Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:03, 6 January 2009

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

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.

December 31

What is " A NI SA HA NI " ?Siouxlin (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Saw on a T shirt: may be an organization or philosophy or group. I would like to know what it refers to.Siouxlin (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Clan. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec on Humanities desk, where the question was drawn away from under my feet, while I was answering): Possibly the Blue Clan in Cherokee/Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya society. See the article on Cherokee Clans where it's transliterated as "Ah-ni-sa-ho-ni". ---Sluzzelin talk 03:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which goes to mean it's (AFAICS) the name of the "Blue clan", which is, by the way, rendered in the article (as of current now) "Anisahoni": "This is the "Blue Clan".[6]" Please let's all spare each other painstaking lookups. --217.81.189.242 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry about that, Sluzzelin. It was thoughtless of me, and the consequences entirely unintentional. I do apologise, and Happy New Year! ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song

In NCIS Season 3 Episode 21 (Bloodbath) when the team is entered Krime Kleaners building there is a song playing, I've been unable to identify it, can anyone tell me which one it is? Joneleth (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's got to be Rob Zombie, "American Witch". --Milkbreath (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea thats it, thanks alot. Joneleth (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Market prices/agriculture

Where can I find market prices(U.S., or anywhere, just ballpark values) for farm-type stuff like cattle, pigs, whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.98.148 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange are the main places where futures contracts (an agreement to deliver this good at a future time) are traded. This should represent the expected basic price of a large-volume or industrial order, but not a consumer-facing price. Here is CME: [1] and here is CBOT [2]

You will probably have to look up the units of measurement used to convert it into whatever you're using it for. Most things are "bushels" etc. NByz (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested, so I looked this one up: Live Cattle is traded in units of 40,000 lbs of "55% choice, 45% select grade" (not sure what that means). Price quoted is cents per pound. NByz (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service a useful source of info. Astronaut (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Farthing

Is there a connection between the last year the Farthing was legal tender and the fact that it was 1/960th of a pound sterling? Or just coincidence? Coolotter88 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no coincidences, only hitsuzen ;) HHOS --Dr Dima (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you mean "a coincidence" is not "just a coincidence". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which strangely reminds me of the Seinfeld about whether there are degrees of coincidences - "there are no big coincidences or small coincidences, there are just coincidences" is how it went, I think. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine it would be anything other than coincidence. Astronaut (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To give the questioner a more serious answer, I think there is a connection. The farthing went out of circulation in 1960. In 1960, the pound sterling was worth about only one third as much as it was in 1940 due to inflation. People's earnings grew even faster than inflation during that period. Consequently, where a shopper might have cared in 1940 whether potatoes cost two pence per pound or two pence and a quarter per pound, so that it was worth the trouble to the shopper and the merchant to account for farthings in accounts and in tills, the shopper no longer cared much about such a trivial difference in 1960, and it was no longer worth the trouble. Put differently, the 1940 farthing was worth about 5p in 2008 terms. By 1960, it was worth barely more than 1p today. It would not be so far fetched today for the Bank of England to retire the penny as a cost saving measure, since the average shopper doesn't care much whether a pound of potatoes costs 55p or 56p. Marco polo (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the coin was not worth a lot in 1960. I was talking about whether if the year 1960 had anything to do with 1/960th of a pound. Everyone seems to say that it's a coincidence. Thanks for the help though. Coolotter88 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's not utterly out of the question that there could have been a subconcious influence on the decision-makers. We don't seem to have an article on arbitrary coherence, but here's an article on it. I don't have any suggestion as to how you might figure out whether this was actually a contributing factor. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if someone in government with enough influence to set the date of the farthing's demise had come up with this idea - they'd have made it very public at the time and we'd be able to discover that fact. There would be little point in picking that exact year - forcing either the early or late retirement of the coin through all of the necessary regulatory hurdles just to make that date work - then keeping entirely quiet about all of that cunning planning! So I'm going to say "Coin-cidence". SteveBaker (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy veggies

A few months ago there was an add campaign for greenpeace or a similar organization that showed sexy vegetables and greens photographed in an erotic manner. I can't find it anymor. Would anyone have a link to the adds? Thank you. Keria (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the ads appear? (What country, region, or market?) Were they print, television, or billboards? Were the ads in English? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I didn't see them at the time, they were all over the ternet though, and I guess they must have been published in some magazines I really couldn't say where (surely in the US and UK, I would guess in continental Europe, I don't know where else). They were print and internet campaigns I don't know if they made videos for them. It's strange that I can't find it through search words as I remember it being all over add and visual production blogs. Cheers. Keria (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#Lettuce Ladies? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should have looked further down, Lettuce Ladies and Broccoli Boys. Good thing I know the enemy. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think I found what I was looking for. It is actually called Forest Love and I was really misleading as it seems to actually be a campaign to save trees by Greenpeace. I also heard there was a Norwegian campaign to promote vegetarianism that used the theme of sexy vegetables, so if anyone has any more reference on that theme they are very welcome. Keria (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a Google Image search on "sexy veggies"? I have, and I'll never eat cucumbers or corn on the cob again. Search tip: turn on SafeSearch. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty bad, but it wasn't as bad as the time I didn't know what "yaranaika" was. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ad campaign advocating use of condoms last time I was in Germany. There were posters featuring veggies wearing "rubbers" in places like subway stations. Found one in Google: [3] 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Topaz Gold please

No definition on WKPD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.149.97 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never seen that abbreviation before and thought you were talking about a television or radio station... Anyway, could you provide some context? Topaz Gold could be used to refer to anything from a brand of organic beverages to gold rings with topaz gems in them to a color of decorative bead to a cellphone. Dismas|^(talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

used to be a brand of poppers from what I remember.86.53.80.11 (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Undergrad

What is the best dorm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.98.148 (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming there are MIT residents on here, you might get some answers, but you'll have to provide a little more context, as to what you're looking for? Low crime? (Yeah, even at MIT it could be a problem?) Activities? (Some dorms have things more geared for fellowship and community.) Offering single rooms versus rooms where you must share?

I'd recommend you contact MIT and search under "housing." My hunch is you'll get a good description of each dorm. Of course, the description won't always be perfect. At College of Wooster when I was there, one dorm was supposed to be a quiet community, with much more stringently enforced quiet times, but the times they could be loud it was loudest on camps; and even times when it was supposedly quet. :-) So, some contact with students who can answer would help, too.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article might interest you [4] - 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official introduction to MIT housing. Here is a clickable list of dorms. And here are some student blog posts on life in specific dorms. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

What Vietnamese ethnic groups originate from the North Central Coast region?

I understand that the Montagnard/Degar people originated from Central Highlands (Vietnam) between Huế and Ho Chi Minh City. I am inclined to believe that Vietnamese people from Huế are similar to the ethnic groups found in the Central Highlands and South Vietnam regions but I don't want to make any rash assumptions. During the Vietnam War, for instance, Huế was considered South and was anti-Communist. Lhboga (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in this region are from the Kinh (Viet) ethnic majority. This is certainly true of the main cities, Hue and Danang. Inland in the hills and mountains there is a very wide range of ethnic groups, for example Muong people. Although there is some overlap, the mix of ethnic groups is different from the Central Highlands. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking the curators at the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology -- the WP article gives the official site. There are 54 ethnic groups in Vietnam! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Pool 2009

Well it's that time of year again. Once again I dominated my celebrity death pool with the help of Wikipedia. Thank you to anyone who helped me last year. If anyone knows of a famous person who is likely to cash it in in the year 2009 please reply below.

DISCLAIMER - the death pool I am in is for entertainment purposes only(no money.) I will not kill anyone and please don't kill anyone for me. The only requirment to being famous is that they have to have a page on wikipedia. Thanks again! --ChesterMarcol (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're making good by donating half your winnings to the Wiki foundation (see top of page)! SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I got any money for winning I would.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lansbury is getting up there in age. Though her article doesn't mention anything more than a knee replacement in the last few years. Dick Cheney and John McCain are thought by many (WP:OR) to be in view of death's door. Bob Barker is no spring chicken. And Ed McMahon has had a number of health issues in recent years. The stress of being in financial trouble could be weighing on his health. Dismas|^(talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people I've written articles about must be about due: Hugues Cuénod is 106 and Roy Douglas is 101. But Cuénod married his partner only 2 years ago, when he was 104, so maybe he now has a new reason to keep on going. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Clark hasn't been doing well for a few years now... Dismas|^(talk) 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Robson, Nancy Reagan, Patrick Swazye, Margaret Thatcher, Seve Ballesteros, Ted Kennedy. Rockpocket 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question (2012)

Why do people believe there will be an acopalypse in 2012? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are extremely misguided. There's a bit more information at 2012#2012 metaphysical speculations. Algebraist 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millenarianism is very, very common. People are constantly harping about the end of the world (and have been for literally centuries and centuries and centuries), and it consistently fails to occur. In a way it's a nice idea—no need to plan for the future, to think about today's problems. But it's not a sound bet. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, nobody can actually guarantee there won't be an apocalypse in 2012; but I agree, that's not the same thing as saying there will be one. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself how close did George Orwell get with his prediction in the novel 1984 or how close did Arthur C. Clarke get with his predictions in 2001: A Space Odyssey and they were comparatively modern and scientifically educated people trying to guess only a few decades ahead. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair to either Orwell or Clarke. They wrote fiction as in, "I made this up myself". Neither ever claimed that their visions of the future was going to come exactly true. Especially 1984, you'd be nuts to think that that is the actual future. Orwell wrote it to make a point, it's a futuristic parable describing the dangers of totalitarianism, not a prediction of things to come. That's the difference between great writers like Orwell and Clarke and hucksters like those maniacs saying that the world will end in 2012. Lets not smear the former group with the taint of the latter. Belisarius (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although good science fiction, as opposed to fantasy, does try to predict a possible future. However, even someone like Clarke is not writing with any attempt to predict the future. Clarke was merely looking at the way things were going, using his imagination, and creating a fictional world from the way things appeared to him. It's just like Joel Rosenberg has done with his books. Some of the things he postulated as possible have come true, though even those he has written about haven't happened in exactly the same way. (His fictional account of how the U.S. might invade Iraq, for instance; obviously, a good writer with his finger ont he pulse of the world could have predicted something like that.)

Bring this full circle back to 2012. the end of the Mayan calendar in its present cycle, I think some New Age stuff, and other things are merely guesses. they don't really have their "finger on the pulse" of anything. Those who do have their finger on the pulse of things (some sci-fi writers with space travel, Rosenberg with the Middle East) may come close to the truth, but none of them is predicting the world to end in 2012.

However, it is much easier for the masses - the "lowest common dennominator," if you will - to follow those who just prdict big things that make noise. Noise makes news. It requires more effort to figure things out in a logical way, or even to listen to those who use knowledge of technology, Middle Eastern politics, etc.. The masses would often rather listen to those who excite them rathe rthan those who reason things out in a logical manner. Although, if it can be written about in an entertaining way (like Rosenberg), it can still be a bestseller. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predicting the future is one thing - predicting it with specific dates is quite another. Many science fiction books are written from the perspective of this being the kind of world we'll have in the future (2001 is certainly one of those) - but putting specific dates on things is dangerous because there is a big difference between WHAT we can do and WHEN we decide to do it.

Clarke knew that man was soon to land on the moon - that was a safe prediction. It followed from that that there would one day be colonies in orbit and on the moon and that commercial transportation could get you there. Also that a trip to Jupiter could be done - but would require some kind of hibernation system and a spin-gravity system.

His predictions are all pretty subtle - he correctly predicted that zero gravity would be so injurious to our health that we'd need artificial gravity for long flights - but not for a 'short' hop to the moon. He got that 100% correct. Pan-Am went bust - so that prediction went badly wrong - but another transatlantic commercial air carrier (Virgin) are just beginning to get manned commercial space flight - so the prediction that commercial companies would take over the earth-to-orbit stuff wasn't too far off the mark. We do have a permanently manned orbital space station (although it's hardly on the scale of the one in 2001) - and people even go on vacation there - so that wasn't a bad guess either. All very good stuff. But who could have guessed that after a few wildly successful moon missions, we'd leave it for 40 years before going back again?! We have the technology to do an orbital space station with spin gravity - we could certainly make a lunar base with hundreds of people working there - we simply decided not to do that (and it's probably just as well because our robotic missions are doing a better job anyway). Clarke's predictions for our future space progress might well eventually come true - but it may take another 100 years if we don't have the will (or the need) to go there. SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See 2012 (film). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary footnote. Orwell originally named his book 1948, but his publisher changed it to get more sales. Phil_burnstein (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Algebraist 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he just wrote it around 1948 and chose the 1984 title himself to mean "the present-day, but changed". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please - ladies & gentlemen - I have beside me this unreasonably large 2.6 million entry encyclopedia. Shall we see if it has an article about it? Oh look - it does! Evidently, Orwell chose two titles: "The Last Man in Europe" and "Nineteen Eighty-Four" - his publisher recommended the latter - and Orwell agreed. It wasn't a misprint or a forced change from his publisher or some kind of satirical commentary - it was just the year he chose - and he'd considered 1980 and 1982 as alternatives (the book was written in 1946 to '48). The number reversal thing is merely a coincidence - and since the book was written over a period of three years and published in 1949 - it wasn't really much of a coincidence anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poster keeps falling down

I have a holographic poster that I tried to stick on my door but it keeps falling off no matter how much blutack I put on it. What can I use to stick it up without wrecking my door? I can't be bothered getting it framed. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it coming off because it's too heavy or because the Blu-Tack won't stick to it?

If it's because the poster is too smooth and the blutack won't stick to it - then you could permenantly stick some kind of backing to the back of your poster using a really strong glue (maybe stick a sheet of thin cardboard onto the back using PVA glue) - then stick that backing to the door using blutack. You'd actually only need to stick little pieces of backing to the poster in the corners where the blutack has to go.
If it's because the poster is too heavy then use many more blobs of blutack all over the back of the poster.

Incidentally - it's possible for the blutack to damage your door - it's kinda oily and that can affect some surface finishes. SteveBaker (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to an office supplies store and get yourself something like this [5] Clip a couple on to the rim of your poster. You can then attach them with 3M "Command" strips or those blutack things to your door. If all else fails you can run a string through them and put a small nail or tack onto the top of your door (not the face) where one can't see it. Then suspend your poster from that nail. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-tack can indeed damage walls and doors—I've often seen it leave behind nasty oily residues. I usually use Scotch tape myself—it doesn't damage the door or wall. One way to get around it damaging the poster is to put up little pieces of tape on the back of the poster that you then use double-sided tape on for the wall. If you do it that way you should be able to just peel off the poster later without any tape ripping it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after a while most scotch tape will adhere to paint quite well, often peeling the paint off. There is white poster-tack, which is less visible than the blue kind on walls. The 3M command strips are a bit pricey, but I have found they work quite well, and leave no damage behind. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the 'invisible' scotch tape works pretty well - but the older, shiney kind will certainly peel off paint - and if you leave it in sunlight for a while, it'll turn yellow, peel off and leave a yellow powdery residue behind that'll stain the paint pretty well too. BluTack is definitely the lesser risk there. SteveBaker (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

File:Dog feces.jpg

--Wmrwiki (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

troll food?86.4.182.202 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture size reduced. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Contemplation~~ ---Sluzzelin talk 18:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defececation. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, Cooky really shrunk that one, all the way to 3 pixels! I thought it was a speck of dirt on my screen! Nope, I don't wish to contemplate over canine feces right now, and the question has been answered. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it had been 1,000 pixels originally and looked like droppings from tyrannosaurus rex. I thought that 3 pixels adequately represented the significance of the doggy poo. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pharmaceutical oath?

I heard a short exchange of dialogue from 6teen while flipping through the channels last night, which inspires me to ask: Is there a law (or something like it) that prevents people working at drug stores (pharmacies) from telling everyone what people bought? i.e., if someone goes into a drug store and gets like 70 packs of condoms and a couple energy drinks (they're getting ready for an all-nighter), what stops them from chatting to their coworkers about it over a lunch break? On that show, they called it a "pharmaceutical oath," which sounded authentic, but Googling it gets no good results... flaming lawye r^c 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is an oath. There are basic medical privacy laws, though, which would surely cover situations in which practitioners were exchanging patient medical information just for a laugh. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if there's any rule that says they can't discuss what's happened at work. The privacy laws, I assume, would restrict them only from doing so in a way that allows individually identifying the person involved. I'm not a lawyer. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled on "pharmacist's oath", and there is a site, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy with an oath. I imagine that the taking or administering of this oath is up to the school. The oath makes mention of "the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct", which covers blabbing, I think. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't have any meaning from a legal point of view, though; breaking the oath wouldn't be a sign of a firm moral backbone, but the cops wouldn't lift a finger on that basis. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However some pharmacies may make the oath compulsory. And in some countries the oath may considered compulsory by the Pharmacy/ist Council/Association or whatever organisation is involved in registering pharmacists. In other words, even if the oath doesn't have legal standing, it may still be expected of pharmacists and failing to respect it could put their careers at risk. Here in NZ I can't find any specific mention of privacy but there are probably generic terms that cover it [6]. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing is the issue covered by 98 and Trovatore above. Are you referring to a personal privacy or generic privacy? Many countries have basic medical privacy laws which will likely prevent pharmacists from discussing specific patient medical details. In other words they can't discuss how Flaming came in and asked for a 60 pack of condoms and 2 energy drinks. These laws probably don't prevent the discussion of a case in a generic terms without mentioning names or information that could lead to the identifcation of who you're talking about. In NZ the specific laws are covered here [7] and the Privacy Commissioner can handle complaints (and I presume if a complaint is upheld forwards it to the Pharmacy Council or the Health and Disability Commissioner for further consideration.) I only found one case relating to a Pharmacy [8] although I obviously could have missed some or perhaps others were dealt with by the H&D Commissioner without the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner. Also since condoms and energy drinks are not usually controlled as requiring a pharmacist to dispence, these laws may not apply in some circumstances. E.g. I suspect if you go to your local store/supermarket and get the condoms (not from a pharmacy) they won't apply. There are more generic and less stringent privacy laws but whether they cover a situation like this I don't know. It's possible they do but have never been tested. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what country are we talking about? See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How tall is Danbo?

I'm making some papercrafts from a bunch of huge boxes I have, and wanted to make a life-size Danbo. Could someone find out (or hell, approximate) his height?

Thanks.

71.74.181.173 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Danbo is a a robot-like costume worn by Miura Hayasaka who is a class mate of Ena Ayase who is a few years older than Yotsuba who is a 5 year old Japanese Girl. If "A few years" = say "3", the Miuri would be about 8. If the final height of a Japanese lady is around 5 foot, maybe an 8 year old is 4 foot tall. This is all a wild guess from a brief read of the wikipedia article. -- SGBailey (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betting on bad things

Are there websites where you can bet on politicians dying, wars starting, places being bombed, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.98.148 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One place would be your local bar. Other than that, this is the best thing I could find on Google (and that's not even remotely close to what you want). There are some flaws with the concept of a site like that, though. It might end up like a bounty site or something. I'd be interested in how long a site would be able to stay up on the web without being pursued by activists and/or the US Government. flaming lawye r^c 05:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the president was shot on the day you bet $10.000.000 he would die you would never see the light of day again Pez00 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "External links" subsection of the article on Dead pool might be of use. For history's sake, you might be interested in tontine. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betting companies such as Ladbrokes and William Hill will sometimes take bets based on individual punters requirements and offer odds - they are a specialist form of bet and so it'd need to be a worthwhile amount of money for them to draw it up (I understand a number of ambitious fathers place bets on their son Captaining/playing for England/their country within a set time-frame). I don't know if they would accept disaster-style bets though. Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway (spelling) did a 'bet' with, I think, Florida state regarding the cost of damages by hurricanes/tornados last year. If it was below X million then they received $250m and if it was above X million then Buffet's firm would've had to cover the costs for the state. It turned out that Buffet's bet won and the firm got the money. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People do this all the time - without even realizing it. Insurance is essentially betting on a bad thing happening. When you take a life insurance policy out on your spouse (for example) you are betting that they'll die before the payments (plus interest on those payments) comes to more than the amount the policy pays out. If you buy an extended warranty on that new TV set - you are betting that the TV will fail within the duration of that warranty - with the odds on that bet being the ratio of the cost of the warranty plan with the cost of a new TV. SteveBaker (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. With a bet you are usually betting positively (i.e. hoping for a desired outcome) but with insurance you are protecting against an undesired outcome. Most countries will require that life-insurance policies have an insurable interest - that is to say the death of the person will result in a negative outcome (financially) for the owner of the plan. They are insuraning against the possibility of losing that income. Similarly with the tv - you aren't betting in the hope it breaks, you are insuring against the possibility of it breaking. It's subtle but that difference is a quite important distinction (at least in my opinion). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but I don't see ANY difference between going to a bookmaker and going to an insurance agent...except perhaps that insurance typically (but not always) takes payment on a month by month basis rather than a lump sum. If a reputable bookmaker would let you place a bet on your house burning down sometime in the next year - and would give you better "odds" than the insurance company (ie the bet costs you less than the insurance company coverage) - then why wouldn't you take it? Sure, it sounds nice to say "protecting against an undesired outcome" rather than "betting against a bad thing" - but where is the actual, material difference? Bookmakers look at the past form of the horses in the race and set odds accordingly - insurers use actuarial tables to figure the probability of your house burning down based on past form of houses in your area. There isn't a difference. You are saying that there is a difference in what I want to happen - but that's just the motive for taking the bet. If I bet on a horse race - do I really care at all which horse wins? Only because I stand to win money if the one I picked wins...otherwise I don't give a rat's ass which horse wins - it's a completely neutral transaction. Similarly for my TV extended warranty - once I decide to make the transaction, I no longer care (much) whether my TV breaks or not - it's become a neutral matter. I guarantee people bet on things they DON'T want to happen all the time. Sports fans who love team 'A' may well bet on team 'B' to win if they think their guys don't stand a chance. Sure, they'd LIKE A to win - but they can "insure" against the mental anguish if B beats the crap out of them by betting on the competition. Such tiny differences between betting and insuring are simply legal and moral niceties - they have no bearing on the actual nature of the transaction. It goes even further than that because people such as the large TV networks who offer million dollar prizes in quiz shows actually insure themselves against someone collecting the big prize. That's not just blurring the line - it's utterly erasing it! SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that insurance tends to reduce your financial risk, while betting is inherantly risky. With insurance, the upside is small for having it, but the downside for not having it can be HUGE. Consider if your house burns down, but you don't have enough to pay for it. According to this page: [9], there were 412,500 house fires in the U.S. in 2006. According to this page: [10] there were 114,384,000 or so households in the U.S. in 2006. Now, that means your odds of having your house burn down are roughly .36% chance, or 3.6 out of 1000. That's much better odds than any gambling I know of. And here's the kicker. With gambling, your taking money you already have and using it for a small chance of improving your financial situation. With insurance, you are taking money you have, and using it to protect against future loss. With insurance, the downside of NOT having it and gambling wrong is FAR worse than the upside of having an extra $50 bucks a month or so in your pocket. With gambling, the extra money you COULD get may be nice, but if you don't play (and thus never win) you aren't ruined. With insurance, if you don't play, you can be ruined rather easily... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are markets - I can't think of the specialist term at the moment - popular in economic circles for "predicting" events. The idea being that large sets of people "signal" in various ways, and market forces work to ensure validity - bad predictors go broke, good predictors get rich. Oh, don't you know, the term is obvious - Prediction market. Although, as noted in the article, negative predictions are highly controversial. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

NCIS topless protestor

They said she was on every front page in the country. But it looks fake and I can't find reference to it anywhere. Anyone find this image familiar? http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5784/screenshotgh7.png Pez00 (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fiction. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation of Mumbai

Mumbai is listed in List of places on land with elevations below sea level. The Mumbai article mentions that it is just above sea level. I think there may be few small areas which are below sea level, but does it qualify to be included in the list? manya (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good place to discuss that. I suggest the talk page for List of places on land with elevations below sea level. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is the course in the golf game in Wii Sports based on any actual course? If not, are the individual holes based on any actual holes? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's much harder for game designers to use real-world locations than it is to invent them - so unless it says specifically that it's some real-world course - I'd be very surprised if it were. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I heard that the golf courses in Wii Sports were based on golf courses in previous Nintendo golf games. --Mdwyer (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

food nutrition list

I have a list of all foods and their nutrient content (fat, calories etc) in a booklet released by Tesco in October 1988. The booklet lists all types of food that can be bought in each subject, and their nutrition facts i.e. bread subject, lists all types of bread, buns, wholemeal, white etc etc, thus enabling users to purchase the product best for them (such as lowest in fat or sugar etc). Where am I able to find an up to date version of this for all food sold by shops in England? I don't mind either downloading something that I can print and keep or a book to purchase.

Thanks 217.33.214.210 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your booklet is likely to be up to date, as far as its contents go; a carrot's makeup isn't likely to have changed in two decades. Still, I'm sure there are lot of things available now that aren't listed in the booklet. You may find the search engine at the United States Department of Agriculture helpful -- they don't have a chart (that I could find during my short glance through the website), but they do appear to have the nutritional information for a plethora of foodstuffs accessible with their search engine. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This google search for nutrition calculator contains dozens of sites that let you enter the name of a food, either a whole food or a processed food item, and find all of the basic nutritional information about them. Again, while its not a chart, it may be even more useful, given the ability to instantly bring up informtion. This site in particular looks pretty useful. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Evolution

Which Christian churches or denominations fully accept evolutionary theory? 206.188.60.177 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definition of what it means to fully accept evolutionary theory: if you believe evolutionary theory precludes divine guidance and doesn't allow for the existence of non-corporeal souls (materialism), then not many; if you mean that our creation by God involved descent from simpler organisms over millions of years (theistic evolution), then Roman Catholicism and most in the Anglican church would accept that. See the articles Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, Relationship between religion and science, Conflict thesis, and Theistic evolution. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to be careful by what you mean by "Christian denominations". Large parts of Christianity believe that individual personal salvation and one's personal relationship with God is absolute; and that it cannot be dictated from above. Many large American denominations do not make such pronouncements from on high regarding matters of conscience, for example many Baptists are not told what to believe by a central governing body, and when they are, there is often schism (see recent split between the Southern Baptist Convention and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). While there are individual Christians who do not "believe" in evolution, there are many many many Christians who have no problem understanding and accepting the scientific facts of evolution and who also have a personal relationship with God and accept Jesus as their savior. If there exists conflict between those ideas, it is not in anything inherant in either Christianity or Science; rather it is solely a conflict that exists in the individual Christian. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be describing is a form of Christianity that doesn't include all or some of the Bible, specifically the bits that contradict scientific understanding. So I suppose we're back to finding the definition of a Christian. If that means ignoring the bits of the Bible that don't fit to a given worldview, then I would have to concede that there are a great many people out there fitting that description!

--Rixxin (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Christians (I would go so far as to say most Christians), and many denominations, don't take Genesis 1 as a literal, scientific description of creation, any more than they take Revelation as a literal, scientific description of the future. That isn't "Christianity that doesn't include all or some of the Bible", it's just interpretation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholics tend to fully accept Evolution (in the form of Theistic evolution - or the view that God used evolution to create humanity and life on earth), Pope John Paul 2 said that religious teachings are not contradicted by scientific concepts such as evolution and the big bang.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if Girl fakes Rape?

Hypothetically, suppose if a man and a woman have sexual intercourse and both parties consent. The next day, just to be a bitch, the woman blackmails the man for money threatening that she will report to the police that he raped her. Assuming that she does, how will the police verify if the sex was forced or consensual? The Ayatollah (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a difficult situation. On the most basic level, if it's just her word against his, the cops will probably interview both parties, but without actual evidence, there's not a lot they can do -- which is good news when someone is falsely accused, and less so when someone is not. If there's some kind of evidence of a struggle, bruising, etc., it can be a different story -- but even that's not necessarily clear-cut, since some people do enjoy rough sex. That old "innocent until proven guilty" thing goes a long way; if the thing would go to court, the woman (well, her lawyer, but anyway) would have to prove that he raped her. It's not his burden to prove that he didn't. For this purpose, rape kits are usually used by the authorities to gather important physical evidence about the incident, but that often doesn't address consent in any way. Rape convictions are often difficult to get.

Of course, in this situation, getting that conviction might be irrelevant to the blackmailer. If she made enough of a stink and faked injuries, for example, she might manage to get him arrested for rape, or she might simply start telling everyone that he's a rapist. Even if it never went beyond that, the embarrassment might still be something the man would wish to avoid. Generally, though, unless she was really smart about it, it wouldn't be an easy thing for her to pull off... and that kind of a thing could very easily spin out of her control. As far as easy ways of making a buck go, this'd probably be a pretty dumb one. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's all sorts of types of evidence that could be used in such a theoretical case:

1) Is the woman bruised ? This is common in rapes.

2) Did anyone see her acting in a "sexual manner" ? If she seductively invited him up to her room in front of witnesses, this would argue against it being rape. Of course, it could still be rape in such a case, but the point is the lack of evidence.

3) Did she report the alleged rape immediately ? It looks highly suspicious when a woman waits until after a break-up or they catch their man with another woman, and only then report a previous rape.

4) Does the man have bruises or scratches from the woman ?

5) How does the accused man act ? Does he say things like "that bitch was asking for it ?" If so, it makes him look rather guilty. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the case of blackmail, the man could "wear a wire" and get her to admit to blackmail, then she would go to jail, not him:

MAN: "We both know I didn't rape you, so what makes you think you'd be able to convince a jury ?"

WOMAN: "Because I'm a very good actress, as you'll find out if you don't pay me to drop the charges". StuRat (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no. 2 is ridiculous. Being flirtatious does not indicate that you want to have sex. Signs of struggle are of course more important here, but even those are problematic (presence of them doesn't mean rape, lack of them doesn't mean consensual). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ridiculous or not, that is precisely the kind of a thing that can influence a jury. (It's one reason why jury trials can be considered problematic. I think our article on the subject puts it very well: "The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the U.S. contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen." We don't have jury trials here in Finland, and while I'm very familiar with the process as it exists in the United States, I do find it kind of weird.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, point of order: the word "flirt" does mean that, whether the flirter intends to follow through or not. There is a rude word for the ones who don't. Two words, actually. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"flirt: to behave amorously without serious intent" --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from NZ where we also have jury trials and I too find it weird and problematic and largely agree with your sentiment. Indeed as with a number of Commonwealth realm countries, we have traditionally had a fairly closed system where details of a case and information considered unduly prejudicial are commonly suppressed for the duration of the case so that they don't influence the potential/current jury. Trouble is in the modern internet age this doesn't work very well and while attempts have been made to allieviate this they haven't worked particularly well [11] [12]. There have been several examples where members of a jury have been found with information downloaded from the internet. IMHO, if you want to have a jury, at least do something like they do in some civil law (legal system) countries like France where the jury sits with professional judges who can hopefully reduce the change the jury convicts or acquits because they want to go home, or because they don't like the colour of the person's skin or because they don't understand or don't care about the law or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good thing that the jury can still access info that's "unduly prejudicial". If I was on a rape jury, I'd want to know if the man was accused or raping dozens of women, or if the woman claimed to be raped by other men dozens of times before. Excluding such info from the jury doesn't serve justice, in my opinion. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely does if the man being charged with rape is innocent of this particular crime, and that's where the presumption of innocence comes in. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If a man has been convicted of raping dozens of different women before, then it is far more likely that he is guilty this time than someone with a clean record. And, even if not guilty this time, such a person should be in jail anyway. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree? Really? Are you seriously telling me that if the man being charged with rape did not do it, it's okay to prejudice the jury against him just because he's an asshole? That's a huge can of worms right there, because how do you know he is an asshole? Because of the previous conviction? But how do you know the jury in his previous conviction wasn't also similarly prejudiced by some other means? You don't get to cherry-pick these things.

The thing is, now you're talking about probabilities, not actual guilt. That's a dangerous way of conducting justice, not only because the possibility of a wrongful conviction, but also because it makes it that much more difficult for a criminal to reform and actually become a useful and constructive member of society, or at least someone who's not at threat to others.

And I understand your point, of course. I agree that a guy with a previous record of rape is likely to commit rape again. But I also think that if he did not commit the rape he's being accused of, then getting hit with that excess baggage that makes him look guilty is simply not right -- not only because my sense of justice says that if you didn't commit the crime, you shouldn't be convicted of it, but also because in cases where a rape did occur, but they have the wrong suspect, that means that the actual perpetrator is that much more likely to get away with it.

We're talking about a fundamental principle of justice here. But we're also talking about rape, and I think the issue gets clouded, because rape is a crime that evokes strong emotions. (As it kind of should; it's a thoroughly shitty thing to do to someone.) But in terms of how we conduct justice, a crime is a crime is a crime; we shouldn't be sloppy or less careful about how we go about the trial just because the offense makes us really angry. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can never know guilt or innocence with 100% certainty, even with a confession or DNA evidence, both of which can be faked. So, then, the object is to determine the probability of guilt with the highest precision possible, and that requires knowledge of the full criminal history of both the accused and accuser. I make no distinction for rape; previous crimes should always be admissible evidence. I would bet that a conviction for the same crime previously is actually a better predictor of guilt than other "evidence", such as a lack of an alibi. Also, you seemed to ask if it's OK to use previous convictions against someone we know is innocent of the current rape charges. Isn't it wrong to use any evidence, such as the testimony of the woman, in such a case, since we know it to be wrong ? StuRat (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great deal of difference between evidence against the accused for the crime he is being tried for and descriptions of his past crimes. We don't know the evidence is wrong, but we -- or rather, the jury -- supposed to assume that the person in question is innocent of the crime, unless proven otherwise. That is a basic, fundamental tenet of most, if not all, legal systems in the Western world, and it exists to protect the innocent. And it's a pretty good idea, too, precisely because we don't know whether someone is innocent or guilty. Dragging out past deeds or otherwise casting people in a bad light doesn't sound that bad or undeserved when they are actually guilty, but it'd be pretty fucking awful if it happened to someone who simply isn't guilty of the crime they're being charged with. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you said we absolutely knew the person was innocent, so in that case would would also absolutely know that all the evidence against them was faulty. If we don't know if they are innocent or not, which is the reality, then all evidence should be admissible. You seem to be saying that the jury can't be trusted to weigh past offenses along with other evidence, to come to a good decision. Note that previous offenses are routinely used to determine the severity of punishment, especially in the cases of three strike laws and probation violations. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I said no such thing, actually. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean you didn't say we knew the person was innocent, you said: "Are you seriously telling me that if the man being charged with rape did not do it, it's okay to prejudice the jury against him just because he's an asshole?". If you mean you didn't say that "juries can't be trusted to weigh past offenses along with other evidence, to come to a good decision", isn't that the whole reason to deny such evidence to the jury ? If you trust the jury to give that evidence the proper weight, then what is your reason to hide it from them ? StuRat (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, I did say that, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. I think you're missing the point. The point of a trial is not to convict someone, but to determine whether someone is guilty. What I was referring to was a situation where a person with prior offenses comparable to the crime in question, in actuality, innocent of the crime he is now being accused of. (If we know what took place to such an extent that there can be no dispute about the events that took place, then there is usually no trial in the first place, because few prosecutors are willing to waste their time like that.) What we're talking about is the principle of the thing; not even about what can be proven, easily or otherwise, but about what actually happened -- which is exactly the case in situations where most of the evidence comes down to one person's word against another's. If the accused didn't do it, then prejudicing the jury against him is a gross misconduct of justice for reasons that I believe should be obvious.

And no, I don't trust juries to give that evidence the proper weight, but then, I find it -- and I quote again our article on the topic -- "bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen". Which is not to say that some juries aren't more than capable of dealing with things like this, mind you, but it's not as if the process of jury selection, at least as practiced in the United States, is designed to produce completely unbiased and intelligent juries; rather, both the prosecution and defense attempt to remove bias against their argument while hoping to bolster bias against their opponent's. But, honestly, that's a separate issue; I'm talking about the principle of assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

And I don't want to argue here! That's not what I'm trying to do, but I think I'm explaining myself badly here, because you don't seem to quite get what I'm getting at. I mean, if you understand my point and disagree, that's fine. Let me put it this way: if you'd committed a crime in your past but then changed your ways, and then suddenly ended up accused of that crime again even though you are innocent, would it be fair to tell the people who have to decide whether you're guilty that you used to do the same thing? And bear in mind that I'm not talking about probabilities here. If you're facing a prison sentence for a crime you didn't do, getting convicted because it's statistically more likely that you're guilty doesn't strike me as justice. Proving that you didn't do something can be a challenge, as proving a negative often is. That's why the prosecution is expected to prove that the accused did, in fact, commit the crime. And yes, absolutely, this means that guilty men sometimes walk, but the principle is that it is considered to be preferable to innocent men being convicted of things they didn't do. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't all convictions or acquitals really based on probabilities ? That is, while alibis, passing lie detector tests, etc., decreases the probability that the accused is guilty; eyewitnesses, positive DNA evidence, and confessions increase the chances. In this context, previous criminal records of both the accused and accuser would just be two more factors to figure into the probabilities. The concept that guilt or innocence can be proven absolutely is simply false. Therefore, in order to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted, you would need to never convict anyone. StuRat (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't claimed that guilt or innocence can be proven absolutely. That's precisely my point: we don't know whether the accused is guilty or innocent, but the system operates on the principle that guilt needs to be proved (beyond a reasonable doubt), but innocence does not. Previous acts on part of the accused are not considered proof that the accused has committed the current crime... which I consider to be a good thing, because, well, it's not actually proof. Not that I'm pretending that the system is somehow perfect, but even though it is certainly an injustice for a guilty man goes free, it's considered to be a greater injustice for an innocent man to be found guilty. Perhaps you disagree. A lot of people do.

Personally, my idea of "justice" is incompatible with innocent people getting convicted of crimes they didn't do, and therefore, in my view, a system that attempts to minimize the chances of that happening is better than one that is willing to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (And yes, it can of course be argued that if someone has previous convictions, then it's no big loss if he gets in trouble again, but I disagree. Not only does that create an incentive to make false accusations, make some people easy targets for blackmail and possibly help the actual offenders escape punishment, but, well... it's not justice. And while I realize that there's a big difference between the ideal and the actual day-to-day proceedings, at least we should try to keep the ideal in play in the principles we employ.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Previous acts on part of the accused are not considered proof that the accused has committed the current crime". But I also argue that nothing is actual proof that the accused has committed the current crime. Confessions can be coerced, DNA evidence can be faked, eyewitnesses can be wrong, etc. I would certainly considered some evidence of previous crimes (like having a record of cutting off the pinkies of victims, when the current victim's pinkies have also been cut off), to be far better evidence of guilt in the current crime than some allowed evidence, like "the accused matches the general description" (when such a description may match 10% of the population). Also note that I would make the criminal record of the accuser available, too, so, if they have a habit of accusing everyone they break up with with rape, that would tend to protect the innocent. Thus, I'd say that having ALL the evidence provided to the jury wouldn't increase the conviction rate, but would ensure that the guilty are more likely to be convicted and the innocent are more likely to go free. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's what you'd prefer, sure. But I'm explaining the principle that dictates why it isn't done the way you'd like it to be done. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for something else and came across this. The example you use is rather extreme. A better example, would be if a defendent had commited an armed robbery 20 years ago. It's quite questionable whether that means they're more likely to have commited a recent rape, yet it's likely to significantly negatively affect the minds of the jury about the person. Even if the defendent had a history of brutal and violent armed robberies but never with any sexual element it's quite questionable how much more likely it makes it that they commited a rape (particularly if other aspects of the crime are quite different) yet it's easy to see juries thinking 'he's a bad guy so let's just convict him'. [13]. While I believe the US allows such info on previous crimes to be presented in court more regularly I'm not sure to what extent, I'm somewhat doubtful they'd allow the first example yet it's easy to see it getting significant coverage in a highly public case. Note that as far as I'm aware, it's common in both cases that if the defendent actually testifies in their defence it's more likely the prosecution will be allowed to question them about their crimes (as opposed to them raising it when it had no real relevance to the case and the defendent never testified). Another important consideration is I used the term fairly loseless and not in the legal sense. Information supressed in the media in NZ also usually includes information not presented at trials because it is considered unreliable or whatever. For example, hearsay evidence. This usually won't even be presented in courts in the US yet the media is free to discuss it and if jurors hear about this sort of stuff it's easy to see if influencing them. There's also information excluded because it was coerced or improperly attained. Again likely to be excluded from trials even in the US. If you believe that any of this information should be allowed to be presented at trials that's your right. But the key point is that in NZ (and many of those following the England system) this information is generally suppressed because it isn't going to be presented at trial. It's one thing to say, you want to allow juries to consider this evidence. It's another to encourage juries obtaining information from sources outside the trial where it may be presented in a misleading way or could even be completely bullshit and the defendent's lawyer and the judge can't address it. To use an extreme example, consider the recent Capitol v. Thomas which involved Kiwi Camara who got into controversy at university for language some felt was racist. While it's not really something that I expect would have been suppressed in NZ nor was there wide spread discussion would it really be acceptable for the jury to be negatively influenced against Thomas because they didn't like her lawyer? (If he were involved in the Rodney King case defending the police accused of brutality there would be a very real possibility that the media would have discussed his history extensively and yes I am aware the case happened long before the controversy but that's not the point.) It seems to be if you want to allow juries to consider this evidence, you should be encouraging it to be presented at trials rather then encouraging juries to get their 'evidence' in such dubious ways. Now you might argue for freedom of speech reasons it's a bad idea to allow such things to be supressed but that's neither her nor there since I wasn't so much saying that it's ultimately a good thing but rather explaining why it was done and why I feel it is beneficial (regardless of whether the pros outweight the cons). Nil Einne (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought of a better extreme example then the above. If for example several of a defendents male relatives (say his father, brother and perhaps an uncle) have been convincted of other completely unrelated rapes but there's no question the defendent was any way aided by them nor that the defendent aided his relatives nor is their any reliable evidence for any psychological problem or whatever which would make the history of this defendents relatives of any relevance. And I'm not aware of any court which will allow such evidence to be presented, I'm not even convinced it will be allowed in civil law (legal system) ones who I believe are usually less restrictive in evidence since they believe professionals can give appropriate weight, e.g. (as mentioned in our article albeit unsourced and I know is the case in Indonesia) they often allow evidence considered hearsay in most common law jurisdictions (although it obviously isn't going to get much weight). Yet I would say it's rather likely being aware of this history of the defendents relatives could be a strong contributing factor in why some of the jurors believe the defendent is guilty (and given the way jury's work, this could be enough even if they don't mention it in the deliberations). And I would hope most people would agree unless there is actually some established connection, the crimes of a defendents relatives should have no influence. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dotson was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison for rape and 25 to 50 years for kidnapping, apparently based on lies. He was later the first person exonerated by DNA testing and was freed, but served 6 years in prison. If there was consensual sex and the woman later falsely called it rape, DNA would not help. Bruises could be self inflicted or inflicted by a partner in blackmail, after the DNA was collected after the sex. Fox News [14] not my favorite source, but here with a sourced report, says that the percentage of false rape accusations are estimated to range from 41% (men's rights sites) down to 2% (feminist sites, and of scant sourcing). Barry Scheck reports that since 1989, 20% of sexual assault cases referred to the FBI excluded the accused, and 60% matched the primary accused man. If inconclusive tests are included, 40% of the accused men might have left DNA. In some cases a rape might have taken place without DNA from the perpetrator being left. In some of the nonconfirmed cases, there could have been an actual rape but a misidentification. Salon, the polar opposite on the political spectrum of Fox News, discusses false rape accusations done from "revenge for rejection or betrayal" and similarly questions the assertions in recent years that women do not bring false rape accusations. It discusses an alleged rape accusation hoax done to get money from the accused rapist's employer. Salon says men who are falsely accused are "subjected to a long and costly ordeal." Such an accused who has the financial means might choose to pay the money, but it is unclear how he could be sure there would be no additional demands. A scholarly historical discussion of blackmail via rape accusation and the views of U.S. law writers is at "Legal Issues in Child Abuse and Neglect Practice" pp 25-28. Per that chapter, many male law students writing in law reviews only a few years ago in the 1970's asserted that "No, no, no!" really meant "Yes, yes, yes!" Edison (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the fact the accused is excluded by the FBI, doesn't really prove that the generic rape accusation was false (as opposed to the specifics of who was accused) or that there were any what would normally be considered 'lies' involved. Eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable regardless of crime and the victim may face a variety of pressures to identify the perpetrator, particularly in the case of rape and if the he's known to be a 'bad guy'. Obviously this doesn't help the person who was incorrectly identified, who can also be considered a victim, but it does mean that just because the alleged perpetrator was not really the perpetrator it doesn't mean a rape didn't happen. In some cases e.g. Gary Dotson or if a person the victim knew well was identified, this is clearly not the case. But from what I've seen, quite a number of these historic cases in the US where the person found guilty was cleared by DNA (or whatever) are cases when it is highly likely a crime did happen (be it rape or whatever). It's also worth noting not all false rape accusations actually identify any specific person [15] [16] and while these cause a variety of problems, they don't cause the personal trauma a person will suffer if they are false accused of rape. Finally while making a false rape accusation is a crime, one of the (number of) problems with prosecuting these is they can often be difficult to prove. In particular, people sometimes say if a jury doesn't find the accused guilty the alleged victim should be prosecuted but this usually doesn't make much sense. In general, if the police felt there was a case worth prosecuting, it's unlikely unless new evidence arose there is sufficient evidence of a false complaint. Note that if the jury finds an accuased not guilty it doesn't mean they believed the victim was lying, it simply means they weren't convinced beyond a resonable doubt th accused was guilty. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50% in MBA ??

Who do all the reputed institutions want the graduates to have a minimum of 50% marks in their admission criteria. Is there a way out for the people who are missing it by a few less , maybe compenate it with the numbers of work experience.does the extra experience helps in this regard? as i do not have 50% in my graduation. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Not sure what the grading scale is like where you live, but in the U.S. most graduate programs require a minimum of at least a "B" in your major, and anything less than that will need some 'splainin'. Generally, you know, if its something your interested in as a career, one generally works hard enough to get decent grades in it. I mean, would you want a doctor that only got 50% of the questions right on his final exams working on you? Want a lawyer that only knows 50% of the law? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "percentage of questions answered correctly" statistic is completely meaningless unless you know how hard the questions are. I had exams as an undergrad where the cutoff score for a grade of A was well under 50%. This was not grade inflation. The questions were just that hard.

I get a little exercised about this notion that there's some inherent meaning to "percentage of right answers" because it seems to imply a "lump of knowledge fallacy", under which many of my students seemed to labor, that the course material was just a bunch of stuff to be memorized, rather than a process by which they could create new knowledge on the spot. --Trovatore (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with most marking schemes is that they are subjective. The only ones that are objective are those with a right ot wrong answer. i.e. maths. But even there marks can be awarded (in most cases) for the working. So a mark of 50% is simply a benchmark against which to measure a notional success. That said, there has to be a way of sifting learners and the exam-grading-marking schemes are the best method that we have.86.197.45.193 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Wow, I've never heard of marks where 50% could be considered an "A". Where I live, in late-elementary and secondary school, 80-100% is A, 70-79% is B, 60-69% is C, 50-59% is D, and anything below that is either "R" or "F". Maybe your marking system is different. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In thr U.S., the process of considering question difficulty in determining a letter grade is called grading on a curve. Getting back to the original question, pleading for a "correction" in your school transcript from administrators, councellors, or teachers who are friendly to you, works more often than you would expect. Phil_burnstein (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most UK universities MBA grades are marked as Fail=0-24%, Refer=25-49%, Pass=50-59%, Merit=60-69%, Distinction=70-100%. If you get a refer it means you can resubmit at a later date to gain a pass, but the highest mark you can then achieve is 50%. All marks can be appealed against in most universities, however don't expect that to be a quick process. -- role^player 13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal documents and vanishing ink

I was watching Jonathan Creek last night, and at the end of the show, a contract is produced which was signed in disappearing ink. My question is, would such a contract be binding? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is the important thing in contracts. The disappearing ink would leave a trace which could be recovered, so the intent would become known. I'd say that someone who signs a contract in such ink could still be forced to live up to it, yes, and may also be found guilty of fraud for attempting to break a contract in such a way. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as verbal agreements in many jurisdictions can carry the force of a signed contract, one signed in "dissapearing ink" would work too. Oh, and it is trivial to be able to recover the signature from the ink. It may not be visible under normal conditions, but it will leave a chemical trace behind which can easily be brought back. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we cannot provide any legal advice as to whether such a signature in disappearing ink would be binding. Google Book search indicates the book "Attorney's Guide to Document Examination" by Katherine Koppenhaver, Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 1567204708, 9781567204704 on page 153 and following discusses this, although the information is not included in the online sample. Her book "Forensic document examination" disdusses using chemicals to make the disappearing ink visible on page 774. The validity of a contract written in disappearing ink is discussed in an old (1905) book on p 3400 of "A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law: Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of All Jurisdictions of the United States" By John Henry Wigmore, Published by Little, Brown, and company. Edison (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issues aside - disappearing inks seem to depend on chemical reactions that leave a residue - so it seems probable that the reaction could be reversed - perhaps very easily. It's also likely that the text could still be read under UV light or in some other special conditions. A TRUE disappearing ink would have to be some kind of strongly colored chemical that would spontaneously evaporate without leaving a residue...but I can't think of anything like that. A better solution would be one of those Erasermate erasable ballpoint pens that were popular for a while in the 1980's - they used a kind of rubbery ink that could be erased with a pencil eraser. However, there was a lot of fraud associated with them when people who worked in stores would offer their customers erasable ballpoints to sign cheques with - then erase the "Pay to" information and the amount and rewrite it to themselves and for a larger amount. I would imagine it would be easy to pursuade someone to write a contract using one of those pens. However - as our invisible ink article points out - even if you write a message with pure distilled water and wait for the paper to completely dry (so there is none of the original ink present) - the fact that the pressure of writing disturbed the fibres of the paper is enough to allow the writing to be read after exposure to iodine vapor or even prolonged strong sunlight. SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago scam artists in the U.S. presented checks to merchants which had been treated with some chemical. perhaps acid, which caused them to turn brown and crumble to illegible pieces in a few hours, before the bank imaged them or presented them for payment. This was more like "disappearing paper." Edison (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft carriers

1) What's the heaviest (in terms of firepower/munitions carried) aircraft that can be launched from any US aircraft carrier that's currently in use (the carriers, not the plane)?

2) Would it be possible for a Wasp class amphibious assault ship to carry and launch F/A-18s and F-35Bs like in the game BF2? I'm sure the F-35B would be possible since it's replacing the Harriers, but what about conventional takeoff/landing craft like the F/A-18? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the heaviest aircraft would be the Lockheed AC-130 gunship. There were successful experiments where the C-130 variant was used to resupply a carrier underway, so I expect an AC-130 could also take off from a carrier. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An F/A-18 needs a catapult to launch safely, although it might be possible to launch one if it's unarmed and lightly fueled, at flank speed (which on an LHD is 10 kts slower than a CV). It would, however, encumber the entire flight deck, and LHD/LHA's don't have jet blast deflectors. Acroterion _(talk) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usually-quoted max weight for catapult-launched aircraft from a CV is 70,000 lb, the weight of the A-3 Skywarrior. The F-111B was at 70,000 lb and climbing, resulting in its cancellation as a naval aircraft. Carnildo is right, a C-130 was flown from a CV, mainly to prove it could be done, but it isn't a matter of routine - it uses up the whole flight deck, so you can't have a deck park, and you can't fit the whole air wing below in the hangar. Acroterion _(talk) 00:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

(indent for separation only) 1) Our article "Aircraft catapult" lists as a reference a magnificent article on catapults. It speaks of an electric catapult in development called EMALS that will be able to "deliver 29 percent more energy than the steam system and be capable of accelerating a 100,000-pound aircraft to better than 150 mph." If we apply the 29% figure to the weight, we get a ballpark present capacity of 77,500 pounds (35,200 kg).

2) No arresting gear (and no catapult). I wouldn't be surprised to see an F-18 get airborne from Wasp with a good headwind and a fervent prayer, but it would have to land somewhere else. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at the modern equivalent of the Doolittle raid. In 1942, the US launched a one-way mission of 16 B-25 bombers from a carrier to attack Tokyo. the B-25 max weight was 33,000lb. The mission took risks that were insane by modern standards. For a modern-day equivalent, you would try to put a bunch of C-130's aboard a carrier and use JATO units for launch, with effectively no margin for error: any unsuccessful launch result in a lost plane whose crew (we hope) is recovered by the carrier's escorts. The result would be a devastating surprise raid, but you can only do this once. Cruise missles are a better choice. -Arch dude (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the Doolittle raid was very satisfying. Edison (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Why aren't bones metal if calcium?

Stupid question, if bones are mainly composed of calcium, a metal, why aren't the bones metallic or display metallic properties? Calcium is a very reactive metal, why aren't the bones reactive? Hustle (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's already reacted, by the time it gets to your bones :-). --Trovatore (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bones are not made of metallic calcium. They are mostly made of Calcium Phosphate - a salt with very different properties to the metal on which it is based. Astronaut (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the unfortunate bits of chemical nomenclature is that, while a nonmetal and its ion take different names (c.f. bromine/bromide or oxygen/oxide) a metal and its ion generally take the same name. Thus, metallic calcium and the Ca⁺² ion have the same name, even though chemically, they are very different things. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that similarly Sodium chloride is very different from Sodium. Edison (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic elemental calcium also reacts rather vigorously with water - it would not be a good thing to have in our (wet) bodies! SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many meltal salts in our body that we need in small amounts. For example iron oxide in our blood makes it red the same reason why rust is red. Also even our bones are 25% water so an even better reason not to have highly-reactive metals! ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyguard allow to carry guns?

Are personal bodyguards (excluding government organizations such as the Secret Service) allowed to carry firearms whilst protecting their client in the United States? For example, is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's bodyguard allowed to carry a firearm? Acceptable (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the answer is 'yes' for Brangelina[17] and for others[18]. Why would you think not? It's America. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It likely varies from state-to-state based on concealed-carry laws, but certainly the same laws that apply to the average private citizen also apply to bodyguards, so yes. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that professional body-guards are required to be licensed. I'm sure that arrangements for arms, rest breaks, etc. are taken care of then. Phil_burnstein (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a concealed-carry license (which is quite easy to get in the majority of states, see this), they can definitely carry the gun. However, open carry laws vary much more, so you might want to check [19]. As Phil said, a licensed bodyguard may sometimes have an easier time with the law. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we detect if there are light years sized monsters controlling our minds?

Supposedly our thoughts can control things on a quantum level. We are much bigger than anything on quantum level. Unimaginably bigger. Are we being controlled by a "universe" (or so we think) so big, that it's controlling us? The residents & physical makeup of His quantum level? It seems logically sound. We're certainly not the biggest thing in this universe. Is there a mathematically formulamatic way to prove my logical conclusion? --Dr. Carefree (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "control things on a quantum level." 41.244.157.53 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, what do you mean by "logical"? Isn't this like saying that because we have cars that are larger than we are and their emissions cause environmental problems, these hypothetical universe-sized creatures must also own vehicles that are even larger than the creatures, and their emissions must also be harmful? It's not a logical conclusion, you're just making it up. (But to pretend to answer the question: things may get weird when we go small enough, but that's not a question of relative size. There's no reason to assume that the same thing happens at all ranges of scale.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any evidence that our minds control things at the quantum level. This idea is a last-ditch effort on behalf of people who are uncomfortable at the idea that our minds are just mechanistic things - but there is absolutely zero evidence. Since your primary premise is now in tatters - we may safely ignore any problems it throws up. Asking whether larger 'things' are 'controlling' us depends on what you mean by 'things' and 'controlling'. If you mean 'intelligent beings' - then there is no evidence whatever for the existance of such things (and the failure of SETI to discover anything is making that look less and less likely). If you mean 'things' in general - then sure. The Planet Earth is a 'thing' that's larger than us - and it's gravity is very much in control (if that's what you mean by 'control')...ditto the sun, the moon (think 'tides'), etc. If you are thinking of some godlike being - then the standard scientific response applies: "Gods are by definition an unfalsifiable hypothesis - and Occam's razor tells us that they are not worth thinking about." SteveBaker (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the original question is non-sensical (is that a word?). However, what is the smallest thing our minds can control? Our muscles? As I sit here in my chair, I'm trying to examine everything that I can do...typing on this keyboard, moving a leg, blinking my eyes, etc - they all seem to involve our minds sending instructions to our muscles. Can the mind control anything else besides our muscles? I guess the mind can control itself to a degree. I can intentionally decide to think about Carrot Top if I wanted to. What can the mind control? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly you can control individual photons (given a really sparse source of photons and a mirror!) - but directly...hmmm...focussing the lenses in our eyes...modulating our vocal chords - those are amazingly subtle movements. But I can't really think of anything we directly and consciously control other than muscles and the brain itself so I guess we're down to "What is the smallest muscle that's under conscious control?"...and that's where I get to eye focussing and vocal chord adjustment. SteveBaker (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something on a multi-dimensional level controlling us involving the fourth dimension and branes that we cannot perceive? Kind of like Planiverse? ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Steve Baker's response- I don't necessarily mean a religious god. I just mean a creature that's "god-like". But so big that he's unaware of the impact he's having from his scale. Sort of like how we know something is down there almost unmathematically small. I'm talking so small that not even an electron microscope can bring it into focus. And since we cant see what's going on down there, we can't see the full impact we're having (or probably could even guess). On his scale, our quantum scale couldn't possibly register. Then think about the control on the quantum level he's residing on. From the perspective of his lightyears sized creatures!

Large mass pulls on smaller mass i.e. your Earth example.

I find scale oddly profound.--Dr. Carefree (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of fantasy sci-fi stories like that. You might like Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker. Such an intelligence could not control us as its thoughts would be too slow considering the speed of light. It is fantasy. Dmcq (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it's a "religious" "god" or not - the argument is exactly the same. Consider Russell's teapot (RefDesk waits while you read the article) - why would you believe in your 'huge-creature-that-controls-us-but-isn't-really-a-god' any more than that there is a teapot in orbit around Mars...or that a grand piano at this very moment being played by seven pink aardvarks in orange space suits on the far side of the moon? There are an infinite number of things we could choose to believe in - but without evidence (and you have none) - why pick this particular thing over the aardvarks? I've actually seen an aardvark, a grand piano and a space-suit and I've touched a piece of the moon - so I'm WAY ahead of you on evidence! Occam's razor says that if there is no evidence, we should choose to believe in the smallest number of the most probable things. We obviously can't say that your giant flying spaghetti monsters definitely don't exist - but right now - with the evidence we have - they are at least as improbable as my pink aardvarks - and I'm pretty sure you'd be happy to agree that the aardvarks "definitely" don't exist...at least definitely enough that you don't have to come to the Ref Desk and ask whether they do. There are quite simply too many things that just maybe at a gazillion to one chance might exist for us to rationally choose to believe in any one specific one of them. This is why religion is bullshit (except of course for the IPU mhhbb) - and also your giant controlling beings, but that's not because your beings are in any way religious - it's because there is no evidence for them. Without evidence - you're better off believing in the aardvarks. SteveBaker (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - "giant flying spaghetti monster" is probably a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster Exxolon (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the idea that "our thoughts can control things on a quantum level" a very minority view in science of conciousness circles ? I think its main proponent is Roger Penrose in his books The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. Having re-read the relevant sections of Shadows of the Mind, I find I had misremembered Penrose's thesis. He specifically does not posit the existence of a non-material "mind" that controls quantum wave functions; instead, he proposes that quantum events introduce a significant but non-computable random element into the functioning of the brain. As SteveBaker says, this seems to be an attempt to reconcile materialism with the belief that there is something "more" to conciousness than a very large number of neurons and a lot of complex biochemistry. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the question, since perception only exists within the mind, if something is controlling our minds, (no matter what size It is) It determines if it is perceivable. I still have two questions: Why do most people assume that It is a He, and why do people believe that Occam's razor is a Truth. Occam's razor is not a fact, it is an unproveable assumption easily disproved by the diverse nature of reality. See Hickam's dictum for one example. Phil_burnstein (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor is indeed only a guideline - but it's a very strong one that you ignore only at your own peril. It is the most logical thing in a sea of illogical propositions. It works in these kinds of cases for the extremely solid reason that there are an infinite number of things one could potentially believe in without there being any evidence either for or against. The vast majority of those things (Pink Aardvarks playing piano on the far side of the moon for example) are likely to be untrue. Since only a small number of things that a vivid imagination could come up with (and for which there is no evidence) are true and an infinite number are untrue - the probability of any specific fact-without-evidence being true is essentially zero. So what rational reason could there be to believe in ANY proposition for which there is no evidence? Why pick this particular thing to believe in rather than the infinite number of other things?

Hickam's dictum isn't really a contradiction IN THIS CASE because for Hickam to apply there has to be evidence. SteveBaker (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Lincoln

I have recently purchased a 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car. I have the original owners manual only. It refers to Ford Motor Company of Canada, LTD. Mail replies in the manual go to Mississauga, Ontario, Etc.

One would think that the car was surely manufactured in Detroit.

My question is does anyone know about the emision control systems and such? For Canada, I mean.

And, if the car, has been transported to the U.S. what are the smog requirments here.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.198.113 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most states, a car over 25 years old is considered an 'antique' and is exempt from emissions control laws. The laws vary from state to state - and I only know about Texas - but I imagine things are not all that different elsewhere. When I take my '63 Mini or my '71 VW bug to a Texas state vehicle inspection place they check that the headlamps work - that the brakes work and that the gas cap fits tightly - and that's all! Headlamp beam alignment is also checked in cars that originally had beam alignment - but my Mini doesn't - so that's not tested. Here in Texas, my car doesn't need seatbelts (because it didn't have them when it was built) - and wouldn't need windshield wipers if they were not fitted at the factory (which they were). I vaguely recall that in California, 25 year old (and older) cars have to meet the emissions standards that were in force when the car was manufactured...but I'm not 100% sure about that. At any rate - I recommend a trip to your local state inspection garage, they'll be able to tell you precisely what they'll test on a car of that age. If you don't intend to drive the car very much - you might want to consider getting it insured with a specialist antique car insurer - I pay just $65 for insurance on my Mini, but it's only covered for driving to and from car shows, club meetings and for 'test driving' after the car has been worked on. The important thing about antique car insurance is that in the event of it getting wrecked they'll pay out for repairs and NOT claim that it has to be scrapped because it's worth too little. When you apply for the insurance, you tell them how much the car is worth and they set your rates accordingly. They don't use the depreciated 'blue book' value (which will be approximately $0 for a 30 year old car!). SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of car manufacturing plants in southern Ontario. There is a giant Ford plant in Oakville, which is beside Mississauga. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now that I have looked, I see that the Oakville Assembly made Crown Victorias during that period, and the Continentals were made in Michigan. But still, if it was sold in Canada, Ford Canada's headquarters are in Oakville, but maybe they were in Mississauga at the time.

Car maker

I saw a car recently, and the logo/emblem thing was 3 or 4 shields in a diagonal line. What car maker is this? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google image search can be your friend! Buick has three shields in a diagonal row. (See image here) SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was already typing all the car companies I could think of into Google Image Search, didn't think of Buick. 67.169.118.40 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an art to searching. I typed in "car company logo" and clicked 'Next' until I saw one that worked - it was about four pages in IIRC. SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...isn't that picture fair use? So isn't it illegal to post it on Wikipedia namespace? ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "illegal", it's just against Wikipedia's internal recommendations on how to use "fair use" images. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Crazy huh? Wait til Buick find out!!91.111.84.244 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had to remove the image - fair use doesn't apply here. Exxolon (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Websites to determine auto fix reasonableness

I was wondering if there are any targeted free websites anyone knows of that can help you with figuring out whether you're being gouged or not by mechanics. Anyone who has ever owned a car and knows fuck all about engines, also knows that you're basically at the complete mercy of mechanics. I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode where they discussed this, something like: "your johnson rod is out of snyc with the timing fulcrum package" "oh, my johnson rod, well you better fix that." I think it would be too much to go into detail abut exactly what they are doing to my car for a hell of a lot of greenbacks. I just wondered if anyone knew of any forums or websites where those who had a clue helped those of us who don't. And yes, I searched Google first and nada.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A web site will be of limited use because you won't have all the info they need to diagnose the problem. Only a mechanic (or a "car guy") can get that info by pulling apart the car components which are causing the problem and inspecting them. I do have several suggestions, though:

1) Get free estimates from several mechanics (verify that it's free FIRST). If most say it's the same thing, go with the lowest price to fix that thing. If everyone says it's something different, that's your indication that they don't have a clue and will bleed you dry without fixing it. Obviously this option only works if the car is drivable, although, for major repairs like replacing the engine or transmission, it might even be worth towing it from one repair shop to another to get a better price. Make sure you get a written estimate before any work is started, which clearly lists exactly what they will do and what they will charge. If they won't give you this, go elsewhere. An oral estimate is useless. You can also bargain over the price estimate. Ask if they can use rebuilt parts instead of new. If you only need the car for a short period, ask about short term fixes rather than full repairs. For example, getting 4 new tires could cost you over $1000 or under $100, depending on if you want new, top of the line tires, or used tires that still have a bit of tread left on them.

I don't recommend buying partially worn tyres or remoulds - you have no way of knowing the provenance of them and a failure can be catastrophic - just buy the cheapest new steel radials if you're on a budget. Same applies to 2nd hand safety critical parts (brakes, suspension etc) - but it is totally valid for things like panels, trim and non-critical components. Exxolon (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the choice comes down to keeping tires which have no tread left or replacing them with used tires which still have a good tread, and you have no money for anything more, such a replacement will definitely improve the safety of the vehicle. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone seriously can't afford the $70-$160 for a pair of standard tyres then they probably can't afford to own a car at all. Remoulds and part-worns are DANGEROUS - remember your tyres are in many ways the most critical component - they are the thing that adheres your car to the road. Exxolon (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) When you do deal with mechanics, make them think you're one of them. Learn some basic terms about the item they are working on. Wear dirty old clothes with grease stains on them. Don't shave for a couple days before you go in. Make sure you have dirt under your fingernails. Swear like a sailor. I've assumed you're male here. If not, you will almost certainly be ripped off unless you can get a man who looks like that to take the car in for you.

3) Get car repair insurance. That makes them responsible for keeping the costs low, not you. However, at times they can keep the cost too low, such that the parts and work are sub-par.

4) Avoid car dealerships. One look at the absurd sticker prices on cars will let you know they are out to rip you off. Of course, for dealer only items, you have no choice.

5) Insist, in advance, that they return all parts they replace. Make sure you have plastic bags lining the trunk so those filthy parts don't ruin the carpet. Even if you know nothing about the parts they return, it will make them think twice about replacing a perfectly good part, as you will then have proof that the old one was good (unless they happen to have a bad one from another car they can give you).

6) Inspect any new parts. Do they look new ? If not, they probably charged you for something they didn't do.

7) After the repairs, check the car out immediately, with the mechanic present, to verify if the problem is solved or not.

8) Always keep a spare set of keys in case you decide to "liberate" the car from their lot. This won't get you out of any legal liability, and they may try to steal your car back if they can find it, so I'd only do this as a last resort. If you go in for a brake job, then they say they had to replace the engine and you owe them $2000, that's when I'd use this option.

9) If the car is old, you might consider replacing it, as maintenance costs can make the old car actually cost more. Leases are a good way to be rid of the car before if falls apart. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest trying to find an "owner's club" for whatever kind of car you have (there seem to be owners clubs for just about every car imaginable these days) - generally you'll be able to find someone who lives in the same city as you who'll be able to recommend a mechanic who'se familiar with your car. You may also get a diagnosis from a description of your symptoms - and there is a good chance someone will know roughly what it should cost to fix. SteveBaker (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion is to call in to the radio show Car Talk, where they specialize in diagnosing problems, for free, for non-experts. Of course, their advice may be "take you car down to the nearest junkyard and leave it there". StuRat (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SteveBaker with the car club idea. Many of them have web sites and a message board or forum that you can join and ask questions. I have a couple Jeeps and am a member of a couple Jeep forums. The advice is good and recommendations for brands of parts are good too. The local site I'm a member of has a few guys who have their own shops and can do the work. They generally have better rates than other shops. I have never heard of "repair insurance" and I don't know your chances of getting on Car Talk. Dismas|^(talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the odds of getting on Car Talk are slim at best. One resource they do provide in their web site is their "mechanics file" which lets you search reviews of mechanics that were created by their fans by region and car type. It should at least help you find a mechanic who is at least reasonably trustworthy. Check it out here. SteveBaker (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some really good suggestion here. I really like the ones about asking for them to return all the parts to you so you can see what they did (and that they did anything at all [though this wouldn't work if it's the engine!]). Makes a hell of a lot of sense. The car club idea is really intriguing. I'll definitely look into that. Anyway, just to tell you, they want $3,600 to do a complete "timing belt package" tune up, oil lube filter, replace a few lights and replace a (the?) cam (whatever that means). The real problem is one of timing. A lot of your early suggestions sound great on paper, but how can I find the time to take the car to various places and get various estimates when I work full time. It may sound like I'm being lazy, but it's really beyond difficult to take so much time. I can't believe you actually suggested calling Click and Clack. Come on, Get that tongue out-a your cheek.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds ludicrously high. For comparison the cost of replacing the timing belt (cam belt) on my car was around £250 (Vauxhall Vectra) - what are you driving? Exxolon (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he (she?) drives is a good question. On some vehicles, changing a timing belt or chain can be quite a lengthy process. Dismas|^(talk) 10:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also - if the timing belt is getting towards the end of it's life - it's VITALLY important you change it. Quite a few types of engine will literally destroy themselves if the timing belt breaks. When the garage quotes you a bunch of 'tune-up' stuff along with the job you actually want done - ask them for a breakdown of costs so that you can pick and choose which you want them to do. For example, it might make a lot of sense to have something like a timing belt replaced by the dealership - but it makes ZERO sense to have them do the oil filter change for you. In most cars, replacing lights is something you can do yourself in 10 minutes with no tool more complicated than a screwdriver. If you think you don't have the time to do these things then you need to consider you priorities. If you earn (let's say) $20 an hour - then taking a day of unpaid vacation to get all of this done is well-worth it if you can cut $200 off your car repair bill. If you earn $50 an hour - then maybe it's not worth it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - I've seen it happen - the engine literally tore itself to pieces and the car was a write off. Exxolon (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the ease of changing lights on cars. I have no problem changing light bulbs at home, but in cars it's quite another matter. First, you may need to avoid touching the bulb, as the oils from your hand may shorten it's life. Next, you may need to slide your hand and the bulb your not touching through an obstacle course of sharp metal objects. Finally, you need to be able to remove and replace clips that hold the bulb in place. These clips require maybe a hundred pounds of force to remove, but only have a surface area of maybe 1/10th of a square inch, requiring maybe 1000 psi to be exerted on them. Also note that the access hole is only big enough for an oriental child's hand. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cam shaft is part of the engine, but not normally one that needs replacing, unless the car is very old or has been abused (or the cam shaft was defective initially). What do they claim is wrong with it ? StuRat (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other cam's in most engines - our OP may not mean the cam-shaft. Although a camshaft replacement is a major deal - and $3600 would be a reasonable estimate. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In rural areas the quotes to get "large" jobs done on cars are much cheaper, and my friends and I get much more honesty too. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of products

Does anyone know why products for oily hair or skin tend to be coloured green? In the UK it seems that way, anyway! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.59.196 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that way on google. Looking at Green and those ghits, it seems linked into a brand, eco-friendly messages (Green party, is it "green"?), astringent properties by association with lemons and limes, cleanness, freshness, and new growth. All designed to have you subliminally reaching for their products. Do they work? is another question. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable suggestions, but my impression is that it precedes the eco-consciousness and even the lemon-and-lime. "Vosene" is a dark green shampoo that's been around for decades and the connotation seems to be "medicinal". Also I wonder whether pine-freshness has anything to do with it? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could even go back to "eat your greens" implying good health outcomes. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont they place state birds on plumbing equipment?

Why don't they print pictures of state birds on pipe fittings, faucets, u shaped drain pipes, and other sink and toilet related fixtures? If you purchased a drainpipe and it started leaking only a week after you bought it (like what happened to me), it could be easily traced back to the state it was manufactured.

If you've ever had to go thru 6mos.+ of bureaucratic hell to get a $40 part replaced, you would understand why I made such a think outside the box suggestion.--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the name of the manufacturing company would be much more useful? It would make it easier to go and kick butt. Astronaut (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far more effective, maybe a serial number as well. If for some reason the state is relevant (I don't know a lot about American plumbing bureaucracy), then a two- or three-letter abbreviation would be cheaper, easier to identify, and less ambiguous; don't forget that some birds are shared by several states, such as the Western Meadowlark (6 states), the Mockingbird (5), the American Robin (3) ... ---Sluzzelin talk 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You spent 6 months trying to get a $40 part replaced? I suggest you look at the concept of diminishing returns - that is not an efficient use of your time. For instance I had a car written off by an uninsured driver. I looked at the value of the car and estimated how much time, money and effort it would cost me to pursue him through the courts for the value of the car and quickly worked out it was not worth the trouble. Exxolon (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention he had a leaking sink for six months! APL (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is any government involvement needed for your home plumbing? I just snaked out my kitchen sink drain yesterday and I didn't need to tell anyone. Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed he spent the time trying to figure out who he needed to sue to get his $40 part replaced or refunded. But now I notice his question doesn't mention home plumbing. Perhaps he replaced the pipe in some government facility that won't allow him to simply buy a replacement for a defective part because of some ridiculous cost-saving measures. APL (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at some UPVC plumbing parts I bought here in Texas - the name of the company is pretty clearly embossed on the elbow joints and such - and I was able to find their web site in about 30 seconds flat. I don't see the problem here. Certainly using the state bird would be the most bizarre solution I could imagine? Is that a European Swallow or an African one? Also, it assumes that plumbing parts are actually made in the US - which is decreasingly likely. Generally, if the part is within warranty (do these things even HAVE a warranty?) - you should go back to the store your bought it from or the plumber who installed it for recompense. It's then up to them to go to the manufacturer - or to suck it up and accept the cost themselves. But it seems to me that a $40 part is not just a simple plumbing part. $40 for a drainpipe?!? I can't think of any single part that costs that much...maybe a fancy Moen faucet or something. $40 could perhaps have included installation - in which case the plumber who installed it would be your first port of call. SteveBaker (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't priced faucets lately, have you Steve? The cheapest Moen (using your example) faucet, according to Home Depot's web site, is $50. And they only have the one model at that price. Even smaller company brands usually start out at least in the $20s. And installation? You must do all your own work. Not a bad thing at all but having a relative who is a plumber, I can tell you that they aren't cheap. $40 might get him to your door. I still don't see what the state of manufacture has to do with anything though. If the origin of the part is needed for some sort of paperwork in a government facility, then it seems that the issue isn't with the parts maker but with the government red tape. It's not the manufacturers fault if someone else is asking the questions. Dismas|^(talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why use state birds only ? Why not state fish ? If looking into a toilet bowl from Louisiana, wouldn't it be appropriate to see a crappie in there ? StuRat (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your defective fixture had a picture of a Northern Cardinal, how helpful would that be? -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

challenging sports

which sports are the most challenging ones, (plz tell me everyone of them)? is soccer a challenging one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.128.254 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all sports are challenging if you play them at a high enough level. Pick any sport played at the Olympics and try to play it at an Olympic level - and I can pretty much guarantee you'll find it challenging. SteveBaker (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme ironing or bog snorkelling? The beauty of all sport is that it can be challenging at every level, depending on how good you are at it and who you play against. Rockpocket 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to know a lot more about you to even begin to answer this question. We could say that billiards isn't that hard but then you may not have arms... Dismas|^(talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any ironing would be extreme for moi, but in case you're thinking of a sport for a daring character called Bourne or Bond someone or other, there's Base jumping, free diving and erm, free running where people scale architecture and other urban sites. But then nerds have found soccer extremely challenging. Especially meeting a crack team of 9-year-olds that made it look paranormal. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question depends also on whether you mean challenging on a skill level or on an endurance level. The Marathon, for instance, is not very challenging on a skill level, as long as you can run. However, it taxes human endurance. As long as you can swim, and ride a bike, if you want a *really* challenging sport for endurance, the triathlon would be the one for you; especially the ironman triathlon. This would be mroe challenging than the Decathlon since it is consecutive, not over a couple days.

On the other hand, if you're talking skill, something like baseball doesn't tax your endurance as much if you play the outfield, but having the hand-eye co-ordination to hit a slider or curve ball coming at you at 80 miles an hour takes incredible skill. Many players have been good enough at every other aspect, but never got out of the low minor leagues on a consistent basis because they couldn't hit a curve ball.

Where does soccer fit into all of this? Running so much for 90 minutes,w here there are no timeouts like in American football, takes quite a bit of endurace. I would rate it as fairly challenging and knowing where to on the endurance level, because you have to keep turning and following the ball and risk running into other players. Being able to kick a ball in itslef doesn't seem as challenging to me, but heading or using your knees or whatever to do it makes it a bit tougher in that area. I would say there, like in baseball, it depends on your position. It's probably more challenging skill-wise for those who much try to score, or for the goalkeeper (who needs lightning reflexes) than it does for defenders. However, as I don't follow soccer much, I wouldn't say for sure.

As for which one requres the best combination of challenges for skill and endurance, I would have to think about that. I'll leave it to someone else to answer that, as it could be a question in itself.Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess. --noosphere 02:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White House defenses

Many times I've seen references to the White House supposedly having surface to air missiles in case of air attack. The most recent example was our article on Frank Eugene Corder, who crashed a small Cessna into the White House lawn. I'd like to find something that either confirms or denies the presence of these missiles but using the words "White House Missiles" doesn't really narrow anything down on Google. Can anyone here lend a hand in figuring out if this is an urban legend or if it has a bit of truth to it? Dismas|^(talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There has long been an urban legend that Stinger missiles are mounted on the White House roof, but sources said that has never been true." From: Don Phillips, "Flight Crew Made Numerous Errors; Restricted Airspace Over Capital Was Violated Twice", The Washington Post, April 4, 2002. Rockpocket 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the W.H. had any esoteric defenses, the government would deny it. The West Wing TV series referred to an atomic missle silo underneath the Eisnhauer Putting Green, but I don't think it's verifiable without breaking some sort of espionage law. Phil_burnstein (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing thing was a practical joke, if you remember :) Someone was tricking Donna. As for surface to air missiles on the roof, I don't see any. Doesn't tell you much maybe, could be that they're hidden under the ceiling. However, I strongly suspect it's not true. If the White House were attacked, the President would probably be roughly taken by the Secret Service into some underground, nuke-proof bunker connected to the White House, and fighter jets would be scrambled to intercept whatever bad guys are on the way there. That would be much more effective than just a few stingers on the roof. Belisarius (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's known that the Google maps photo of the White House roof is doctored. It tells you nothing. It's absolutely certain that there are structures on the roof that are not shown in Google maps because you can see them in numerous photos taken by the public from the side of the building. SteveBaker (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources for that, Steve? I'd be interested to see for myself. Rockpocket 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that when the government first complained to Google - their immediate reaction was simply to erase all rooftop detail (per: [20]) - later they put back some detail (per the discussions here: [21] - the image on that page is 'live' so the blurring the people are talking about is different now) and the latest version (here: [22]) has still more detail. However, none of those turns out to be "real" imagery. They are all doctored in some manner. Anyway do appropriate Google searches and you'll find TONS of sites that show the various stages of photoshopping that's gone on over about the last 8 years. SteveBaker (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is interesting, though also rather futile considering the number of buildings around with views of the roof. Rockpocket 22:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Stinger missiles don't need to be mounted anywhere. They are man-portable. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is a fictional novel, many of Tom Clancy's novels feature a uprising amount of accurate tactical details about the U.S. government and military. In one of them, Debt of Honor] I believe, there were SS agents with portable Stinger surface-to-air missiles on the rooftops during the President's State of Union address. Acceptable (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the Cold War, Nike anti-aircraft missile bases were emplaced in rings around many major cities, including D.C. The site at Lorton, Virginia is now a park and is the proposed site of the Cold War Museum. I recall that after 9/11, the U.S. Army emplaced M1097 Avengers in D.C. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The craziest bit is that you wouldn't necessarily have a lot of time to react if it was a large plane coming in right after taking off from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, or one that was ostensibly landing but quickly changed course. It's a pretty dumb place to put an airport, from a security standpoint. If they spent the money on a bullet train from Dulles instead, I would imagine the efficiency would be preserved without any of the safety issues. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel universe

Is it possible that there's a parallel universe where fiction that we create in this universe such as Star Wars is real?--Young Jedi Knights (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone more chatty comes along, we have multiverse, modal realism and good old David Kellogg Lewis. I'm wondering which one he's in right now, goodnight from Australia.Julia Rossi (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that, Pantheistic solipsism and if you want some good fiction to go along with all this theory, check out Robert A. Heinlein's The Number of the Beast. Dismas|^(talk) 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is possible if there are an infinite number of universes with their own laws of physics.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the act of creating the fiction here creates the parallel universe there? Or do you mean that fiction is created here as a sort of cosmic cross-talk, and that their fiction mimics our reality? Or do you mean that every possible state of affairs is represented in some parallel universe somewhere? In any case, the answer is no. Human thought has the power to activate our muscles, and that's it; ask Steven Hawking. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really can't tell what is fact and what is fiction, because who knows, maybe what is fiction in our universe is fact in a parallel one. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are infinitely many parallel universes (which is what proponents of the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory believe) - then the answer is "Yes!" - to the limits of the laws of physics (assuming those apply to all of those parallel universes). So if the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit in all of those universes - then faster-than-light travel is impossible in all of them. However, every Agatha Christie murder mystery has played out exactly in real life an infinite number of places in an infinite number of universes. Of course there are also an infinite number of worlds where Hercule Poirot is a pink talking Aardvark. But we don't even need parallel universes. If our own universe is infinite - then somewhere - on a far distant planet, long, long ago - there were robots called R2-D2 and C3PO. Infinity is a very large number! SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I said before.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that if my previous answer is correct - then our universe is a fictional story in some other universe. In fact, me typing this message is the subject of a major motion picture and if I type "wibble, wibble, wibble" - some poor director somewhere has to figure out how to make that a part of the motivation of his lead character! SteveBaker (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of using a pseud-ad hominem argument here, @ Milkbreath, Hawking's thoughts don't seem to be activating his muscles too much. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if his thoughts could effect any other change, he would certainly avail himself of that capability. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's reserving brane space, ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Consider what would have to happen if an author makes a change. What about works that are not even internally self-consistent? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law enforcement in the United States of America

I was reading Law enforcement in the United States and was amazed by the number of law enforcement agencies there are in the USA. It seems that every government department, every state, every county and every city have multiple police forces totalling up to 800,000 forces. Alot of these forces also seem to have overlapping jurisdictions. Why are there so many and how can the whole law enforcement system work effectively with so many forces? Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is mostly OR and my personal opinion having lived my life in the US. The abundance of forces is one of the reasons why it works. And it's all relatively straight forward. The fed cops cover federal buildings and such. They're trained in the various specific details of what can and cannot occur on federal land. The state troopers are mostly highway cops who patrol the larger interstate highways. To have some other smaller force do this would be strange since being on an interstate, the officer could easily pass from one town to another in just minutes without having reached another exit. Or even one county to the next with barely covering any territory at all. Then the county cops or sheriffs patrol the smaller roads as well as protecting municipalities that don't have the budget or population to maintain a municipal police force. For instance, the town I live in is only a thousand people or so. We don't have the money for a police force of our own, so the county sheriff covers us. And finally the municipal or local police cover their own towns. Each one can request backup or assistance from any of the others. If something like a murder happens in a small town, they can call on the county or state forces for help in detective work and evidence collection and analysis. And meanwhile, the local cops know their jurisdiction better than, for instance, a state cop would because they often live in the area and work/patrol there daily. Then many (every?) states have a bureau of investigation much like the FBI which has quite a bit of experience with things like gangs, drugs, serial killers, etc whose 'territory' may cover more than just one town or county. Dismas|^(talk) 13:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That covers many areas. Where I grew up state forces covered highways and county covered poorer towns and rural areas. Where I live now, however, it is state forces that cover poorer towns. Also at the highest levels, each force can be very specialized: Alcohol, Tobacco, Explosives and Firearms (or whatever their current name is) covers a different area than Immigration or the Drug Enforcement Agency. The Secret Service specializes in protection and anti-counterfeiting. Gangs and drugs are often the target of multi-agency task forces. One my father worked with had members from something like 20 agencies and departments. Rmhermen (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries have multiple agencies and forces. See things like List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom and List of law enforcement agencies in Canada. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is attributable to federalism and the jockeying for power among various governments and govt agencies. Living in Washington, D.C., the number of law enforcement agencies is bewildering. In the area, I have come across: MPD; United States Capitol Police; United States Park Police; sheriffs from Arlington County, Montgomery County, & Prince George's County; Secret Service; BATF; U.S. Marshals; Virginia & Maryland state troopers; Howard University Police; Supreme Court Police; TSA agents; United States Federal Protective Service; Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police; Amtrak Police; and my favorite, FBI Police. About half have issued me speeding tickets. —D. Monack ^talk 08:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pistol hunting

In what states are you allowed to hunt small game with a pistol?--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find a list on line, and no wonder—each state determines the weapons permitted for hunting within its borders, and the laws are by no means standardized in format. They change from year to year, too. I looked at the first three in the alphabet (Alabama, Alaska, and Arizona) and quickly discovered that I wasn't going to want to take the time to look at them all right now. Not only are there differences among "pistols" that make a difference, the ammunition used matters: Some want centerfire, and Arizona wants a handgun to fire shot at birds. Alaska barely mentions weapons at all, so it looks like pretty much anything that isn't forbidden, like artillery or full auto, is kosher. Furthermore, "small game" covers a lot of territory; the rules for bird, varmints, furbearers, non-game types, etc. are going to be different, too. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handguns are also often more heavily regulated than long-guns so just because "someone" can hunt with a pistol in a given state, it doesn't necessarily follow that "you" can. Rmhermen (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on my state government’s website it said you can hunt small game (discluding federally regulated migratory birds) with a hand gun as long as you have a pistol permit.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

future problem

i am a sudent from nigeria, west africa. i have been given the opportunity to study abroad perharps in the u.k but i have no idea of what to study please help me pick a reasonable course. i offer the following subjects in our nigerian syllabus; mathematics, english, literature-in-english, government, french, foods and nurition, biology and christian religious knowledge. what 3 good courses do you think i can offer with these subjects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeyeesha (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, you are allowed to take 3 of those classes, and would like to know which will best prepare you for study in the UK. If so, I'd say English (as you seem to need a little work yet there), math, and biology. Of course, this would also be influenced by what you want to do in life. If your goal is to be head chef in a French restaurant, then I'd go with French and food/nutrition, instead of math and biology. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On rereading your post, now I'm thinking you are currently taking all of those classes you listed, and want to know which majors and careers those might prepare you for in the UK. In addition to working in a restaurant, how about working as a translator, or a religious leader (priest, etc.) ? Many other careers are possible, however. There are some other factors to consider, too, such as which classes you do best at and enjoy. Also, if you are 12, take general classes, while if you are 24, it's time to start specializing in specific work skill classes. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, you're aged about 16 to 18 and you're taking those subjects for the Nigerian SSCE exams. You wonder what degree subjects you could take in the UK. As an international student you don't have to apply through UCAS, but on the UCAS website [www.ucas.ac.uk] you will find all the degrees in all the UK universities listed, with entry requirements. Although the entry requirements are only stated in terms of UK and EU qualifications, in some cases you can see specific subjects that the universities are looking for. The range of degrees available is bewildering: everything from French literature to microbiology to golf course management and surfing studies. I agree with StuRat that should consider what your goal in life is. You should also think about which subjects you already like studying. You probably need distinction grades in most of your subjects in order to be accepted into a UK university, and it would definitely be good to have a distinction in any particular subject you wants to pursue in a UK university. I.e. if you want to take a degree related to biology you need a distinction in biology at SSCE. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism??

Every other time I make an edit, and check my contributions page, I find the words [rollback] and [vandalism] written beside a few edits of mine, even though they are clearly not vandalism. Why? La Alquim ista 16:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an automatic vandalism bot, which is going off keywords. For example, if you said "I like girls with big titties", that might trigger such a bot, while it might be a valid addition to Wikipedia if it's a verifiable quote by Bill Clinton. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those the links created by twinkle to automatically revert edits? Algebraist 16:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What could you be vandalizing, La Alquimista? You have never edited an article. (What are you doing here?) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! I think you could be verging on being rude there..... I'm a student, and being one who'll be giving her boards in a month, I've got precious little time editing articles. However, I have edited two today, and before that, I merely hung aroung the Ref Desks a lot, asking questions, and answering a few as well. Also, joining Wikipedia made me realise how it works, much like understanding the inner mechanism of a complex little piece of machinary. Exactly what I do here is none of your business, though, as long as you just answer the question I asked. I'm not going to start miniature Wiki-wars here. Thank you. La Alquim ista 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the [rollback] and [vandalism] look like those in this this picture? This would be the Twinkle tool, which you may have activated in your preferences under the "gadgets" section. They allow you to automatically revert another person or your own edits quickly, and the reason it would only show for a few of the edits is that only pages where you have made the last edit can be rolled back. Hope this helps, though if it doesn't the Wikipedia Help Desk may be of use as they specialize in Wikipedia related questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. That explains it perfectly! I had totally forgotten that I'd activated Twinkle in my preferences, because I've never used it since. La Alquim ista 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

playing cards

There is a word that conveys the information that a person playing cards is holding a hand of thirteen cards none of which is hihger than nine or possibly ten.I know there is such a word but it escapes me. your answer will be appreciated thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.41.134 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In contract bridge, a Yarborough. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the semen go?

After a guy has vaginal intercourse with a girl and ejaculates inside of her (hence, no condom), where does the semen eventually go? Is there a difference to the final destination of the semen if the girl becomes impregnated vs not impregnated? Where would it end up if it was anal intercourse? Hustle (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From our article, Sexual intercourse#In humans: "The subsequent route of the sperm from the vault of the vagina is through the cervix and into the uterus, and then into the fallopian tubes.... When a fertile ovum from the female is present in the fallopian tubes, the male gamete joins with the ovum resulting in fertilization and the formation of a new embryo." The rest of the sperm (or if fertilization doesn't happen, all of the sperm) hangs around for a while before eventually dying and disintegrating.

If you have anal sex, the sperm will likely remain in the rectum until being vacated. Rockpocket 21:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, after vaginal intercourse, some of the semen does flow back out of the vagina. Dismas|^(talk) 22:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear most does.[23]--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you ask a seminarian? Edison (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cell phone ...

If I drop it in the mailbox, will it find it's way back to its owner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.95.34 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it has the owner's postal address written on it, and an appropriate value in postage stamps attached. It might be a better idea to look through the numbers stored on the phone for one labeled "home" or "work", call that number and tell the person who answers you have their phone. Rockpocket 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find the owner's number on the phone, look for the entry named "mom"[24]. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failing that, check for "ICE" or the E.123 protocol for emergency contacts. Rockpocket 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could use that phone to call your own phone and see what name comes up on the caller-Id - from that, you might find their land-line number in the phone book. Failing that, you might try calling the service provider (AT&T, whatever) and ask them to contact the owner. SteveBaker (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most phones keep a record of calls recieved and calls placed. When a friend of mine lost her phone the person who found it called the last number dialed, which happened to be my number. My phone rang and caller ID showed that it was my friend calling. I thought that a bit odd since I was sitting across the dinner table from her. :) The caller explained that he had found a cellphone in a parking lot, asked if I knew whose phone he was using and if I had an alternate way to contact the owner. He was even nice enough to bring the phone to us. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A month or two ago my phone fell out of my pocket on BART. Someone found it and tried some of the speed-dial numbers; I had already reported the phone missing, so they didn't work, but she was able to extract the actual numbers and call them on her own phone. —Tamfang (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement (better) battery for Motorola portable phone

Yeah I know this question isn't sexy or interesting, but can someone take pity on me anyway? I haven't a clue when it comes to this stuff. I bought a set of two Motorola portable phones (land lines but no cords, not cells; they sit on recharger bases that are plugged in). I've looked everywhere on them for a model number but I don't see it. The batteries on them are TERRIBLE! After sitting on their charges for hours they have about 10 minutes talk time in them and then they run out of battery and they're only a month old. If you let them sit for a few hours off the charger but donlt use them and then try to use them you get out five minutes before they die. Can anyone tell me what kind of batteries I can purchase online to replace the duds in the phones?The battery inside says "Sanik 3SN-600mAh PILE AU NICKEL-METAL HYDRIDE BATTERY There is a sticker insiode the phone which does have a model number on it, but I think it might be the battery's and not the phones. In any event, it's SD7500 series. Thank you.--68.237.248.155 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On amazon, an equally frustrated user recommends replacing the Sanik charger ASAP with an Energizer ER-P510, Nickel Metal Hydride technolgy for around USD 13 (assuming you are in the USA). This [25] page has a few pictures of Sanik batteries; you may find out which one it is. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar problem with some Uniden walkie-talkies I own. I suspect that the problem is the charger, as in the above response. Specifically, I believe they use "dumb" chargers that keep charging no matter what, thus frying the batteries in short order. A good charger, on the other hand, will detect when the battery is fully charged and then stop trying to charge it. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikipedia

I could not find the right place to ask this question or discover the answer, so...what is Wikipedia's mission statement/goal? Thank you, The Reader who Writes (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, WP:5P is about the nearest thing to a mission statement. Deor (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also that famous Jimmy quote: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Sounds like a mission statement/goal to me. Belisarius (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Jimmy Wales to clarify the statement. While it is the Foundation's mission to provide the sum of all human knowledge, our pratical rule building stops us from including ALL knowledge in Wikipedia. We have Wikinews, Wikiquite, Wikibooks, etc for other types of information. Therefore this statement is best applied to the foundation rather than Wikipedia.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Wikipedia itself is not an 'organization' - it's just one product of the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundations' bylaws does indeed include a mission statement:

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

SteveBaker (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should also keep in mind, of course, that most of what one considers to be "Wikipedia" is a product of the actions of Wikipedia editors, not the Wikimedia Foundation. On most issues the WMF lets editors work things out for themselves and do not intervene. It would be highly inaccurate to characterize all of Wikipedia's editors as working towards the same goals, for the same reasons. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - but it's tough to stray far from the Five Pillars...which are ultimately the principles that we try to stick to. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Guide online

I remember seeing somewhere a browsable online version of Thomas Guide a few months ago (it looked like Mapquest), but I can't find it anymore. I hope there are Angelenos around here. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried several different searches and found dozens upon dozens of websites that will be happy to sell the paper version, but no online version. It appears that all the online aspects of www.thomas.com now redirect to Rand McNally's website. If what you're looking for still exists, the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps are the ones most likely to know. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

money supply

I realise that this would not likely happen in real life, but in theory, couldn't a government take a certain portion of the money they raise in taxes each year, and dump it in a hole somewhere, there by reducing inflation? Wouldn't that be the opposite of a foolish government increasing inflation by printing more money?

Also, just curious, is there any relevance to calculating the total amount of money in circulation, and dividing that by the population? I calculated that a while ago for Canada, and came up with 2000$ per person. Does that mean anything in the big picture if I happen to have more than 2000 $ (or whatever amount) to my name?

Duomillia (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money in circulation is meaningless. One could have $1 in cash and $10,000,000 in the bank. --Nricardo (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the 10m in the bank isn't "real money" in the same sense as 10m stuffed under my mattress. Remember, the moment I deposit my vast fortune (ha ha) in the bank, they turn around and loan it some one else, hoping that I don't come back the very next day to try to withdraw it. In other words (I think) money in cash in my pocket I can freely spend any time, where as to spend money deposited in the bank, some one else has to pay back a loan first. (I know that bank are required to keep a minimum of deposits on hand in cash, but not all of it...)

Duomillia (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course your money in the bank is "real money"! You can take it out and by stuff, you can use it to pay your bills, you can use it as a deposit for a loan. In what sense is it not real money? Yes, banks use deposits to make loans to other people, but just because you deposit money in the bank it doesn't just "disappear" into the celestial aether. The bank is required by law to give it to you back if you want it, and if they can't, the government will step in and do it for you. Deposited money is real money, in every sense of the word. You can spend it as freely as you want.

The thing is, there is MUCH, MUCH more money in the world than there are physical money-bills (say you buy a house for a million dollars. Do the bank were you get your mortage actually take a dump-truck of bills and drive it to the seller? No, of course they don't). You could bury as much money in a hole as you want, it wont make much of a dent in the total money supply.

There is, however, ways which the government (the Fed, specifically), do limit the amount of money that is in circulation. The most visible, of course, is increasing the interest rate. The Fed lends a lot of money to banks (money which they create, the dollar is a fiat currency, the Fed can create as much as it wants) and they have a specific interest rate the banks have to pay. That interest rate govern how easily a bank can get a hold of money. If it's low, the banks can get a hold of money easily, and thus they are more likely to lend it out to us regular folks. The rate at which we get a loan is reduced, because the banks have to pay less for it. If the interest rate is high, it's much more difficult for the banks to get money, and therefore they need to charge higher interests for the money they lend out. When it's more expensive to get a loan, people will be less likely to buy a house, or a car, or invest in a new business or whatever. People spend less, the economy slows down, and there's generally less increase in the amount of money in the world. Thus, inflation slows down.

Isn't that a much smarter way to limit inflation than just burning bills, which is a big hassle and makes virtually no difference at all? I certainly think so. Belisarius (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, people don't generally pay taxes in cash :), so there's very little money to dump. And it would be stupid to throw away the taxes, because, you know, it's useful for stuff! It pays for police departments, it fills in pot holes, makes sure people can go to school. Why would you throw that money away? Belisarius (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could fill a pot hole with it.... 99.226.216.2 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As our OP points out - when the government prints too much money (as is currently happening - for example - in Nigeria) you get inflation. It follows that reducing the money supply (by taking money out of circulation) would have the opposite effect. So taxing people more and burning the money you take from them - should have the effect of reducing inflation. A Revaluation of the currency would be another way to do that (see Devaluation - which is the opposite of that). SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money creation. --Nricardo (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, most western countries are consistently increasing their money supply over any long period of time. If the rate of increase of the money supply is exactly equal to the rate of increase in goods and services available, no inflation takes place (we find that the "no inflation" case rarely maximizes total utility though... that's complicated) So the central bank could choose to reduce the rate at which they are expanding the money supply to fight inflation.

As another practical matter, most western countries try to keep their monetary authority (the Fed in the US, or central banks generally) separate from their fiscal authority (the federal government). Because it's the monetary authority that has a monopoly on the printing of money, they have the practical power to set the target inflation rate and interest rate (by influencing the money supply). If a fiscal authority (some level of government) tried to influence the money supply in the way you suggest (reducing it by taking bills out of circulation), the monetary authority will just use its' vastly superior monopoly power to increase the money supply directly, maintaining the mix of inflation and employment that it considers optimal. In this way, the central bank is considered politically independent from the fiscal authority.

But you're right, reducing the money supply reduces inflation. Central banks do this by selling securities, usually government bonds. When they sell the bond, they receive money for it. That money is now out of circulation. The central bank isn't concerned with profits or a "balanced budget" like fiscal authorities. They have few expenses, and aren't required to provide much in the way of service (compared to federal governments). They just manage the money supply.NByz (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football question

I'm watching an FA Cup match between Aston Villa and Gillingham and it appears that about half of the Villa players have some sort of greasy smear in the front center of their jerseys. Are they covering up some sort of banned sponsor? If so, why only some of the players? The stuff looks like axle grease. I'd look at the team page, but I fear that someone, in their zeal to keep the Villa page as up to date as possible, will have put in the final score. This happened last night when all I wanted was some info on Forest Green v. Derby County and boom!, there's the final score already. Thanks much.98.235.67.132 (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) And yes, I realize that anyone who may know the answer is probably fast asleep since I'm watching this at 11:30 p.m. Eastern U.S.[reply]

That grease is actually a mentholated ointment, to help keep the footballer's airways clear during play. Probably the British equivalent of Vicks VapoRub. It appeared in the Premiership around the same time as the influx of French players a few years ago. Quelle surprise. Rockpocket 06:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's the stuff - we get Vicks stuff here in Blighty, so no need to worry. We also get various Vaseline branded products that would do the job. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes sense. It is cough-and-cold season. Can't have those laddies sidelined with the sniffles.98.235.67.132 (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a joke right? Footballers with Vick or Vaseline on their shirts? I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life. Where are the links and citations. There would seem to be some major advertising possibilities here but who ever heard of soccer players running around advertising 'Night Nurse' on their shirts. Nah, can't believe any of this. Richard Avery (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No joke:

"I put Vicks on my shirt to wake up," said Jon Busch. "It keeps me alert. A few other players do it too." [26]
"now you can enjoy the stench of Vicks all game without looking as if you've spilt a kebab down your front" [27]
"As far as I'm aware it's Vicks-type stuff that's rubbed on to the shirt to improve the player's breathing during a match." [28]
"For a few years they had obviously been told that the Vicks or whatever it was would help their breathing ... some lower-league players have since picked up the idea (just recently I saw a substitute in a Championship match daubing the front of his shirt with something from a jar before running on)." [29]
"It is some form of vapour rub, which is put on the top of the chest so that the vapour will rise and ensure that the players nose stays clear while playing," points out Carl White." [30] Rockpocket 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oxymask.JPG

Wayne Rooney models the next fad in helping footballers' breathe

(ec) Don't know if it's true or not but it appears to be a common theory, football shirt vapor rub and vapour rub soccer shirt. I would have thought that putting it under your nose would have been better. Help you breathe and keep away the smell from the other players sweaty bodies. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK, I'm convinced. What a wonderful thing is the placebo effect. I wonder what colour is the Vick salesman's new Porsch? A bit like those little adhesive things that sportsmen and sportswomen used to put over the bridge of their noses to 'open' the airway and get more air in (and out presumably). Richard Avery (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vicks shirt slime seems to have superseded the anti-snore nose tape in football. Robbie Fowler held out the longest, but even have gave up in the end (perhaps he realized it only served to provide more material for those spreading the [unfounded] coke addict rumours). What next I wonder.... Rockpocket 08:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I always thought it was just sweat and neve gave it a second thought — chan dler — 09:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liddle's syndrome

Can you please assist me with Doctor's names in South Africa who can give me more information on Liddle syndrome, because I cannot find anything on the internet.

Regards

Litetia Wolmarans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.60.60 (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the title from "Question". I don't know about SA doctors, but try Liddle's syndrome. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This condition appears to be in the kidneys, so I'd consult a nephrologist. It also mimics hyperaldosteronism, which is an adrenal gland disorder, so an endocrinologist might be able to help with the initial diagnosis. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a web search on "South Africa" nephrologist -investment and found a good result. (The -investment part was needed because every other Google hit was an "investment opportunity".) One match I found was Dr. A. A. Khan at the Entabeni Nephrology Centre in Durban, South Africa: [31]. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I found a directory of South African nephrologists, organized by state and city/neighborhood: [32]. It doesn't include Dr. Kahn from Durban, though, so apparently isn't comprehensive. It also lists Gauteng twice, with a different list for each instance, and sorts names based on first initial, not last name. So, this web site needs work, but is still good enough to find a nephrologist in SA. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity Generation by Company/Utility

Who are the 10 largest Energy Generators in the world (by electricity production volume) for either 2007 or 2008 - include Government Agencies, where applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simo19 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look through List of countries by electricity production or World energy resources and consumption? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journey's End

There are infinite universes, dimensions etc, in each things happen that didn't happen in others, things succeed while failing in others. If Davros' reality bomb would effect all universes, wouldn't he have succeeded in at least 1 of them, thus destroying them all, even the ones where he was stopped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't understand the question: Journey's End (Doctor Who) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, sorry I didn't provide a link. Also, I posted here as it doesn't seem to fit the Entertainment or Science desks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct answer is: "IT'S A WORK OF FICTION!" - but what I suppose you want to hear is that if there are an INFINITE number of universes, etc - then Davro's reality bomb worked in an infinite number of them - failed in an infinite number of them and turned into a pink aardvark in an infinite number of them. SteveBaker (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frknl, Steve, are you the reason these pink aardvarks are [33] around my computer desk?! That multiverse thing is having a breeding week! Julia Rossi (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes laws ?

If you dropped a piano off a roof into a crowd, intending to kill people, but they all managed to get out of the way in time, could you be charged with attempted murder ? How would they know which people's attempted murders, or even how many counts, to charge you with ? Any country or jurisdiction will do, as this is purely a theoretical question. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on attempted murder contains a considerable level of detail on English/Welsh law, although I'm sure you've already looked. 82.41.152.178 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was me Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would they know? They'd have to figure it out, make some guesses, etc., and see what they could charge you with. There isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all answer here. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought it wouldn't be necessary for the prosecution to identify any particular intended victim/s, but just to establish there was murderous intent on the part of the perp. Just like terrorists, who don't have any particular victim/s in mind, but they sure intend to kill any and all people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you drop a piano off a roof into a crowd of people, your intentions are pretty clear. I have no doubt that an attempted murder charge would stick even without any particular person being identified as the intended victim. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astrological star patterns

I've recently been looking at some astrology sites. I'm a Saggi, therefore the archer. I'm not at all interested in horascpoes or the like but would like to understand how the first person looked at the stars and saw an archer? (same for all signs as I can see) It strikes me that there is a random spread of stars around which someone has drawn a picture - why an archer? It doesn't really look like an archer does it? After some good beer I thought I could see a ferrari 246 91.110.32.120 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Constellation#Constellation systems across the world and History of the constellations. It's all down to those ancient greek chappies and their vivid imagination. Or Chinese, or Inca, depending on your locality. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just stars, but any random pattern we attempt to make look like something familiar. Much of it is due to cultural conditioning. An Inuit might see a kayak, for example, but we wouldn't. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the names of the constellations are different in every civilisation. What American's call "The Big Dipper" (a ladle) - is "Ursa Major" (the great bear) to astronomers - and "The Plough" (plow) to us Brit's. It doesn't help that the orientation of the constellation is different depending on what latitude you live on. A constellation may look completely upside-down in the Southern hemisphere compared to the North. I don't know about the constellations so much (because they are increasingly hard to see due to light pollution) - but here is a superb concrete example: I grew up living in the UK - seeing a partial moon as if it were the letter 'C'. I read that many native civilisations believed the moon was a boat that sailed across the sky carrying the gods...which seemed really strange to me because a 'C' looks NOTHING like a boat. It was only when I moved to Texas (considerably further South) that I realised that the moon is turned somewhat on it's side here...if you went further south still - it would look like a letter 'U' - just like a boat! For something as clear and obvious as the moon - that's a pretty stunning difference - we can only guess how those differences in star patterns would change people's views of what these patterns might represent. Of course, while this is all very amusing - it has absolutely zero real value because the stars that look close together in the sky - might be gazillions of light-years apart in 'depth'. So the stars that belong to the same star sign are really utterly unrelated - yet another reason why astrology is bullshit. SteveBaker (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original poster hit upon something: After some good beer I thought I could see a ferrari 246. I've always only half-jokingly postulated that constellations were named by priests or shamans quite under the influence of interesting entheogens. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena and pareidolia for a broader scope of humans reading patterns into things, as recently as Jesus in a nebula in 2004 or the monkey deity in a tree in 2007. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this points out Inuit beliefs about stars is pretty much lost and in the area I live it would certainly be true. The only belief in this area that is still current, among children, is that whistling at the aqhaliaq will cause them to come down, remove your head and use it for a soccer ball. But you know I have never heard an adult whistle when they are visible! One legend, not sure from where but listed here, is that the Pleiades are Nanook and a group of dogs. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought the populist version of a phenomenon is a means of communicating to the masses when that's important. Jargon is saved for making things obscure. I'd guess "There goes a Ferrari" bonds more people than "there goes a street legal 250 GT Europa/Boano/Ellena/Pininfarina Coupe/Lusso". But can you ever really know...?Julia Rossi (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HK Holden id plate

How do you read the id plate on a HK Holden Premier. What do the letters and numbers mean150.101.231.95 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) then our article explains what each element of the number relates to. Nanonic (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information in our article is only scratching the surface of what that number tells you. Many of the fields are manufacturer-specific - so our article can only talk about them in the most general terms. I could tell you (for example) that on a MINI Cooper, the sixth character is '1' for a gasoline MINI, '2' for hydrogen power, '3' for a diesel, and '4' for electric...but on the Holden, it might tell you anything from the color of the seat covers to how many cylinders the engine has...we simply don't know. To pick another example - the eleventh character ALWAYS tells you which factory it was made in - but unless you know what letters Holden use for each factory - you don't know anything useful! On a MINI, 'T' means "Oxford, England" - but I have no clue which factory a 'T' in that field would mean on a Holden. I can only suggest either (a) finding a Holden enthusiast club or (b) asking on the Talk: page of our article about the car - I know that there is a Holden fanatic who works on all of the Holden articles - if he doesn't know - nobody does! SteveBaker (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another tip is oldholden.com. This link is the monaro version but it could be a guide[34]. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valet Stealing cars

Who is responsible for the damages should a parking valet damage a client's car in an upscale luxury hotel such as those found in Dubai? Similarly, who is responsible should a parking valet steal the car? Acceptable (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the laws in Dubai, but, in general, I would certainly expect car thieves to be held criminally responsible. Financial responsibility could be more complicated. The thieves could be sued, but might not have the money to cover it. The hotel could possibly be sued for negligence in hiring people with criminal records, say. Finally, if not legally adults, the thieves' parents might be held financial responsible. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In common law jurisdictions, a valet who stole a car would be criminally liable (ie. they'd be the one thrown in jail), but the company who employed the valet would be civilly liable (ie. they're the one you'd sue). I can't find our article on it right now, but in general, an employer is liable for the on-the-job actions of their employees. --Carnildo (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - the term to look for is "vicarious liability". PeteVerdon (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

Weird example

In the illustrative example section of the Felony murder article, it states that a manager who dies in the midst of bank robbery of a heart attack can have the robbers held responsible for his death on account of the robbery causing the manager enough stress to induce the heart attack. What if the manager had a big fight with his wife or someone else prior to the robbery and that causes the heart attack? Or what if in the case of someone who goes driving while incredibly upset after an argument and then they get into a car crash and die? Should the person they argued with be legally liable for their death? Seems like that kind of charge can easily be abused to me. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because neither fighting with your husband nor having an argument with someone constitutes a felony. The felony murder rule wouldn't apply. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 3: Senior Year

When will High School Musical 3: Senior Year first be shown on Disney Channel in Sydney, Australia? When will the DVD first be released for sale there? Bowei Huang (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies

What is the colour of their blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.123.229 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical colors for hemolymph are greenish or yellowish. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue colour of sky

Can you tell me why the colour of sky appears to be blue, whereas the colour of outer space is told to be black?

@@ Line 505: / Line 505: @@
 :Typical colors for [[hemolymph]] are greenish or yellowish.  --[[User:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM|Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM]] ([[User talk:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM|talk]]) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
+== Blue colour of sky ==
+Can you tell me why the colour of sky appears to be blue, whereas the colour of outer space is told to be black?