, royal lines of succession, semi-mythological organizations (I'm looking at you, Bavarian Illuminati!) or families. Think companies, clubs, sects, those sorts of things). 83.250.202.208 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It may not qualify, given your restrictions, but China can be traced back to the Bronze age (at which time the RC church and the papacy were still a way off). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't count. Countries aren't really "organizations", are they? 83.250.202.208 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that China counts - but then you'd have to count the dynasties separately, and few of them lasted more than four hundred years, if I recall correctly. Jørgen (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese central state bureaucracy was established in the Qin dynasty in the late 3rd century or early 2nd century BC and continued in some form certainly till the 1911 revolution. I'm not sure if any of it survived that and the subsequent communist takeover to the present day. (There were certainly periods during that time in which the bureaucracy was in abeyance, when China had no central government, but new dynasties typically took over the old system, so I would say it was at least as continuous as the church in Rome.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can make the answer come out to be "The Catholic Church" if you constrain the 'rules' enough - but your constraints are pretty arbitary. The jewish faith has been around a lot longer - they have pretty consistent sets of laws and some sort of hierarchy. Excluding nations is pretty arbitary since the Catholics behaved much like a nation for most of their existence. (The "Holy Roman Empire"?!) SteveBaker (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(PITA EC!) Hinayana Buddhism has a central belief in the words of the Buddha, who came 500 years before Christ. There may be many sects, but they all believe essentially the same thing, and I am sure you would be able to find a sect that goes right back to the Buddha himself, if you really looked.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If we adhere to your rules (a bit loosely), I suggest that the "family" / "tribe" / "clan" far predates the RC Church. It would even predate our species and may not even have changed all that much from a pride of lions to the dysfunctional family of the Simpsons. It is, of course, not a "human made" cooperative entity, but neither is the RC Church, to believers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a case of the Catholics behaving much like a nation. It was a case of a weird kind of monarchy pretending to be holy and Roman and an empire, none of which were true. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point of the OP. There are certainly belief systems older than the Catholicism, but what about as an organizational structure? I think we get off task when we just name random stuff that is older than Catholicism, without focusing on the idea of an "organization". I would discount China because the modern China really bears no connection to the historical state as an "organization". If the oldest means "furthest continuous backwards from today", then modern China really only exists since the 1940's. No state in Europe is as old as the Catholic Church is either... And while families and tribes and clans are TYPES of organizational structures, this is about the specific organization, not merely the type of organization. Can we point to a tribe or clan with a coninuous unbroken organizational history dating as far back as the Catholic Church? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the oldest organisation ever to exist is the roman kingdom/republic/empire. Rome was founded as a kingdom in ca. 800 BC, and the eastern half of the roman empire survived untill 1453 when it was conquered by the ottomans. That's over 2250 years. Hinduism can trace it roots back about 3,500 years, though that's not as organised as the catholic church or the romans were so I dunnno if it counts.--Patton123 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC with Jayron) Earlier answers aside, I think your answer of the Catholic Church is a perfectly reasonable condition. There's more to an organization than a common goal or belief system; you need some kind of consistent bureaucratic framework, IMO. The Jewish faith has obviously been around a great deal longer, but has there been a central, bureaucratic body that provided some kind administration or something? I'm genuinely asking, but I don't think that's so. My first thought for second place would be Japanese royalty, which has continued in unbroken succession for more than a thousand years (at least back to AD 270 (Emperor Ōjin) and possibly back to 660 BC (Emperor Jimmu)). Perhaps they deserve first after all. Matt Deres (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the history books of the bible the jews hae had some form of leader for msot of their history bar their time in egypt, between judges, kings and simple natural leaders.--Patton123 20:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, but countries (like the Roman Republic and the Roman and Byzantine Empires) are a different thing though! There's lost of countries that are dirt old (some version of "Sweden" has existed for at least 1900 years, and possibly way, way longer), but that's not the same thing. There's a bunch of land on Earth, it tends to get divied up and ruled by people, and when those people die, new people rule it instead. The borders grow and they shrink, but the nations themselves can live on for millenia without much effort. It's not the same thing. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been a ruler in each occupied country I am familiar with, for as long as it has been continuously occupied. There have been numerous "regime changes." The history of the Roman Catholic Church is the history of the Papacy. Haven't there been similar externally imposed "regime changes " and internally imposed changes in the "form of government" in the papacy, so it is no more a "continuous organization" than the government of China was for longer periods? Symmachus in 502 took away the right of laymen to elect a Pope and restricted eligibility to higher clergy, a radical change in the form of government as dramatic as a change of dynasty in Egypt or China. In the 10th century the Pope was appointed by local Roman noble families, another drastic change equivalent to a change in the form of government in a country. In the 11th century Henry III took on himself the right to appoint the Pope, another change which should restart the clock. The clock should start again in the 14th century, when the Popes for 70 years did not reside in the see of which they were supposed to be Bishop, previously a definition of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, but in France. If the Roman Catholic Church's longevity is judged by the standards we would apply to Egypt or China, then it is 730 to 1406 1506 years old. Edison (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages when various different factions decided they could appoint their own popes, there was often more than one. The church has since legitimized some of them so it looks like there is an unbroken succession, but it was certainly not that clear at the time. "The Catholic Church" as we know it now really isn't any older than the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, and you could probably argue it is less than 50 years old, after the Second Vatican Council. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on guys, it's the New World Order! -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at this I would think that some of the construction trades may well be older than the CC. Though I couldn't be sure how much "organisation" they have/had. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How about the Sri Lankan Sangha? The Sri Lanka article describes it as having a "largely unbroken lineage" since the 2nd century BCE. Is it an unbroken organizational structure? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, who ruled Ethiopia until 1974? He traced his lineage back to King Solomon. Seems as likely as the current Pope having an unbroken line of predecessors in one unvarying organization dating back to the apostle Peter. Edison (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How about the Althing? This springs to my mind... --Ouro (blah blah) 11:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Other Christian Churches are at least as old as Rome. The Syriac Orthodox Church possibly dates back to Saint Peter; see the lists List of Patriarchs of Antioch and List of Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch which form a chain from 37 AD; however it has moved from Antioch to Damascus, so it doesn't have the same fixed geographical focus as the Roman church. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria apparently dates back as an organised structure to 190 AD; the List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria goes back to Mark the Evangelist in 43 AD, though the church presumably had no formal structure at that time. It seems to have persisted in Alexandria through all invasions, empires, and upheavals.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue the Imperial House of Japan qualifies as an organization. Its founding was in 660 BC which would make it much older than any Christian organization. —D. Monack ^talk 03:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for non-political organizations, then this might fit your bill Incense Route. The specific organizations trading on that route have not been preserved by name, but I bet there were some. (dromedaries united?? ;-) Also the artisans that built things in Egypt weren't slaves as some thought. I assume they were organized in some fashion, since the workmen's village they dug up was grouped by trades. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish priesthood ("Kehuna" - see Kohen) dates itself back to Aaron. It has some elements of being an "organisation" (rules, membership etc) but has had no governance since the institution of the High Priest fell into disuse. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it me?????????????

This year in June, I took my wife and my mother-in-law to Tenerife for 2 weeks in a wonderful hotel on a half-board basis. Yesterday, I contacted the Edinburgh based carrier for a quote for 2009 - same hotel - same weeks - same board basis - and discovered to my horror they have increased the pice by ----------40%. So I asked whether they were aware of the international credit crunch - the collapse of Excel and Zoom airlines - the British recession v Depression etc., etc. The operator thanked me for my call - and put the phone down. Today, I went shopping around all the competitors' branches and was SHOCKED to learn that all of their 2009 holidays had significantly increased in price over 2008. So - is it me??? Or are people spending their savings NOW as against waiting for them to collapse during some as yet unseen but feared crisis? 92.21.226.176 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you said - collapse of airlines means less planes available to travel on means more demand means higher prices. Food costs have increased, fuel prices too. It all adds up. Add in soaring inflation rates... -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict) Despite current economic conditions, there are still many many people who have money to spend. A quick look at the article Tenerife suggests that it is a wonderful place for a vacation. (You were there - is it?)

I expect the chances are good to excellent that the tourist businesses of Tenerife know that they will still be able to attract guests, despite major rate hikes. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm informed that sterling has lost 25% of its value in the last few weeks. That sort of thing would tend to dent your ability to purchase a foreign holiday. I'm with the operator. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't say, where you're from, or what currency the increase is in, but that could be a huge part of it. Imagine you're paying in pounds.

Let's assume that last year your vacation cost 1 pound and this year it cost 1.4 pounds.

That works out to 1.42euros then, 1.64euros now. That's only a 15% increase not a 40%.

(Assuming you bought the tickets on the 18th of November in each case. And assuming my math is right. )

APL (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the currency devaluation is likely to be the biggest chunk of this - but also, the strategy that a business takes when custom dips down is not NECESSARILY to drop prices. If their prices were already cut to the bone - then cutting them further means they're now losing money instead of making a profit. An alternative strategy is to put your prices UP on the grounds that loyal customers will come anyway - so the reduction in numbers of customers is outweighed by the profit per customer. This works especially well in service industries because they can shed a lot of unskilled workers and save money there too. So perhaps these people know their customers and have figured out that increasing their prices pushes their profits up - not down. SteveBaker (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My biggest issue isn't with the resort's price but with your last sentence. What leads you to believe that A) people are spending their savings "NOW" just because a resort's price for 09 went up and B) the crisis is not "as yet unseen". Tell all the people who have lost their jobs and/or their homes in the last year that the crisis is unseen. Dismas|^(talk) 22:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh - I am so genuinely sorry - I hadn't realised that Wikipedia was so heavily populated by unemployed Wall Street Bankers (as were). I am in the UK - and do you know - despite the crash - I still have a choice - and do you know what else - I also have the cash? - I have decided therefore that I I I I I am in control - NOT the bankers or the travel agents - so do you know what? I am staying at home next year. And the USA - Spain - Greece - Australia - Cruises - and Israel - can all get stuffed. I shall be relaxing in my OWN country - God Bless Us All. 92.21.226.176 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry we were unable to confirm your bias. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll miss you here in the U.S. (though the Tenerife article tells me the U.S. does not include this vacationer's paradise). I don't think "the bankers" are in control (cf. Citigroup deciding it can get by with 50,000 fewer employees), and I know from working in the travel industry that the travel agents aren't, either.

Since I knew there'd be fewer cranky people there, I just checked airfares from New York to Tenerife. For a Dec. 2 departure, they ranged from $665 - $900 (which is a 35% swing). For a July 2009 trip, the range was from $1,422 - $1,763 (a 24% swing for that date, but essentially 100% higher than December). Why, I have no idea -- maybe Tenerife's more popular in July (supply and demand, not conspiracy). Maybe the airlines are pessimistic ("predictions are hard, especially about the future). Maybe the farther out people book, the likelier it is that they'll cancel (this is generally true for travel not dependent on a specific holiday like Christmas). --- OtherDave (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you buy plane tickets well in advance, you typically get them for a moderate price. If you buy them just a few days before the trip, the price is typically higher. However, if they can't fill all the seats, the price may plummet right before the flight. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's totally cool if you want to want to blow off Les États-Unis, because the joint will still be full of Brits looking at price tags, saying "No, really?" and buying half the store. Maybe that'll be a third of the store now that the pound has dropped a little. God Bless the British Tourists, Darkspots (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing no one's mentioned yet is the influence of the oil price. Many airlines buy fuel in bulk for their anticipated needs over the next few months and maybe even a year. Since your holiday last year, the oil price has risen to record highs and even though the oil price has since fallen again, the price the airlines paid for their fuel is still the older higher price. Astronaut (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

November 19

Professional Paper Stapling

What is the most professional way to staple pieces of paper? Should the staple run horizontally across the page, diagonally or vertically? Acceptable (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This guy has given it some thought. -hydnjo talk 02:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically you want to anticipate what angle the reader will fold back the stapled pages along, and put the staple parallel to that fold. For me, a slight tilt off the page's vertical seems to work best -- like the 22.5° mentioned on the page cited above, or even less. I'm surprised the guy refers to the "classic 45°", though; most people I know put the staple horizontally, which is definitely inferior. --Anonymous, 05:59 UTC, November 19, 2008.

I personally think that a vertical staple looks the most professional. Darkspots (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to buy quantities of photocopiers for a large government department. The benefit of paying the extra cost of having automatic stapling devices fitted was enormous. In my experience ALL of them had the staple at the top left corner parallel with the long side of a sheet of A4. The OP asks for the most PROFESSIONAL way but maybe he meant to ask the most appealing way? If he would prefer the staple to lie across the top edge than my response above will not apply and I don't know if automatic staplers can be made to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.76.60 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That guy seems to have bought into the Golden Mean myth. -- BenRG (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a fan of Ernie I just use paper clips, see youtube Have you ever looked at a paper clip? Staples just aren't the same :) Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever touched anyone else with a tuxedo from the extended arm of an unbent coat hanger?

Let me explain. What I'm trying to ask here is if there's a scientific/ psychological organization out there that does seeminglessly pointless and or random/bizarre experiments? There would be a purpose to it. Despite my own pointless, porposeless life (see question), I've noticed some subtle things. One of those things is that -we dont really know exactly what happens until we do it! Take a pencil and drop it. But before you do, try to picture what will happen. Chances are you didnt see that funny bounce it took. Things often dont happen exactly as pictured. You may say this is pointless, but I say all knowledge is important. So what would happen if you touched someone from ten feet away with a tuxedo, and not necessarily with an extended hanger? How about that tuxedo dangling from the end of a pipe (both the plumbers kind and the kind you smoke from)? Or stapled to the end of a solidified extension cord from 20 feet away(unplugged of course)? With or without forewarning? What if it had a "Kick Me" sign on it? I doubt this has ever been tried. The point is,- we would learn something. Maybe practical, maybe not. What if you stared at a glass for 16 hours? By yourself? Or painted a box blue and asked people to guess what was in it? What if it was orange? Would there be a pattern to the guesses with different colors? How long would it take someone to ask if there's a chunk of concrete in a grocery store? Now grocery stores dont sell chunks of concrete, but if you had the patience to stand there and eavesdrop indefinitely, well...who knows?

Sorry I rambled on. Hopefully, you get the picture. I just think that there is value in ALL questions, and have more to say about this in a future post. But, for now could you please enlighten me to any experiments of this nature. It would be greatly appreciated, and I would find it endlessly fascinating.--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis. Given a finite supply of time and human labour, only a certain number of activities can be carried out. We tend to choose the ones most likely to offer some sort of valuable return on our investment of time, money, and effort.

You might be able to get some sort of grant as a conceptual artist, however. They're generally paid to waste time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An experiment usually benefits from having an hypothesis, an experimental group(s) and control group(s). More than zero degrees of freedom are useful in statistical analysis of experimental results. Some of the gambits you describe sound like vintage Social psychology experiments, like having someone stop at a redlight, then remain stationary when the light turned green, and seeing how long it was before the car immediately behind the experimenter honked, as a function of the sex/age of the drivers, the value of the car, and the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood, or having people stand at varying distances from the subject in an elevator, and recording whether they said anything or changed their position. Or having an experimenter sit outside the library crying and seeing whether people approached, or moved away. But even they went beyond "What would happen if....." Edison (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There are television programs which set up strange situations and then record people's reactions. Candid Camera is one of the older ones. Such programs could be considered as "experiments" along the lines you are suggesting. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We do experiments - mostly - not to find a specific answer to what happens to a very specific thing under very specific conditions. What we're trying to do is to find some underlying principle that covers a whole range of similar conditions. Hence (for example) we do not attempt to prove Newton's laws of motion by giving a push to every conceivable kind of object at every conceivable speed. A suitably representative sample is plenty. Once we've deduced the underlying principle - we don't need to do any of the infinite number of other possible experiments that will just produce results that will fit the same theory. Since one can only perform just so many experiments in a lifetime, it makes sense to maximise the chances of finding out something amazing and/or useful by carefully picking experiments that are likely to fall outside the range of existing theory. The experiments that you are proposing are of exceedingly low value because it is almost certain that they'll merely confirm what we already know. Obviously we're only "almost" certain - but rather than do some very obvious experiment in order to narrow that already-tiny sliver of doubt, it's much better to pick something 'big' and probe that instead. SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For some similar experiments, you could try looking through the Ig Nobel Prizes Steewi (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Ig Nobel Prize. This sounds somewhat close to what I was getting at, but I dont think they take it far eneough. Laughing and thinking are two very important qualities to possess when trying to learn something, so I do give them credit for that. Same for shows such as Candid Camera and Trigger Happy TV. But, -they exist for entertainment purposes only. You can try to learn something if you're looking, but that's not thier stated purpose. Incidently, Trigger Happy TV is closer to the kind of ideas I have. But again, even that show's ideas weren't taken far eneough.I believe experiments should be done as extreme as possible. What we need here is scientific grain counters, if you will. Keep doing the mundane, boring, and cumbersome (but perplexly fascinating) and you'll eventually come up with something. For example, after Dom Jolly yelled into his giant cellphone, why not take people's blood pressure? Or see to what degree thier pupils dilated? How about asking if they had the sudden urge to go elsewhere? Not to avoid the scene, but to see if thier mind shifted into changing thier plans? "Why, I was going to go to my buddies house, but suddenly I have the urge to visit my crossdressing uncle..."

Did the weather change? Did they notice if certain colors around them seemed brighter? For that matter- did colors get brighter? There must be some sort of wavelenghth measurement you can take before and after of, let's say, the red fire hydrant sitting nearby. Did you say "spectrometer"? Why I happen to have one right here! Then check thier physiological reaction, to that!

Not all my experiments would involve people. Just most of them. People talk, have feelings, and are more fun to communicate with than the fire hydrant. In the absence of people, you could try for example, mixing toothpaste with Einsteinium. Or Lawrencium with fur? How about fur, Lawrencium, toothpaste and Einsteinium in a blender? Since Einsteium and Lawrencium are man made and break down quickly, you could replace them with Technetium and a stick of gum. Then try burning it (don't try this with hydrogen!). The results probably wouldn't be as exciting, but who knows, maybe you'd discover a cure for cancer? Doubtful, but has it ever been tried? What, exactly, would happen?--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to own a real nuclear submarine.

Yes, a real one. Ideally ex-mil, don't much care whose. I don't mind if it doesn't have torpedoes or anything like that, since I'd be renovating it anyway. The questions I have are as follows: 1) Is it legal under any circumstances for a civilian to own a nuclear submarine? I assume i'd need to have a license to own and operate a research reactor? 2) Where would I legally purchase fuel for it? 3) Where do I buy a submarine anyway? Russia have any laying around? I don't mind a u-fix-it sub. 4) I want to know how to run a nuclear sub. Anyone have any manuals for them or something?

Help me achieve my Hagbard Celine fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.193.46 (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Civilians are not allowed to purchase military equipments like submarine, nuclear submarine is out of question. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Any way to de-militarize it? Do we have standards for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.193.46 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Civilians are not allowed to have a private nuclear reactor either. Have you considered how much a submarine costs? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Any way the best way if you have a lot of money is to buy a company that makes submarines. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've considered the cost and I have the cash. What if I formed a corporation to operate the reactor? Officially. Are there any other countries without such laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.193.46 (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that it is illegal for 'civilians' to own a nuclear reactor. Some of the organisations that run nuclear reactors now are neither government nor military. However you do have to be a licensed operator, which involves a huge level of certification and monitoring. And lets not forget the amount of insurance you are going to have to carry to operate a civilian nuclear sub. And probably a whole raft of other regulations you are going to have to comply with.

Just out of interest, what are you planning on using this sub for? And if your name is Blofeld we don't want to know. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say "civilians are not allowed to have....." demilitarized military equipment. Civilians own military airplanes from past wars. They own former U.S. Navy patrol boats. Civilians own tanks, which have been "demilitarized" in some fashion, as by removing the machine guns and the breach block of the cannon. A sub would probably have to have the torpedo tubes welded shut, the deck guns removes, and any ballistic missile tubes removed or welded shut. The World War 1(obviously non-nuclear) "Nautilus" was turned over to civilians for a zany attempt to reach the North Pole in 1931 [2]. Licensing of the reactor would be an issue, as would be ownership and control of the fuel. A fading superpower such as the Former Soviet Union (Russia) welcomes foreign hard currency, and might lease a sub, complete with crew, if the price were right. You could be the Skipper and travel around the world like Captain Nemo. How many million do you have? Edison (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to bookmark this website. These guys sell off surplus equipment from the British armed forces. Ships, aircraft and submarines have come up for sale in the past although there don't appear to be any on the website at the moment. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course, legality and illegalaity vary by country. I presume that most of the above assumes the US. The situation might be different if 66.158 is a wealthy,(say) Moldovan! -- SGBailey (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

who.is says he/she is from Tampa, Florida, US. 132.206.22.13 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice anyway, so it's not really relevant to us what jurisdiction s/he is in. If this is serious, the services of a good lawyer to go through all the relevant laws and regulations will probably be much cheaper than the submarine itself. --Random832 (contribs) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First article on Wikipedia

No, not the first one created, temporally. I saw on the main page that there is, rather quaintly, an A-Z index of Wikipedia articles. However, it only starts at 0, whereas there have to be articles that start with various symbols: ', -, =, etc. (Also, the index doesn't exactly work... if you click on, say, CZ, when it finishes that category, it goes on to Ca, and not to Da.) So what would be the first article on Wikipedia? zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The first actual article is !!! (!! is a disambiguation page, ! is a redirect). FiggyBee (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the articles are listed not in alphabetical order but in asciibetical (or possibly unicode-al) order. Hence "punctuation, digits, more punctation, upper case, more punctuation, lower case and then a few more punctuations". -- SGBailey (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the first article alphabetically is, not surprisingly, A. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Distance

What is the distance between London and Granada and London and Sofia? Does anyone also know flight length times? Simply south (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1600 and 2000km, respectively (assuming we're talking about London in England, Granada in Spain, and Sofia in Bulgaria). Flight times will (obviously) depend on the speed of the aircraft; a Boeing 737 cruises at around 800km/h. If you want to know actual schedules, check out the online booking services of some likely airlines. FiggyBee (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But, of course, a plane doesn't always fly straight or at cruising speed, so the actual trip will take longer than simple division would indicate. This tends to be more of a factor for short trips, since a higher percentage of the time is spent in departure and landing patterns, which tend to be in different directions and lower speeds than the main haul. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Checking some direct flights, I found one lasting 2:45 hours from London (STN) to Granada (GRX), and flights from London (LGW) to Sofia (SOF) lasting 5:05 - 5:15 hours. If you are willing to change planes, the upper end of flight duration is open, I guess. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The longer flight takes almost twice as long even though it's only 25% further ? I wonder why that would be the case. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't make the mistake of subtracting the arrival time from departure time did you? Such times will usually be listed in local time therefore you won't get an accurate duration if the time zones are different Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, no, but that's probably what Sluz did, and I used his times. So, if we subtract a couple hours from the longer trip to get 3:00 - 3:15 hours, and leave the shorter trip as is, then those times make sense. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the mistake of not double-checking. For the flights to Sofia, I took the durations from a site giving flight durations. The table only gave hours of departure in London, and I assumed the time zones had been included in the calculation, but was to lazy to check elsewhere. For the flight to Granada, I had one airline's departure and arrival times (always local times) and did the math myself (remembering that London and Granada are one hour apart). I now finally double-checked, and Stu is quite right. bulgariaflights gives hours of departure, arrival, and duration, and does the correct math: 3:05 - 3:15h. Thanks for pointing out the error! ---Sluzzelin talk 06:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Usa free fall

Soapboxing removed. The RefDesk is for asking questions, not posting jingoistic rants. Matt Deres (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PayPal

I paid for something on eBay through PayPal with my credit card, and eBay says the payment went through, but my credit account doesn't say anything has been added to it. How long does it normally take for PayPal stuff to go through?--Newitems! (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The bank that your credit card is issued from may only process transactions in "batches". I know that, for example, when I make a deposit to my bank, I get a friendly warning on the ATM screen that lets me know that the transaction may take 24 hours to be processed. There may be similar lags on the credit system as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I find that if I make a purchase on my bank debit card I can see it appear on my online banking statement within a few minutes. Purchases made on my credit card (same bank, same online banking interface) sometimes take a day or more to become visible. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Would person from Seloncourt France possibly be considered Swiss?

Okay, I've gotten some great feedback here (and even helped out some with an update) with mysteries surrounding genealogical research, so I have one other one for you.

One ancestor emigrated from Seloncourt, France. The confusing part is, he's listed as being from Switzerland in the 1880 and 1900 census. And, the place name is "Salcourt." Now, if he's just giving info a cnesus taker can mishear Selconcourt as Salcourt (if he has a thicker accent), but France as Switzerland?

In your article, i found some clues - it's only a few miles from the Swiss border; very few, in fact. It wasn't even considered part of France till reabsorbed a couple decades before he came. It was Lutheran, whereas I think of most of France as Catholic. Perhaps he didn't identify himself with France, but yet on his deth certificate, it says France because they want specifics there?

Thanks, the people on here are great.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The modern boundaries of France were not fixed until the 1940's, post World War II, but our article on Seloncourt notes that it has been an integral part of France since 1793. However, the confusion may arise as there is also a Saicourt in Switzerland, so my best guess is that the "L" in Salcourt is really an "i" and he really WAS from switzerland. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The other option is that he lived in a rural area on the Swiss side of the border, but since there is no town on that side, and the only town he could identify with was "Seloncourt", but he still identified as definitely Swiss.

Or maybe he actually was born Swiss, but lived in Seloncourt. It was frequent to cross the border to live on the other side for the locals (especially since Switzerland citizen would not be considered spies, so the French wouldn't have a problem). I am also from the Swiss border, and the people crossing the border on a regular basis to live on either side is quite significant, they feel part of the same community. This was so in my youth long before Switzerland was thinking of joing the Schengen treaty. --Lgriot (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ancestor may have been 'from' both France and Switzerland - for instance, born in one and resident in the other, or even domiciled in both (at different times or at the same time). Generally speaking, in the 19th century there was less certainty in people's minds about nationality than there is now, especially in such border regions, and it's possible (indeed, likely) that this man never held a passport. He may have been able to be a Frenchman when it suited him and a Swiss at other times. Strawless (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks; this is all really fascinating! It's amazing how differently people live in some areas. (Though my great uncle may be even more amazed at how anyone can access so much information. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Laundry at home - rinsing with cold or warm water

Dear RefDeskers, I come to you yet again for guidance on life's most important matters. It had so happened recently that I have obtained through purchase a top-loaded washing machine like the one shown here. This model, just for clarity, has a larger rotating drum for your washing and rinsing, and a smaller for spinning. Water has to be supplied from the shower or a hose, and is drained via another hose (we take water from the shower and empty the waste bath also to our shower).

Anyhow, today as I was doing the laundry (yes, I am that kind of boyfriend) we had a discussion whether one should use warm or cold water for rinsing. I am for using cold water, primarily because my old wardrobe-sized commie washing machine used cold water, and the missis is for using warmer water because it doesn't hurt the hands as much.

So, the question is - which one is better to rinse laundry, warm water (call it room temperature warm) or cold water (cold like tap cold). Thanks for your input, answers from specialists will be appreciated. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 21:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Better, what, for the clothes? Because better for your energy bill is rinsing and washing everything in cold. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wash all my laundry in cold water as it does a better job preventing bleeding, especially bright reds (yes, I throw my colors in with my whites). Useight (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) However, warm water better dissolves things than does cold water. This is both good and bad. It is good because dirt and soap will be rinsed away more effectively; it is bad because so won't dyes and other material from the clothes. Thus, using warm water makes your clothes cleaner on average, but also reduces the life of your clothes. Such is the trade-off, and the debate between which is "better" for your clothes is probably never ending... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to spend more for enzyme-based laundry soap, cold water will get your clothes as clean as traditional soap and warm water. --Carnildo (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about my bills that much - my skin and comfort are more important. We use liquid detergent that can be used both for hand washing and machine washing, and I usually separate clothes as follows: socks+undies, t-shirts, pants, hoodies+sweaters, not by colours, because most of my stuff is usually black to begin with (althouth I used to split my clothes in two groups: black and colour)). From your answers so far I am almost willing to start rinsing my clothes with warmer water. Will wait for more though, so far thanks, friends! --Ouro (blah blah) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just a comment - twin-tubs (which is what your type of washing machine is called in British English) are great, they clean much better than automatics. I didn't know one could still get them though. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They're a cheap and efficient way to do your laundry, and are readily available here. For ours we paid the equivalent of around EUR 90. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

€90? New? DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

TV adverts with mimed voices

I often see ads where a person is saying something, but it’s obviously, and I mean really obviously, not their own voice. More than that, often the voice is quite noticeably out of synch with the lip movement - not by a whole second or anything, but still enough to be noticeable. I see this most often with ads for women’s products (hair, beauty, etc). These days, with all the high-tech stuff they have, one would have thought that synchronising a person’s voice to another person’s mouth (or even their own mouth) would be a piece of cake. But no. I’ve often wondered what they hope to achieve by such shoddy production, or do they assume women wouldn’t notice, or if they do notice, they wouldn’t care? Does this happen in other countries, or is it merely a manifestion of the Australian "she'll be right, mate" attitude? I hope that doesn’t come across as a rant; I am genuinely intrigued. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is widespread in the Mother Country too. If I had asked the question it would certainly have come across as a rant! DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed in the States. At least not in the Modern Era, as it were (defined as whenever it was that they started using CGI that you couldn't tell was CGI).

I've sometimes wondered what it would be like if you could take just an everyday commercial, chosen at random, and show it to audiences from 1975. I bet they'd be blown away, want to nominate it for all sorts of awards. Granted there were a few standouts from that era ("Ski Bandini Mountain!") but for the most part this is an arena in which we've made huge progress, for whatever that's worth. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can remember 1975, almost everything was better than it is today. We didn't watch much ITV though, so I probably couldn't comment on the adverts. DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm shocked that marketing people think we're more convinced by a badly-dubbed Australian accent than an foreign (ie, American) accent, and even more shocked that they're right - if market research didn't show a benefit to dubbing, they wouldn't do it! FiggyBee (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a Cheerios commercial with a British couple, which uses the actors' voices in Canada, but is extremely badly dubbed with American voices on American channels. It's really annoying. I guess they assume Americans won't buy hoity-toity British Cheerios? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've noticed that one. I do remember that Mad Max was dubbed for American distribution (though Mel Gibson did his own dubbing) because the distributors claimed Americans couldn't understand the Australian accents. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

But at the same time they use actors with noticeable accents so they stand out, such as Frederik de Groot. And Arnold Strong's voice was dubbed in Hercules in New York because of his accent.

I'd always assumed it was because they were using the same video with the audio in different languages (sometimes the dubbing clearly isn't even the same words). I hadn't realised they did it just for accents, but I guess it make sense - you want people concentrating on the product, not the accent. --Tango (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Some very famous films were badly dubbed, and not for obvious reasons. Sergio Leone's "man with no name" trilogy of Spagetti Westerns, for example, were shot "silent" with all dialog added in post production. In The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, for example, the three main characters are all played by Americans (Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach). However the dubbing was so bad, for Wallach in particular, that you'd swear it was another actor dubbing his lines. It wasn't; it was Wallach's own voice, but it was badly done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I gather that was common practice in Italian cinema at the time. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was practical for most films shot for the European market. It was assumed that most films would be done in multiple language versions (Italian, English, French, Spanish, German, etc.) and since none of those markets would likely dominate, it made little economic sense to film in any one particular language. In many films, the actors aren't even "speaking" the same language; they spoke their native languages (like one actor would deliver his lines in German and another in Italian, etc.), however since their lines aren't being recorded live, it made little difference. The cost of shooting "live sound" is quite high; since there were so many versions of the film being dubbed anyways, it made much more sense to just shoot silent and overdub later into all of the various languages as needed. When Leone brought the American actors like Eastwood and Van Cleef to Europe to shoot his Trilogy, they found his method of shooting silent and overdubbing later to be quite "weird" as most American films utilized live sound; and only did minor overdubbs later to correct errors. There was some tension over whether or not to use the actors themselves to do their own lines; Eastwood was particularly adamant in Fistful of Dollars, for example, that he do his own lines in the sound studio. This perplexed Leone, as given the standard methods for shooting films in Europe, it made little difference WHO spoke the lines. Eastwood was endulged however, as the films were planned for an American as well as European release, and he was a well known star in America; if it wasn't his voice it would have likely been noticed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, Tango. And yet, women's products ads in Australia are often the original US ad, with the original US voice. We have no difficulty in understanding them, because they're usually spoken in, if anything, an over-enunciated way like Leeza Gibbons does, but I do have some difficulty in understanding why an ad obviously created for the US market is used without any voice changes in other countries. The relatability angle appears to be less of an issue with women's products than with men's products. But other ads use home-grown actors and voices, but clearly sometimes the mouth and the voice are not from the same people. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not all models are spokesmodels and need dubbing, is one suggestion. Does that mean the blonde saying Jepstar with her lips, actually is? I thhought I was seeing things. Then again, body parts aren't always their own either. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always figured they use the original voice if we're supposed to know who she is, and dub it if it's just an anonymous model, Jack. FiggyBee (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with dubbing, if that's what they decide to do. It's just the lack of professionalism in the way they they do it that mystifies me. If Milli Vanilli had employed this standard, they would have been exposed on Day 1. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Milli Vanilli; it's much easier to mime to an existing soundtrack than to dub to existing vision. FiggyBee (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In the UK it's common on a lot of adverts that are used across Europe - so the original advert may not have an English-speaker hence the different mouth shaping to the voice. I think this is done to reduce advertising costs for companies. I find it very annoying, but not as annoying as changing the name of Marathon chocolate bars to Snickers, or Jif cleaning products to Cif to appease a pan-European market!! --KizzyB (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is purely anecdotal, but some years ago I was speaking to a marketing manager for a large UK manufacturing company, specifically regarding the men's hair colouring product, Just for Men. There was a commercial running at the time which suffered from exactly this phenomenon - a clearly US advert badly re-dubbed to give the actors plummy English accents. Anyway, this marketing man claimed that this was a well used advertising technique. The advert is annoying, as already stated, and is therefore memorable. The product already appears successful in another country and when we see this badly executed re-hash of an existing advert we think: "Cheapskate advertisers couldn't be bothered to make a new ad, dang and blast 'em" - but we place the blame squarely on the ad men and tend to trust the product. Don't know what others will make of this, but it seemed to make sense at the time. This conversation was ten years ago and I still remember the name of the product. Anonymous Bob (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying they deliberately do it this way to make pernickety people like me notice them? In a perverse sort of way, that actually makes some sense. They have all the advantages of modern technology at their disposal, but they choose not to use them because seamless ads that would just wash over people with little chance of retention is the very thing they don't want. Well, obviously their dastardly plot is working. Trouble is, I'm never going to buy those products anyway. If I were in the market, I might be swayed by a more sophisticated way of making me notice them. But these bottom drawer tactics actually decrease whatever small chance I might have of buying the products. I hope you're reading this, marketers. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's the difference between an ad designed to enhance desire for the product (increase the market size), and one designed to enhance product recognition (increase the market share). An annoying ad isn't going to make you want to dye your hair if you didn't want to already, but it *might* make you pick that brand out when you're standing in front of the hair dye display in the supermarket. FiggyBee (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember c.1996 watching an episode of Friends in Ireland. In the ad break, Jennifer Aniston came on advertising something (shampoo?) I found the American accent very jarring in the context, even though I'd just spent c.15 minutes listening to American accents. jnestorius^(talk) 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is bad advertising the new "good" ?

It seems that the more annoying the ad, the better it does, in the case of badly dubbed ads, ads which don't even try to sell the product ("I'm a PC !"), and the headache producing "HEAD ON !" ads. So, would an ad featuring a dog defecating on the product be the most successful yet ? StuRat (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In the age of information highway, i wonder if its really important to showcase the product as somehow the viewers know it whether its on tv or as a hoarding, its aabout the strategy of conveing with a touch of mystery that evokes curiosity of the viewers to know what is it really about man.Vikram79 (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have written to companies before and said their ad was so bad, I wouldn't buy the product.I got form letter replies saying everyone else loved them.Still,I felt better for venting my spleen.hotclaws 19:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re dog doo, some come close and repel some, but it depends on their target market: 2-dogs beer here had humping dogs briefly. Not a brand that would draw moi, however. It didn't last long so maybe people like hotclaws** made their mark. There's still a lousy (weasel word, yers, I know) couple of viagra-enabled piano players ad that comes close to being the eternal return. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hell, that ad. Sometimes I see it 15 times a night, which makes me wonder what's happening to Aussie males out there. The visual concept is quite attractive. But why did they have to massacre the Habañera from Carmen by badly and very unmusically juxtaposing it with the Can-Can from Orpheus in the Underworld? Why? Why? Head-banging, death metal or Schoenberg would almost have been preferable. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? I ain't goin' there Jack, confident that the massacree speaks for itself. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some bad adverts (not necessarily dubbed), achieve cult status in the UK. The prime example is the Ferrero Rocher advert known as "the Ambassador's reception". It ran for years and was lampooned to high heaven, but people liked it because it was so awful. On reflection, it may even have been dubbed - I think the only word(s) spoken "to camera" was, from memory "mmm, delicieux" or something similar. Wonder if it's on youtube? --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another, definitely not dubbed, was a musical number for Shake 'n' Vac. Shudderingly appalling - yet a warm memory at the same time. According to our article, the singing was dubbed. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

November 20

American Expat Tax Refund upon Leaving the UK

I'm an American expat who has been living and working in the UK for several years. I shortly plan to leave the country and have heard that it is possible for non-UK citizens to get their income taxes refunded when they leave. However, I have not been able to find any useful information on the government tax website. Does anyone out there know if this is true? If so, where does one go to begin the refund process.

Thank you for any help,

--Wellington grey (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated and you're not going to get a definitive answer to your particular circumstances from anyone on this desk. You really need to speak to an accountant. Get a recommendation if possible, or look one up in the Yellow Pages (they must hold a recognised accountancy qualification such as ICAEW or ACCA). The first thing you need to do is establish your residency status in the UK, which will determine your liability to tax. And in fact there is plenty of information on the HMRC website. Look at this page and this one for starters. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. I managed something similar when I moved from the UK to Canada, and it hinged on the different definitions of being 'resident' for tax purposes in the two countries. Unfortunately this time of year is not the best to do this, as the UK will almost certainly consider you have been 'resident' for this year if you are moving now. However I may be wrong, and things may have changed, and the US is different from Canada, so you should absolutely consult a tax accountant with international experience. And check it at both ends, as you might be able to persuade the US that you are not resident for a tax year. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Will my sister grow taller than me?

I'm 16 and my little sister is almost 13. I'm 5'6" and my sister is 5'3" and still growing. Our parents are average height, our mum is 5'4" and our dad is 5'10" and a half. I started puberty earlier than my sister and I was 5'3" by the time I was 11 and a half. The thing I noticed lately is that my sisters hips are level with mine, and I don't have short legs by any means. She has grown 3 inches in the past year, will she end up taller than I am? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Height is determined by a variety of things so it's not a set thing but i've heard that a good guide is: Take the average height of your parents and for a boy add 6-12cm and for a girl minus 6-12cm. Of course any such measurement is very crude and probably not that reliable. By the by I was about 5'7/8 when i was 16 and ended up at 6'2. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no real way to tell. Growth patterns are of course genetic, but like the difference between "weather" and "climate", there is a big difference between genetic trends in families and the specific manifestation of those trends in isolated cases. At any point your sister may stop growing, or may grow right past you. As an anecdotal example; in the 8th grade I was the tallest person in my class, however I stopped growing at that age, and all my classmates passed me. My brother, on the other hand, was always shorter than I was at his age (i.e. he was shorter at 12 than I had been at 12, etc.) which continued until I went away to college. He grew 6 inches in one year, thus passing my height while I was away. Very disconcerting. Since he was 16 he has been taller than I am, and he really didn't stop growing until he was 18 or 19. Totally different growth patterns, though we both come from the same gene pool... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Same thing with me. As a child, I was always the tallest or second-tallest kid in my class, towering over both boys and girls. I also appeared older for my age because of it. Everyone thought for sure I would end up super-tall and well, I'm lucky to be over five feet. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My experience was less dramatic - at school I was generally taller than most, but not exceptionally tall. I topped out at 6'2", which I think you'll agree is still taller than most but not exceptionally tall! Both me and my brother ended up exactly the same height but my parents were 5'10" and 5'6", so we gained a good four inches on my dad - perhaps due to better nutrition growing up. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition can certainly have a significant effect on height, it's true. --Tango (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My friend's brother was shorter than almost all the kids in his class until he was 13, but now he's 5' 11" so... Tezkag72 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we can't be definitive about this. But there are some broad-brush averages that give some insight. According to Growth_spurt#Conclusion, boys finish gaining height at age 18 and girls at 15. So both you and your sister have two more years of growth. But girls go through this spurt in less time - so the rate they grow in that final spurt is faster so she stands a chance of catching you up. Conclusion: Probably, you'll probably stay ahead of her - but probably it'll probably be closer than it is right now...probably. SteveBaker (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I think the OP is a girl. Darkspots (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

They let girls in here? How are we gonna talk about — you know? —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stuff? Darkspots (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I gained an inch or two after 18, if memory serves after thirty years. —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bah! Every guy says that. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With jailbait present? Eeuw! —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You may have misread the question. The OP was asking about height not your waist. (Resisting the other jokes in deference to the OP) Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If I meant my waist, I wouldna said "inch". —Tamfang (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Identify the sex of someone by their words

A comment from Darkspots above was interesting. I read the OPs question and based on no evidence assumed it was a boy asking the question. Yet Darkspots thought the OP was a girl. On re-reading I think Darkspot was right, I think the word 'hips' is what swung it for me on the second-read. Anyhoo on with my question - is it possible to decipher someone's sex based purely on reading, say, a paragraph of their writing? I'm not thinking about ones where they explicitly refer to their gender, but more like the above question where no firm reference is made either way. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what this site claims to do- it's worked very well on the samples I tested it with. 72.200.101.17 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the question I think you're talking about, I think the OP was female since the question makes more sense that way (everyone knows men are generally taller than women, so the OP would probably have mentioned that if they were male). I think from one paragraph of randomly chosen text, it's going to be very difficult. You can make an educated guess, but it's going to be very unreliable. With more text, it becomes easier, but it's still far from certain. There was a user on another site I used to frequent that I know was female (I was in regular email contact with her and knew her fairly well), but I would frequently forget that when reading what she wrote. There was something about her writing style that made it seem like she was male (this may have been partly intentional, she didn't like people on site knowing her gender [although it was far from a well kept secret], even to the extent of asking people to refer to her as "it" rather than "he" or "she"). I can't consciously say what it was about her writing, but there was definitely something. --Tango (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

She's a girl because she entered puberty earlier than her sister. Boys enter puberty later than girls. Our article on puberty gives very wide ranges of ages, but generally girls begin puberty at 11-12 and boys at 13-14, in western countries. Darkspots (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would find it unusual for a boy to refer to his hips in any way at all. --Sean 13:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OP here, I'm a girl which you probably would have guessed had I not forgotten to log in. Haha. But thank you all for your imput and sorry for confusing you. ;) --Candy-Panda (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! --Tango (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Just because men have smaller hips doesn't mean they won't occasionally have need to talk about them. --Tango (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not, but I don't think we'd use hips as a measuring device. For guys, I'd expect shoulders, eyes, and top of head heights to be used. Er, among other things. Women are (often) preoccupied with their hips because that's one of the measurements they need for buying clothes. A guy might complain about his waist getting too wide - or his gut - but he's largely indifferent to his hips. Matt Deres (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Measuring around your hips, no, but the OP was talking about the height of her hips (as a measure of leg length). The standard measure of a man's leg length is the inside leg, but you wouldn't use that to compare two people (you would need a tape measure), so comparing hips is a likely way to do it (you could compare waist heights, but hips are easier to find on some people!). --Tango (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I should have phrased that better. Men wouldn't think to measure things by their hips because it's not an anatomical landmark for them like it is for women, both in the literal sense that our hips don't flare out the same way and in the more figurative sense that women need to know their hip size for buying many kinds of clothes (for the same reason). The placement of hips is something men rarely have to keep in mind, so we wouldn't think to use it for anything else. It's kind of like how some men know what year and model of car every person they meet drives, while not being able to recall their names. Matt Deres (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That site is fun – except for once, it says I'm/my text is male. hahahahaha Julia Rossi (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It also wrongly pegged me as male. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 21

Ornlu the Wolf

What is the story behind the recurring character Ornlu the Wolf in the Age of ____ series, or is he entirely original? (Ornlu appears in Age of Empires 2 in the first Ghengis Khan scenario, Age of Empires 2 Expansion in the Vinlandsaga scenario of the Conquerors campaigns and as a cameo (renamed "Son of Ornlu) in some scenario in the Montezuma campaign, and in Age of Mythology (or the expansion?) as both a hero unit derived from the Fenris Wolf Brood unit, and as the relic "Eye of Ornlu".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.218.79 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that a searches for "ornlu wolf" and "ornlu myth" get no likely looking hits in Google Books, it is probably original to the game (compare to say, a search for fenrir wolf). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

no belly button

kelly kurkova has nobelly button, how is this possible? where did her umbilical cord come out of? virgin birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean Karolina Kurkova. There's an article on this here. It's probably the result of some surgery she had as a baby or child. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my dad had a similar surgery when he was a baby and they made a fake belly button for him afterwards! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Omphalos hypothesis, which discusses whether Adam (Bible), who the Bible says was not born, had a navel. Paintings showed Adam with a navel, implying a fictitious gestation during which he was nourished by the placenta of his nonexistent mother. Edison (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is really funny! (I wanted to say lol) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just covered by make-up for some bizarre reason. Only she knows for sure. APL (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This link shows her with one... Dismas|^(talk) 16:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the BBC article, one is sometimes added to her photos afterwards. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps she was at sea in wartime and was injured by a navel destroyer. Edison (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious, Eddy, hilarious. :) Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Virgin birth? How would that explain the absence of navel? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairly simply, I'd have thought. If you accept that such a thing a virgin birth is possible, you have to accept the concept of a child coming into the world through means other than out of its mother's womb. A virgin who "gives birth" has a hymen that's just as intact after the birth as it was at the conception. That means the child is not physically connected to its mother, there's no umbilical cord, and there's no navel. Just exactly where it gestates for 9 months is a conundrum the theologists have never quite cracked. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Which Cypher is This?

I am trying to decode the following cypher, however, I do not know which cypher it it. Is there any way to find out? (Please check to see if it works out before answering.)

Esheo Aorht Disas Eomta

Keyword: Death

http://www.scioly.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=325&p=11390

Thanks in advance.

--Chaffers (Something | Something else) 03:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For a start, is the keyword literally "death" or "death (don't ask)" Where did the cryptogram come from, since context might be helpful. A short text might have many different possible solutions, under various encryptions. Edison (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your revised question shows it is from a "Science Olympiad" implying that a clever student should be able to come up with a convincing solution. Previous posts at the Science Olympiad imply a Playfair cipher. See Playfair cipher for hints on decoding.Do you suppose q was omitted, or I and J were placed in the same square? Does "Death" go in the top row, or somewhere else? Edison (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I already tried that, and it reveals gibberish. --Chaffers (Something | Something else) 12:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cities with certain year-round temperture ranges & certain demagraphic characteristics.

Hi there,

I'm looking for a list of cities north of Georgia, east of Illinois & south of New York State! Cities where during the summer months, the annual temperture spends the fewest days in excess of 80 degrees. There should also be the fewest number of days when the humidity exceeds 65%! The winter months get the fewest days where the temper-drops below 35 degrees & the fewest snow days! Any city that makes the list should then be looked at from a demagraphic point of view! The city should have at least 20% Black population & middle-income Blacks are well represented!! Thanking you in advance for any information along these lines you can send my way! NE7p2w8L (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You can get the demographic info somewhere I am sure, but if you are looking for climate and weather info, the best site I know of is http://www.weatherunderground.com . And no, this guy has nothing to do with it. If you start with the climate info from that site, narrow down the cities to places that have a tolerable climate for your disposition, you could research a smaller list of cities for demographic data to your liking. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on your question, you appear to be a well-centered individual. However, be aware that some of the things you ask for exclude others. The only way to eliminate both the high and low temperature ranges would be to find a location on an island in a large body of water, or possibly on a coast with consistent on-shore winds. However, this would mean high humidity. There are relatively few communities which are both over 20% black and largely middle-class, as well, so that will be quite a limiting factor, too. StuRat (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anywhere on earth with annual temperatures over 80 degrees. Even with global warming such temperatures aren't expected. Rather fortunate since very little life can survive at that temperature Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume asker means 80 degrees Fahrenheit.Tomdobb (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for low summer temperatures and high winter temperatures combined with low humidity, you are looking on the wrong coast. Your ideal climate is essentially the climate of coastal central California. Though the parts of California that have black populations over 20% tend not to have large middle-income black populations. Still, some neighborhoods of Oakland, California, might fit the bill for you, such as Grand Lake or Rockridge. East of the Mississippi, there is really no place where humidity is often below 65%. In that part of the United States, any place that has few days below 35 degrees F and little snow is sure to have lots of summer (and spring and fall) days above 80 degrees F. Conversely, any place with few days above 80 degrees F is sure to have lots of winter (and early spring and late fall) days below 35 and lots of snow. To my knowledge, the part of the eastern United States with the most moderate temperatures would be the valleys surrounding the Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina and Tennessee. This is probably the best you can do in the eastern United States. You might consider Asheville, North Carolina, although the black population is only 17%. Another reasonably prosperous city with a relatively moderate climate (but rather high humidity) and a black population in your range would be Louisville, Kentucky. Marco polo (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this some more, and logically a location near the ocean should have more moderate temperatures on average than one further inland, due to sea breezes. The problem is that the largest U.S. cities on the east coast south of cold and snowy New England are just far enough from the ocean not to get much cooling from sea breezes. The parts of New York City most exposed to sea breezes (Staten Island, Coney Island, and the Rockaways, are not known for their friendly attitudes toward black people. However, black people make up almost half the population of Atlantic City, New Jersey, which has a relatively moderate climate for the eastern United States. In Virginia Beach, Virginia, black people make up about 19% of the population, but Virginia Beach has rather hot and humid summers. Marco polo (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

indian Riddle

kill them of an Indian sacredness and supply a world sport with its tools..it's one of those conc riddles a pal of mine got from the net,anybody who can help me unravel it i would very much appreciate it..a-What are we killing and B.-What sport is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.225.253 (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

War or proselytising?Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cows and soccer (soccer balls). CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it be many sports? Quite a few have or have traditional had leather balls. Cricket might be more appropriate for India Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Soccer is the "world game" though, which is hinted at in the question. FiggyBee (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That depends who you are though. For some Indians, cricket might be the world game. And many Americans seem to think basketball or sometimes baseball is the world game. Perhaps a plurality or even a majority of people agree football is the world game, but that doesn't mean it's the only correct answer to the question Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Soccer is, to my understanding, the most widespread game played across the most number of professional leagues across the world. Of course that doesn't make it the 'world game' but if any sport could claim this fictional title then soccer would definitely be among the favourites. Cricket, on the other hand, appears to mostly be observed and played by current/former members of the British Empire, with little extra interest in other nations beyond this. Similarly Baseball's world-series is often ridiculued here in the UK for its lack of being a world-sport. That said both sports can probably claim widespread fans/plays. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article on cricket says that it's played in 100 countries, no source, and the article on association football says it's the most popular in the world, with sources. If you change the answer to cows (Cattle in religion) and football (American football, Canadian football, Australian football, Gaelic football and rugby football) then you do have pretty much a world sport. By the way, there is nothing in the question to indicate that the question refers to Indian sport. The only reason to use India in the question has to do with Hinduism and probably few would get the answer if Egypt or Greece had been used. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So do I take it from all these responses that the phrase "The World Game" is not widely used outside Australia? Interesting. FiggyBee (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard it in the UK, for what that's worth. Algebraist 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase it self has great currency but if you were to ask people in quite a number of countries what's the world's sport, football (as said below, in case this isn't obvious I mean soccer) would be the pick in many countries and by many people (some may just say, as me, that it's a dumb question), including sometimes in countries where it isn't the most popular sport. But I definitely don't think you'd get anything close to unamity on this, particular from a South Asian cricket fan (of which there are a lot) or American baseball/football fan. Or let me put this another way I grew up in Malaysia and watch the World Cup so I know how nuts people can be about football however I have spent enough time on ITN to know there are a lot of half good arguments you can make about the relative merits of various sports and I've also spent enough time in NZ to know how little attention football receives in parts of the world. And in case it isn't yet obvious I still call the sport football despite clear knowledge of the other pretenders to the throne. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, using football generically doesn't complete the picture. Frankly Gaelic football and Australian football adds virtually nothing to the equation. Rugby adds a bit but even that not so much. (And I'm a rugby fan.) You really have to add cricket (to cover South Asia in particular) and perhaps baseball (for small parts of South America) if you want to approximate a truly world sport. (Even then your probably still missing Canada and perhaps some parts of Northern Europe.) And if you want to go so generic as to include football generically why not just ball games, since the vast majority of ball games use balls that have traditionally been leather? And whyever India was in there, which in the end is speculation even if it seems likely, the fact remains it was in there so you can use it to argue that cricket (or something else) would be a more appropriate answer. Ultimately I think this is a bit of a dumb riddle (as many are) since no one even uses real leather for most balls nowadays anyway. Besides the cow isn't sacred to all Indians. And you arguably need a goal post if you want to properly play football which you're not going to get from a cow. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that. However the fact remains, you can't IMHO claim one is the world game since if you do, you ignore the fact that football (and I'm referring to soccer here if that's not clear) is although very popular, clearly not the most popular sport by far in a number of key countries including India (a key one given its large population) and the USA (they do have a lot of influence in many areas). Indeed last time I looked while football seemed to be the most popular sport in China in terms of attention it received, ping pong had the highest participation and badminton and football were way up there on audience figures. In other words, while football has the most claim to be a world sport, you can't say it's the only one nor can you say it's definatively the world sport. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, it's just a stupid riddle ... why are we splitting hairs? Yours truly --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What else are riddles good for? —Tamfang (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A cricket ball is made from leather, which comes from cows - the sacred Indian animal - and this ball is a tool for the sport of cricket - a world sport. The answer is the cricket ball itself, not the game.

Except that a soccerball is made from leather as well, and is likely played in more varied parts of the world, giving it better claim to being a world sport. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest "world" in question is about international play rather than being a "global" as in universal sport. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability of authenticity of show

Hello. Please don't take this question as an attempt to start a discussion on whether a show is fake or genuine - it's just a question regarding whether it's POSSIBLE for a show to be fake. Ok here goes the question - I've read a lot of discussion about whether the show "The moment of truth" is genuine or is just fake with trained actors posing as participants. Now the show does seem unreal to me - why would anybody want to wash their diry linen in public for some money - risking their reputation and relationships. But my question is - wouldn't it be ILLEGAL for such a show to be fake - after all it amounts to perpetuating fraud against the viewers. And in case it is, would it be possible for such a large-scale thing to be kept under wraps? To rephrase, what I want to know is do those who allege the show to be fake have any logical foundation for the suspicions or is it just impossible. Thank you. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to The Moment of Truth (U.S. game show)? --LarryMac | Talk 16:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir. The article says nothing about the autheticity of the show. -ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I only asked the question and linked because there is also a British TV show with the same name. And a host of other items at Moment of Truth. You'd surely have been berated by some for not being specific. --LarryMac | Talk 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on man, it's not that big a deal. You're the only one "berating" - RelPhil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.165.158 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen shorts of the show and always thought it a bit silly. I noticed this from the linked article. "Sometimes, a "surprise guest" - such as an ex-partner or a good friend - will come on the stage and ask a particularly difficult question". Also I seem to recall the questions have to be answered in front of a live studio audience and usually some guests. Polygraphy itself is an inexact science but as it's strongly dependent on emotions I would say it would be extremely difficult for someone to answer such questions under the conditions and be determined truthful. So whether or not the rest of the show is fake, just because the show says these people may not have been telling the truth doesn't mean they weren't. It's basically set up in a way people are unlikely to pass all questions IMHO. I've heard the claim made people have confessed to crimes on the show (don't think this was the US version, perhaps South American ones) and I presume there would have been investigations linked to these if they really happened. The other thing of course is that people are pre-selected for these shows, so they will only show the ones with 'juicy' secrets. If the worst thing you've done is vandalised the polygraph article to say 'Bush is gay' don't expect to be selected for the show. (And as I said polygraphy is an inexact science so isn't accepted in court and this one definitely wouldn't be, therefore the only risk you entail legally is if further evidence is uncovered.) In terms of the most generic question, most reality shows are partly bullshit. For example, in one shot here in NZ someone was badly burnt in a second take of a scene for a reality show. TV shows tend to have a lot of leeway on what they can do and claim even in countries outside the US where the are stricter guidelines. For example, Sensing Murder often makes it sound like they are uncovering startling new evidence yet last I heard, no crime has ever been solved based on information garned from any of these shows in any country (not surprisingly) Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually my question is whether it COULD all be one big setup - with the participants and the guests all being trained actors - is that plausible? --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if people have been investigated in South American for stuff they revealed on the show then no, at least not for the South American versions. I doubt it would be illegal though. However the show is popular enough that if it were completely fake it's likely someone would have uncovered that by now IMHO. This source also seems to suggest the show isn't fake [3]. But to put it a different way, why would you bother when you can easily find (and you can easily find, believe me) a lot of real people for the show? That's a whole load cheaper, you don't need to fluff around with script-writers, actors and all the jazz nor do you risk you show being destroyed when people find out. (Actually there may still be some but likely a lot less) Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok I guess that answers my questions - the participants are unlikely to be fake actors. Thank you, Nil Einne :-) --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably couldn't be fake in that way, where all the participants are actors (shills) following a script. There are other ways for it to be fake, though. If the participants are paid, they may very well make up or exaggerate stories to get on the show. Many people will do this just to get on TV, even if the coverage is all negative. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed but I should point out this isn't solely about getting on TV. There is 'real' cash involved. As I said above, it's unlikely you will ever actually get the maximum prize but I presume quite a number of contestants (if that's the right word) walk with at least the 10k. Besides that if you're treating it as a game show and lying your ass off so you actually get on the show it'll make a good story the further you succeed in pulling it off. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone been to Anguilla?

When I asked to balance my trip to St. Martin with a few days in a quiet, secluded spot, my travel agent recommended Anguilla. This would save me from having to buy a $400 round-trip plane ticket to the Virgin Islands. (I had wanted to go to St. John.) Is Anguilla really tranquil and beautiful like St. John is? -- 192.206.151.130 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You will find many people who have been to Anguilla, and probably some who live there, on this forum, where you might find helpful answers to your question. Marco polo (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiTravel might also help. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Interview Questions

Hi, what are they looking for in the job interview when they ask, Why do you want to leave the present job?,how do you think you can add value to this position, if given?,what are your weaknesses and strengths?etc etc, and even negotiating salary? if anybody can unveil these mysterious venue's...any suggestions would be valuable.Vikram79 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As for why you want to leave your current job, I don't see why the truth isn't the best answer (unless you're being fired or something, then make up something fluffy). Strengths and weaknesses are (I think) pretty stupid/annoying/cliche questions for an interviewer to ask (but still do, of course), to which I usually answered something along the lines of "I'm always trying to improve my time management and organizational skills" or some other equally vague answer while hiding my derision for the question as much as possible. As for negotiating salary, it totally depends what situation you're in. If you have other offers or options that pay better than their offer, tell them that, I think they will usually appreciate candor. If you are effectively trying to "bluff them", I would be very careful, especially if it's for an entry level job or if you have been looking for a long time. Often a foot in the door and a boss that you aren't started on the wrong foot with are better than the possibility of a few more % per year. How you add value to the company is of course the meat of the interview, but ideally they know what you're going to be doing better than you and they should be the ones trying to answer that, based on how you describe your prior experience and attributes. If you know something about the job they'll be having you do, tell them that, your prior experience on the subject etc, being as specific and concrete as possible. I think references from former bosses/supervisors etc are usually very useful. Bragging about yourself is always difficult to pull off gracefully, having a letter filled with praise is much more straight forward. TastyCakes (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks tasty cakes, im getting somewhere thoughVikram79 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to put a positive spin on the answers. The important thing is to have something to say and not be flabbergasted by the question. Why are you leaving your job - for career or personal development. Add value - find something you do well or some trait that is positive - i.e. "I have a keen eye for detail that would be useful in the production of your technically complex widgets". Strengths / weaknesses are often the same game, but make the "weakness" something that could potentially be admired, like "sometimes I lose sight of the big picture because I get very focused on my current project" and so forth. Negotiating salary is mostly a question of knowing what the skill or position averages in the economy and the location in question. If you've got a lot of experience then it is okay to push the envelope. If not, try for an average figure with a little plus and be ready to go lower. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

wikiHow has several articles about job interviews, such as http://www.wikihow.com/Answer-Tough-Questions-in-an-Interview --Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the most important things to the interview is to carry yourself in a professional manner. Dress in a suit, speak in formal English, and carry yourself with tact and decorum. Given the fact that they have already seen your resume and/or your application for the job, they should know your qualifications. Interviews are time consuming expensive things, and they wouldn't schecule one if they weren't considering hiring you anyways! There's not a whole lot you can do in an interview to convince them that you are perfect for the job; however there's a LOT you could do that will make it look like it would be a mistake to hire you. Regardless of what specific questions they ask you, the ONLY thought on the mind of the interviewers is "Do I want to work with this person". If you show up in a tank top and flip-flops, mumble to yourself and stare at the walls, and sound generally uneducated in your interview you aren't going to get the job. The best thing you can do is to make a good impression by being proffesional in every aspect of your manner. Your specific answers to the question aren't really that important, its HOW you answer the questions; your confidence level, the way you comport yourself, the language you use. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Dress in a suit" thing is tricky...the super-effective recruiting consultants who found me my last job (which was in the computer games business) said that I needed to dress very casually - this de-emphasised my age and the fact that I'd been working in the defense industry on very serious topics and made it look like I could behave younger and 'fit in' with the company culture (which - as you may imagine - is incredibly casual in the computer games biz.)...so while dressing "up" is a good idea in some circumstances, it's not a rock-solid rule. SteveBaker (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Wilson,you have a deep insight to this. but if you could elaborate in this topic at leisure,it would be wonderful.. thanks againVikram79 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC) good enough Jayron..thanksVikram79 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember that not only they have to decide if you are the right person for the job, but also you have to decide if this job is right for you. Very important! So prepare a couple of questions on issues that you want to discuss, and that show your interest in the company. Lova Falk (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing what you are interviewing for makes it a little harder to answer. When interviewing I expect different results from a teacher than from a janitor, even if the questions are similar. Listen to the question, be relevant and answer the question. Don't go off topic even if you think it's interesting. However, think about what relates to the question, and consider adding it if there is a valid relationship. As an example, I asked a young woman if she had ever worked with children and she said that she hadn't. I knew the person, she was the oldest child and had 4 younger brothers and sisters, all of them she had helped babysit. She had had various babysitting jobs as well. All of that counts in answering the question. If the interviewers are taking notes then don't talk so fast that they can't keep up. Don't spend 15-20 minutes answering one question. Know something about what the job entails. Depending on the job you may be expected to know a little or a lot. Someone applying for my job is not expected to know to much, which is why they come and job shadow for a couple of days to get an idea. However, someone being interviwed for a teacher or a janitor is expected to know something about what they are going to do. But remember, there may be someone from the human resources department who is not familar with the latest jargon, thus throwing around acronyms, with no explanation, is not always a good idea. Be friendy but remember you are not my best friend. I'm doing the interview, I make the jokes to get you to relax, which is what some of the questions may be for. And thus try to relax without being too casual about it. If the interviewers know what they are doing, and there is no guarantee that they do, they will make some allowance for the fact that you are nervous. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a name for this style of light/light fitting?

Is there a name for this style of light/light fitting? It was called a safety light in a restaurant I worked in.hotclaws 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would call that a "cage light":[4]. Fribbler (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called an Oval Bulkhead Light Fitting. Used mainly in outdoor scenarious but also useful in sheds, garages, storerooms etc.92.22.181.106 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Incarceration Limit / Life Imprisonment

According to Life imprisonment many countries have a maximum possible sentence, e.g. Norway - 21 years, Portugal - 25 years, Venezuela - 30 years, Spain - 40 years. Do these values given in the article indicate the maximum penalty per sentence or the absolute maximum amount of time one can be incarcerated? e.g. if you murdered two people in Venezuela would you get 30 years or 60 years imprisonment? --124.177.29.112 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on whether the sentences run concurrently (A sentence of 3 years plus a sentence of 10 years = 10 years (the longest of the two sentences)) or consecutively (A sentence of 3 years plus a sentence of 10 years = 13 years (the total of the two sentences)- see Sentence (law). Judges sometimes have the power to set a minimum tariff too - a number of years you must serve before you can be considered for parole/release on license. Exxolon (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, I think I get it now. So for instance in Venezuela, which has a maximum sentence of 30 years, it is still possible to serve longer than that in prison if the charges are consecutive, eh? --124.177.29.112 (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Speck, who murdered eight women, was sentenced to death in 1967. After the Supreme Court overturned the sentence (but not the guilty verdict), Speck was re-sentenced in 1972 to a minimum of 400 and a maximum of 1,200 years (50 - 150 years per victim, served consecutively). That was further reduced to a statutory maximum of 300 years, according to the article. --- 14:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think that should mean that your corpse needs to finish your sentance. It's rediculous to give someone a 300-year sentance, and pretend like "Our state law doesn't allow life sentances." Puh-leez... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming to not give life sentences. In fact, Speck was originally given the death penalty. In Speck's case, his ashes were spread in a secret location[5] but many others never left Joliet Prison (Prison Cemetery internments) Rmhermen (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what is being claimed. It seems from our article that some countries have a maximum sentence (ie. less than life). It's news to me, and I would love to know more about such laws if anyone can enlighten us. --Tango (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that at least some of the time, when absurdly long sentences are given, it is not to really sentence someone for 200 years (obviously), but that "life without parole" might not end up actually being truly life without parole, but there is a limit on what percent of a sentence must be served before on could get parole. So if a sentence is 200 years and no one is allowed to be paroled before serving half their sentence, it would automatically be a life sentence. I'm not sure how often that's the case, though. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In Germany, "life imprisonment" is usually limited to 25 years, regardless of how many crimes you committed. Lately, the first RAF terrorists were released after serving 25 years, causing much public debate here.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

November 22

Silkie Chickens

How noisy are silkie hens. I'd like to get one but I want to know if they would be to noisy. How far away can their clucking, crying and squwaking be heard.--Pufferfish4 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest you contact a poultry breeder. This ref [6] says they are "reasonably quiet". Exxolon (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Had a couple as a child, quiet, yes, not entirely mute. Still think of them as sweet, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

dating a singer sewing machine

I HAVE A SINGER TREADLE SEWING MACHINE WITH A NUMBER PLATE ON BASE OF MACHINE OF AA597705. LOOKING FOR A DATE OF MANUFACTURE AND MODEL NUMBER. I NEED SOME PARTS AND INFORMATION ON IT AND HAVE NO WAY OF FINDING THIS. I HAVE SEARCHED THE INTERNET WITH NO RESULTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryjanequilting (talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could try asking the sewing machine to someplace nonthreatening at first, like say out to a coffee shop or something. Maybe invite it out with some mutual friends; perhaps being in a larger group would be less threatening. Eventually, you may find that you and the sewing machine have some things in common, and a formal date may be coming. I'd recommend something simple like dinner and a movie. The weird "horseback rides on the beach" sort of stuff may come off as awkward, and may send the wrong signals to the sewing machine this early in the relationship. Oh, and you probably want to avoid SHOUTING ALL THE TIME, as this may make the sewing machine feel uncomfortable. Perhaps thats why you haven't been able to get a date. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was very excited when I saw this question. Now I just feel like a third wheel. Maybe one day I'll find love.[[7]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NByz (talk • contribs) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Essex looks hot! Julia Rossi (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Singer site [8] says your machine was madein 1925 at Elizabeth , New Jersey, USA. A subpage there[9] says it dates from August 11, 1925, and suggests it is a Model 66. Check the nameplate for the exact model number. Manuals are available at [10], either for purchase of hardcopy or for free download of a PDF file. As a child I enjoyed playing with my an old treadle Singer, but never quite figured out how a sewing machine worked without having it pass a threaded needle back and forth through the fabric! Understanding chain stitch was (and is) beyond my spatial skills. Edison (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I managed a large clothing factory for many years and can explain in intricate and fascinating detail how a sewing machine works, whether lockstitch (the kind the OP has) or chainstitch - which are the 2 commonest types, but it would take too long. I did see an animation of the process on a website once but can't remember where. Oh, I know all about the overlocker and the coverstitcher too - but in all these machines, the needle stays firmly in the needle-bar whilst picking up a thread from its partner spool, bobbin, or looper beneath the machine-bed and forming a knot of one kind or another. But for pure joy, the machine I really favoured was the AMF Handstitching machine - YES - a hand-stitching machine. It had a needle with points at both ends and a long slot for the thread instead of an eye. As the needle went down through the cloth it would part company with the upper needle-bar and be grabbed by another below the machine-bed - and a great big revolving wheel would collect any unused thread and pull it through the cloth too - you see - it could only deal with a fixed-pre-cut length of thread in order to create its "saddle-stitch" effect which was mainly used for decorative edge-stitching such as around men's jackets etc. Oh the joy of it - and the clunk-clunk it made as the needle went up and down. Pure joy. Hope the OP gets his spares though. 92.8.219.255 (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to explain sewing machine, Lockstitch or Chain stitch. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For others no, but for me, yes. My query, is the sewing machine too old for you? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The human lifespan is beside the point here, Julia, as the machine is immortal and inhabits a different time zone. Even if Maryjane's friend lacks some of its faculties, they can be recovered. Strawless (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a Singer of the same age. It has worked for 5 generations and has recently been serviced by the local agent. Produces far better results than many an electric machine.90.0.1.167 (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)PW

I've been waiting patiently for someone to mention writing a song to their sewing machine, which would have given me the cue for saying "It's the Singer, not the song". But since nobody's given me the cue, I'm forced to take matters into my own hands. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

English grammar

Is this sentence correct: "I ain't got no sock accounts."? Why do some people use two negative words in the same sentence? (in this case ain't and no).
I am not a native English speaker and I'd say it like "I don't have any sock accounts" or "I have no sock accounts" or maybe "I ain't got any sock accounts". Also isn't the first sentence conveying somewhat opposite meaning than what it's apparently supposed to? --[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 16:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect, it's a double negative which, in English, cancels out so "I ain't got no sock accounts" actually means "I have got some sock accounts", which is probably not the intended meaning. As for why people make mistakes like that, I don't know, I guess they're just idiots. A similar thing which annoys me is people giving the wrong answer to questions ending in "isn't it?" or "aren't you?" or similar. In response to "You're Bob, aren't you?", "yes" means "Yes, I am not Bob" whereas people usually use it to mean "Yes, I am Bob". Of course, people get that wrong almost universally, which means if you get it right people will misunderstand you, so I usually answer such questions with "I am" or "I am not", avoiding "yes" and "no" entirely (and I shouldn't use 4 commas in one sentence during a discussion about bad grammar, but oh well!). --Tango (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that while double negatives are officially wrong, they are widely used anyway, for emphasis. So, while "I ain't got none" officially means "I have some", since the negatives cancel each other, if you interpret it that way you will have a lot of misunderstandings. A better interpretation is "I REALLY don't have any". I once had this lovely sentence as part of the specs for a program I was writing: "If the program doesn't fail to receive an error, it shouldn't fail to report this error". As best as I could figure out, this meant "If your program gets an error, report it". StuRat (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"I don't have any at all" would be another way to emphasise it. I agree with your interpretation of the error reporting spec, put another way it means "The only time you should fail to report an error is if you fail to receive it". (Incidentally, I wouldn't say double negatives are wrong, they just often don't mean what people intend them to mean.) --Tango (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet double, even triple negatives can be a powerful rhetorical or even literary device in vernacular English. When Playboy published Alex Haley's interview with Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay at the time) in 1964, the magazine received letters, not only from angry racists, but also from Henry Miller, who wrote: "Just a word to say how much I liked the interview. Though it's in another category, it can take its place beside the one with Bertrand Russell — one of your best. . . . That last line, 'Ain't never been nothing like me,' is a gem." ---Sluzzelin talk 17:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Three things about double negatives: There is certainly nothing inconsistant about them, MANY languages have grammar that demands that if something in a sentance is negative, EVERYTHING gets the negative. There's nothing inherently illogical about it. The formal English rule is as arbitrary as any other rule, and double (antd triple) negatives are not inconsistant or illogical, it's just not formal English. Secondly, they are unambiguous despite claims to the contrary. If I said "There ain't no way I am going to do that" or "I ain't never done that before" not a single native speaker of English, even the Queen of England herself, would even for a second misunderstand either of those sentances. They may not be formal, but they are perfectly clear. Thirdly, lots of English (or any language) is about idiom and not literal translation. Pedantic adherance to the "laws" of English prevents proper understanding of how real people actually use their language in all sorts of wonderful ways. There is a definate difference in meaning between "You have seen nothing like me" and "You ain't never seen nothing like me.", and to claim that they are interchangable phrases misses what makes language such an interesting and beutiful thing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it makes it a lot harder for those learning English as a second language. How on earth do you make somebody understand the structure of "I ain't never done that before", and how its meaning differs from "I have never done that before". ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One way is by explaining that meaning often comes not from invidivual words, but from groups of words. "I have done that" is clear, and each separate word contributes its part to the overall meaning. "I have never done that" is also clear, but in this case we have to consider "have never" as a unit, because if we considered the words separately, the first concept is "have", which might appear to be suggesting something that has been done, until we get to "never", which negates "have", and tells us it's about something that has not been done, at least by me. In "I ain't never done that before", the "never" is not negating "ain't", it's actually emphasising it - not only have I not done it (today, this week, this year, or since I was 21), but I have not done it ever in my life. So, "ain't never" is a stronger negation of "done" than mere "ain't", and must be conceived as a single concept rather than 2 separate words. We see a similar thing with "ever". Take a sentence like: The first time that humans set foot on the Moon was in 1969. Many people would say The first time that humans ever set foot on the Moon was in 1969. The "ever" doesn't change the essential meaning, so one could argue it's a redundant word and does not belong in the sentence, but it emphasises the primacy of the event and has a use from that perspective. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Three negatives might be less ambiguous as in "I ain't got no stinkin' sock accounts". 21:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Or Prissy's declaration, "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies." As I'm sure Reluctant Philosopher knows, language aren't designed for ease of learning by non-native speakers (except Esperanto and other fantasy-league speech). And the more that context and nuance apply, the less easily speech or writing can be understood by someone lacking that context or missing that nuance. Even within one national language you have those regional variations that confound people from outside the region ("have a catch" versus "play catch," "wait on line" versus "wait in line," "wait on you" versus "wait for you"). --- OtherDave (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

←Just a quick note: whenever someone is in the position of having to claim that he ain't got no sock accounts, it is almost always more grammatically and factually correct for him to say, "I ain't got more'n three or fo' sock accounts". Darkspots (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Responding to ReluctantPhilosopher, every single language in the world uses idiom. There are hundreds of phrases and usages that, if translated word-for-word into English are meaningless, but which all speakers of that native language understand without trouble. That's because language is more than a code, and cannot be understood in isolation from the culture that uses it. While such phrases as "I ain't got none" may be confusing for non-native English speakers, this is not a situation that is unique to English; every person learning another language has to come to terms with problems exactly like this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, they might not be confusing for non-native English speakers, if their native language is one of the many that does not have an arbitrary pseudo-logical 'rule' against double negatives (eg French "Je n'ai rien). --ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tango says "As for why people make mistakes like that, I don't know, I guess they're just idiots." But no, that isn't it at all, they are dialect speakers. The double negative was correct in Middle English. It was used by educated people well into the 17th century and still survives in many (if not most) of the present-day dialects of English. It only rarely causes a problem for people learning English, but they do need to know that people speaking standard English (such as newsreaders, for instance) never use this dialectal double negative, so that in standard English two negatives do cancel each other out. Strawless (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No they do not! (cancel each other out). They are certainly non-standard, and therefore judged as incorrect by those who believe this to be a useful concept, but in almost every case the meaning is perfectly clear to any native English speaker, and only the deliberately perverse will misunderstand. (The few exceptions are generally strongly marked, such as the example Stephen Pinker concocts, "Try as I might, I can't get no satisfaction from this result"). --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why isn't this on the language ref desk? Anyway, anyone who uses the phrase "ain't" is already making a mistake... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  Maybe, except for the well-established usage in tag questions such as "I'm a human, ain't I?" . It was long used as the way to negate "am I", and Fowler still advocates its use. It became a pariah word when the schoolma'ams came along, but the ugly and grotesque neologism "amn't I" is far, far, far worse than "ain't I", imho. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Excel Sheet at work

hi, how important is it to have an analytical hand on excel sheets to move further the professional ladder, or is it something which can be learned while on job and not feel incompetent about if one has the basic understanding of it? as i think it is one area i am lacking on....any suggestions would be helpful.Vikram79 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on what kind of jobs you want. There are plenty of courses available on using Excel, perhaps your employer would send you on one if you ask - many employers are keen to help their workforce improve their skills. --Tango (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While Tango's suggestion is a good one, lots of people have learnt Excel on their own, without attending a course. If you need to do this, then use the Help button frequently and don't be afraid to ask colleagues. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Who and what can I believe - it's driving me to distraction?

No names - no pack drill. I am reading about an ongoing criminal trial in the UK involving a couple of guys accused of trying to explode cars in a public place in London, and also of driving a vehicle loaded with petrol and gas cylinders into Glasgow airport's terminal building on its busiest day of the year. They are accused of terrorist crimes. They are both qualified medical doctors. One of them has a father who is a University Professor of Medicine -his mother is a Pharmacist. As I write - under UK law - the accused are innocent of any crime until (possibly) found guilty by a jury of 12 UK citizens. OK? Good. The professor and his wife (both Muslims) write letters to the court (read out and now in the public domain) saying they are appalled at their son's (alleged) though admitted behaviour. They add that in Islam, any attempt of suicide automatically sends the perpetrator (in every case) to Hell - and add that any attempt at Murder is both socially anathema in Islam, and that their son "knows that". My question? Simple? If these 2 educated, cultured, loving and professional academics can claim in a courtroom setting that their educated, loving, cultured and professional son has been brought up in that peaceful, loving and forgiving religion - Islam - how can others of that faith encourage suicide and murder among its adherents. I don't expect this question to survive very long on this site - more's the pity - but I feel entitled to ask this question not just for myself, but for the many millions of others who might be "informed" by any "informed" responses. Thanks in anticipation. 92.22.93.42 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As with any large group of people, there are differences of opinion between the members of the Islamic faith. The vast majority are peaceful and are against terrorism, there is a minority that is not. The same applies to other groups - take the Real IRA, the vast majority of Irish republicans are peaceful and against terrorism, but there is a minority that isn't. We have an article, Islamic terrorism, which may shed some light on the situation (I haven't read it). --Tango (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair question. One could also ask how could a nominally Christian country like Germany go to war against other nominally Christian countries like France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, the UK, etc. and how could the German bishops lead public prayers for German victory while the French bishops led public prayers to the same God for French victory, and so on. How could a priest, who spreads God's teachings about love, sexually abuse children? How could a stock broker engage in insider trading? The glib answer is that it all comes down to human nature. Being a Muslim doesn't guarantee that the teachings of Islam are in your mind and thoughts at every moment of the day; just as being a Christian or a Jew doesn't guarantee that those teachings govern all of your actions. We all wear many hats, and they don't always all fit comfortably together. I might, for example, wear the hats of: Christian, doctor, humanist, anarchist, environmentalist, and supporter of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Some of these philosophies clash, and I have to choose whichever hat best fits the circumstances I perceive I'm faced with. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing it’s hardly just followers of Islam who have used terrorism. All three Abrahamic religions have their share of fanatics. See Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism (and also Category:Zionist terrorism).

As for Islam, unfortunately the Qur’an frequently contradicts itself. To handle these discrepancies some Islamic scholars came up with the concept of Naskh or “abrogation.” Where two verses conflict, the later is considered to take precedence. Unfortunately later verses in the Qur’an tend to be more violent. Thus some very conservative followers of Islam see a justification for disregarding more moderate verses. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there's also the 72 virgins thing, which is (apparently) a mistranslation of "72 raisins of the best type" (or words to that effect).

As to who you can believe, the answer's simple - no one. Especially not me, or you. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the same reasons that a largely decent, honest, kind, caring, God-fearing population can accept the idea that its government kidnaps people and has them locked up and tortured without trial; or a government made up of individuals who went into politics to change the world for the better finds itself taxing the poor and sending soldiers to die for unclear or ignoble outcomes; or some Nazi mothers and fathers cheerfully gassed families just like themselves every day at work, then went home to kiss their children goodnight and read them a bedtime story. If a person can persuade him/herself that the ends justify the means, then they are capable of rationalising just about anything they do. This apparent contradiction is not specific to Islam - we're all savages under the skin. Karenjc 23:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One small correction: "As I write - under UK law - the accused are innocent of any crime until (possibly) found guilty by a jury of 12 UK citizens" - not quite. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We treat them as if they will ultimately be found to be innocent - even if we're pretty darned certain that they won't be. Whether they are or are not actually innocent is a separate matter. I'm also puzzled (and perhaps a little offended) by your expectation that your question will be removed. The ref desk policies will be followed - legitimate questions stay here until they are archived in a week or so and then it will be carefully preserved for as long as Wikipedia continues to operate. This question is perhaps borderline - but it doesn't come close to the level at which we would delete it.

Anyway - to answer the question: People who claim to believe in particular religions frequently break their self-imposed rules. So-called Christians break the ten commandments all the time - some of them steal things, others murder, probably all of them go around coveting stuff - one in three (mostly Christian) Americans has an adulterous affair at some point in their marriage - the Bible is the most often stolen book in US bookstores - and most of the Christians I meet here in Texas seem quite happy with the number of prisoners who are killed here every year in the name of justice. The ten "commandments" are mostly treated as the ten "suggestions". Why would anyone expect followers of Islam be any different? People are just people...and people are fallible.

I personally think it's dishonest to claim to follow a particular set of self-imposed rules when you do not. I'm an atheist - so I try to obey the laws of the country whether I agree with them or not (although I'll admit to driving over the speed limit some of the time). But any moral principles are things I decided for myself and therefore have no problem sticking to. This is a more honest principle I think. I say what I do - and do what I say. I don't approve of gambling (because it's stupid) - so I don't gamble. I won't deal with companies who spam me or who cold-call me for no reason. I also won't be polite to people because of their religion - religious beliefs are utterly stupid and I have no problem telling people that. Sure, these principles are not up there with "Thou shalt not kill" - but we have laws to cover that kind of thing.

But to expect utter self-consistency amongst such complex things as human beings is unreasonable. Worse still, religious teachings are often vague and subject to centuries of 'interpretation' that can render some of them almost meaningless. I'm not familiar enough with Islam to give a clear example - so sadly, I'll use the Christian example again: "Thou shalt not kill" seems a pretty direct and simple rule to me - but that hasn't stopped millions of (so-called) Christians heading off to war with copies of the bible in their pockets and with the clear and direct intention to kill people. The "interpretation" of that rather clear guideline is that legitimate wars aren't counted...I have no clue why...but that's how it goes.

Judging people by your own moral standards doesn't work because theirs are different. Judging them by their own standards is better - but often unsatisfactory. In the end, that's why societies have laws - they are mostly pretty clear and we have the teeth to back them up.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, "Thou shalt not kill" is not direct and simple. The Hebrew לא תרצח is commonly translated as "Do not murder", which is entirely different. See Ten_commandments#Killing_or_murder. Gwinva (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Why didn't that come up as an edit conflict? Apologies for repetition. Gwinva (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your belief system is yours, and I am not going to try to convince you against it, but the phrase "You shall not kill" never appeared in the original text of the bible. The correct translation from the original Hebrew has always been "You shall not do murder" and, even 3200 years ago when these words were written, the terms "kill" and "murder" were not taken as synonyms. Killing is absolute; a living being is either alive or dead, and if it is dead because of your direct action, you killed it. Murder is contextual; many forms of killing are not considered murder. It isn't necessarily that the commandment was ignored; its that the forms of killing were not classed in the minds of the killers as "murder". The bible allows for this by not using the word "kill" but in actually using the word "murder", without further defining what "murder" is. If this makes you distrust religion the exact same way, that's fine too, but you might as well get your facts straight... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the OP. I don't know whether Jayron's comments were directed at me or Gwinva. I don't know whether being presumed to be innocent under the law is materially different from being innocent under the law (until proven guilty). I don't speak Hebrew. I don't know whether God (whatever shape or form he or she might take) would be pleased that I only murdered a previously living being rather than absolutely killing it. I don't apologise for Christians killing Jews or Muslims now or ever. I don't follow my own religion (Catholicism) because I don't agree that just because you are born into a community you have to be painted irrevocably in that colour. And as for the real IRA, there's nothing real about them. But you know what I do know? I know that I am glad I asked the original question because the answers above have reinforced my confident belief that Wikipedia serves an extremely worthwhile service in educating otherwise "ignorant" people like me. I have learned so much from the above answers. I may not like some of them. I may disagree forcibly with some of them. But I know from their diversity and range that I have much to learn and that I shall never live long enough to understand the vagaries of mankind. And something else, that simple understanding will at last STOP me from being driven to distraction trying to do so. Sincerely, thankyou very much. You will never know how grateful I am to all of you for your responses. I am just off to make a financial payment to Wikipedia in the hope that it continues during the remainder of my lifetime. You all perform an invaluable service. Long may that continue. 92.8.26.216 (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Blue Nylon Shrimp That Squirts Blue Fluid

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=35754

i would like to read the corresponding wikipedia entery as i dont speak Japanese, alas, there is non that i can find. any one know what the video is of? deep sea animal that makes its own light as a defensive mechanism? a man made trick? just another wonder sea creature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vampire Squid seems to have a similar defensive mechanism (described in that article at the bottom of the habitat section). I can't find a mention of a shrimp that does it, but I haven't looked very hard. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That shrimp appears to be Heterocarpus laevigatus according to some non-authoritative links I found. H. laevigatus lets out a bioluminescent chemical called oplophorus luciferin when threatened. This is apparently not totally rare among crustaceans. This article discusses the phenomenon fairly extensively and talks a bit about H. laevigatus. According to that article, the defense is present in all genera in the shrimp family Oplophoridae. The first time a bioluminescent crustacean was documented was in 1852. Evidently the substance is probably (as of 1985, who knows what scientists have found since then) a hepatic substance regurgitated from the mouth. In some shrimp it is relatively viscous and the effect lasts for some time, and in other shrimp it is watery and dissipates quickly. This article is about H. laevigatus specifically but I can't view it for free online through Harvard so I can't tell you what it says! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, isn't sea life so amazing and crazy?! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't that interesting: it says that the bioluminescence is created by a luciferin-luciferase reaction, giving a λmax of 465 nanometers - this is the wavelength of the light given off, the characteristic blue - as well as a cross-luciferin-luciferase reaction. Luciferin is a molecule of formula p-HOC4H4CH3, so luciferase presumably is the enzyme that works on it. (Dunno what the "cross" reaction is.) Then they did a series of extraction processes from frozen, dried individuals, giving a yellow solid that they then (through spectrometry, etc.) found the organic structure for. That's about it; short article.

So much for Harvard, though, by the way. ;-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC word usage

Time and again I hear on BBC Radio 4, the use of the word cleverer, and variants of the standard variants of comparison, such as, big, bigger, biggest, their error is such, big, bigger, biggerer. The BBC is supposed to be well known for its good use of the English language. I listen to the radio while I sleep as I am unable to sleep in silence, however, this wakes me up as it is wrong. Now, I have posted this here and not on the language desk because I don't need help on whether or not it is wrong, I would like to know how this can be rectified? As an aside i would like to know how this dreadful error managed to be in common use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Cleverer" is a valid word, as far as I am aware (the alternative, "more clever", sounds very strange to my ear). "Biggerer" certainly isn't, are you sure the BBC has used it? I've never heard anyone say "biggerer" and I'm not even sure what it would mean. Are you getting confused by the fact that the adjective, "clever" happens to end in "er"? The "er" in "clever" is not a comparative suffix, it doesn't mean "more clev", it just happens to be what the word is. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between cleverer and biggerer. "Clever" is not a comparative like "bigger", so "cleverer" does make sense where "biggerer" doesn't. It is simply a matter of whether you prefer "more clever" or "cleverer". -mattbuck (Talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy:happier. Smart:smarter. Sure:surer. Therefore clever:cleverer. Yes, it's a tad clunky to say, although not as clunky as "properer" would be, but there's nothing wrong with the formation of either in principle. As a (sadly) obsessive Radio 4 listener, I have never, ever heard "biggerer" used seriously - John Humphrys would never permit it. And as for "rectifying" this perceived error, English spelling reform contains helpful links to a number of articles describing attempts to direct or divert the progress of language change and their outcomes. It's possible, but not easy. Karenjc 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think biggerer is quite common these days, but is always used jokingly, perhaps to mimic the way children sometimes speak. (My young son has been known to say 'biggerest' which always raises a smile.) I can imagine hearing the word biggerer on a certain type of Radio 4 show, but it would never be used deliberately instead of bigger because it is clearly not standard English. (Like others before me I have absolutely no objection to cleverer.) There are, of course, all sorts of very frequent speech errors on Radio 4. Many of these are excusable, because everyone makes mistakes when they speak ad lib. What is extraordinary is quite how much non-standard English there is on Radio 4 in scripted pieces. One hears plural verb forms with singular subjects very often, for example. And the difference between imply and infer is something that seems to pass most Radio 4 journalists by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.236.224 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Clever is to big as cleverer is to bigger. (I got a 94 on the Miller Analogies test many years ago, when it was a 100 question test). Edison (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To reply to the OP: this 'error' cannot be rectified, because it isn't one. ('Betterer' is, but I too doubt if you have heard it other than for comic effect). Radio 4 presenters, like everybody else, will continue at least sometimes to speak English, and not always confine themselves to an artificial language invented by pedagogues. Plural verb with singular subject is unexceptionable when the subject is an entity which can be treated as plural, like 'the government', 'Manchester United' or 'The Royal Bank of Scotland'. (In British English this is accepted even in formal use). And 'infer' meaning 'imply' has been around since at least 1530, and hardly ever leads to ambiguity. --ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Betterer could be a correct word, if better is used as a verb - one who betters himself is a betterer. Or a self-betterer.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ingeniouser and ingeniouser, Little Red Riding Hood! Strawless (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, one betters oneself, and one aims to best one's opponent, but one goods nobody at all. Think about this while you're feeling the worse for wear after eating too much wurst. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED, it used to be possible to good people. We could try to bring back this usage, if you think 'novomundane' isn't enough of a gift to posterity. Algebraist 22:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. "Darling, I'm feeling bad, so could you please spend some time gooding me". Not sure about that one. Don't worry, Algebraist, my gifts to posterity will make for a rich and highly enjoyable obituary/eulogy. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Drinking juice after brushing your teeth

Why does juice/wine/etc taste so bad right after you brush your teeth? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I've got it.[11]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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[12], 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)

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[13][[14] at glastonbury but little to nothing about DJs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 23 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)

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 watered 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)

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: [15] and google[16]. 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 [17] 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)

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)

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 [18] (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[19] 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)

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)

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)