Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 2

Carmen on ice - Katarina Witt

Does anyone know where I can buy this DVD in the UK please?--85.211.142.22 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon stock it. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon.co.uk only seem to be selling a used VHS tape of the version starring Witt. I suggest you buy this and copy it to DVD.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's ordered, many thanks for the advices.--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Plural of advice is still advice. Vranak (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now it's already advice³. --Nepenthes (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Amazon stocks it. Unless he's talking about jungle women, in which case it would be Amazons stock it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

See American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

One store I checked for this product was Amazon. I discovered that they stock it. Thus I conclude that Amazon stock it. Don't the singulat and plural verb forms work equally well here? Not trying to start anything big here, just askin'. :) Franamax (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. Bugs was out of line in making his incorrect "correction". --Viennese Waltz 07:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was making fun of the other editor for lecturing the OP about "advices". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright 85.211.142.22 if you want to be picky, at least I said thank you, which most people don't.--85.211.142.22 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You talking to yourself there, 85.211? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This silly British insistence on making singular nouns agree with plural verbs is a pretentious innovation. Shakespeare didn't do it. The Brits have forgotten the subjunctive, and most couldn't find their ars were they handed them. Next they'll insist we use the possessive form to indicate animate masculine nouns in the accusative case. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"You say tomayto, I say tomahto..." Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wingdings

Typing anything in Wingdings makes it look like gibberish,so why would anyone want to use that font? Why does it exist?? 117.97.193.2 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wingdings are dingbats. They enable people to use non-standard symbols or figures in text (usually for ornamental purposes), like this ☺. They're not meant to represent sounds, obviously. Though you can use it that way if you wish. See Wingdings for what it actually looks like. It probably looks like gibberish in your computer, because you do not have the font installed. In which case, see Help:Special characters. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Food coloring

What's the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies? The containers are opaque and most consumers are never going to look at it. It seems totally unnecessary. Please don't respond with "market research shows consumers prefer their drinks purple and their yogurt red". Like I said, most people are never going to look at these two things, they are just going to drink and eat them. Why is there food coloring in such items? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of us civilised people still like their drink in a glass, so the colour does matter!--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to also add, "don't respond with 'some people pour canned energy drinks in a glass'", but I thought that nobody would actually respond with such a comment, but here it is. Listen, nobody pours an energy drink into a glass unless they are in a bar, and it is usually dark in a nightclub. So, I'm not buying it. If you're in a dark nightclub, you're not going to see the color of your energy drink, which is already mixed as it is, so that answer doesn't hold water. Take for example Rockstar Zero Carb.[1] People do not buy that to pour it in a glass. It just doesn't happen. They drink it out of a can and that's that. However, it is colored like a "wild berry". Why?? And nobody is going to pour a drinkable yogurt smoothie out of its plastic container into a glass, because it would take way too long. Ever try to pour yogurt? So your answer isn't satisfactory. Don't get me wrong. I'm very familiar with the stock answers of "market research shows consumers want their drinks colored" and "it's because people pour it into a glass", but I'm not buying it. It's just not true, and I don't believe it. The fact of the matter is, consumers favor products without food coloring, which is why you see more and more products labeled with "no artificial colors". So why is food coloring still added to products, especially to products that are unlikely to be seen by the consumer outside of their original containers, such as energy drinks and drinkable yogurts? Mr. Green (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some consumers may care about artificial colouring but realisticly most people who drink energy drinks aren't going to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that answer, but notice I did not offer these reasons alone or in isolation. There is simply no single good reason why these drinks are artificially colored. And, I can prove it. The target market for energy drinks, for example, are young males who are active with sports, video games, or studying.[2] Do you think these men are going to get out their dainty little glass and pour this can into it with their little pinky finger raised? I think not. They are going to rip open the can, drink it, and get back to their game. The manufacturers also sell a great deal of these drinks to convenience stores attached to gas stations because they know their target market drinks it "on the go". In other words, there is good data showing that this particular kind of drink is consumed straight out of the can, an opaque can that cannot reveal the color. And yet, it is colored like its flavor, a purplish "wild berry" color. Why? There is not a single good reason. We know, looking at the distribution network for this drink and the target demographic, that the vast majority of consumers who buy it never look at the color. Therefore, it makes no sense to add an artificial color to this drink, combined with the fact that many consumers avoid food coloring in the first place. So then, why is it added? Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that most consumers are usually going to consume the product without looking at the colour, but, at some stage, either when they first try it, or when they accidentally spill some, most people will notice the colour. The manufacturers presumably believe that a "healthy" colour makes people think that their product is a "healthy" drink. Dbfirs 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor? Find me a single, reliable energy drink review that talks about the importance of the color, or even mentions it. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. The target market for energy drinks, as me and several people have said, and you apparently agree aren't the type who will avoid artificial colouring. Therefore your key reason not to colour the products is gone. (The only thing you have left is don't do it because it doesn't matter.) You then have to consider whether there is a reason to colour the products. The answer is there is, since as several people have said, many people do actually notice the colour at some stage despite your claims to the contrary and for some of them it is going to make a difference. As others have said, it's also part of the wider branding of the product (like how it's promoted). I note you have brought up Red Bull but it seems you've missed the point it's clear one of their intentions is to differentiate themselves from Red Bull and also their products from one another. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that "nobody pours an energy drink into a glass" is incorrect. My mother always pours drinks into a glass since she considers drinking out of the canister 'uncouth' and not something you do in polite society. I'm sure there are many others out there with similar opinions. Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion a bit more carefully. Energy drinks aren't marketed to mothers who take them home and pour them in a glass. They are sold to young males "on the go" and on the move, people who are involved in an activity. And when they are poured, they are used in dark nightclubs as an ingredient in a bomb shot. Sadly, your mother is not the target demographic for energy drinks. More to the point, the energy drink company in question has, within the last six months, begun targeting women with a new drink in their product line, which is dyed pink. And, guess what? It comes with a straw affixed to the can,[3] indicating that they intend the female user to drink it out of the can, not pour it into a glass. To quote the review: "Juice boxes, milkshakes, and fruity cocktails, all awesome, all drunk with straws. Rockstar should just include straws with all their products." Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I, User:APL, routinely pour all my drinks, including energy drinks, into a clear, double-walled frosty-glass], because I like my drinks to remain at near-freezing for as long as possible. Drinks in metal cans seem to warm up almost instantly in my experience. APL (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the colours are there because the market research indicated that the product would sell better with them than without them. As to why this would be, there are probably as many reasons as there are people! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes—ye olde market research myth. I've heard that line for decades and I have yet to see any evidence it is true. I presume it is printed in textbooks and published in PR trade magazines, yet has anyone ever looked into it? I'll bet you anything it comes from a study dated from around 1955, around the time that physicians smoked and were paid to sell cigarettes in advertisements. Which means that kind of market research is probably just as bogus as medical doctors preaching the safety of tobacco and encouraging people to smoke for their "health". Let's be realistic. Is there anyone who wakes up and says, "I hope my food has the most fabulous artificial colors in it today"? No, there isn't. And, why are these colors in foods that nobody will ever look at or even care to look at? Energy drinks aren't bought for their color, and yogurt smoothies are almost impossible to pour into a glass. No matter how you look at it, there's no reasonable explanation for why these artificial colors are added. And just to prove that this whole notion of artificial colors as an appealing aspect of food is malarcky, try this as an experiment: cook two servings of macaroni and cheese, one from fresh pasta and melted cheese of your choice, and another from the packaged mix variety known for its fluorescent artificial cheese color. Now choose which is more appetizing. There goes the myth. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I didn't read all of your second comment, but with all due respect, you never mentioned a particular brand in your original question. You also mentioned 'drinkable yogurt smoothies', a product I can imagine my mother trying to pour into a glass or dessert bowl. The reason food colouring is added to anything is because customers have certain expectations of the product's appearence should they happen to see it in good light. If you found out your energy drink or drinkable yoghurt had the colour of, say, day-glo snot you might well make comments about how unappealing it looked to anybody prepared to listen. Such bad publicity is simply not worth the risk for the sake of adding a more appealing colour. Astronaut (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The energy drink is actually clear to light yellow without coloring and the yogurt is white without color. Neither products are intended to be poured into a glass. Further, there is no evidence that consumers of energy drinks care about the color, and yogurt is, for all intents and purposes, usually served white, so adding color to it doesn't change its presentation any more than it appears normally. So, in both instances, there continues to be a lack of any reasonable explanation for why the manufacturer needed to add food coloring. The yogurt smoothies in question are actually too small for the consumer to even try to pour it into a glass or bowl, and it would be inefficient to do so, as the container is too small to allow for the transport of most of the food and the opening too narrow to allow one to scoop it out easily. Both products are normally served without any added color (regular diet Rockstar in the white bottle and white yogurt smoothie) so your argument that it would be unappealing without the color is not true. The two products I mention contain color for no reason at all, and do not appear more appealing with the added color. The argument for adding food coloring in these two instances remains without merit, and I suggest that this reflects on the larger argument for food coloring, which is actually unappealing when compared with uncolored food, contrary to your claim. Please try my macaroni and cheese experiment to experience this for yourself. Food coloring is not appealing, no matter how many times we are told that it is. Viriditas (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A question with such gross logical fallacies can not be answered. It forms a kind of circular reasoning were one of the assumptions explicitly refutes the true answer and tries to justify this with false conclusions.--Aspro (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide me with the name, date, and publication of any market research indicating that consumers prefer artificial colors in their food. Or any published material for that matter. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Our food coloring article gives some explanation (particularly: "...make color addition commercially advantageous to maintain the color expected or preferred by the consumer.") But if you are not satisfied, why don't you ask the manufacturers. Their contact details are here. Astronaut (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, energy drinks aren't known or chosen for their color, and yogurt is normally white, so there is no advantage in the two examples I gave you. Further, I provided a third example, using macaroni and cheese, showing that the perceived advantage was actually a disadvantage when compared with a similar but uncolored analogue. We're dealing with a myth here, that has no substantial evidence supporting it. The consumer expects and prefers food that tastes and looks good, there is no question about that. But I have yet to see a single documented instance of food coloring contributing to this experience. We're told that we have to have it, and that we must have it, but in every case that I can see, we don't need it, and more importantly, the consumer doesn't want it. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well to be blunt, you're not looking hard enough. Margarine discusses the history of legislation surrounding what colouring usage, either no colouring or odd colouring (bright yellow or orange or pink) both of which put the consumer off the product. It even discusses how bootlegged butter coloured magarine existed and some people would add their own colouring. Or try asking a kid about what colour sweets they like or do a test with uncoloured sweets (which in many cases will be something fairly light) and see whether colour really doesn't make a difference. (Speaking of kids, I suspect you'd find some do prefer the cheap & nasty macaroni & cheese you mentioned.) I think you also don't appreciate what a lot of products would look like without colouring (including substances primarily added for colour but which may serve other minor purposes). And really if you're going to talk like colouring doesn't make a difference you should always exclude the use of any bleaching agents on your food products which is usually also significantly to do with colour. Don't say this doesn't relate to the energy drink or yoghurt example because you're missing the point, you keep insisting there's no evidence colouring makes a difference but that doesn't really bear scrunity. (I would agree some companies are a little to free with their colouring and end up producing stuff that looks unnecessarily artificial although in some cases I may not be the right market anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So, according to you, the reason artificial coloring is added to dog and cat food is because the color makes a difference to pets, is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Colour is colour, artificial or other wise. It is the visual presentation that matters, not origin. So it would unlikly be a subject for consumer testing surveys. You might as well ask for surveys to discover if people want peppermint creams to taste of peppermint- much of which today is artificial too. Same calorific food value as unflavoured mints -so from that point of view, unnecessary as well. --Aspro (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You say that it is the visual presentation that matters. However, I've just given two examples up above—an energy drink and a packaged yogurt smoothie—that when consumed in their expected and appropriate way, do not present themselves in a visual manner. So, if the visual presentation matters, but the consumer does not experience the food visually because of the packaging, then why is food coloring added? We're back to my original question. Viriditas (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The original question is built on confirmation bias. It may sound logical and 'reason-able' to you but it isn't. --Aspro (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're confused. My original question was, What's the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies? Why is there food coloring in such items? For some reason or another, you haven't been able to answer the question. And, it is true that these drinks were intended to be consumed from their original container, not from a glass, making the use of artificial color unnecessary. This is not "confirmation bias". This is an observable fact based on their target demographic of males on the go, at athletic events, in the car on the road, etc. Further, I have provided evidence showing that their newest product, catered to females, includes the use of a straw to be consumed from the can itself, making the artificial color of the product even more unnecessary. When asked to support your contention that 1) market research shows consumers want these artificial colors, you were unable to substantiate it. It is looking more and more likely that these colors are not used because the consumer wants them, but because the company requires them, whether it is to extend the shelf life of the product or to reduce spoilage. However, the myth that the consumer wants these artificial colors in their food has no support. You are welcome to support your claims with actual published research at any time, but I'm afraid we will never see it. You see, your fallacious argument ("the consumer wants it!") has been used before, particularly by the petrochemical and automobile industry, who in decades past, claimed night and day, that they would not produced fuel efficient vehicles because the consumer didn't want it. They stopped saying that in 2008, but the claim is still alive on the Heartland Institute websites. This canard of "the consumer wants it" is one of the oldest PR gimmicks around. There are no consumers demanding artificial colors in their food, quite the opposite actually. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Consumers have wanted and cared about fuel efficiency in vehicles long before 2008 in a number of countries outside the US. Your other claim is nonsense, most colourings don't extend shelf life or reduce spoilage. If you disagree, well if I may take a page out of your book show me the published researched. As it stands, you're ignoring the examples people have already provided where colouring clearly does matter (outside of energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies). Or are you going to say consumers adding colouring themselves and the availability of bootleg margarine in banned colours and the legislation requiring uncoloured margarine and the demonstrated effect on the popularity somehow needs published research to demonstrate it had anything to do with colours and wasn't just a PR gimmick? You've also ignored the example of sweets and children, the reason why no one has bothered to provide any research is probably partially because anyone who has any experience with children immediately knows colour does make a difference. If you really want research, you could easily find it yourself, I found these in under a minute [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. In fact you seem to be contradicting yourself since you keep claiming colour doesn't matter but then you claim people don't like products which look too artifically coloured (which I agree is sometimes the case). If you don't understand why these are contradictory, I suggest you think about it, since without understanding that, you're never going to be able to understand the issue. (Hint, some times product colouring may make it look artificial to most but often the intention is the product looks natural or 'right' to the target audience. As I said earlier you need to forget about energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies for now and concentrate on what many products would look like without colouring or bleaching and how the consumer reaction would be to said products. Once you can understand that, perhaps you can have a hope understanding the energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies examples.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous! You missed the point entirely. Consumers do care about fuel efficiency in the U.S. but press release after press release from industry groups says otherwise. This was PR pushback against making smaller cars and raising fuel efficiency. They claimed the consumer didn't want it, so they could sell cars that used more gas, which made them more money. How interesting then, is it to find the same bogus arguments coming from the same industry groups, since after all, food coloring is derived from petrochemicals. We're told we have to have it in our food, and that cats and dogs have to have it too. When we ask why, we're told because we demand it. This is the same argument the oil industry insiders made when they working with the Bush admin. They said, "Everybody wants to drive a Hummer; nobody wants to drive a diesel Volkswagen that gets 45 mpg." That's a paraphrase of an actual quote. It's the same bogus argument from the same group of people selling the same chemicals. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuel efficient vehicles were available in the US before 2008. And no one forced people to buy Hummers. Don't get me wrong, the situation in the US with regards to tax and the belief owning big cars which waste fuel and kill people more effictively was somehow more American which was helped by the lobbying and PR efforts was and is ridiculous. But you seem to be missing the point that this did work and many consumers did in fact not care that much. Ironically when the shit hit the fan, US car companies suffered greatly, Japanese (and I think South Korean car companies) in the US could bring in their stuff from Europe and elsewhere so benefited. (Personally I had long believe that those in the US who were promoting the idea that big cars were the American thing weren't doing their car manufacturers are favour and look what happened?) However as it stands, I'm pretty sure the average fuel efficiency and size of vehicles in the US is lower then in places like Europe. Again this may partially be to do with things like tax and what's available, but ultimately consumers in the US are the ones making the choice (influence by the PR and all that perhaps) to buy less fuel efficient vehicles, rather then all consumers in the US buying the most fuel efficient vehicles that are available there. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have made up your mind that you're not going accept certain explanations. If you're after the truth, keep an open mind. The reason that food manufacturers add artificial coloring to their products is that they, for whatever reason, think that it helps them sell their products. There might have been privately commissioned studies, or it could be just a belief not backed up by anything—I don't know. Speaking as a consumer, I don't find the practice hard to understand at all. Way back when I was a kid, our teacher showed us an educational program about the production of ice pops. Towards the end, the host asked his tour guide why they added artificial coloring to the ice pops. The tour guide passed him an ice pop with artificial orange flavoring but no color, and asked, rhetorically, "Would you believe this is an 'orange' ice pop?" I think he made his point quite effectively. Even if the product containers are opaque, consumers may still see the product while consuming it, so presentation still matters. To me, if all flavors of a product have the same color, the lack of color difference would serve as a powerful reminder that whatever flavor the product has actually comes from artificial flavoring. --72.94.148.76 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How does adding artificial colors to dog and cat food help them sell it? How does adding artificial colors to canned drinks that are sold with straws and intended to be consumed "on the go" from the can, help them sell their products? Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one still confused by this hypothetical 'yoghurt smoothie'? I at first thought the OP was referring to a yoghurt drink, but the OP then said it was impossible to pour one. So I take it isn't drunken. Is it just some sort of fancy name for yoghurt intended to be eaten? But any yoghurt intended to be eaten is usually seen in the container once you open it and on the spoon. Not that I ever have problems pouring normal yogurt myself (sometimes with a spoon to help), well not counting it all coming out in one go so I end up with too much. So how the heck do you consume this yoghurt smoothie if you don't eat it or drink it? Do you snort it? P.S. I didn't mention earlier but although I don't live in the US, energy drinks are fairly popular here in NZ. They're generally yellow in colour (I think mostly from the Riboflavin). You know how I know that? Because I've drunken them including in glasses before and also split some drops sometimes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Coloring may be added to mask the natural color of the product. Without coloring some products might appear mostly clear or white, but with a slightly off tint. Food coloring is incredibly cheap relative to the other processes in food manufacturer so it doesn't take much to get someone to add dye to a product. In any case manufacturers of these products do it because they think it will help them sell more. That is the only reason they do anything. --Daniel 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nil, see the article on Go-Gurt. --72.94.148.76 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Presuming the OP is referring to something like that, I'm even more mystified. A product for children and they ask why it's coloured? Seriously? BTW if the OP is referring to some sort of yoghurt drink well I have no idea what sort of drinks you get there in the US but in Malaysia there are yoghurt drinks and they were often coloured but pouring them was very easy since they were drinks so not that viscous. And I did that all the time because the bottles I got were often ~450-500 ml ones which was more then I usually drunk in one go. If they are single serve, pouring them in to a cup may be less common but I still don't get what sort of product there is you can easily drink but not easily pour. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My theories: either it's because the drink is also sold in clear bottles, so they just make the mixture and pore the same mixtureinto both the opaque cans and the clear bottles. Or it's because the natural colour is actually disgusting, like a brown. Cliko (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Coke? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

At my local watering hole, it's very common for younger chaps and lasses to order these drinks during the day in bright conditions and they are served in a glass, often with ice and perhaps an addition of good old russian vodka. Your initial assertion is based on a false premise old boy - and another good reason for the drinks being the colour(s) they are is quite simple - to differentiate them from other drinks. If you order a coca-cola based drink, a lemonade based drink and a energy drink based drink they will all look different making it easier to hand them round to your drinking partners. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember Crystal Pepsi? No? It's because it didn't take off. People have expectations that sodas and the like have ridiculous colors. The connection between appearance and perceived flavor has been demonstrated a million times over by tests. (Heck, you can do it yourself with Froot Loops, which, if you don't know any better, seem to have different flavors based on their coloration, but if you try them with your eyes closed, you quickly discover they all have the exact same vaguely fruity taste. It is a common science fair experiment.) The idea that they never see the colors is absurd. I know what color half of those drinks have; I can't be unusual. People drink them in a lot of different contexts. Food coloring is absurdly cheap. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Pepsi was killed by Tab Clear in a targeted campaign to eliminate the competition.[9] Further, people drink Pepsi for the taste and the caffeine, both of which Crystal Pepsi lacked. Its demise had nothing to do with color. Read the sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is the OP keeps insisting that the colour doesn't matter because it isn't seen yet it's readily apparent they know the colour otherwise they wouldn't be asking the question and it's readily apparent most people here who've ever consumed or seen an energy drink know the colour. BTW speaking of Froot Loops, there are sweets which have different flavours which are usually in different colours. I guess the OP is going to claim the manufacturers should let them all be the same colour (which as several people have said, it likely to be some sort of offwhite or clearish.). Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My question (why is food coloring added to canned energy drinks and yogurt smoothies?) is based on reviewing the product ingredients, not on my personal knowledge of a color. Since you've bought into the urban legend being promoted about food coloring and about how the consumer demands for it to be added to their food (a statement that remains without any evidence) why don't you explain why the pet food industry adds food coloring to pet food? Is it because the dog and cat lobby demands it? Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not an urban legend since examples have been provided including studies showing how colour influences food choice as well as other things like margarine which has plenty of refs in the article and that was provided a long time ago. I have found another example while looking for something else [10] and this one actually discusses including with pictures what people have said, but you seem to have continually ignored. Completely uncoloured food, is often rather unappertising particularly when it's the highly processed variety. The article gives some examples for example, a taste test where uncoloured Cheetos were found to taste bland. I particularly like the description of them looking like the 'shriveled larvae of a large insect'. It also mentions another interesting example, evidentally there is a 'Kraft Macaroni and Cheese Organic White Cheddar'. I'm guessing it normally costs more (since Kraft correctly figured those who do care would be willing to pay more) but again another nail in your coffin. If everyone really cared that much about the colours of the other stuff, they would be buying this and Kraft would phase out their artificially coloured stuff. (The US also has a relatively free and vibrant market so competitors could take advantage if one company refuses to give consumers what they want.) Incidentally this reminds me that you still haven't explained why you believe consumers don't like food which looks artificially coloured but then you also believe colours don't matter. Also I was thinking of this earlier and decided to to mention it having read that ref (since it mentions the related case of pickles). I was looking in to corned beef is made a few weeks ago and learnt something. Nitrates or nitrites are used in the prepration of corned beef and some other cured meat products. (Traditionally Potassium nitrate.) Although these have been used for a long time, in recent times their usage has come under scrutiny because of nitrosamine formation. Anyway nitrates or nitrites are useful as a preservative, they slow the growth of botulism and other problems see [11]. But they also help to give the food a pink colour which is usually suggested to be one of the reasons why they were and are used. If you look for instructions for making corned beef from scratch you'll see people do discuss the colour and how the greyish-brown colour if you don't use nitrites/nitrates may seem unappertising compared to the pinkish colour. (I know because I came across them in the aforementioned research.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you pay to drink this

Because adding coloration is cheaper than an advertising campaign explaining why your drink, should you spill it. looks looks like the urine of someone with rhabdomyolosis. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you've just described the color of beer and ginger ale, which nobody has ever had a problem with before. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you are 'that credulous, Greenity, to identify clear beverages with proteinaceous ones.μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick, what color is Red Bull? That's right, amber. What else is amber colored? That's right, lager and ginger ale. You're welcome, come again. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, both piss and gold are the same "color" but they don't look the same in all aspects, do they? If you want to identify yourself as blind to the difference between opaque urine and clear beer, I won;t deny your blindness. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The primary objective when creating a food or beverage product, like any other product, is to sell it and presumably make a profit. Many many research studies have shown that the way to do that is effective branding. You want a catchy name, a cool logo, slick packaging, a hip image, and good telegenics. If you get all that right, it turns out most people (especially in this target demographic) don't really give a shit about artificial this or that. They're about to ride a mountain bike down an insane slope and ask for the knee replacement 30 years later, or drink their face off in a bar and drive home after. So forget about the "artificial" aspect. The branding aspect though - part of the branding is the look of the product itself. You will be showing it pouring out in the TV ads and on the billboards, and you need something as equally distinctive, hip and youthful as the rest of the marketing workup. So you need a certain colour. And you can't just fake it for the ads, people will spill, wipe their mouths off, yes, occasionally pour the drink out (in my case, probably on the ground). So you spend the extra few micro-cents per serving to get your own particular colour. Selling food and beverages is not about actually providing people with food or beverages, which make up a small fraction of the selling price. You are selling a brand image and an experience, with s small food/beverage component to justify your effort. Not many people get rich with a pile of raw potatoes on a street corner - but turn that into a sexy model holding a bottle of vodka and murmuring on TV, slightly better business model. You might reject all that, but 'tis reality. Franamax (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't reject what you've said all, I just find arguments from ignorance annoying and unhelpful. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how many times this myth is repeated in this thread, the consumer does not prefer artificial colors in their food and contrary to what you've claimed, apathy is not the order of the day. Many people do in fact care, with major U.S. corporations making two sets of products, one with artificial colors for consumption at home, and another without it for sale abroad in Europe. Why would major companies commit to two different sets of products if people didn't care? In the U.S., natural food supermarkets like Whole Foods and Trader Joes have all but banned such products from their shelves. The reality is, consumers are choosing products without artificial food coloring and the food industry can't defend its continued use. Care to tell me why cat and dog food contains artificial colors? Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For more information on this topic, see Bee Wilson, Swindled: the dark history of food fraud. In my opinion she lets today's food companies off the hook by stressing the continuity with past adulteration, but it's still a great read and a useful reference. You might also like Harvey Levenstein, Revolution at the table: the transformation of the American diet. You are right to say that many consumers question the purpose of food colouring, but as pointed out above, that doesn't so far include all consumers. And in the UK artificial colours are generally being replaced by "natural" ones like beetroot and anatto, but it's still processed food. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dogs and cats don't buy food, their owners buy it for them, and many owners treat their pets like children, so they (perhaps mistakenly) assume that their pets will find strong colours more attractive. Most of us still retain this childhood preference for differently-coloured food, and manufacturers just play to this "weakness" in our psychology. Once the majority of the population joins Viriditas in rejecting artificial colours, the manufacturers will either switch to natural colouring or miss out the colouring completely. Dbfirs 08:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pouch drinks are generally clear. It would be most unusual to consume those from a glass as you would litterally need to rip open the pouch. Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it isn't just about people thinking their pets would prefer strong colours but the natural colour of a lot of highly processed pet foods is going to look fairly wrong and unappertising to their owners. Not that pet food tend to look particularly appertising but it's likely to be worse without colours. BTW some other pets do occasionally care about the colour of their food [12]. (I guess the OP is going to suggest the above message was sent by big oil not a real bird owner.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking about this properly? The reason why companies would make different products for the European and US market would be because they have in fact done market research and know that their are different demands from their consumers in Europe and in the US. Clearly enough of their consumers in Europe (perhaps combined with local regulations) care that they've decide it best not to use certain colourings. However the situation in the US is different. Obviously some consumers in the US care, but not enough for it to be worth their while to stop their usage, after all those speciality stores can always buy their products destined for the European markets. Again you seemed to have missed the big and obvious hint: The fact that those stores do exist in the US, but plenty of people still buy the other stuff should tell you that a lot of people don't care that much. Incidentally, as with Itsmejudith, and a what others have said earlier, you seem to be missing the fact that even when artificial colours aren't used, natural colours are still usually used. I come from NZ which has some similarities to Europe in consumer preference and where there is a move away from artificial colours so can affirm this. E.g. this brand [13] advertises their products on TV and on the packaging fairly prominent as having no artificial colours. A quick look at their products should tell you their products are still usually coloured and not the clearish offwhite or whatever they are likely to be without colouring. I wonder whether you still don't get a point me and others have been saying for a while, a lot of fairly processed food would look rather unappertising without colours (natural or artificial). If your rant is solely about artificial colours then that's another thing entirely. Either way, since you seemm to be ignoring everything people have said when it puts a hole in your argument, I have come to the conclusion you're just here to rant rather then learn so won't be responding further. Plenty of people have provided a lot of stuff which would be useful if you really want to learn. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your dogs/cats example is poor - the owner of a pet purchases the product not the pet, and if you've ever watched a cat food commercial it's pretty clear they're trying to make the food sound appetising to the owner (or at least the owner's projection of what their cat/dog will like). Colour of the food will affect this so inevitably they'll colour food. On to your main question - what matters is not whether or not research is available to show that consumers prefer food coloured in set ways but the perception of the marketing/development divisions of the country selling the product. If a business believes that X coloured-food = better sales (rightly or wrongly) then they will likely implement that policy. Other factors for colour could include brand-recognition. I'm pretty certain Gatorade chooses very vivid colours as a branding aid. Finally even though it seems you won't accept it - here's some research into the importance of colour in food (it specifically mentions coloured drinks) http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/758/Burrows06_redacted.pdf ny156uk (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my example is apropos. Responsible and informed pet owners, like any responsible and informed consumer, purchase pet foods based on the highest quality of ingredients appropriate to their pet, not on the basis of artificial color, which any responsible pet owner will tell you is absent from the highest quality pet foods. The sick and twisted argument I keep seeing in this discussion is that the primary goal of the processed food industry is not to provide the public with the highest quality service and product in the marketplace, but to deceive their customers into believing that their shit is shinola. If this is the kind of nonsense the business schools are turning out (and that appears to be true given the state of the global economy) then it is time to shut down the academies and call it a day. It is my understanding that the relationship between unethical business practice and the academy is as close as it has ever been, with the financial leaders responsible for the economic global crisis in the top positions of major universities around the world. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No true Scotsman seems like a relevant link at this point. "Pet owners purchase based on appearance." "But no responsible pet owner purchases food based solely on appearance." - The conclusion we're left to draw is that a large number of pet food companies are making good money selling food to "irresponsible" pet owners. You seem to be wanting reality to match up with some notion you have of philosophical purity. We apologize that it doesn't. Not all pet owners base their purchasing on the quality of ingredients, even if you think they should. Not everyone eschews artificial colors, even if you believe people should. You may call them "irresponsible" or "unethical", but that's the way it is. People do stupid things, and what's more, people disagree with what the stupid thing is. You may think it's worth paying three times the amount to get a product that is labeled "no artificial coloring", and that anyone who buys the stuff with the artificial coloring is an irresponsible idiot, but I personally think, given the lack of credible evidence proving the harm of artificial coloring, that anyone who pays a premium for products simply because they are labeled "no artificial coloring" is being fiscally irresponsible, and is being manipulated by the unethical "natural food" industry who is preying off of peoples' fear and ignorance. I understand that you disagree with that assessment. Please understand when other people disagree with yours. -- 174.24.217.108 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A responsible and informed consumer does not make a purchase based on appearance, and a responsible and informed pet owner does not buy pet food based on appearance. That the food industry is actively trying to deceive consumers by using artificial coloring to improve a bad product is a sign that there is a disconnect between ethical business practice and the demands of the marketplace. Your claim that the ethical food industry is at fault by eliminating unnecessary artificial colors in pet food is not just ignorant, it is absurd. Buying a natural pet food that contains no grain, for example, is not irresponsible, it is recommended by veterinarians. So then why does most commercial pet food contain grain? I can go down the line, from artificial colors and fillers, and show you that the entire processed food industry operates in an unethical and immoral fashion, using poor business practices to place profit over human and animal health. How it is that business schools got caught up in teaching students and people like yourself that bad business is good business goes a long way at explaining their role in the current financial crisis. Your philosophy has no redeeming social value and must be seen for what it truly is. Nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I thnk that the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies may have to do with aesthetic reasons. I think that food coloring makes the drinks look more interesting and appealing to the eye. Willminator (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All else being equal, I would buy pet food that looked appetizing and/or that I imagined looked appetizing to my cat. Or at the very least, I would avoid pet food that looked conspicuously unappetizing. Right or wrong, I don't think that's unusual behavior. (It's based on million year old human instincts after all, even if they don't apply anymore.) Pet food manufacturers would be insane not to take advantage of that common, if illogical, reaction. APL (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I had planned to leave this discussion for good but just wanted to mention Ny has a good point which I and probably other had been thinking of, but in my case never mentioned mostly because of the distraction of the ridiculous notion colour didn't matter to consumers. Ultimately if the marketing department believe it will make a difference, they will like do it regardless of whether their beliefs are right or wrong.

And something which APL hints at above and perhaps others have mentioned (I stopped reading after my last message), a key point is how people actually behave not what they say. A consumer can believe food colouring is evil and say they would prefer uncoloured food, but if when it comes down to it the consumer actually prefers the coloured food, e.g. is more likely to choose it or find it tastes better the company making the product is going to go by what the consumer does not what they say. (Any dichotomy between what people say and how they act wouldn't be unique to artificial colouring or food, it's fairly common. For a marketing department, it is important to know the difference.) As APL said, it isn't surprising that people prefer food they find looks more appetising whether for their pets or themselves, and discussions about the immorality of it all are missing the point. For the case of us humans in particular, as plenty of people have said, some with sources, our perception of our food including the colour (when we aren't eating blind) can in fact make a difference to how it tastes to us. (If all the stuff is harmful it's surely primarily either the governments responsibility to regulate or the consumers responsibility to make decisions which go against their natural reactions rather then for companies to lose market share because of it.)

Incidentally I'm with 174.24.217.108 here, the idea that artificial colours are all bad and natural colours are okay is flawed, as are most natural=good/ok, artifical=bad arguments. It does seem to me Viriditas has somewhat changed his tune. Now rather then insisting all consumers are like him seems to accept that many are not but is saying they are bad consumers so for some reason companies should ignore their demands or something. I do find ironic, as I'm sure do others, that one of issues that started this was energy drinks, in particular a brand of energy drink that seems to produce insanely sized cans. I'm sure quite a few here would suggest that the best thing to do is simply not to consume those products and not because of the artificial colouring.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

2010 DST iPhone Bug in the EU and Economic Costs?

In 2010 there was a bug in the Apple iPhone that caused the alarms to go off an hour later than they should have after the change of the clocks due to daylight saving time. Is there any estimate to the amount of productivity lost to the economy because of that? --CGPGrey (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr Michael BAden

I am doing a science paper and I can't find several answers that i need.I am in the 6th grade. 1. Michael Baden's childhood education.(I have his college education)

2. Who mentored him or encouraged him to follow his profession.

3. His mother/father & siblings.( I have his wife & children)

4. Has he had discoveries that actually led to organizations that still continue to work. Like a specific contribution to science.( Ialready have "Assasination Records Review Board)

5. I want to use his JFK and OJ simpson cases that he worked on. But as I read them, I can't tell how his testimony & discoveries set an example for others to come that would be so different than others.

I know these are tough questions, but if anyone could help with pointing me in the right direction for these answers, I would be very thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.86.213 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you have already looked at the Michael Baden article. Did you follow up any of the references used by that article? This Google search shows lots of hits, though I'm unsure how useful they may be - the couple I looked at were not much use for your questions. It is possible that such information is not readily available in published reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is some coverage of your question #2 in his book, Unnatural Death, and it may help with some of your other questions too. John M Baker (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Requests for financial help

I was intrigued by this help desk query and the similar requests for financial help that I have noticed recently here on Wikipedia. While John of Reading's response was appropriate and correct, I wonder why Danny (the OP in this case) ever imagined his request might be successful. I just can't help thinking these requests are all scams. Are these requests ever genuine and are there really people out there with $100,000 to spare that they would donate based on this type of request? Astronaut (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Crowdfunding (e.g. Kickstarter) will be useful here. 69.171.160.9 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are so many begging letters written that I'm sure some are genuine, but it's impossible to know how many. Like spam emails they cost very little to produce and with enough perseverance will prove profitable. And yes, there are many millions of suckers out there, with massive businesses and churches built from their donations.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Wachovia Bank-slave dealing?

Recently I heard that Wachovia Bank , in it's early years actually dealt in the slave trade making millions of dollars. Is this accurate? Or is my source mistaken? Can the history of Wachovia be traced as far back as pre civil war?173.79.212.93 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Wachovia says that Wachovia qua Wachovia didn't start up until 1879, so that's too late for the Civil War. However it has merged with a huge number of banks over the years, some of which are quite old. So any connections it has with slavery are because they've been merging with banks that have themselves been merged with other banks. Indeed, this apology by Wachovia seems to tell more or less that story (albeit with different institutions than the ones: it acquired two companies which had ties to the slave trade (no surprise, that, given how old they were and how large the slave trade was) over a century ago. Seems kind of a non-issue to me, to be frank, unless one is afraid of acknowledging the U.S.'s history of slavery. It doesn't not appear that Wachovia has ever made any direct profit from slavery. For centuries, Blacks were considered a form of property. That banks thus used them as collateral and ended up owning them is not surprising. Whatever shame there is in that is hardly limited to the banks. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For more information, see Jewphone and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What do those have to do with this question?!? 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick search finds some more discussions [14] [15] [16] (which includes a link to the report) Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshal Tolbukhin boulevard, Sofia

I'm looking for a street in Sofia that used to be called Marshal Tolbukhin in the 1970s. I can't find it on any modern maps so I wonder whether it has had its name changed following the end of Soviet influence. Ericoides (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's your street. Indeed, the name was changed after 1989. — Toдor Boжinov — 21:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

October 3

myth creatures

is there any creatures from urban legend or myth, like bigfoot, chupa cabra, that was proven to exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not yeti, maybe later. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The giant squid comes to mind. The cameleopard, once associated with other supposed chimeras (mythical beasts that are amalgamations of two or more actual animals), might be said to be another example. John M Baker (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See shetani and the many Zanzibaris who have been sodomised by Popo Bawa. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We also find trolls on a daily basis..... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dragons. The bones people thought were from dragons were from dinosaurs, and some dinosaurs were pretty dragonish. Apart from the fire breathing bit. Cliko (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also Griffins, now thought to be based on fossils of Protoceratops found in what used to be Scythia, and Cyclops, possibly inspired by fossil skulls of Dwarf elephants which used to inhabit various Mediterranean islands. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.215 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You can ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WPHAAOE Prokhorovka (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The Okapi, the Giant panda and the gorilla come to mind. They were stuff of legend to Europeans at least. Googlemeister (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that reminds me of Griffons which turned out to be Protoceratops skeletons. See Dzungarian Gate. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP four posts above you already thought of the Protoceratops, Medeis. I suppose the pygmies are more a case of naming several real peoples after an imaginary race from Greek mythology, but there's always the black swan, which used to be a figure of speech for any impossible thing until they were discovered in Australia. --Antiquary (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The same IP insinuated his comment within existing posts and didn't indent. Off with his head. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I did so because my post was not a reply to that immediately preceding, but a contribution at the same level and continuing the same theme: in my estimation the second, third and fourth replies were unnecessarily indented, but as long as no ambiguosity results, maybe it's not such a big deal. Anyway, apologies for pre-emptively plagiarising your post :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.36 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There's the platypus, which has always been real, but the British thought it so unlikely that they believed the colonials had assembled the specimen from parts of other animals. For a while there, its European status was legendary. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. How proud I must feel to be from a country of idiots. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And birds-of-paradise which first arrived in Europe stuffed without legs leading people to conclude that it must have flown endlessly without ever alighting... and the only place they can possibly do that, is in paradise. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly (well, to me, anyway) they were already primed to accept legless birds: there was a widespread belief that swallows and swifts had no legs and never alighted on the ground, hence the common heraldic charge of the legless (and sometimes beakless) Martlet. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.36 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Do Martlets land on their beaks? ;) Don't forget the swans from goose barnacles thing, as well. heh -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A week or 2 ago I provided citations in which scientists expressed doubts that gorillas really existed, insisting that reports of gorilla sightings were probably exaggerations of smaller apes such as chimps. Edison (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A similar scenario played out much more recently with the Bili ape. Early reports were, I recall, largely discounted by primatologists. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.36 (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

List_of_megafauna_discovered_in_modern_times#Megafauna_initially_believed_to_have_been_fictitious_or_hoaxes is interesting. The Okapi is the primary example here. It used to be considered a myth. It was sometimes called "The african unicorn". Now they've got them in zoos. APL (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Narwhal? (Believed to be an unicorn) Okapi? (So strange looking that the explorers thought the indigenous people were describing a mythical animal, and refused to believe it existed until a dead one was produced!) Harley Spleet (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What is this Rwandan Snack?

I purchased this snack on a beach from a street vendor in Gisenyi, Rwanda.

http://imgur.com/SUM1W

The white thing tasted sort of like a combination of rice and Rhubarb with a very sticky and gel-like consistency similar to the chinese Zongzi. It tasted bitter. The package on the left is a pack of salted peanuts. Initially, I just took the white thing and ate it it by itself. Everyone on the beach laughed at me and started staring like as if I was, for example, eating just mayonnaise by itself for something. The vendor came up to me and handed me the pack of peanut and demonstrated to me that i should eat both at the same time.

Does anyone know the english name of these combo of snack and why it was so funny that I wasn't eating it with the peanuts? thanks Acceptable (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be ugali/fufu/nshima or similar starch-based African staples? They don't seem to be eaten alone as they are basically flavorless.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No idea. I've looked around the Web at African vendor foods, and can't find anything similar. Seems like the peanuts would be a dead give away. Are you sure they weren't playing a trick on a gullible tourist? I'll bet you a dollar I can tell you where you got those shoes your wearing. :) Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How to find a girlfriend?

How to find a girlfriend? Can you help me? -Ewigekrieg (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You're on a computer. Try computer dating. Or, real-life dating. For example, find a single girl and ask her, "may I buy you coffee/lunch/dinner?" Then talk to her. If a friendship doesn't happen, try someone else. 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Get off the computer. Visit real places where you think a woman you might like to meet would "hang out". Bars are not ideal, and it is best to be sober so that you will make the right decisions and say the right things. Your age and social status will also come into play; sometimes it helps to bring a friend, sometimes it is better to be alone, it depends on the situation. There are also several different strategies you can employ. For example, if you have a cute sister who has a friend, you can bring them along to a coffee shop and hang out and read or use your smartphone/notebook/tablet. Pretty soon, you'll find women checking you out and you'll get an opportunity to say something. This is because women are highly social, and it is much easier to meet them in groups, as they feel more comfortable seeing you surrounded by other people, even other women, as it shows you have social skills and aren't some kind of creepy serial killer. This is why single men by themselves usually don't get hit on, but when they are with other women or men, the odds go up. Sometimes when you double up, such as going out with two men and two women you aren't dating, but are just friends, that will attract a lot of attention and will give you multiple opportunities to talk to other ladies. Keep yourself well-groomed, stay relaxed, and most important, be yourself and smile. Here is something that will definitely work, but you need to be very careful using it: sit down and ask yourself what you are looking for in a woman. Make a list. Ask yourself why you want a girlfriend. Really think about it for a few days. Then, before you go to sleep, envision the kind of woman you want to meet. Really visualize it in your mind and see yourself talking to her and having a conversation. Do this for a few days. Then, forget about it completely. What you want to do is get this woman in your mind so that you're not even thinking about it, so that when you do finally meet her, you will know exactly what to say and what to do without thinking about it. Again, I warn you this technique is very powerful, so please use it carefully and with great respect. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Way back when I was in college, (in the US), back when there were "girlfriends" and "dates" rather than hookups and relationships and "friends with benefits," it was a common practice for some foreign students (Arabs, commonly) to simply approach American girls and inquire "Do you have a boyfriend?" without any preliminaries or beating around the bush. Certainly they got lots of cold rejections, but with the least persistence they soon had a girlfriend,(or girlfriends) who was curious, bored with not having a boyfriend, or whatever. One group of American students went from their (guys) dorm) to a girls dorm and serenaded the ladies, who came running downstairs to meet the guys, and some pairing off occurred due to the mutual interest. Interest in members of the opposite sex was common among both genders. Us guys were shocked when a delegation of girls from an all girls dorm said "You should realize that we feel exactly the same way you guys do." (Interest in the same sex was slightly less common among both genders). Some guys launched into long, carefully planned strategies to invite some girl from a class to a "study session" or to work on a project or lab report, carrying on the careful strategy long past the point when the girl was wondering when the guy was ever going to ask her out. Some guys took jobs as bartenders, and found it was an amazing way to get lots of dates. Edison (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Keep yourself well-groomed, stay relaxed, and most important, be yourself and smile." -very important indeed, also don't be creepy. This means do not come on too strongly too fast, and don't ask weird questions like questions about her feet. Also don't rant about Starwars or Libertarianism, show her your gun collection, and definitely do not tell her you edit wikipedia. Telling a girl these things early on will make a girl think you are weird, save it until you know her better, unless of course she comes out first as a huge starwars fan.

If your problem is just finding women, than you just need to get out more. You could try joining a club, like a gun club or an astronomy club, you could take up a co-ed sport, or get a puppy (excuse to go for walks and it starts conversations with other dog owners)(though only if you love puppies too). Public awareness (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If a girl on an initial date mentions Wikipedia, then it is probably ok to mention how many edits you have and how many articles created. Edison (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you don't know women very well. It could very well be a trap to see if you are a loser with no life who spends his time arguing about Pokemon articles. The best answer is, "Sorry, I don't have very much time for the Internet, as I'm busy taking care of my sick grandmother and walking her dog in between volunteering for the Special Olympics." Instant date! :) Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Except the OP said they wanted a girlfriend. That's not necessarily a great strategy if you want more than one date since it potentially won't take long to realise you were bullshiting Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Er, it was clearly a joke. Lighten up, Francis. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Er, it was clearly a joke. Lighten up, Francis." Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And don't limit yourself to girls. There's a whole nother 3.5 billion guys out there, some of whom are available. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad idea to me. Not the guy bit, that's up to the OP but 3.5 billion guys means nearly the entire world population of males. According to [17] about 945 million of the worlds males are under 15. The OP hasn't mentioned their age but presuming they are around 18+ I would urge strong caution with dating someone 14 years or younger and definitely someone under 12 would be a bad idea. It may not be illegal unless you have sex (and even then in some countries it may not be for a 14 year old) but socially it's likely to be rather problematic. And no, it doesn't matter whether they consider themselves available. On the other hand, if the OP is particularly young say one of those 14 year olds (which they probably shouldn't reveal on WP) then again dating some 18 years old or older is likely to be rather problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How good of you to clarify that, of the 3.5 Billion guys out there, some of whom are available, some are not available. Sorry that wasn't clear. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is it doesn't matter whether they are available. Socially it's a bad idea to date them in a number of countries including Germany and the US. You have to consider factors other then whether a person is available and age is definitely one of them (for males and females). You original comment seemed to imply any of the 3.5 billion who were available would be acceptable dating targets. Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it would be silly for me to include toddlers and the comatose as "available" simple because they wer not wed, but, in any case, I am sure you have saved our victim a lot of trouble by clarifying issues.μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about anyone who is not wed as available. And besides a person who is wed may be available in some cases. I'm talking about someone who considered themselves available and is upfront and honest about the current situation which would generally be the best definition of someone being available. Using some other definition of available is a bit silly. A comatose person by definition can't considered themselves available. A toddler too. A 12 year old and 14 year old arguably could. If you for some reason don't want to date someone who is available that's your choice and sometimes a smart one, it doesn't mean they weren't available. Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing what I know now, were I able to go back in time and counsel myself on this subject, I would focus on two things: 1: Don't be afraid of rejection; and 2: Don't listen to your friends. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 02:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bizarrely enough, my experience has been it's best to steal her from a friend. But not being afraid of rejection, not being overly nervous (i.e., drink enough but not too much), and not listening to your friends is also good advice. (The last falls right in with stealing your best friend's girl.)

Take heart. I have a close friend who was a mid-twenties virgin until I had him shag a prostitute. He he's a skinny guy with a small endowment and horrible teeth. And he spends all his time now talking about how the only thing worse than his ex is the girl that's stalking him now on the streets and facebook. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, dating advice and internet. Seems like a bad combo. All I can say is it can often be a case of being in the right place at the right time. I know that's how I got mine, (boy was I in the right place). As Medeis says, watch out for crazy chicks. My bro is currently dating one, possible BB. You know when she says for you to put spending time with her over med school exams, she's too needy and possibly self-absorbed. My girl tells/demands/forces me to study whenever I have an exam or test and drops whatever she is doing the moment she hears I have any problem I need help with (and she's got some very big responsibilities). Not that I don't support her and have her fulfill her responsibilities of course. That's the kind of girl you're looking for, mate. Beautiful, extremely intelligent, ambitious, kind, driven, Israeli and bisexual. In fact, try Israeli women, they tend to have excellent personalities. That is my advice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 03:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Might I also add (and I apologise as this will probably sound sexist) that they usually dispense with a lot of the bullshit and games that you can experience with some American (and, in my experience, Chilean) women. 03:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone takes the above advice, I recommend reading divorce law around the world very carefully. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You sound like my mother when she first heard that I have a foreign gf. The guy is looking for a girlfriend not a wife. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 03:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. In any case, I was making a bad joke about green cards. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, apologies for my overreaction, but you see now how I reacted when she said that to me. Of course marriage is definitely on the table for this one. I would recommend, in the case of Israelis, that if you want to marry and you're really worried about that sort of thing then become easily become a citizen by the Law of Return (if you qualify); of course that would entail three years of IDF service and an ulpan, but it's a good experience at least. :p Of course, you should be able to spot danger signs long before marriage (again, unless you're my brother). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 04:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the divorce rate in Israel? Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

According to this depressing sounding site, 15.7% in 2002 [18] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 04:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

15% is depressing? That beats the 50% or so the US seems to have. Googlemeister (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that, the fact that it is Divorce Magazine. There's so few 'cause Israelis generally make good wives (they make it so you don't have to do anything thinking or make any decisions on your own anymore. :p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No wonder she likes you! You have a great sense of humor! Women love that. :) Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of my mentioning my formerly girlfriendless friend, now troubled both by an ex- and a stalker, was not to warn against women wackjobs, but to point out that there is hope for everyone. You too may be so lucky as one day to have an ex- and a stalker. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

slimes dam

can u please help with this one,

when designing a slimes dam what are legal compliance issues and how do you construct a slimes dam. please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.200.81.8 (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Even if we guessed your jurisdiction, a) we do not give legal advice b) the compliance issues are likely to be fairly highly complex and most of all c) how do you construct a slimes dam probably requires a few years of training and experience - not something you'll get from an internet forum, even one as distinguished as this one. Perhaps the best we can offer is a) consult the references at Dam#Tailings dam and b) consult a civil engineer specialising in this area. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bearing in mind incidents like the Merriespruit tailings dam disaster (17 killed by collapsing dam) I would strongly caution against building a tailings/slimes dam unless you are an experienced mining engineer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your IP address suggests you are in South Africa. If this is true, then the relevant authority is the Dam Safety Office of the Department of Water Affairs. Their website tells you about the legal compliance issues. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In what countries do they use the term "slimes dam?" Sounds like something built by snails and slugs trying to emulate beavers. Edison (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's standard terminology in South Africa, as correctly identified by AlmostReadytoFly above. Roger (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Enviroment Channel

is there any news channel, or television network broadcasts enviroment-related news and/or programming related to enviroment 24 hours a day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.24 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Planet Green is the closest approximation to an all-environment network I can think of for the US, but our article notes that they also a chunk of paranormal programming, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've also got infomercials running during off-peak hours. Animal Planet is another candidate. — Lomn 19:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Planet Green is probably your best bet for U.S. cable stations, Animal Planet and National Geographic Channel also run significant amounts of environmental programing, though their fare tends more towards 'nature education' than environmentalism (i.e. environmental protectionism) per se. --Jayron32 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.ecoshock.org/.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

EEC in 1960, colonial preferences, UK and "The 6"

Hello!

I just encountered the most interesting question, and I am hoping you can help me find an answer. The question regards EEC countries' colonial market policies. The 1960 document that leads us to the question is found [[19]] (for free).

To spare you the read and work, I'll quote from bulletin 15, p.3: ".. our overseas territories and the overseas territories of the Six produce in general the same kind of things, and a broad bargain might be possible under which they would allow free entry of the produce of our overseas territories and we would allow free entry to the produce of theirs".

Now, this is interesting. What were the colonial market policies of the Belgians, the Dutch and French when they signed in 1957? Was their produce actually left unprotected? Were there any later provisions that dealt with the protection of their overseas markets? I should be terribly glad if any were to have the answers.

Thank you in advance. 88.91.84.136 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the French colonial empire page; "...the French Community dissolved itself in the midsts of the Algerian War; almost all of the other African colonies were granted independence in 1960, following local referendums. Some few colonies chose instead to remain part of France, under the statuses of overseas départements (territories)." It seems to me that those colonies which wanted to remain dependant on France, were made Departments of France and therefore part of the Common Market. You may think that this is a typically underhand Gallic trick; I couldn't possibly comment. Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've since edited "midsts" to "midst", and "statuses" to "status". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have added "(sic)". Alansplodge (talk)

OP here. Thank you for your answer, Alansplodge. Unfortunately, it seems as though Congo's far too tainted that I can find any mention of its trade output - with any ease, anyway. Similarly the Dutch didn't have much left after 1954, and none of the remnants produced any significant trade anyway. It's really Congo I'd suppose could offer an explanation here, as Belgian taxes on its exports would account for silly amounts of money. 129.241.222.66 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

October 4

Installing a ceiling fan on a drop ceiling

Is this a terribly difficult thing to do, or is it still better to bother hiring someone to do this for me than risk it flying off the ceiling and cutting my wife's head off during dinner? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a case where you should get an estimate from a professional and ask about the task. 67.21.131.22 (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have to ask you need to hire a pro. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 02:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends. How much do you want to see your wife's head separated from her body: a lot, or just a little? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cieling fan? Have a professional install it otherwise you might kill yourself; or worse, a beloved family pet. Also, Jack does have a point. Could be a plot to get life insurance, oh dear! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 02:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Can it be done? Maybe. Should it be done? Probably not. In case you haven't lifted one, most ceiling fan motors are surprisingly heavy. Even if it's possible, it's clearly not practical.

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ceiling fans typically use wooden or plastic paddles, and they aren't powerful enough to decapitate anyone; but the risk of it crashing down on someone's head is a sufficient concern. As DHM notes, they are kind of heavy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually from memory most of the ceiling fans in my home in Malaysia had metal blades. However they still are unlikely decapitate anyone while falling . Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MythBusters says "Normal household fans do not have the power even to inflict serious injury while spinning at top speed" Mitch Ames (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The fan must be mounted on a support that is firmly attached to the beams above the drop ceiling, so the support must pass through the ceiling. There is no reason why you could not install this yourself if you are competent and careful, but it would be very risky to rely on the drop ceiling for support unless it happens to have strong struts designed for the weight of the fan, and this is unlikely. I agree with previous replies, that if you need to ask then it would be wiser to employ someone with experience. Dbfirs 07:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think the tricky part would be wiring it. Googlemeister (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No the wiring is just like any other fixture. The tricky part is securely anchoring it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen at building centers a nice support system for a fan, which goes into the space above the ceiling (which in turn is above the dropped ceiling) through a smallish opening, then has 2 arms which crank out to embed themselves in and against the 2 ceiling joists. Then the fan can be below the drop ceiling but properly attached to the building structure. I doubt it would work out to attach it to the ceiling grid, or that the drop ceiling panels themselves could support it. Edison (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Per a variety of codes, ceiling fans must be firmly attached to the building structure. As Edison notes, use of the drop ceiling to support anything at all isn't safe. Even very light so-called "lay-in" light fixtures are in fact supported, at least nominally, by tie wires to structure. A heavy rotating object can't be mounted on a drop ceiling. Acroterion (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If DRosenbach happens to live in Korea, then of course the act of installing the fan might get him arrested for attempted wife-murder via Fan death. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That article has diminished my respect for the RoK in such a way that not even a round of StarCraft multiplayer could restore it. The OP should follow this one simple rule. If you are having anything very heavy installed that will be above you; do not install it yourself. Have someone who knows what he's doing do it; despite however skilled you might think you are, that means nothing when a heavy block of steel comes down on your head. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 01:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless you eat most your meals on the living room couch like I do, I find it interesting that you have a dropped ceiling in your dining room. I don't think I've ever seen one in a residential dining room. Not that this helps with the installation of the fan... Just making an observation. Dismas|^(talk) 13:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Best absinthe commercially available in the US specifically DC, CT, or NY

So I'm looking to get a particularly good Broseph (Bro + Joseph) an absinthe glass, absinthe spoon and a fine absinthe for his b-day and Christmas. I want to get a high-quality one (under 100 USD) preferably with a high alcohol content. Figure it's a good gift for someone who's able to drink an entire bottle of arak and still function normally. Any connoisseurs of the green fairy? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 04:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had Lucid, which is often shipped with two glasses and a spoon. I wasn't very impressed, but I don't have anything to compare it to (it's the only absinthe I've ever had). But it's pretty common in the US in my experience — I've seen it in stores in both DC and MA. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Never had Lucid but it hasn't won any awards here [20] (I don't think much of this site as it appears to be retail trade sponsored and so are the more heavily advertised and thus expensive ones). --Aspro (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience the best of any spirits are the ones not many people know about, as opposed to well known mass production bottles, for example I had an amazing bottle of rum bought in trinidad and tobago which was locally produced and hand made (or whatever the alcohol equivalent), and I was once well accquainted with a sommelier who refused to drink any spirit which was mass produced. I'd recommend finding a higher end liquer store, not your run of the mill bargain booze store, and asking the advice of the people there, they're usually pretty knowledgeable. As for the spoon and glass, just go for ebay, theres plenty of drinking paraphernalia available on there--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not necessarily the case, and I think that's a cognitive bias in disguise. Connoisseurs always loves the obscure, but that's more a statement about what it means to be "cool" than anything else. In blind testing I'm not sure there's a good relationship between mass production and poor quality in all instances. I've had some spirits that were mass produced and great, some which were mass produced and crap, some that were hand produced and great, hand produced and crap, and so on. The size of the operation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know from my US friends, real Absinthe is still banned in the US but is legal to import for personal use. So beware of the claims from American importers. Do you homework on European websites first as to what is genuine and representative of the the proper stuff. Even over here, attempts are made to fob us off with green flavoured vodka. Then contact the distiller's to have them recommend an agent to export/import it for you with the proper paperwork so that it doesn’t get caught up in Customs. Then you can be sure you're not getting a counterfeit bottle (we have that problem due to the high duty (tax) on it). $60 to a $100 dollars should be sufficient.--Aspro (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The US absinthe ban was lifted in 2007. Whether it is is "real" or not depends on whether you think thujone is actually important or not, which the science isn't really clear about (but leans towards "not as important as people used to think"). All of the absinthes I've seen advertised as such in the US seem to be "real" absinthes; certainly not just flavored vodkas. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Its been a long time since I've heard this discussed. I think the full flavour or perhaps better described as aromatic bouquet, comes from allowing more of the 'heads' to be allowed into the heart spirit during distillation which includes as you say (amongst other things) thujone. With absinthe never having been illegal here, it is difficult to think of thujone free spirit (with the other aromatics and 'tongue' and 'mouth' feeling also missing) to be the same thing. Personal taste perhaps. Unfortunately, I have tasted too some stuff that is more like flavoured vodka but sold as absinthe.--Aspro (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what I'm going for is... idk, smoothness if that is right, taste, yes, and preferably high alcohol content. I guess I could also ask people in the liquor stores how the various brands taste. I heard from one (who's awfully friendly with my dad and I given that I have a decent wine knowledge and know when the Jewish holidays are, and my dad is a frequent customer) that there are few decent brands in NY at least. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What is a segment saw?

How does it work, and why don't we have an article? Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

• I can't tell you how a segment saw works but I can tell you why there isn't an article about segment saws: no one has written it yet. If you can find a good, reliable (at least as per WP:RS) source describing what a segment saw is and how it works, it may be a good start for a page here. That being said, this old patent is the best I can find. §everal⇒|Times 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that there is some ambiguity about this -- not helped by the fact that people who write about tools rarely explain their terminology. Prior to 1900, a segment saw clearly was a rotary saw with a cutting edge consisting of separate saw-pieces attached to a central core (as in the cited patent). Nowadays, though, there are many suppliers of "segment saw blades" or "segmented saw blades", and what that seems to mean is a rotary blade whose edge is divided into segments by notches or some other type of irregularity. Looie496 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

handhels sensors

what places would be dangerous to use handheld sensors ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.178.217.85 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Near an erupting volcano, while standing in the fast lane of an busy highway, while lost at sea in an inflatable raft, in a burning building, in space. I am sure there are thousands of places. Were you looking for something more specific? Googlemeister (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sensors for what? There are many kinds of sensors.Sjö (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

)

US towns with identical names

In the United States, are there really settlements with identical names within the same state? If so, how do people avoid the confusion? – b_jonas 18:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Washington, Wisconsin? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Through postal codes? --Ouro (blah blah) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many places with identical names in different states. Within the same state, there are occasional cases of places with the same name. However, these cases are unusual, and they always involve places quite far apart. (Remember that US states are roughly the size of European countries.) Moreover, I don't think there are any places within the same state that have the same postal address. That is, no two post offices in the same state have the same name (with the exception of large cities that have multiple post offices). So, let's say there is a place called Oak Park in one part of California that has its own post office. That would be the only place with an "Oak Park" postal address in California (though there are other places with an Oak Park postal address in other states). Now, there might be a neighborhood or other locally known district 300 miles (500 km) away also called Oak Park, but only local residents would know that name, and this second Oak Park would have an unrelated postal address, such as Davisville. It might be known more formally as the Oak Park neighborhood of Davisville, California, whereas the other Oak Park would be known as Oak Park, California. There are cases of minor government subdivisions sharing the same name in the same state, such as Washington Township, New Jersey or Springfield Township, Pennsylvania. However, in these cases, only one of these municipalities in each state uses that name as a postal address. The other municipalities can be distinguished by county, as Wikipedia does. However, if you ask Americans where they live, they will usually respond with the name of their postal town, not the name of an obscure legal jurisdiction. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Westwood, California and Brentwood, California are also the names of neighborhoods in Los Angeles, likely better known than the cities. On mail, you mainly have to get the ZIP code right, and you should be fine (though a letter to a UCLA student living near campus should properly be addressed Los Angeles, not Westwood). As for whether you have a date in one place and she's waiting in the other, well, that seems sort of unlikely, but I suppose that sort of thing does occasionally happen. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Multiple-place names and List of the most common U.S. place names.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

With Westwood and Brentwood, you have neighborhoods of Los Angeles on the one hand, and independent communities hundreds of miles away in other parts of the state on the other. The postal address of the L.A. neighborhoods is "Los Angeles, CA". I suppose you could use "Westwood, CA" and the correct L.A. zip code and the letter would get there, but that's not the standard address. In Los Angeles, if you say "Westwood", everyone understands that you mean the neighborhood. If you wanted to talk about the other Westwood, you'd say something like "a little town called Westwood, way up in far northern California". Likewise, if you were up in that part of California, people would understand that you meant the little town unless you said "Westwood in Los Angeles". As for the many Wisconsin towns called "Washington", only one of them has "Washington" as its postal address. The rest of them are just county subdivisions that typically have little identity other than as road-maintenance districts that send out periodic property tax bills. Wisconsinites, when asked where they live, will generally not report the name of their county subdivision (or "town") unless they are talking to people from elsewhere in the county or officialdom who might be familiar with these obscure entities. If mentioning the name of the town to someone outside the county, the name of the county would also be mentioned. Otherwise, people would describe the location of a place either by the name of the county or the name of the post office. Really, this is not an issue that involves a lot of ambiguity in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In Ohio, townships can share names with townships in another county, but cities and villages must have a unique name. Thus, there are 26 Perry Townships in Ohio but only one Perry Village. As mentioned above, there can be only one "city" for postal address purposes with a given name in each state. So Bainbridge Township in Geauga County, although known locally as "Bainbridge," has a Chagrin Falls address. Only letters sent to the village of Bainbridge in Ross County (or surrounding areas) are supposed to say "Bainbridge, OH." I'm guessing this does cause some confusion sometimes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the dab there are some 250 places named Washington Township, with 22 in Penna. alone. New Jersey, eat your heart out! μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This was one of the two major motivations for the introduction of zip codes in the US, as a huge amount of mail was being delayed because of ambiguity resulting in wasted labor and time. 69.171.160.19 (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The deal with townships is that, outside of a few places in the U.S., these are minor civil divisions (see Civil township), they are basically used only by surveyors and land assessors, and aren't real "places" for most people (the exception is mostly in New England, where the New England town is the major civic identity, and in other places in the Northeast, where towns/townships take a greater role). Most people who live in a township couldn't actually tell you the name of the township they live in. Civil townships (except in New England) are not municipalities and so don't play that role for most people. In any given state, it may be very common to have multiple townships (even many townships) with the same name, since no one really uses them for identification or navigation, and it is very rare (though not unheard of) for two municipalities in the same state to have the same name. This can be a bit confusing, because in some places the term "town" refers also to a small municipality, which is distinct from the usage of "township" as a minor administrative division, basically as the "county of a county", if you will. --Jayron32 03:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"only by surveyors and land assessors" is a bit over-exaggerated. Having grown up on a township road 1.5 miles from the nearest state road, come winter time it was very important that the township road crew was on the job. Rmhermen (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It was after reading the links at Wash. Twp. above that I investigated the matter. One of the Jersey twp.s has just over 600 inhabitants, yes. Another has almost 50,000. These would seem to count to me as at least as real as any rotten borough.

I see. Thanks for the very extensive answers. – b_jonas 13:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

2004 world population conference

Every ten years since 1974, the United Nations has held an international conference on world population. Where can I find a list of the attendees (nations) of the 2004 world population conference? --Melab±1 ☎ 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Japanese music

I just listened to some gagaku music, and the main thing I noticed about it is how incredibly slow it is, consisting almost entirely of very long, ametric notes. Is all traditional Japanese music like this, or is there some that's less boring? --99.119.63.240 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Silence has as much musical importance as sound in Asian music. Anyway, yes of course. Try Taiko ensemble music (Kodo for example).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you compare this if you like Japanese music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ4LCejQg8o

You may also like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY1pcEtHI_w&feature=related and should check out throat song and Inuit throat singing. Note that the Turks, Japanese, Mongols and Eskimo are all related Eurasiatic languages . μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.. there's some debate about that last claim. See Japanese language and Classification of Japonic. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is debate. Roy Andrew Miller (see, for example [21]) provides confirmation that Japanese is an Altaic language, and, coincidentally, validates Altaic with evidence such as the fact that Japanese shows reflexes of the Turkic lir/shaz alterations. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no throat singing in Japanese traditional music. You may find min'yo less boring, especially the second one. [22], [23], and [24]. Oda Mari (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

October 5

4 Chords

Since this question seems to have struck out on the entertainment desk, I'll ask it here. What are all the songs used in the album version of this song? (In order, if possible, since I wanted to download some included that I know I've heard and liked but don't know their name.) I know there's a YouTube video of a live performance of this they did that says all the songs in that version, but the album version appears to be different, and our section on the song only names a few of the songs. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The list of songs in order are on the 'see more' section on this youtube video. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 02:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hiding the entire 'pedia

As I do very regulary, I clicked on an interlanguage link to Italian Wikipedia today and was in for a surprise. From our article as it stands currently: "On October 4, 2011, following a decision adopted by the community, all the contents were hidden and the website was blocked by its administrators, as a protest against the paragraph 29 of the so called "DDL intercettazioni" (Wiretapping Bill)[8], a bill, at the time being debated in the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian parliament." For more information, see Italian Wikipedia. Does anyone know whether this the first time a Wikimedia Foundation project's community decided to deny the public access to the entire collection of information as a form of protest? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the Italian wikipedia even hosted within Italy? If not, seems like a moot point and someone at the Italian Wikipedia overstepped their authority. What does the Foundation have to say about this? --Nricardo (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There's something about it on ANI. It's not really protest so much as a safety measure. It doesn't matter that the Wiki's servers aren't in Italy; most of the Italian Wikipedians live in Italy; or most of the Italian-speaking ones anyway. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Safety measure"? It's not law yet. It's a bill under debate. --Nricardo (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn that's how I saw it characterised there. Maybe I'm wrong. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 02:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it's a protest. From what I've read about it (which is certainly not in detail), the decreto legge disegno di legge doesn't say anything about individual editors; it's talking about websites. Legally speaking, all Wikipedias are American websites, under the jurisdiction of the law of the State of Florida. --Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be primarily a protest. But while I don't speak Italian, my reading from various comments including some which appear to come from Italians on the mailing list and elsewhere is it isn't that clear whether the is any risk to wikipedians. Remember it is ultimately Italian courts (and probably European Court of Human Rights) who will decide whether stuff on wikipedia is immune because the servers are hosted in Florida. What happens if they don't take that view? (Courts in quite a few countries have not cared about where the servers are hosted.) The WMF can of course ignore any fine imposed although it may make things difficult for them and any board members for any dealings in Italy and could potentially lead to wikipedia being blocked there. (See also [25].) However, if you're an admin, you have the ability to delete and protect content and of course any editor can modify unprotected content. If you're an admin in Italy, will you be held responsible for refusing to issue a correction as required by the law, particularly if you're the one who was asked to make a correction (which you can technically do) and were the one who originally posted the 'false' information? Note that unless the law is very clear you're not responsible, many admins and editors are unlikely to want to be a test case so may simply stop editing or otherwise change their editing in some way to avoid the risk. At that very least, the protest may make the government think about such issues when drafting the law. BTW, this isn't completely unique to Italy, some people do wonder about the risk of libel lawsuits in countries like the UK, Australia and NZ where libel laws are generally more plantiff friendly. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See meta:Wikimedia Forum#Italian Wikipedia for some information and discussion in English. It appears from http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069258.html that the Wikimedia Foundation was taken by surprise and doesn't have a clear position yet but expresses sympathy. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Typical absurdist street theater of the left, with not a "community" but a clique taking upon themselves the right to vandalize the website for partisan effect. Why not just delete all articles on the right, its figures, causes and issues? Or would that be too obvious. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(lol, sometimes you make me wonder whether you're for real) Hey! I'm asking about similar cases in the past, not about legal (or polemical) ramifications of this particular situation! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

About 50% of the time, and this is one of them. Any sentence using community as a subject is necessarily a lie. For similar situations see Beerhall Putsch, Morton Downey, Jr. and the death of Rachel Corrie. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't get the context (might be this headache). One's an attempted coup d'etat (my keyboard is English/Hebrew/German, not French) of the Weimar Republic and the other is a lady jumping in front of large bulldozer where the driver couldn't see her (with the result being what one would expect). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 04:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, of what phenomenon I mentioned in my immediately prior post could the incidents be considered examples? μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

People being compelled to commit immensely stupid acts by lies or at the very least false truths and misconceptions? Guess I see that now. Mmmmm, this topic is making me hungry for Knockwürste and pancakes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The OP has a point. No one answered his question. Are there similar cases? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 03:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you count the software and network hardware protesting improper configuration by human error. There have also been projects closed and withdrawn due to lack of activity. 69.171.160.19 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Then again, I'm not aware if there have been any major issues like this in recent times in countries where an online protest is likely to make any difference which don't speak English. (It was mentioned in the mailing list it's fairly pointless to do in protest about something in China.) I'm guessing the Italian wikipedia protest was part of a wider online protest in Italy. There have been online protests about laws in NZ which have entailed people doing something to their websites (the one in NZ got the support of at least one well known right-wing blogger as well as those on the left) and I think Australia, the US and possibly Canada and the UK. But obviously trying to blank the English wikipedia because of laws in one specific English speaking country is not likely to get sufficient support. Other issues have came up before like disputes with the WMF e.g. the Spanish fork/ad issue and I think there was an Acehnese issue which has lead to a large section of the community leaving. Some people in the mailing list suggested the German wikipedia may try to do the blanking thing due to the WMF's proposed optional image filter. But trying to protest against something the WMF are doing by blanking their resources is far less likely to get their limited support as this case seems to have gotten. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately the WMF have the right to decide what goes on in their servers. It clear from the above and [26] that while the WMF were taken by surprise, they feel it was an acceptable action (not necessarily what they feel was the best course of action) when back by a robust community (their word) process which they currently feel were used in this case. Medeis's personal views on the community are completely moot and their view that it's not a community while their prerogative is also moot, the WMF is entitled to do what they wish with webpages hosted by them and how decisions are made on what goes on. Medeis's belief that they are entitled to dictate how the WMF manages their affairs is clearly what is ridiculous and absurdist. If they don't like how the WMF manages their affairs, they are completely free to use someone else's servers. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As noted here,[27] Wikimedia Foundation supports this move, as a stand against censorship. We have frequent battles on English Wikipedia when a public figure (or a fan of a public figure) doesn't like what was posted. This proposed law would give such public figure the right to legally dictate the contents of wikipedia, and that is unacceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If the law passes, the Italian Wikipedia will have to be shut down anyway. Italy would become one giant COI. But then again, with a prime minister that controls the media and have a huge economic COI already, not surprising.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the Italian Wikipedia, not the Italian Wikipedia. If the law restricts content about Sig. Berlusconi or any Italian citizen, I would imagine it is restricted under Italian law whatever language it is written in: WMF could decide to establish a Swiss Italian 'pedia just to clarify that the contents are not aimed at one country. Sussexonian (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But what about non-Italian Italian speakers? Such as Italian speakers in Switzerland? Precisely because Wikipedias are specific to languages, not to countries, this would mean that no one would be able to read Wikipedia in Italian, no matter where they lived. Imagine if this happened to the German Wikipedia - Austrians and Swiss would be affected too. Or to the French Wikipedia - Belgians, Monegasque, Swiss, Canadians and other people would be affected too. Not to mention the English Wikipedia, which would affect almost the entire world. JIP | Talk 18:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but in my amateur view the issues this law raises with respect to the Italian Wikipedia are not different in kind from the ones it raises for any other Wikipedia, including English Wikipedia. Legally, Italian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are exactly the same — they are hosted in Florida, and edited by people from all over the world. No one is proposing that we close English Wikipedia because of this law, as far as I know.

It sounds like a truly awful law and if this protest manages somehow to help prevent its adoption, I'll be happy about that. But the claims being made that Italian Wikipedia would "have to shut down" don't make much sense to me. --Trovatore (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a minor point, but Wikipedia also has servers in the Netherlands, according to [28]. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia is predominantly edited by Italians, isn't it? Even if Wikipedia itself is safe from prosecution (?), the Italian users aren't. And that has happened before. What would WMF have to do then? Block all Italian IP's? Fullprot all biographies on notable Italians? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot allow specific editors to dictate content unilaterally. That's why, if such a law passes, Italy wikipedia is history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's not "Italy wikipedia". It's Wikipedia in Italian. I edit it (admittedly, not extremely often) from the United States, and I do not see any way that my edits to it.wiki have any different legal status from my edits to en.wiki. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not nonsense, it's a serious threat to wikipedia and a dangerous precedent. And it's necessary to do this before the law gets voted on, to send a message. Maybe the Italian wikipedia users can influence the result of that vote. Maybe not. But it's worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And where do most Italian-speaking editors live? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably most of them live in Italy. As far as I can see that doesn't affect the legal issue in any way whatsoever, as far as it concerns the Foundation.

Now, it may affect those editors who live in Italy. But they will also be affected when editing en.wiki. So once again, no difference. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I loved this comment from SERGIO on it.wiki:

• Template:Commento Favorevole anche a mettere in coda a ogni pagina, e in testa in prima pagina, un discléimer : "Cari azzeccagarbugli, se volete chiedere rettifiche & smentite, rivolgetevi a Wikimedia Foundation etc. etc., San Francisco USA. Questa non è Wikipedia Italia, è Wikipedia in lingua italiana, capitolo linguistico e non regionale, e quindi è editabile da chiunque nel mondo conosca la lingua italiana, ed è fuori dalla giurisdizione italiana. Pertanto nessun amministratore o burocrate è responsabile della conduzione del sito, la quale ricade sotto la responsabilità del soggetto indicato in &pigrafe. Distinti saluti e andate a cercar rogna da qualche altra parte". -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 20:38, 3 ott 2011 (CEST)

  BC: Tu credi che gli azzeccagarbugli siano interessati ad individuare il foro di competenza o piuttosto a fare casino a tutela del preteso buon nome dei loro assistiti? --78.15.3.217 (msg) 20:44, 3 ott 2011 (CEST)

  Se uno vuole un buon nome si comporta comm'il faut, la sai la poesia di Trilussa su Giove e il lupo no? Peraltro sulle garanzie di ogni prodotto, dai frigoriferi ai vibratori a pile, c'è scritto: "Per ogni controversia è competente il foro di XXXXX". Se un avvocato legge e se ne frega, allora il suo cliente lo deve cambiare e scegliersene uno che non ha preso la laurea con i punti Mira Lanza. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 00:24, 4 ott 2011 (CEST)

I hate to be an ugly American, but could you please translate that? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Roughly, with apologies to SERGIO for any errors, he says

For even putting at the end of every page, and at the top of the first page, a disclaimer: "Dear shysters, if you want to ask for corrections and denials, direct yourselves to Wikimedia Foundation etc etc, San Francisco, USA. This is not Wikipedia Italy; it's Wikipedia in Italian language, a lingustic rather than regional chapter, and therefore is editable by anyone who knows the Italian language, and is outside Italian jurisdiction. In any case (?) no administrator or bureaucrat is responsable for the conduct of the site, which falls under the reponsibility of the subject indicated above (?). Respectfully and go look to stir up trouble somewhere else.

Then responding to someone who asks whether shysters will bother to look for the appropriate forum, he suggests that their clients should go look for someone who didn't get his law degree by sending in box tops. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Probably" and "may"? Heh. Bit of an understatement there. But yes, I suppose, the rest of Wikipedia can go on, including the Italian Wikipedia, which won't have any Italians in it... like making apple pies without apples. And again, even if Wikipedia itself is immune, its Italian users wouldn't be. IP's can be traced, and users who had disclosed personal info prosecuted if they piss off someone and fail to revdel something within 48 hours. You'd basically be left with an Italian expat Wikipedia. I don't think it'd sit well with WMF if they just threw their users to the wolves. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's pointed to this article from the Wikipedia Signpost from two days ago, which contains links to debates about this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

At present, that link just produces "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.". Edison (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the site is run by Bank of America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quran app and tafirs app

which website is the best when it comes to downloading the quran app with different recitation and tafsir apps like qutb, maududi and it is free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.230.215 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

On which platform? iOS, Android, or BlackBerry? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 19:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

cutting concrete strips on highway

On Highway 9 in Manitoba between Winnipeg and Selkirk there is work being done to repair the highway.I noticed that cuts about 5' wide by 10' long are being made every 10 to 15 feet.Re-bar is then inserted on either side of the cut and then concrete was poured back over the cut in the highway.What is the purpose of just cutiing out portions of a highway for miles and then filling them in again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky439 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Expansion joints?--78.148.137.187 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Automobile

I have purchased a Honda Activa deluxe scooter 20 months back. I have a problem with the scooter since 8 months. It is starting problem. I normally kick start in the morning and after about three KMs if I stop the engine and start again with push button start it doesn't work. When I stop the engine at traffic signal for green signal, and when I restart I face difficulties. Four or five times I have to try for starting the engine. Suppliers, Muthoot Motors was not able to solve the problem. Could any one help me the reason why this happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.148.10 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A mechanic gave me this advice: spark, fuel, oxygen gives you action. If no action then you are missing one of these. Is a scooter an automobile? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just don't listen to that mechanic if you are driving a Tesla Roadster. Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In the case of an electrified vehicle, the spark-fuel-oxygen part occurs at the power plant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh Really, Bugs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.27.27 (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no escaping the fact that somewhere along the way, fuel and heat are required. And since the typical car is still an internal combustion engine, the mechanic's advice is generally good - especially if he knows what kind of car the driver is driving. (And the Honda Activa does appear to be a traditional engine and not electric.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no escaping the fact that your first answer was, as it regularly is, just completely and utterly misleading. And in the answer above, even after prompting, has it escaped your notice that "Fuel and heat" are not required in hydro generation? This is why we despair of your answers on the RDs, bugs, and always have. Is there any possibility that you could rein yorself in and only answer when you actually know what you're talking about? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It just depends on how far back you want to take things. Hydro power works of course because water flows downhill. Well and good, but without heat to evaporate water and create rain uphill of your hydropower plant, you are going to have a problem. Heck if you are not getting heat from the sun, all your water is going to be ice, and I have not seen any designs for a power plant which uses glacial motion. The heat of course comes from the sun, which uses hydrogen as fuel in a fusion reaction. Googlemeister (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If an engine won't start when it is warm/hot, check that the fuel tank vent isn't blocked (generally in the filler cap) and check the ignition module. Sometimes, when an ignition module expands due to heat, the soldered contacts inside become disconnected. Also, I suggest that you find another mechanic. Motorbikes are very simple to get going. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• When you press the start button what actually happens? Can you hear the starter turn the engine over but the engine does not fire OR is there silence? Also, are you a femail driver (this will help me tell you where to kick the mechanic to engage his brain).--Aspro (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Silicon Valley Job Statistic

On average, how many applicants are there per physical job opening (meaning the job is for people who would physically report there for work) in Silicon Valley where the job is in the umbrella category of "Programmer"? I know there are lots of BLS statistics on jobs, but I haven't seen statistics saying how many applied for positions filled, and I'm curious if the average person applying for one job of this type tends to be competing with 10, 100, 1000 or another number of other people. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You can always ask. It really depends on the job type (medical, finance, technology, etc.) and how it is advertised. You might find this surprising, but the IT industry is pretty small, and everyone seems to know everyone else. Who you know and who you've worked for in the past, what school you attended, and your age plays a huge role in hiring, and at the end of the day, there's really a limited pool of applicants. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I do see this from earlier this year stating that 75,000 people applied for 6,000 jobs at Google, though it doesn't state that all 6,000 of those were the kind of job I specified in my original question. I would think that for jobs posted publicly, there are normally many like the 75,000 who are probably not in the in-group and don't have any connections to help their chances of getting real consideration. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Has the popularity of kasher food increased in the United States?

(Note, kasher is the proper term for English term, kosher, and I shall be using this term in place of the English one) This is a two-parter. I was at a Harris Teeter in Arlington, VA and was surprised/delighted to see a kasher frozen food section there with three freezers devoted to kasher foods (goods one too). This doesn't seem like a normal spot to have kasher food (though there might be a burgeoning Jewish population there, they could be appealing to the large Jewish student population in Washington). So here's the questions:

First, has the popularity of food marketed as kasher (ones from kasher brands, not just ones that have kasher certification) increased in the United States? By that I mean; are they now more widely sold here compared to say, 10 years ago?

The second question is: Has application for kashrut certification, in general, increased in the US among food companies? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 20:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the chain, Harris Teeter is a grocery store chain. Dismas|^(talk) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Knew I forgot to wikilink something; guess it would be neccessary as some convenience stores have frozen food sections. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why then does our Kashrut article say in the secondsentence "Food in accord with halakha (Jewish law) is termed kosher in English". Are you asserting that the article is wrong, or making some other point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by tagishsimon (talk • contribs)

I prefer using the Hebrew term for Hebrew concepts; I only put the explanation so as to avoid confusion. I don't really see how this is relevant to my question though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We often digress. Surely כַּשְׁרוּת is the Hebrew term, and kasher merely some sort of argument over the English transliteration? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Kashrut is the law. Kashrut certification means that the item is in accordance with the laws of kashrut. Surely you have seen כשר לפסח (not כושר לפסח), and no o, nikkud on it, rather an a sound is there. My Israeli gf, Prof. Yaron Peleg and this delicious box of King David Matzot all agree with me. However it does happen from time to time that in very crummy transliterations to English people put o for a; a good example is Mogen Dovid, which I've seen a few times. Now, anyone have any statistics? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 20:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Edit: As well, .כ.ש.ר is the shoresh of both words, so they're quite related. Though my Hebrew is still a bit limited, when I think about it, I'll bet that כושר can function as a verb and basically be the singular male form of "to make fit" - אני כושר, אתה כושר, הוא כושר. Know what I mean? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Bit of a cut & paste error. Meanwhile Kasher gets 1.3M ghits. Kosher 42.3M. Presumably the English speaking world prefers the crummy transliteration? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

People tend to use the one term over the other if that is the only one term they have heard. I only knew of kosher until I learned Hebrew. What is the point you are trying to make? I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We tend to use common terms on wikipedia. I'm always interested when someone insists on an uncommon and unfamiliar term; always worth digging into. I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm asking questions. Not least, I'm interested in whether or not we're missing some information from the kashrut article, which is silent on the use of kasher. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Uh huh, and I've edited Wikipedia for quite a while so I'm familiar with that fact. I already gave the term's use and explanation when I started this topic: "(Note, kasher is the proper term for English term, kosher, and I shall be using this term in place of the English one)" I am really just using the proper transliteration of an originally foreign word. Now do you have any statistics or anything to answer my actual question? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's probably that the term "kosher" has been adopted as the proper term in English, and that you succeeded in distracting everyone from actually answering your question by insisting on using a nonstandard term. Like flies to poop, pedants like myself swarm all over the arguably incorrect word. I would avoid doing that in the future if you want answers to questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If said pedants choose to do that it is not really my fault (self-control is very important for any pedant to learn). I will use proper terms if I see fit and simply ignore pedantic behaviour from people unfamiliar with the topic. :p Now does any Wikipedian want to use this Ref Desk to answer my question? This is kind of putting me off using refdesk. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, a question still hangs over whether or not it is "the proper term". You cannot legislate for people being more interested in an obscure corner of your question than its main theme. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just saying that this sort of focus on such a tiny thing is very off-putting, not trying to regulate anything. This is the last I'll say on this topic here. Etymology of the English term, Kosher. If you want to discuss it further I politely request you do so on my user talk. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If it was such a tiny thing to you, why make it the first sentence of your post? The first sentence the bit we're all guaranteed to read. (Was there more to your post? ;-) ) A foreign term is NOT the "proper" term. The proper is the one the linguists tell us we use the most and which has a totally clear meaning. Kosher fits that description perfectly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If everyone started their question with "For reasons I will refuse explain I shall be using a foreign word in place of one of the English words in my question." I don't think we'd manage to answer a single question! :-) (By the way. The word "desk" is actually a corruption of the medieval Latin "desca", so I'll be using the correct term on the reference desca from now on.) APL (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, according to EO,[29] it comes from the Greek diskos (disc). (And to "refer" is to "ferry back".) Maybe the ref desk should be renamed the "disko-take". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There was some discussion in the New York Times over the last year about the fact that many non-Jews are buying kosher in the hopes that it will be ethically or chemically better for them, in the same way they seek out organic food.[30] So that might be responsible for some up-tick in things, though I don't know if that's made much of a difference at a place like Harris Teeter's (generally catering to a more up-scale and more picky customer than your average Safeway shopper, though not quite as picky as a Whole Foods shopper) in a place like Arlington (which is more Mid-Atlantic than it is South, and is a lot easier to get to by car from DC than most DC supermarkets, which have barely any parking). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here we go. Ah, this is good to see. More goyim buying kasher = more kasher food in general. Hmmm, judging by the places you pointed out, I think you know the neighbourhood I'm currently living in. One thing I noticed at the new Whole Foods (you know the one I mean if I am right in my assumption) is that there is very little kasher food there; in fact, even their challot are non-kasher. They have gotten a bit more kasher in though recently after many people complained, but that might just be Rosh haShana (I wrote in and said that it was funny to sad to see more kasher in Safeway than Whole Foods which claims to be a health food store). It is good to see it on the rise though so that more kasher food is more widely available (which is why I asked the question, I want to see if it is becoming easier to get kasher food elsewhere than NYC). Fairways are also spreading fast and they are known for their big kasher selection. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I don't live in Arlington. I do shop there occasionally, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about Foggy Bottom. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tishrei 5772 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Arlington, VA may not have a large Jewish population, but if you went to the Harris Teeter that I think you did, it's a well-regarded superstore that tends to draw in people from other communities -- and there are a lot of Jews in the capital region. The nearby small towns of Falls Church and Fairfax City have some of the highest concentrations of Jews in the USA, and Jewish concentration in nearby Washington, DC and Alexandria, VA is double the national average. --M@rēino 21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That would definitely make sense. Like I said, there's the Jewish student population. You have the Blue Line metro at GW which goes right to Pentagon City where that Harris Teeter is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kosher food trend is probably your friend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read that most people who buy kosher food aren't even Jewish. Kosher food has a reputation of being "cleaner" than non-kosher food. Vegetarians like to buy non-meat kosher food because they know it won't contain any meat. Muslims may buy kosher food because they know there's no pork. I see people who likely aren't Orthodox Jews browsing the kosher section at my local store all the time. See [31]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also because kashrut is in accordance with halal (and vice-versa to some extent, though they do allow for mixing of meat and milk and camel is a halal animal). I have seen the healthy angle used a few times. Some cases it's true, sometimes not. You never know, they might be a conservative (who are strict sometimes) or reform (not so strict) in disguise. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tishrei 5772 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

On page 193 of Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish, he lists Kosher and says it's from Hebrew kasher (meaning "fit", "proper", "appropriate", "permissible") and then he uses the English word "kosher" in the rest of the entry. In fact, he says, "Kosher is probably the Hebrew word most widely encountered in English." And just to clarify, as per my old Webster's, kasher is Hebrew and kosher is Yiddish (and English). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

October 6

Chargeable interstate vs. non chargeable interstate

What is the difference between chargeable interstate. Because I-110 in California is chargeable interstate, I-710 is non-chargeable interstate. shows I-110 is add on the highway document system in 1979, does chargeable interstate mean the interstate is allow to be post once government approves it. Because common types of renumbering is dual signing, so in December 1978 I-110 was approve by FHWA, are they allow to do the renumber at 1979. What is non-chargeable interstate. I hear non-chargeable interstate means they aren't allow to sign as interstate unless it is fully upgrade and meets qualifications. I-710 Long Beach Freeway is that sitution.--69.229.6.251 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The construction of the Interstate Highway System was funded 90/10 with the states (the states paid 10% and the feds paid 90% of the costs of the building of the roads: see [32]). This funding covered the contruction of a specific 42,000-mile system of roads, these 42,000 miles are the "chargeable" roads in the system. States are allowed to build additional roads into the interstate system, which are numbered and signed as interstates, at their own cost, so long as those roads meet the Interstate Highway standards. These additional roads are funded 100% by the states, and so are considered "non-chargable" interstates. For the driver, there should be absolutely no distinction between them. The difference is just in how the roads were funded; either with federal funds as part of the initial 42000 mile system, or as a later addition to the system funded by the states. See Interstate_Highway_System#Chargeable_and_non-chargeable_Interstate_routes and this external link: [33] which explains the breakdown of chargable and non-chargable routes in California specifically. --Jayron32 02:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

seminar help

Hi As I would like to present seminar about wikipedia in my company, kindly provide me with neecessary documents or previous presentations in order to have a effective presentation and i need these documents/slides for power point presentation for reference. kindly send these to my mail ID. REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.68.25 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not allowed to post email addresses here. All replies are made on the board.

Perhaps you could tell in more detail what you would like the presentation to be about, and we can point you to relevant information. Wikipedia contains a lot of information on Wikipedia (e.g. history, criticism, benefits, policies, how people can be involved). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

The Chicago Bears vs Tampa Bay Bucs match at Wembley Stadium is coming up and I've been noticing some publicity for it, notably a radio ad I've heard on Absolute Radio (other radio stations are available, and indeed, may be carrying the same ad).

In the course of the advert, it describes Tampa Bay as "the youngest and most dynamic team" in the NFL. Now, while I know that adverts don't carry the same restrictions as we do over WP:PEACOCK and therefore I'll ignore the "most dynamic" bit, they do have to comply with legal requirements to be truthful and I wondered what was meant by "youngest".

AFAIK, (and I don't know masses about American football - I prefer the type of "football" that's mostly played with feet) a number of franchises have been created in recent years and Tampa Bay have been around as long as I can remember. So either I'm wrong, or they're talking about something else.

So, what do they mean? The average age of the squad maybe?

Cheers in advance --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That would likely refer to the average age of the players, yes. If it was about the team as a franchise, they would probably say "newest", and there are a number of teams newer than the Bucs in any case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it true? And if so, why would the marketers think that was an attractive aspect for fans? Smacks me as a bit desperate/random, even if true, like "most piratey", arrr? --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Younger people tend to have more energy maybe? Rookies play harder to make themselves stand out in order to progress their career? Also, just to give you a heads up, Americans would call this contest a game, not a match. Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the advert, done in OTT American accents, calls it a "match-up". Which makes it sound like they're getting married. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, match-up is used some by the media (rarely by people who aren't on tv), but I have never heard them call it a plain match. Googlemeister (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A younger team connotes unpredictability, which might make for an exciting game; and if you go and see them now, there is always the chance that in 40 years when you are a graybeard you will be able to fondly and loudly reminisce about the time you saw Jack Smith play American Football before he became a star. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• According to ESPN, which is generally considered the expert on this sort of research, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers do indeed currently have the youngest average player age in the NFL. In the NFL, as in most professional sports, younger players tend to be much faster and more agile. However, NFL football places a lot of emphasis on strength, which tends to peak mid-career, as well as tactical knowledge and emotional composure, which tend to peak near the end of one's career. In other words, younger teams tend to be fun to watch, because they'll go flying around the field looking amazing, and then screw it all up by doing something stupid. --M@rēino 14:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the Bucs are a mediocre team without any big-name stars, so in the absence of anything better to say, the advertisement makes them out to be an "up and coming" team. (I'm guessing the Bucs were picked for the game because of their owner's UK connections.) I find it interesting that British people will turn out in such numbers to watch games like San Francisco vs. Denver. I can't imagine a game between, say, Sunderland and West Bromwich Albion selling out the Meadowlands. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

They might, if there were only one soccer game per year in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't call the Bucs a mediocre team. They are in first in their division, the NFC South, a division that also has the Atlanta Falcons, who have been decent for a few years, the New Orleans Saints, who won the Super Bowl two years ago, and have been a regular playoff team for some years, and the Carolina Panthers, who have the most exciting rookie player (Cam Newton) in some time. The NFC South may be one of the more competitive divisions in the League, the Bucs at 3-1 are doing quite well for themselves. They have a genuinely fun Quarterback to watch, Josh Freeman, who plays a LOT like Ben Rothlisberger, and their running back LeGarrette Blount is a great runner, the Bucs may be one of the only teams this year who has a reliable running game capable of closing out games at the end. They're young and unknown, and they get a few too many penalties, but the have the defense and running game that most of the league lacks this year. This may be their breakout year; I wouldn't be surprised if they went 10-6 this year, and 2012 is likely to be the year this team blows it up; if they can keep this young core of players together they stand to win the Division next year with 12 or 13 wins. The Bears also have a very good running back, Matt Forte, which is good because their QB Jay Cutler is a bit of an enigma. The Bucs-Bears game in London stands to be an excellent old-school football game with a focus on rushing over passing. As far as WHY the Bucs get to play in the UK this year, check out who their owner is. That will answer a LOT of questions for fans of UK (association) football... --Jayron32 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Beating Indianapolis and Minnesota doesn't count. And look at who they beat last year: the four teams in the NFC "Worst" division, Carolina twice, the Bengals, the Browns, the Redskins and a Saints team that had clinched a playoff spot and rested some starters. They lost every game they played against a good team that was really trying. Had Tampa played a schedule of average difficulty, they could just as easily have finished 6-10. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

should these be in humanities?

is lobbying essentially bribing? what would happen if political parties were banned, and people were limited to one time in ofice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.78.36 (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For the first, see lobbying, if you have not yet done so. For the second, it's asking for opinion, which we do not provide, but I guess it would be a shake-up and thrusting that particular political system a few hundred years into the past. That's an unprofessional opinion of a layman. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Several countries do not have political parties: see List of countries without political parties, and others have one-party systems. Even without political parties, political factions tend to form. The article Term limit may also be of some interest to answering the final part of the question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lobbying is just advocating for a position. It doesn't involve any transfer of funds, so it cannot be bribery. Campaign contributions, however, which may be offered by lobbyists, could be seen as bribery in some cases. Marco polo (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, a standard lobbyist position is, "Vote this way, or our PAC will spend $2 million against you in the next election." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, our term limit article is really brief and needs a lot of expansion. A standard argument given against term limits (by those who have been elected many times in a row, of course, along with their cronies) is that you end up with a bunch of non-"experts" in Parliament and/or Congress, who don't know the ins-and-outs of what makes good legislation and how to effectively negotiate legislation. The standard counterargument is that the above ignores the fact that in the US, at least, elected officials spend about 90% of their time on the phone talking to rich people in order to raise money to get elected next time; and their support staff are doing most of the work anyway; sounds like a net gain to me. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, people are very much in favor of term limits for representatives from districts other than their own. That might be why we don't have a term limits amendment (except for the president). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the oldies vs. the newbies, whether that's good or not depends on which side you take in the recent debt-ceiling crisis, in which the idealist newbies held America hostage for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against term limits include (1) if a politician isn't standing for re-election what incentive do they have to do a good job? Standing for election keeps politicians honest, and we can always kick bad ones out after a single term (2) a politician approaching the end of a term limit may be a lame duck without the time to implement a long-term plan (3) more tenuously, rather than discouraging corruption it may encourage people to corrupt quicker. On the other hand, incumbency advantage (the tendency for incumbents to be re-elected - see incumbent for details) is one of the imbalances that can be cured by term limits. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the above answers, I can't work out whether the primary task is to advise whether the Humanities desk is the proper place for questions like these, or to answer the 2 questions, or both. The header is supposed to encapsulate the main idea or main point of the post. So, fwiw, yes, this is the correct place for questions like these. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

October 7

Hanging_Rock,_Victoria

Isn't the climber in the first picture in the article above, obviously taking too much risk? Quest09 (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No. To an experienced rock climber, the boulder in File:Rockclimbing.JPG is about as hard to climb as a staircase. --Carnildo (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "Too much" is a value judgement. We can't tell how high up he is (well, maybe Carnildo is more familiar with the place) , nor do we know how good a climber he is, nor how familiar he is with the climb he's doing. So we could only speculate. It's somewhat concerning that he's wearing trainers not rock shoes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The caption suggests the climber is bouldering, which is described as climbing rocks without ropes and other safety gear, but such climbs rarely go very high, and there may well be a bouldering mat out of view at the base of the rock in case he were to fall. --McDoobAU93 01:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

University of Wales

Hello, I'm from India. This institute is offering a Post Graduate Diploma in Global Business Leadership which they claim is affiliated to University of Wales. I want to know whether University of Wales offer off-campus degree? --Eoeoeoe (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. The University of Wales' official information about this programme is at [34]. However, the University of Wales has recently been in the British news with grave concerns expressed over the quality of its oversight processes - see, for example, [35]. Warofdreams talk 13:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, the University of Wales does offer off-campus degree courses, but be very careful. Only yesterday, the University's reputation was called into question after a BBC investigation revealed a scam involving off-campus degree courses. You could find yourself with a degree certificate which prospective employers might be reluctant to believe you actually worked for. Astronaut (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)