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

February 22

Why are casinos and slot machines and all that illegal in so many places?

Of all the things to make illegal, why is gambling one? Especially since alcohol is usually allowed everywhere, which must be far worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See the article Blue law. Doesn't exactly answer your question, but may be informative. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See Effects of Casino Gambling on Crime and Quality of Life in New Casino Jurisdictions(pdf), Casinos, Crime, and Community costs(pdf). A quick google search on "effect of casino on community" will give you many similar results. Royor (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Situations defined as real are real in their consequences." The fact that citizens believe crime has risen and that the rise is in some way due to the casino presence is important. (first pdf, p92). The second pdf concluded that the effect on crime is low shortly after a casino opens, and grows over time,(p1) (and in the long run) casinos increased all crimes except murder (p17). So to answer your question: gambling is illegal in some places because of the negative perception (whether real or not) and the very real long term social cost. As to alcohol, look at the US Prohibition - they tried it, didn't work. Royor (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Casinos have also historically offered almost unlimited possibilities for money laundering (almost all cash transactions, lots of room for "skim", hard to follow for tax purposes), which is why they have been so appealing to organized crime in the past. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Gambling can be every bit as addictive (and bankrupting) as drugs and alcohol. They tried banning alcohol. That didn't work. But it's regulated, as are drugs and alcohol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There are classed aspects to the selective banning of gambling. Totalisers have been state monopolies at times, illegal Starting Price bookmaking has been both a proletarian, and criminal, tradition. Lotteries are regularly run as state monopolies, occasionally even with the money generated ear marked for "public goods," such as the use of part of the UK lotteries to partly fund films. In other places such lotteries are used for consolidated revenue. Poker-machines used to be limited in NSW to clubs, as clubs were a system of semi-communal places. These days they're legal in pubs and clubs, and clubs and club alcohol licencing are as closely related to their social ancestor as the RSL is to a returned soldiers association. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Originally they were illegal because of the harm they caused to society. After all, unlike farming or manufacturing, they don't create any wealth, they just take it from some (mainly the poor gamblers) and give it to others (mainly the rich casino owners). However, in recent years, governments ceased to care about the harm to society, and now are mainly concerned with getting their "piece of the action". Thus, they legalize forms of gambling where they will profit the most, and keep other forms illegal. I like to call lottery tickets "paying your stupidity tax". StuRat (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agree with the sentiment I have to put up a Royor (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a common perception...or a stereotype...associated with customers/operators of casinos as being "undesirables." The mafia/money laundering aspect was mentioned in an above post, but there is also a popular belief by some that casinos/gambling/lotteries are, at the core, akin to a tax on the poor and/or uneducated (basically, highly-susceptible) people looking to get rich quick. Also of interest is that, in many cases lawmakers tend to "find reasons" or loopholes to legitimize gambling, because some of the positive aspects of casinos include job creation and increased tax revenue. In Mississippi for example, for a long time casinos were only allowed on Native American reservations, being that they were "outside of" the State's purview. Then riverboat gambling on navigable water ways was permitted, which eventually turned into casinos being built adjacent to waterways with a ditch (commonly called a moat) dug around them, to fulfill the "over water" requirement. Now, after Hurricane Katrina, Casinos are permitted to be built on land, but within a certain proximity of waterways, due to safety concerns (many water-based casinos were swept away during Katrina, most notably one- I thing the Beau Rivage- that "rolled over" on top of Hwy 90 in the storm surge). Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like God doesn't want them to gamble. :-) Which reminds me, I believe there are also religious objections to gambling. Having people hoping to get rich by gambling instead of working is definitely counter to the Puritan work ethic, for example.

Economists would also argue that "gambling" on the stock market is better for the nation, in that it provides positive rate of return (versus casinos) and also provides capital for corporations. But governments prefer gambling on the lottery, because the tax rate is higher. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I question your premise. Is gambling completely (or almost completely) banned in significantly more countries than alcohol is completely (or almost completely) banned? Most countries regulate and license gambling in the same way as they regulate and license the sale of alcohol. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Texas

I have heard that Texas has a provision in its State Constitution (or some such governing document) that allows for it to be divided into multiple, smaller states. Tue or myth? If true, what are the details? Has it ever been considered? Is this unique to Texas? (I read the article on Texas and didn't see anything about this, but its a rather large article, and I may have missed it.) Thanks! Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true. I think it is unique to Texas. See here [1] and here [2] RudolfRed (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to get off subject here, but the first link (Snopes) mentions that the "right to secede from the Union" is a myth. I had always took that to be fact, and much more "common knowledge" than the provision to divide into five states. Didn't Rick Perry mention something about Texas being able to secede in one of the debates (of course, that was Rick Perry...his grasp of governmental workings is not exactly one of his strong suits.):) Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because there is no mechanism set up to allow for secession doesn't mean it's prohibited. I imagine if all parties agreed (or at least the majority), we'd find a way to get it done. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it does seem kind of silly to include a "secession provision" into a statehood-agreement simply because if, for example, Texas decided on, and was firmly committed to, secession, they probably wouldn't give a shit whether the Federal Government thought it was legal or not (assuming that they were so firmly committed that they were willing to back it up, as the worst case scenario, with armed conflict You'd think that would be considered beforehand). But maybe I'm missing something. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The page section Texas Annexation#Options for the formation of new states mentions a possible constitutional issue, if the splitting of Texas were ever actually attempted. Pfly (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The joke in Alaska is that if Texans can't get over it that when Alaska became a state Texas became the second-largest instead of the largest, we'll split Alaska in half and Texas can be the third largest. Course we also have our very own secessionists as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't this resolved in 1865? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Just because one attempt at secession resulted in war doesn't mean that all must. Heck, there are large parts of the nation I'd like to encourage to leave the Union. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So, let's say California decided to secede from the U.S. b/c their environmental and civil liberty policies were at odds. And assuming that, if that were the case, California would not acknowledge any sort of U.S. supreme court ruling as having baring on the secession after the fact...do you not think the U.S. Fed would invoke military action to "bring them back in line?" What other alternatives would there be? Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see many peaceful alternatives:

1) Allow them to become fully independent.

2) Form an EU style confederation, where CA is no longer under the US Constitution, but still maintains other key economic links.

3) Revise the laws in question to give CA more leeway. For example, trying to arrest Californians for the production, distribution, and sale of medical marijuana is one of the worst Federal policies. StuRat (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be a very similar situation as is currently happening with regards to Scottish independence. The legal position is very clear that Scotland can't unilaterally break away from the UK and all the major UK political parties are very clear that they don't think it would be in Scotland's interests or the interests of the rest of the UK for Scotland to break away, but everyone is agreed that if the Scottish people really want to then they will be allowed to. I would expect the rest of the US to view Calafornian independence in much the same way (although there are a few differences - Scotland was independant until 300 years ago, while Calafornia has never been a sovereign state, and the British tend to be a little more pragmatic than the Americans when it comes to patriotism). --Tango (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

California historians might disagree with part of that. See Republic of California (1846). Rmhermen (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What an em-bear-assing mistake. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That article doesn't remotely contradict what I said. It says "the "republic" never exercised any real authority, and it was never recognized by any nation". A 26-day revolt does not a sovereign state make. --Tango (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter, the federal government could deal with that fairly readily if it ever got to that very silly point by not allowing planes to enter California airspace, or trains. Refuse to clear people at the ports of entry. Have the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco refuse to issue any money (not just currency) to California banks. Really, it would never get to force.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not 1861 any more. The United States has a long-standing tradition of supporting various independence movements in every corner of the planet. It consistently operates under the banner of self-determination of peoples to such a degree that it routinely uses the term "freedom fighters" to describe movements which should properly be labelled as "terrorists". (Some recent examples include Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kurdistan.) It's hard to imagine that the federal government would be willing (or even that it would have popular support) to conduct any hostile actions towards any state that tried to secede, assuming that secession is approved by a statewide referendum. --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical that anyone in the US called Chechnya a case of "freedom fighters". Do you have a source for this ? StuRat (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Google news archive search produces a number of sources dating 1992-2000, including articles in Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times, but almost all of them are paywalled.

There were, I think, two phases, before and after 9/11. Before 9/11, Chechens were often described by the media as "freedom fighters" or "separatists", the attention of the West was mostly on the alleged human rights abuses committed by Russians in Chechnya, and the White House was exhibiting a bad case of cognitive dissonance by claiming that Russia had sovereignty over the region, while at the same time firmly denouncing any military actions in the region (to the point of threatening sanctions.) Two weeks after 9/11, the White House came out and made a formal statement declaring that there are terrorist organizations in Chechnya with ties to Osama bin Laden. After that, Chechens increasingly became "terrorists" and "insurgents".--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

After the Beslan school hostage crisis it became apparent to all that they were terrorists, although the earlier apartment building bombings and theater take-over would be more than enough for me. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the Texas matter, the treaty provision did not place Texas under any different status than any other state for splitting. The provision allows Texas to be split with the consent of Congress and its legislature. But that's true of any state.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, one could say that the wording of the treaty was a bit of a scam - basically extending Texas some theoretical "special privilege" that in fact every other state theoretically had as well. Sounds like Uncle Sam kinda put one over on them good ol' Texas boys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing, but I did skim through the Texas Constitution at http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/ and I don't see any such provisions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not in the state constitution (as far as I know), rather the Annexation of Texas Joint Resolution of Congress and Ordinance of the Convention of Texas. Pfly (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Medical license

Is a U.S. medical license recognised by other countries (except Canada), permitting the holder to practice medicine there without going through further exams? Thanks. --Gidip (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect it to vary by nation, with those which are able to perform their own certification being pickier than third world nations, in general. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my old college roommate went, as a cosmetic surgeon in later life, down to Fiji as a volunteer to perform reconstructive surgery (cleft palates, thing like that), and had to be officially "invited" by the corresponding agency in Fiji (so he had to have papers). But it was really just a formality, and, from what I recall, was facilitated entirely by the Red Cross. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 05:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In Japan, the Medical Practitioners Act prohibits non-holder of a Japanese medical license to practice medicine. --Kusunose 10:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Most countries would require you to get a license to practice in that country, but they will usually recognise your existing training and qualifications as long as they aren't considered significantly easier or less complete than the local ones. --Tango (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My brother graduated from an American medical school, but he says he would have to take exams to practice back in Canada. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the comments. Gidip (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Chinese astronomer with a Japanese name

I was in the imperial chinese history portal. There is a picture of a Chiinese astronomer 1600s but he has a Japanese name. Very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.157.87 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And what is your question for the Reference Desk? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I browsed Portal:History of Imperial China and Portal:History of Imperial China/Selected biography but none of them seems to have a Japanese name. Please be more specific. --Kusunose 10:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:History_of_Imperial_China currently has a picture of "A 1675 painting of Kuniyoshi Utagawa, a Chinese priest-astronomer". This is incorrectly labelled; Kuniyoshi Utagawa is the Japanese painter and Chicasei Goyô (Wu Yong) the subject: see [3]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OP is refering to File:Utagawa Kuniyoshi, Portrait of Chicasei Goyô (Wu Yong) (1827–1830).jpg. This picture is shown on Portal:History of Imperial China. The image caption on the portal is misleading: it says “A 1675 painting of Kuniyoshi Utagawa, a Chinese priest-astronomer”. The image page suggests that the picture was painted by Utagawa Kuniyoshi, a 19th century Japanese painter; whereas the image depicts Chicasei Goyô who is also known as Wu Yong, a fictional Chinese astronomer who is described as having lived in the 12th century in the 15th century classical Chinese novel Water Margin. Thus there seem to be two errors in the description of the painting on the portal: firstly the date 1675 is probably wrong, secondly it confuses the painter with the person depicted; unless the errors are in the image description or the articles. – b_jonas 11:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it (be bold!) 59.108.42.46 (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But hold on, "ca" is not a valid syllable in Japanese. IF "Chicasei" comes from his nickname as written in the label in the upper right hand corner of the painting, that is 智多星 ("a very clever star"), which should be chitasei, and the actual name should be "Go Yō", given that the first character is his surname and the second is his given name. The whole thing should, I think, be "Chitasei, Go Yō", and the corresponding Mandarin Chinese is "Zhiduoxing, Wu Yong". But I don't speak Japanese so I'll wait for a native Japanese speaker to confirm whether I'm reading it right. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, not in the biography section but in the selected picture section. I missed it. As for his name in Japanese, yes, his nickname is Chitasei and it should be "Chitasei Go Yō" in Hepburn romanization. Using a circumflex to indicate a long vowel is a feature of Kunrei-shiki romanization and Nihon-shiki romanization. --Kusunose 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now what about the date in the caption? Should that say 1827? – b_jonas 08:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Research Project

Hello Wikipedians, My name is Raffaele and I'm a Master student in Social Anthropology at Goldsmiths College (University of London); I'm writing to ask for your help with my dissertation project: I'm currently looking at knowledge sharing practices and it would be extremely helpful to have a small contribution from you, as the biggest knowledge sharing community. I will only need a small amount of your precious time for a short interview. If you think it is something you would like to take part in, please let me know; I haven’t decide how to conduct the interviews yet, but probably I will send you a list of questions which you can decide to answer, or if you are based in London, or maybe in Europe, you could share your answer with me in front of a coffee! Thank you very much for taking the time Best RaffaeleRafTer (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst there may be people on the ref-desk who'll happily take part in an interview on their knowledge sharing practices, they wouldn't be able to speak for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself does have a contact us page Wikipedia:Contact_us where it suggests you can contact the founder Jimmy Wales. ny156uk (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But then, again, does Jimmy Wales talk for Wikipedia any more than it's editors ? The nature of such a collaborative process is that "nobody is in charge". StuRat (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As you'd know from your ethics committee application, soliciting for interviews in this way, particularly when the object of research has a formal interface for researchers and approved projects, is not a good thing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh ? StuRat (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's normal for an anthropologist to solicit interviews. Falconus^{p t c} 09:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

CERN

How on earth is the abbreviation for "The European Organization for Nuclear Research" become CERN? 117.227.51.48 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it used to be the 'Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire' and when they changed the name, they kept the old acronym, because that's what everyone remembers. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit, CERN is easier to say (and less silly-sounding) than EONR. Sern vs. Ee-Oh-Ner. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a matter of "used to be", or is it just that the real name is the French one because that's the language they speak where it is, and the second name above is an English translation? HiLo48 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From CERN:"The acronym CERN originally stood, in French, for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Council for Nuclear Research), which was a provisional council for setting up the laboratory, established by 12 European governments in 1952. The acronym was retained for the new laboratory after the provisional council was dissolved, even though the name changed to the current Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Organization for Nuclear Research) in 1954.[2]"99.245.35.136 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sern? I've always said "kern". There you go. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is kertainly pronounced as /sern/, Jask of Og. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But either way, still easier than EONR. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do any of these help? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I'm pretty sure the Scottish island is pronounced to rhyme with 'eye', which isn't how I would attempt to pronounce EONR. Though wouldn't the correct acronym be OERN? 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

um, I mean the initial vowel is pronounced to rhyme with 'eye'. 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of them definitely are pronounced more like EONR, eg the Russian ones. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Genisys Credit Union

I recently wrote an article on Genisys Credit Union, and I put down 1936 as the foundation date, because the majority of the sources and the organization itself use that year as the foundation date. Genisys Credit Union was actually created in 2008 as the result of a merger of two credit unions, T&C Federal Credit Union (which was founded in 1936) and USA Credit Union (which was founded in 1954). So 1936 is used because it is the date the oldest merged organization was founded. I am not sure if this the right place to ask, but what is common practice on Wikipedia? Is the date of the merger used as the foundation date, or is the original foundation date of the oldest organization used? Thank you for your time. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The general principle on Wikipedia is to go with the sources. This is just one of many examples of why infoboxes are a "bad thing". The true situation is easily explained in full in the article prose, but the infobox forces one to state a definite and single answer which will be misleading whichever date one chooses. SpinningSpark 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you are right, this was not the right place. WP:EAR or WP:HD would have been better. SpinningSpark 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So the best solution is to explain the conflict using prose? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I would be tempted, if the infobox in question supports it, to list both dates, or neither. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mae West Road, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

Why is there a Mae West Road in Fayette County, Pennsylvania? Wasn't Mae West from New York City? Or is the street named after another Mae West? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

People don't have to come from the place where the road is to be honoured in this way. See Stalin Road, Colchester, UK - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just like they honor Martin Luther King, Jr. by naming roads after him in the worst part of every big city. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not common in America to name rural roads after controversial film stars from other states. (Not common to name streets after Stalin, either.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to one up Mae West Road, there's the town of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. I'm not sure Jim Thorpe ever visited the town while alive. Though he did while dead. --Jayron32 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also possible it was named indirectly after Mae West, as that name was adopted to describe WW2-era life jackets, which inflated in front of the chest on either side. Perhaps such life jackets were manufactured there, or saved the life of whoever named the road, etc. Or maybe the people who live there just want you to come up and see them sometime. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also one in Wisconsin. No indication as to why, though. She was from "Greenpernt", as she used to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a Roosevelt Road in Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Scotland and Taiwan (among many others, I'm sure). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some googling suggests that a number of roads around the country got nicknamed—and maybe in the case of the Pennsylvania one actually named—"Mae West" because they are "curvy". About a road in Wyoming: "...the tight curves of Skyline Drive (nicknamed the Mae West Road by the CCC boys)...".https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/97001260_text This blog post, [4], about the road in Pennsylvania: "...a road they called Mae West because it was nothing but curves...". More research is required! Pfly (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

February 23

Removing laugh tracks

There are some programs I would like to watch, but I simply cannot abide laugh tracks. I know some people say that they don't even notice them after a while. Me, and all my life, it's like nails on a chalkboard. I don't know how people can stand it (it is not the sound—I like the sound of people laughing—it is the obstruction, the fakeness of it that immediately twangs my nerves and makes me turn off the program). I've never watched many sitcoms everyone else knows because of it. Is there any computer program out there or something that would allow me to remove just the soundtrack but not the other sounds? Also, am I unique in this regard?--108.46.103.88 (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't picture a way to reliable tell laughter in the laugh track from laughter of the characters, for example. So, I think a human would be needed to turn the volume down when the laugh track comes on. Another option might be to read the transcripts, instead, as long as it's not visual humor. StuRat (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an instant urge to hear the worst-offending sitcom laugh-tracks. I agree they are horrible but I crave them. Can you link to any good examples on YouTube? I doubt that any program can remove laugh-tracks if they are part of a mixed sound including something you want to hear. The sounds would be mingled. But perhaps I am mistaken, as I have zero expertise in this area. Thanks for the question. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Any really bad sitcom will have noticeably annoying laugh track. One I found rather unfunny was Kate and Allie, but, by all means, search for your most hated show. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this question should be moved to the Computing reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I bet some really smart programmer could figure out a way to distinguish the sound profile of multiple laughs that make up a soundtrack from a single laugh and could invent software to do this, but like many things, innovation and mass publication follows demand. I don't think I'm typical and so, even if this technology exists, it probably has not been put out there for me to even find. I wonder if the program packaged as "laughtrack-less" versions would have commercial viability. Maybe CBS should put out a separate DVD set for laughtrack-less, The Big Bang Theory (which I watched 30 seconds of once after hearing it was a very good show before turning the dial in disgust). Oh well. At least today there are some comedy shows without the laugh track (it used to be that almost every sitcom had one).--108.46.103.88 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You could also have multiple cast members laughing, or they could be watching a sit-com with a laugh track on TV within the scene. I think you might do best to reduce the volume on all laughs, since that wouldn't require the same degree of programming. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of those sitcoms are taped/filmed before a live audience, although (as pointed out here a week or two ago also) the laughter might be "sweetened" a bit. And keep in mind that with weird shows like Big Bang Theory, the laugh track might be necessary in order to be clued in on when something is supposed to be funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the laugh track, per se. It has it's uses, like when a sit-com normally filmed in front of a studio audience goes on location for an episode, where the sudden silence would seem odd (they could also show it to an audience later and loop the live laughter, I suppose). However, when they put excessive laughs after bad jokes, or even after every break in the conversation, that's when it gets annoying. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is something funny about a laugh-track. Laughter is supposed to be spontaneous and irrepressible, not predictable and controllable. Real laughter is contagious, like yawning is. But a loop of the same uninspired laughing grates on one's ears. That alone could be funny if the jokes are unfunny and the laughter is obviously recorded and the same in each instance. But I think the Computer ref desk is where this question really should be asked. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I think automated solutions are likely to fail, here is a followup question: Does anyone know of a TV show with a laugh track, and when the TV show was issued on DVD, the laugh track was removed? Second followup: Does anyone know of a TV show on DVD where there's a menu option to turn the laugh track on or off? It's technically easy. I sort of doubt a lot of producers would want this because of the admission it is making. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be technically quite easy for them to do, as long as they still have the original recordings on separate tracks. This could be done just like alternate spoken languages, or descriptive video. A bit trickier would be the option to turn the laugh track up or down, independently of the main volume. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Flintstones was originally aired with a laugh track. According to the article, Turner Broadcasting stripped the laugh track from the episodes when it reran them in the 90s. They then changed their mind and not only added the laugh track back but gave some episodes a new laugh track. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

M*A*S*H (TV series) had its laugh track removed when it was broadcast in the UK by the BBC. When I occasionally saw clips with laughter it seemed very strange and inappropriate. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, later seasons of MASH didn't have the laugh track, or at least they toned it down a bit. There were some seasons towards the middle where the producers agreed that scenes in the operating room wouldn't have a laugh track (due to the seriousness of the situation) and the writers, who hated the laugh track, would put all the jokes in the surgery scenes. At least, that's a story I remember thinking I heard once. Take it for what you will. --Jayron32 04:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried muting the sound and switching on the subtitles? I think that's the closest you'll ever get to what you are trying to do. Of course if enough people wrote to the producers and sponsors of these shows to point out how annoying the really quite ridiculous laugh track is (trying to convince us that people laugh after every single line?) it could make a difference.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that one reason for the laugh track might have been to help make a lone viewer feel like he had "company" - as with a movie theater, where (hopefully) the audience is laughing at the jokes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you would be better off asking about comedy programmes you might not have heard of that don't have laughter tracks? Out of interest, are you happy with shows filmed in front of a live audience, where you can hear the laughter, but there is actual audience participation? What if you watch TV as part of a reasonably large group, so there are real people laughing as well? The only other thing I can think of is to try and persevere - maybe after a few hours of watching these things, it won't be quite so unbearable. 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

@the OP: it's not much help, but you might find some solace in watching Annie Hall. There's a scene in a TV production studio where someone is adding a laugh track to their show and Woody Allen's character shares your attitude. Tinfoilcat (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If Annie Hall were a TV show instead of a theatrical movie, it might have had a laugh track. Again, a theatrical film is (hopefully) a shared experience with an audience, and no laugh track is "needed". This raises another question or two. Theatrical film comedies don't have laugh tracks added when they go to TV. And I don't think pay-channels such as HBO add laugh tracks, but I don't recall for sure. Maybe someone here knows. But I'm thinking this is a phenomenon confined primarily to over-the-air TV in both the USA and the UK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

definition of folder management

i couldn't find the specific definition of folder management in the wikipedia. Please assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.201.255 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We may be able to give better help if you explain the context of your question. The pages Folder (computing), Computer file management, and Category:File system management may be of some help to you. SpinningSpark 08:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Coffin shapes and calling coffins caskets?

So if I can recall, in America (and possibly Europe), there are coffins that are hexagon shaped or something, while they call the box-shaped ones caskets. But in my country, those hexagon shaped coffins are virtually non-existant, all the coffins I have seen are caskets, and we don't even call them caskets; we call them coffins. Is calling a box-shaped coffin a casket or those hexagon coffins common outside of North America or not? And why are they even shaped like that in the first place? For me, a box-shape is more logical. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "casket" actually means "small box", and was originally a euphemism for "coffin", which actually originally meant "basket".[5][6] As to the six-sided shape of cheap caskets/coffins, the bulge appears to have been designed to allow more room for the arms and shoulders, i.e. to more closely conform to a human's natural shape. If you google-image "six sided coffin" you'll see that that design is still in use, and one picture in particular, of a mummy case, illustrates what I'm getting at and suggests that design has been around for a long time. I suspect that coffins went to the rectangular shape for various reasons of convenience, not excluding the fact that they are less human-shaped and hence theoretically less "scary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

At least according to wiktionary:casket, a casket is "the type of coffin with upholstery and a half-open lid". 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny. In case you didn't know, they do close those lids before they plant the subject in the ground or the mausoleum. And after they take the tabloid photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Django would have been such a bad-ass if he had dragged an upholstered rectangular box behind. Astronaut (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK I've come across "casket" more as a container for ashes than as a coffin that someone would be buried in. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual term would be "urn", although that usage of "casket" is closer to its etymology than the way it's used in the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably so if they wake up, they might have room to cough in - cue drum roll KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you asked for it: It isn't the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was indeed waiting for that one KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The differences between an urn and a casket, in the UK, are in their shape and material. A "casket" is usually a wooden box - an "urn" is usually a vase or jar-shaped metal or plastic container, with lid - random examples here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha. And again, using a more accurate meaning of "casket" than the way Americans use it. I wonder if the wood and the pulverized bone ("ashes") would chemically interact over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely, as they are generally lined with lead - a considerable health risk to the person interned therein. An urn is generally made of porcelain. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Keeping building or structure heights secret?

So I asked this question a few weeks ago, but I didn't get good responses, so I'm asking it again, while removing one question. So apparently there is this new building that will be built soon in Saudi Arabia called the Kingdom Tower which will be the tallest building in the world, and in true Middle Eastern fashion and in the spirit of Burj Khalifa, its exact height is being kept a secret (at least until it is finished, if it will ever be). I noticed that the recent buildings that keep or kept their heights secret like the aforementioned Burj Khalifa, the Nakheel Tower (now cancelled, meaning its height will never be known) and the Kingdom Tower are all in the Middle East, and the only other two that I know of (the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building) were built almost 70 years ago (which was understandable, because the two buildings were in a race for the title of "World's Tallest Building"), after which, the practice seemed to have died down, until Burj Khalifa (then called Burj Dubai) came along.

My questions are:

• Was it Burj Khalifa that started this trend of keeping final heights secret, or did another building start it?
• Why are most of these buildings in the Middle East?
• Were there any notable buildings or structures built after the Empire State Building but before the Burj Khalifa that kept their height a secret?
• Are there any other buildings or structures aside from the aforementioned structures that keep or kept their height a secret?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq's answer to your earlier question seemed to sum it up: "...they might be able to stick a little extra on the top to beat a rival if they learn their rivals intentions". ie. it is largely vanity. You obviously don't want to announce that you are building the world's tallest, only to be beaten at the last moment by a rival country/city/sheik. As for your other questions I have don't really know, but Dubai in the mid-2000s and New York in the early-1930s were going through building booms where possibly prestige was more important than other matters like cost, environment or safety. Astronaut (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more than vanity. There are all sorts of possible tourist consequences to being "the tallest." I don't think "the second tallest" has the same ring to it. As a very small example, Burj Khalifa, not Shanghai World Financial Center, was the one that got to be in the latest Mission Impossible movie. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that NY was particularly environmentally unfriendly in the world's tallest building quest. When the buildings were planned, there was a boom in New York and it was expected that the new buildings would be lucrative. Yes, the Depression altered that, for a time, especially with the ESB, though the observation deck revenue was a big help there. There was definitely an element of promotion, but I can't put it in the same league as Dubai (where I visited in 2009, when the boom was still going on). I won't opine on Dubai, there have been many articles about its problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But wouldn't keeping heights secret normally be difficult? Aren't there supposed to be laws that requires building details, including heights, to be public information. Oh and as a counter-example to Burj Khalifa, One World Trade Center's height is not only public knowledge, it's intended to be symbolic (1776 feet). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, you certainly wouldn't be able to keep the planned hieght a secret. Perhaps that's why it only happens in Middle Eastern countries. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You could probably get a reasonably close estimate by measuring shadows. But not close enough to be able to build one foot higher with any certainty, I suppose that to be the idea. As for 1 WTC, special case, they are not trying to beat the highest but are trying for lots of symbolism, to which, I suppose, the place owes its very existence.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you could use a clinometer: "Uses - Measuring the height of a building, tree, or other feature using a vertical angle and a distance (determined by taping or pacing), using trigonometry." Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is this place in Ireland?

Can you identify the place in this picture which appears to be the ruin of an old church or abbey, perhaps. I have reason to believe it was shot in Mayo, but I am not certain. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Burriscarra Abbey in Carnacon, which is currently a redlink on List of abbeys and priories in Ireland#County Mayo -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I first found a view of it based on your answer, by finding a roughly similar perspective in Google Street View, and then I found a photograph online taken very close to the same point where my original picture was taken, and that confirmed it beyond doubt. Thank you; I am grateful for your help. — O'Dea (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't post the same question on more than one reference desk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The question straddled categories. — O'Dea (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Many questions straddle categories; please pick one which seems appropriate. As it states in bold at the top of each reference desk, "Please, post your question on only one section of the reference desk." Warofdreams talk 17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does say that, but there are 15 items in bold at the top of the page, in addition to heavy black section headings, so all that emphasis means that if everything looks important, nothing really looks important, like crying "wolf". Perhaps the instructions should be whittled down and less bold used. Wikipedia instructions are very prolix when all you want is quick guidance: life is short. Also, the instruction you refer to falls under the heading, "When will I get an answer?" and I didn't read that because I wasn't worried about when. Perhaps the instruction could be resited under another heading? — O'Dea (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Easy my man. Almost all other posters seem to understand how it works and have no problems with the system. Life is short - but not so short that you can spend time complaining. Richard Avery (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make personal remarks, "my man", and confine them to the matter at hand. I was not complaining; I was responding to Warofdreams to explain how easy it is to miss an instruction when it falls under a heading that did not concern me (how long the reply might take). I took time to reply as a courtesy because I was addressed which does not imply that time is not short. I have no idea why you decided to become involved. — O'Dea (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

O'Dea, if you are not happy about the rules on this reference desk, don't use it. --Lgriot (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I assure you, Lgriot, that I am neither unhappy nor am I reliant on you for instruction. — O'Dea (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, don't be assholes. It's easy to miss all sorts of instructions on Wikipedia, it's full of stupid pointless little rules. And it does absolutely no harm to post a question on two Reference Desks. O'Dea, this is not a problem at all. I think the "rule", such as it is, exists so that we can keep all the responses together in one place (it gets confusing if two different threads are occurring on two different desks, sometimes with completely different answers and information), and it's easier to put the question in the archives later if it is confined to a single Reference Desk page. So just remember that for next time, but don't worry about it this time. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam. When I received the information I sought on this Reference Desk, I expressed my gratitude and instantly removed my question from the other desk. The internet causes unhappy people to discharge wholly unnecessary squibs of irritation which contribute nothing whatsoever to the experience of humanity. — O'Dea (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please can you edit and fill about biography of Myoma U Than Kywe?

Dear Sir/Madame, How do you do? I wish you are well and happy. Please you can amend and edit following biography about Myoma U Than Kywe with references. After you amend and edit, please can you fill the biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myoma_U_Than_Kywe

Thank you very much for your arrangement. Thanking you in anticipation. Many Thanks, Wikipedia!

Yours respectfully, Burmeseprincess Burmeseprincess (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the text as it seems to be copied from here. Please refrain from posting copyrighted text on wikipedia. Jarkeld (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Made in U.S.A. logo

When did the Made in U.S.A. logo first appear on products? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.142.136 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added a heading... --Ouro (blah blah) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

February 24

Difference Between the Mentality of the American Military and the British Military

...or indeed, the rest of NATO. Why is it that the American Military have:

• So many incidents of friendly fire
• So many incidents of rape, not only of women, but also of children (especially in Japan and Korea)

Sure, there are isolated incidents in other parts of NATO, but why is it a pandemic in the US Military? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any statistics to back up your thesis? Off the top of my head, you also have to take into account that much more of the US military is stationed or fighting overseas than the British or NATO, so while there may be more publicized incidents, the actual rate per soldier may or may not be significantly different. Also, this is inevitable with any military force: they're not made up of angels. African peacekeeping forces have also been accused of serious crimes. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Googling the fact will bring up many many instances of American over-indulgence, and I am specifically concerned with Japan and Korea. As for friendly fire, my own unit in Kosovo lost two men to a heli attack. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But the plural of anecdote is not "data." The question is whether the statistics actually bear out that the US and the UK/NATO have different rates. We still have yet to establish that 1. there are different rates and not just different totals (which would probably be skewed based on the number of American troops versus others), and 2. that publicity actually reflects reality. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that American atrocities are considered newsworthy suggests that it's quite the opposite of a "pandemic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what you are saying. If it's just 'normal' it would not be so much in the news, except that it's not american soldiers who are dying, and not women and underage kids of american decent being raped. It's world news, Bugs. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard for world news to keep up on the atrocities committed by terrorists and brutal dictatorships. But America is expected to be on a higher moral road, so when our people commit atrocities, it's more newsworthy and shocking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Bugs, Americans are made to think they are on the higher moral road, but most of the rest of the world thinks America is trying hard to build an empire. There are massive differences in how you lot are taught to see yourselves, and how the rest of the planet sees you. I am not anti-american, not at all, but I can understand how the rest feel, to a certain extent. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If America was building an empire, it would have finished doing so years ago.--WaltCip (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, but without winning a major war since WW2, I doubt that America would be able to build an empire, even if they were trying (which I personally do not believe). Vietnam was a failure, Korea is still ongoing, Afghanistan is still ongoing, and Iraq has not turned out to have a satisfactory end, as the people there are still blowing each other up. There are only two major wars in American history which were fought and won without outside help: the War of Independence, and the Civil War. In the Civil War, they were fighting each other, so I doubt that counts. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We had major help from the French during the Revolution. Winning World Wars I and II "with outside help" is twisting things a bit, as it was us who came to the aid of those "outsiders". There was no small number of Americans who would have been just fine with letting the Brits and the French deal with Hitler on their own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's too easy to take offense to your statement for the following reasons - 1. The "sources" you are using to warrant your claims are no doubt from sensationalized and readily available news stories (see availability bias), 2. You are using those incidents to represent the entire U.S. military by calling it a "pandemic", and 3. You have framed your question in such a way as to get an answer that does not invalidate the premise of your claim.

But taking your question at face value, I would suggest that if such a claim were true, it would be due to U.S. forces being more active in many parts of the world than other armies, so there would be a higher proportion of incidents of this sort. Soldiers are engaged in extremely high-stress situations for extended periods of time. Also remember that the U.S. media has taken an active role in following around the military ever since the Vietnam War.--WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Compare the data on United States military deployments with these outdated data on British deployments, which show the situation in 2008 before the British withdrawal from Iraq. There were about 26,000 British troops deployed outside of the UK, most of them "non-operational" (whatever that means) and stationed in countries without conflict. By contrast, the United States has 100,000 troops deployed in combat in Afghanistan alone. Several thousand more are in the Middle East, where they have to be prepared for combat at any time. The stress and the readiness for violence involved in combat deployments almost inevitably leads to regrettable violence against civilians. So, it would be surprising if there were not higher absolute numbers of U.S. troops guilty of violence against civilians. As others have said, we would need valid data on the relative rate of violence to accept the premise of your question, and the evidence should probably be adjusted for relative rates of deployment in combat. I would also strongly question your claim that "It is not woman and underage kids of American descent being raped." As you might notice from the data on U.S. military deployments, more than 1 million U.S. troops are stationed inside the United States. In fact, every year small numbers of these troops are in fact arrested for assaults on civilians off base. Some of these involve rape and some involve underage victims. This does not generate much news coverage in the United States, because it falls within the background noise of violent crime in this country. It doesn't attract global news coverage because U.S. troops are not accused of violence against citizens of an overseas "host" country. Do you have evidence indicating that no British soldier has ever been charged with rape or rape of an underage person? I doubt that such evidence exists. On the other, I think that there may be understandable resentment of the U.S. military presence in countries such as Japan (and especially in Okinawa) that leads the local media to focus on the occasional violent incident involving U.S. military personnel. Given the climate of resentment, media will focus on those incidents to increase readership or viewership. Because the U.K. is no longer a global hegemonic power, British troops do not generally face the same kind of resentment, and violent incidents by British troops will consequently not be as newsworthy. Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a pro-U.S. discussion of crimes by soldiers in Korea with some actual statistics. A long read with most of the meat far into the page. Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The perception I get from the British media is that the US military are quick to open fire, sometimes have a discipline problem and are culturally insensitive. Only yesterday I read that the Afghans have stopped having outdoor wedding parties for fear of being bombed by a remote controlled drone; that despite being present in a muslim country for 10 years, they still manage to set fire to copies of the Koran and today open fire on protesters, killing 12; and of the 6 British military personnel killed in 4 friendly-fire incidents since 2001 in Afghanistan, two of incidents (4 deaths) were by USAF aircraft. While the British military don't exactly have a spotless record, for example the behaviour of the Joint Forward Intelligence Team in Iraq, such things do seem to hit the news far less frequently than if the US military are involved. However, maybe someone else can find similar statistics where other NATO (but non-US) forces have messed up. Astronaut (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, those are multiple incidents (anecdotes), not statistics. They are not weighted for the number of U.S. troops versus British troops, number of U.S. flight sorties versus British, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid point. We have List of U.S. friendly-fire incidents since 1945 with British victims. It says: "The topic has become prevalent in British culture due to some recent incidents, and is often satirically portrayed in the media." The fact that "Friendly fire from American allies killed as many British troops as the Iraqis during the 1991 Gulf War." was a big thing in the UK. Whether they really are more trigger happy than other nations is debatable; the US contributes the lion's share of resources to most NATO deployments. However, in the same conflict "35 of the 148 American servicemen and women who perished on the battlefield in the Persian Gulf War were killed inadvertently by their comrades, an extraordinary proportion...The Washington Post". Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One important difference between the U.S. and U.K. armed forces is the length of combat deployments and the relative amount of time soldiers spend in combat deployments. Another important difference is the much greater use of reservists by the United States. Reservists are typically people with families and nonmilitary jobs who may not have expected lengthy overseas deployments. According to this study, the heavy use of reservists may be one reason why U.S. combat troops experience more stress than British troops. The same study points out that U.S. soldiers have combat deployments lasting 12 to 15 months, with 12 months off between combat. By contrast, British troops have combat deployments lasting only 6 months and totaling no more than 12 months out of 36. So U.S. troops are typically in combat situations at least half the time that they are in military service and for longer periods, while British troops have relatively short exposures to combat with longer breaks in between them. In essence, U.S. troops are driven more mercilessly than British troops, with resulting higher rates of mental illness. Now, I don't think we've yet seen hard evidence that U.S. troops cause a greater rate of damage to victims other than combat foes than British troops (per combattant), but if such evidence exists, the much higher stress and fatigue level of U.S. troops could account for it. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some British friendly fire numbers: British soldiers attacked other British soldiers in Afghanistan 19 times in the last 3 1/2 years and attacked friendly Afghani forces at least ten times.[7] These aren't exactly small numbers of incidents even though the fatalities are quite low (0 Brit on Brit deaths, 7 Afghan deaths) Rmhermen (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have re-read my question again, and it does appear to have provoked a discussion, which is not what we do here. I shall provide sources forthwith (late at night now, so it will have to be tomorrow). As for the fact that rapes occur in Japan and Korea on a near-daily basis, it was said above that it may be because the American military is the only army there. Sorry, this makes no sense, for two reasons. Both Japan and Korea also have an army each. Their own - and there are no recorded incidents of rape of 12-year-old girls by their forces. Secondly, is rape part of basic training in the American military? Of course it isn't. But the inhabitants of Okinawa may think differently. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

United States Forces Japan#Controversy lists two rapes of teenage girls, one in 1995 and the other in 2008, hardly "near-daily". It also states that the crime rate of U.S. servicemen in Okinawa Prefecture in 2008 was 14% that of Okinawan males. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All crimes in total seem to be near-daily. See my link below. Also, the number of crimes committed may only be 14% of the local population, but what is the ratio of local Japanese to US military personnel? That needs to be taken into account. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not the number of crimes, the rate. If it were 14% of the total number, American soldiers would have no time to do anything else but looting, pillaging and raping. (It actually says "per capita crime rate", whatever that means.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, rapes by natives may tend not to be reported, much less taken to court. Many cultures cover such things up. StuRat (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in Japan, Stu. Sexual abuse is well reported across the islands, and happens so often there are even signs in the trains warning people from doing it (チカンはイカン！ is the 'pun' they use). Once it is reported (which admittedly may not be in 100% of cases), the legal system is such that it will go to court, and the defendant will be tried, even if the prosecutors drop the case, because the Police will try him. I worked for a number of years as an interpreter for the Police, and this was how the system worked, at least until 2007. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a start, anyway. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No that isn't a start. Writing like that is the problem. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Saying US officers "commit rape and robbery by faking marriages" makes it clear that they consider any consensual sex outside of marriage to be rape. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

doberman

I have a three year old Doberman who I feed complete solid foods only, yet he excreats very watery (non solid) poo. His food is "working dog 19 + Protec. Am I feeding him incorrectly ?

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.6.164 (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to take him to a veterinarian. We can't really give such advice here. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please, take him to a vet. And you may want to ask specifically about the food. The fact that Protec can't keep their website up and registered would concern me. Dismas|^(talk) 14:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, is your dog actually a working dog ? Very few are these days (most are pets). I imagine the working dog formulation has more calories than the average dog should get. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What is kuttapuchi?

There are some dead links to it around, and Google hasn't turned up anything. onyx³²¹ 13:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you give us some context? Where are you seeing the word? Rojomoke (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP meant kattupuchi which is probably a South Indian word. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a red link in Kuzhi paniyaram. Could be spelt wrong, no idea. onyx³²¹ 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Leigon of Merit

Staff,

I was reviewing your listing of recipients regarding the Legion of Merit and noted that my name was not listed. I was awarded the Legion of Merit in April 2007. Please let me know how I can get my name inserted to your listing. Thank you and great work!

Carlos Weckmann Jr. Sergeant Major (Ret.) 1st Marine Division United States Marine Corps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.50.129 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Legion of Merit article only lists notable recipients who meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and can supply references from reliable sources which will allow readers to verify that notability. Ideally, you will already have a Wikipedia article written about you, but if not Wikipedia's policy on biographies is a good guide on how one should be written, though that is probably better left to someone without a conflict of interest. Astronaut (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Prices without sales taxes

Why do businesses in the US show prices without sales taxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.146.38 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011_May_16#Sales_tax_and_laundry. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is just the custom. When sales taxes were introduced, merchants wanted customers to know how much of their bill went to the merchant and how much went to the government. Merchants were opposed to sales taxes because 1) they thought it would hurt business, and 2) collecting the tax imposed a burden on the merchants. I suspect that not including the tax in the marked price of products started out as a kind of passive protest and just became the custom. Another issue is that people are more likely to buy a product whose price appears to be $7.99 than they are if it is marked with its post tax price (of, say, $8.47 in a jurisdiction with a 6% sales tax). Finally, my understanding is that in some European countries it is illegal to mark a product with anything other than the post-tax price. No such law exists in the United States (partly because of the political power of merchants). Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And again the tax rates may vary by several percent at stores within a few miles of each other, giving stores in those higher taxing areas a competitive disadvantage that is easily neutralized if everyone posts the pre-tax price. Rmhermen (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I always though that the lottery was a tax on people that are bad at math... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They even downright lie in some of their ads, when they say something like "You can walk in with only X dollars, and walk out with Y", when you can't actually do that, as the sales tax has to be paid first. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely there are consumer protection laws (e.g. prohibitions on misleading advertising) that can then be invoked. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but due to regulatory capture, US protection agencies aren't likely to act unless shamed into it by a media report on a severe case. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually it will say "plus tax" in the fine print. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've heard this on radio ads, where no small print is possible. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider the following logistics nightmare: Your job is to print the color advert to be inserted in all of this week's Sunday papers within 250 miles of Chicago. There is no federal sales tax, but Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin will ALL have a different state sales tax rate; any of 100 counties may have their own little fund-raising surcharges to subsidise their local convention center, NFL stadium, or NBA arena; even certain cities like Chicago may have a city tax that's different between downtown and the suburbs, and certainly from Madison Wisconsin. Add to that, that some of those taxing jurisdictions may have different RATES on some of the products -- food vs clothing vs kitchen utensils, for example. Then,

• Customizing the inserts for each individual store, which is just about what you'd have to do, if not absolutely impossible is prohibitively expensive, and highly error-prone even if you tried it.
• Frankly, like Marco Polo said, we're used to it; it's exactly what we expect.

It is absolutely NOTHING like the completely-uniform situation one would find in, for example, Australia :-).

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, they could say the price is "X + TAX", rather than claiming it is "X" alone. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is nearly so difficult as some people make it. Sure, from the seller's point of view, they'd rather show you a lower price than you'll actually pay, and they'd rather pretend that you'll pay the same price at difderent locations. But, if forced to by law or market forces, it wouldn't be that hard to implement. Ads might be tricky, but the prices on the shelves and on the products are easily adjusted. The computer at the tills already calculates all the different rates of tax to work out the price of a given item, and it wouldn't be any more complicated to use the same system to create price labels. Then you stick the labels on the shelves and products, just like you do already: no more error prone.

All it would take is one brave play by a supermarket willing to make "we tell you the real price" "no nasty surprises" a selling point (blanket advertising everywhere), and everyone else would have to follow. 86.161.214.73 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Retail prices in the UK must include VAT, but business-to-business prices are nearly always quoted without VAT. It's just a convention, and it's easy to adjust to either system. Before 1973, the UK purchase tax on "luxury goods" was sometimes shown separately, but most stores showed the inclusive price because the wartime rate of 33% made a big difference to whether the item could be afforded. Dbfirs 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen several places that say "we pay your sales tax", thus eliminating any complex label requirements. I also wonder why they can't put electronic LCD tags on the edges of shelves. Each could be adjusted automatically to reflect the current price, with sales tax, without the need for them to be replaced each week. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Electronic tickets and borders

If you travel to some country which requires having a return ticket, how can they check at the border if an electronic ticket is valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.146.38 (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They can ask the airline.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In practice, they probably don't do a rigorous check on most passengers but are satisfied with a printed receipt if the passenger is not simply waved through. However, a government could certainly require an airline to offer its border police access to the airline's database as a condition for operating in that country. Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Note also the check at the border often shouldn't be that important for simple requirements like that. As mentioned by others recently on the RD, generally the airline is supposed to verify such simple requirements before they allow the passenger to board the plane (usually done at check in) and has incentive to do so since they will normally have to pay for to send the passenger back if they are turned away at the border, and possibly a fine to boot. Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Idiocracy the movie and South Carolina

In one scene of the movie "Idiocracy", a person shouts "SOUTH CAROLINA! WHAT'S UP!" out of the blue. What is this a reference to? Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Halo Remake and 3D TV hack for 2 players on the same full screen?

Does anyone here know if Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary supports that weird ugly 3D hack which allows both players to see their own full 2D screen while playing on the same console? Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical thinking

A while ago, I asked a question about Johnny Rebel and what he's been doing for the 30 years or so when he made no songs. Several people seemed to suggest that this old man would vandalize/spam Wikipedia with ads for his records. First, this sounds unlikely to begin with. Secondly, isn't this typically something you'd expect somebody who wants the spammed party to look BAD to do? I strongly question the critical thinking of Wikipedians. You seem to take things as facts based on nothing more than a "feeling". I've seen other statements which I *know* are wrong here and elsewhere. It's very frustrating that people are like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You really should raise that issue on the talk page. The reference desks are for questions and answers. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinionated screeds are not the purpose of the Talk page, either. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, "feeling"s don't come into it. We're interested in verifiable information from reliable sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually only one person seemed to suggest it and only in a fairly roundabout way (so roundabout that you didn't understand until I explained what was likely meant). In any case, we get a lot of spammers on wikipedia. Some of them very well be people trying to make the party they are spamming on 'behalf of' look bad. But some of them likely are the party the spam is for. If you have any real experience with the internet, you'd likely know there are plenty of people who really do spam, no matter how bad it may make them look. (Often they don't care if they believe it will help them.) In the particular case of JR, I don't think spamming is going to significantly change people's opinions of him, as opinions are likely already very polarised due to other issues.

However as I said earlier, there's no clear evidence it was JR. And I'm not sure if anyone really intended to suggest otherwise. Although if it isn't him, I suspect it's much more likely it's some 'dedicated' fan or similar rather then someone trying to make him look bad. From my experience, people who deal with spam all the time on wikipedia are usually careful not to say the spam is coming from anyone in particular, without evidence (and often it's not clear cut) since they are fully are there are other possibilities like the 2 discussed here.

Note that it also usually doesn't matter who the spam is coming from. Whether the spam is from a competitor, the party which the spam is promoting, or someone else completely, ultimately the fact remains, we don't want that stuff on wikipedia. So we do our best to stop it, including blacklisting a site if necessary (usually this doesn't cause much collateral damage since the site isn't wanted elsewhere and we can whitelist where necessary). If you look at the blacklist I think it says somewhere we're not saying the owners of the site were/are spamming, simply that someone has been spamming the site (or the site is a very likely spam target), so we're trying to limit damage.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are foreigners allowed to join the Greek navy?

Can non-Greeks join the Greek navy? And is speaking Greek a requirement? I can't read Greek, so I can't find this information anywhere online. Thanks. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely some Greek language ability is required. How else can they train you? They can't be expected to have English-speaking trainers on hand for cases like yours. Also, considering recent cuts to the Greek defense budget, I strongly doubt that the Greek navy is actively recruiting any but the most desirable sailors, meaning Greek-speaking Greeks, and probably only those with additional qualifications. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not just training, how would they give you orders? And how would you give orders to anyone you commanded? I think the lack of any information about joining the Greek navy that isn't in Greek is a pretty big clue as well... --Tango (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would someone, who isn't Greek and doesn't speak Greek on the top of that, want to join the Greek navy? 88.14.192.178 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You can probably expect a broadly equal situation to exist, so checkout the UK navy eligibility requirements. Sadly, despite the fact we're all friends now, we're not yet at the point of actually allowing free movement of people and jobs - at least in the UK case, you have to be British/Irish/Commonwealth. (Any EU citizen can, of course, become eligible by living here for five years and becoming a citizen). Astonishingly enough, the Greek Navy does actually answer some qs on its English language website - including contact details of who to ask if you want to know more. Good luck! --Saalstin (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not so astonishing. There are a large number of Greeks who migrated to other countries like Australia, Canada and the USA, many as babes in arms. They remain dual Greek citizens even though many of them cannot speak Greek well, in some cases not at all. Presumably the Greek government could not refuse their application to join the armed forces merely on the basis of lack of hellenophony. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would you presume that? Pretty much all jobs require that you be able to speak the language that is used in the job. I would expect the primary language used in the Greek navy is Greek... --Tango (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

See Conscription in Greece#Draft evaders and citizens living abroad. I've heard many stories about people who were born in Greece but have lived overseas virtually all their life, and are afraid to ever go back to visit the land of their ancestors for fear of being considered to have "repatriated" for the purposes of national service. So, it isn't even about whether the person is interested in joining up or not; it's about what Greek law requires of its citizens, no matter where in the world they may live or how many decades it may be since they last lived in Greece. --m Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Most armies will take non-natives - they need the personnel. I tried to join the Japanese army (JSDL JSDF), but it turned out I was a month too old (just turned 28) - the only reason I was refused. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to be 27 or under to write XML? ;)--Saalstin (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To write XML? No idea what you mean there. I was going for entry-level ranks, not officer-level, and 27 is the maximum, apparently. As a foreigner, I couldn't join at officer-level, despite having been a lieutanant in the UK TA. Pity, really, because the unit I was trying to join was sent to Iraq a couple of years later, to work alongside British and Dutch forces. I would have been a great help, being fluent in Japanese. Still, they got the job done. Good on them. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

JSDL doesn't link to where you think. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, fixed. no idea why I put 'L' at the end. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Global climate changes, research

Where could one check to inquire whether there is any credible research or studies being conducted on the effects of electronic airwave transmissions may or may not be causing global interference with climate change? Is it possible that global climate conditions are adversely being affected by people using all wireless transmission devices? It would be interesting to see if any credible research is being conducted, and whether such finding would be made public should these studies be determined to show positive effect on climate change. 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs)

Before any research could be done you would first need some theory as to how this could be. That is, what is the mechanism by which they would cause global warming ? By contrast, greenhouse gases can be shown to cause temperature increases, due to the greenhouse effect, in a lab. Also, if radio waves, etc., warmed the atmosphere, they would lose a lot of energy in the process, and thus wouldn't travel very far, but we know that they do. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

credible research on the topic of diversity & tolerance

Where can one check to inquire about credible Research or Studies being conducted on the psychological overtones of religious bigotry, and hypocrisy among world Religious Leaders? Does the world have any Global Organization which investigates and gives credible theories about confronting bigotry and hypocrisy among Religious Leaders? Do World Religious Leaders of Faith in a Supreme Being actually recognize the diversity of tolerance for Godliness in a world and Universe of infinite magnitude? What research is ongoing among the world’s religious & civic leaders, who might strive for world peace and religious tolerance?21:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs)

DNFTT, I think. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

However, we can refer the OP to The Elders and to our article on them. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

February 25

Origin of this picture? (Naked back skin but nothing "nude".)

http://i.imgur.com/Js62I.jpg I often see this on female blogs. It annoys me to a great extent and I wish to know where it comes from originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good.  :) There's something on the web that I think is called Tineye and which might help you find the origin of the photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have nothing wrong with the pic either.  ;) Here are the TinEye results by the way. And if I had to guess, I'd say it's from a PETA ad. Dismas|^(talk) 04:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Google now has image search too, and, in this situation, it proves to be more helpful. It takes me to this link, which attributes the pic to the outtakes of Heidi Klum's 2003 GQ photoshoot.--Itinerant1 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, great job Itinerant1! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of "freedom caskets"?

What is the history behind and the purpose of the many beautiful and richly decorated so-called Freedom Caskets created in Britain and France in some past century? I have seen many pictures of them, but can't seem to find a definition or purpose.72.220.170.126 (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably to remind us that freedom isn't free. RudolfRed (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be containers holding paraphenalia regarding the freedom of the city, as in this one here. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally in the UK, they seem to hold an illuminated scroll. This page shows the caskets and scrolls presented to the Lancashire Fusiliers who had been granted the freedom of towns with which they were closely associated. The example linked by TammyMoet contains a symbolic key. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Four wheel bad, two wheel good

We use a four-wheel drive Ford F150 to get to and from work. Our roads are frozen sand/gravel covered with ice and snow. The speed limit in town in 40 km/h (25 mph) and 60 km/h (37 mph) on the airport road. The supervisor says that four-wheel can be used in town, this avoids sliding through stop signs, but on the airport road, which has less snow and ice, two-wheel must be used. The reason given is that the high speed on the airport road will cause excessive damage to the truck. Now I could understand that running in four-wheel will cause extra wear and tear on the vehicle, and of course higher gas usage, but I'm not sure that going from 40 to 60 is going to cause excessive damage. Can anyone confirm this either way? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. In some cars with a switchable 2 - 4 wheels you just use the 4 wheels on slippery ground since they don't have a central differential that lets each axle rotate at different speed around corners. At a higher speed that would tear and wear the system more intensively, besides the additional gasoline consumption. XPPaul (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To me this sounds like an urban legend, given that there are cars (e.g. Subaru) where the four-wheel drive simply can't be turned off, even at 100 mph. However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a dumb design by Ford. If it is the latter, it should be mentioned explicitly in the owner's manual. Itinerant1 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Part-time four wheel drive and full-time four wheel drive are different systems, with different limitations. There's also all-wheel drive, which is even better. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, not all 4 wheel cars have a central differential. Look here for the confirmation: Four-wheel_drive#4WD_versus_AWD. And do drive 4W only when needed. XPPaul (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not an urban legend, nor a dumb design, but a system optimised for best traction at low speed in tricky conditions (other manufacturers also sell part-time four-wheel drive vehicles). It would be wise to follow the manufacturers' advice. Dbfirs 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Although, on occasions when the airport road is icy, I'd use 4WD there, too. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting (to us), if you could point your P H B supervisor in the direction of Wikipedia:Reference desk to explain where and how he came to this view. If he is right, he can turn round and say “I told you so” on the on the other hand this might not be a good idea -if it goes the other way. seen any more lights in the sky recently?. Of course, should you relocate to Hawaii this issue would no longer arise :-) P.S. Look in the owners manual. It may give a maximum speed for 4WD. It might be that this vehicle over steers or summit at higher speeds or the torque differential between front and back becomes ungainly. If so, then the moral of the story must be to always buy Japanese. --Aspro (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They do get snow at the top of the volcanoes in HI. And at lower elevations there's always that pesky lava to drive through. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And at that altitude, would not an infernal combustion engine (designed for sea level) be straining some-what, so as to cause one put it in to 2WD ( 4 WD takes up more power than 2WD). The carburettor would also need to be leaned off (engine would get hot otherwise) – thus giving even less power. Driving up and down volcanoes is a bit different from driving on the flat in cold Arctic regions. Best of all, the beach views of volley ball players on Hawaii makes such subjects as 4WD's fade into insignificance. Peoples minds turn to other things – or so I am reliably informed. Thus, this 'speed' issue (as I said) should not surface in the mind of the OP -as worthy of inquiry. Oh, on the other hand maybe he would ;-) Yet again, there is always the Kava bars to chill out in. What have the Inuits got to offer, other than raw liver!--Aspro (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the movie The Savage Innocents, the Inuits had something quite special to offer guests: [8]. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the title a reference to Animal Farm? :D 117.227.106.186 (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume so. Perhaps we should have answered that "While all 4-wheel drives are equal, some are more equal than others". StuRat (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks everybody for the responses. XPPaul, I read through the 4 wheel drive article but missed the bit about the central differential. Asking the supervisor is not something that seems like a good idea to me. His orders are to be followed and no questioning is permitted. 117.227.106.186, yes but has little to do with anything. I rarely use the 4 wheel on the airport road as they tend to do a very good job of keeping it ice free. Thanks to StuRat and Aspro in their last comments for the use of French. Inuk is singular, Inuit is plural and Inuits is French and too much of this tonight means I should stop now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's there: "All-wheel drive (AWD) is most typically used to describe a "full time" 4WD which may be used on dry pavement. These systems must incorporate an inter-axle differential which allows the front and rear wheels to turn at different speeds. This eliminates driveline binding, wheel hop, and other driveline issues associated with the use of 4WD on dry pavement. Because all 4 tires in a full time AWD system are connected by a system of differentials"

even if it's called inter-axle. Anyway, don't drive 4w when 2w is enough. XPPaul (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When life gives you lemons...

Why, in the phrase "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade", are lemons considered bad? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Lemons are sour, and unpleasant to eat. Lemonade is sweet, and pleasant to drink --Saalstin (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Lemon (slang): A defective or inadequate item.[9].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Any idea where that particular usage derives from? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the original usage was cars. If you buy a car and find it spends more time in the shop than on the road, it's a lemon. If it's perfect in every way, it's a cherry. Should be pretty obvious why. --Trovatore (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Spell it out for the oblivious? Hah, is there a universal fruit hierarchy that I'm unaware of? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Because lemons are sour and cherries are sweet. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase doesn't really require lemons to be bad, just that they're not what you wanted. The phrase is just saying to make the most of what you have. --Tango (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that lemons alone aren't as useful as other fruits. While you can eat apples, oranges, and bananas straight, you probably don't want to eat a lemon straight. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But the lemon tree is very pretty, and the lemon flower is sweet... Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy eating lemon fruit straight, in small quantities. Like those lemon slices they put in your water glass at restaurants. I'll pull out one segment of a slice, maybe a triangular wedge up to a centimeter on a side and a few millimeters thick, and eat that. Eating a whole lemon at once is pretty tough to do, of course. --Trovatore (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the follow-up: "Of course, this assumes that life will also give you water, sugar, glasses, ice cubes, and a pitcher. If not, go suck a lemon. " StuRat (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

didn't I once read something about old chewing gum machines where you pull the lever and it picks three random flavours to throw out, wheels rolling on the front to come up with the pictures of what was won. a lemon along the list signified not winning anything, where another symbol represented a small jackpot, a little bit of gambling just for fun. Or, I could be completely wrong, it was a while ago now. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly lemons used to be commonly used on "Fruit machines" aka "one-armed bandits", and if I recall correctly (over a span of more than 3 decades) a lemon in your scoring line often signified "no win": different models and manufacturers of course varied in such usages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.102 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The version I prefer: "When life gives you lemons, call me, I'll bring the salt and tequila!" Roger (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This article may be enlightening. I had always assumed the term lemon = crappy car came from American attitudes towards the Citroën, (which sounds a lot like the French word for lemon: Citron), but from that article that connection is coincidental, and the connection between "lemon" and "substandard" dates to the early 20th century. --Jayron32 05:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

when life gives you lemons, make grape juice, sit back and let the world wonder how you did it. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I like that one, but prefer the Cave Johnson variant. "I don't want your damn lemons, what am I supposed to do with these?!?" UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron! I'm glad the connection between lemons and substandard quality is as confusing to me as it is to etymologists. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The voice in the Duck Song

How did he get his voice like that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A clue is the guitar. To me, the sound of the chords suggests very strongly that the song was originally recorded in D, and played back a little faster, changing the key to F. The pitch of the singer's voice of course is raised correspondingly, and importantly, its timbre changes, producing the slightly weird sound. To check if this were the case, I recorded the song from the audio of the youtube clip, and slowed it down by 15.91% in Audacity, and listened to the result. The result was a normal-sounding male voice, and guitar chords that I could easily follow in D, reproducing the exact inversions that are used (the G is sometimes played with G on the E string as the highest note, sometimes with D on the B string as the highest note, E string muted). Conclusion: recorded in D, sped up by 15.91%. 18.92%. By using such a small speed-up, the singer achieves getting a strange "ducky" timbre to his voice without sounding like the chipmunks. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 17:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Very useful. Thanks.Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the inverse of 15.91% down is 18.92% up. Solve the following equation (1 - down/100%) × (1 + up/100%) = 1. For example, the inverse of 50% down is 100% up. --Bavi H (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Struck out and corrected. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Stupid battlefield fighting back in the day

Why would they fight like this? Why stand in a line and just take the bullets? Why not spread out in groups and hide and fire in intervals, or maybe even forget about the useless muskets altogether and just attack in close combat, or at least mix it up a bit? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTz-kUVvQEY&feature=player_detailpage#t=293s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Muskets were very inaccurate. A wall of bullets stood more chance of hitting a few guys if fired all together. Also, they didn't all fight like that. There were light infantry, who took cover, and sharpshooters, who also took cover. This is just the very aptly named Line Infantry. Also, hand-to-hand did happen on occasion, which is why they had bayonets. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would a wall of bullets have a bigger chance of hitting something? Wouldn't shooting the muskets one by one have the same chance? And what about the higher chance of getting hit, when standing in line with other soldiers? So far I know, these standing in line had little pragmatic reasons; being more a kind of honor thing for the commander, who would use his soldiers like chess figures. No wonder that guerrilla fighting techniques were invented. XPPaul (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are in a company formation of 150 men, you are more likely to run if 80 all drop simultaneously from enemy fire, than if they are all getting picked off one by one. It was all about hitting the enemy hard and fast, and making them scared of you, not killing them as such. This is what the wall of bullets was all about. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec x2)There are many reason early modern warfare took this form, which seems so counter intuitive, given that contemporary combat is based so much on maneuver and cover. Tradition is one part of the puzzle. Premodern warfare had a ritualistic aspect that had yet to be completely replaced with modern pragmatism during the time of the Revolution. Another issue is control. Dispersed groups are very hard to synchronize without modern communications equipment. Given that training was nothing like it is today, soldiers were really only expected to pay attention to what the men directly surrounding them were doing. There was very little emphasis on individual initiative at anything but the command level. Personally I think this is related to feudalism, which placed such emphasis on status, they really didn't give much credit to the common soldier. Democratic/capitalist thinking places more value on individuals and gave more individual responsibility to soldiers. The accuracy of the weapons was also a big issue. Those muskets couldn't really hit anything reliably, the only way for them to be effective was en mass. A four or five man squad armed with muskets really isn't a threat to anyone, but a 150 man regiment could be a real terror. This is particularly relevant when cavalry is involved. Dispersed groups not only can't hit the charging cavalry, they are also much more vulnerable. As accuracy and rate of fire increased dispersed formations and cover gained favor. My final point is that that type of combat really wasn't that effective against armies using more contemporary tactics. Armies trained to operate in those types of mass formations run into serious trouble against guerrilla hit and run tactics. Which is something that happened in the revolution and is illustrated in other scenes in the movie you link to. --Daniel 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One more item. Don't discount the psychological aspects. It isn't all about killing the most enemies. It is about forcing them from the field, which in early modern warfare, was generally accomplished more by routing the enemy rather than elimination. Keeping your troops bunched together gives them more confidence and presents a more impressive front to the enemy. --Daniel 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that if your side started using modern methods (hiding behind cover), then the enemy would, too. Thus, there really wouldn't be any advantage to doing so. (The American Revolution may have been a bit of an exception, since the British didn't take the Americans as a serious threat, so didn't think it was necessary to "stoop to their level".) So, in general there wouldn't be a military advantage to changing methods, but you could predict more civilian casualties when your forces are hidden, as the enemy will then fire at any movement they see, which could very well be civilians who have taken cover. So, you have the disadvantage of more civilian deaths with no corresponding advantage. In extreme cases, like the Boer Wars, these type of hit-and-run methods also resulted in civilians being put in concentration camps, if they were suspected of helping the enemy. Then, by WW1, we got to full-scale trench warfare, which resulted in a horrific stalemate. It would have been better had they fought in lines and determined the winner far faster, with many fewer deaths. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point about the American Revolution. I always wondered why they went back to the old tactics in the American Civil War, despite having used more 'modern' tactics in the Revolution to beat the world's most powerful army (at the time). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There were bushwhackers in the Civil War, too. But keep in mind that disciplined armies more often succeed against undisciplined ones. You can't have large, gigantic armies of guerilla fighters. Guerilla war is an asymmetrical form of warfare, which more describes the Revolution than the Civil War. (Civil War strategy is all over the map, of course. The Northern generals by and large fought conservative, Napoleonic-style warfare, hoping that their numerical superiority would win out. The Southern generals added more speed and cunning to their attack to make up for their disadvantages. The Generals on both sides who "thought outside the box" are still the ones we talk about today — Lee, Grant, Jackson, Sherman. The ones who didn't — McClellan being the most famous example — are talked about only as being dolts.) The thing is, with the Civil War, the various tactics actually worked — they allowed the armies on both sides to take ground and hold it. It killed a lot of folks, but it wasn't a stalemate like WWI, where the defensive developments (machine guns, fast artillery) really offset the offensive developments. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

{EC} No Daniel, I'm sure they fought in close formation like this only because it worked. As you say "the only way for them to be effective was en mass". (actually 150 men is a company, the standard fighting unit was a battalion of 6 to 800). The usual technique was to exchange vollies until one side decided that they had an advantage and a bayonet charge would follow. The film Barry Lyndon shows it better. Napoleon revolutionised this type of combat by attacking in dense columns which didn't stop to exchange volleys. However, the British found that sticking to the old-fashioned line formation could be an effective counter if your musketry was good enough. We had very effective results with this at the Battle of Balaclava in 1856, the famous "thin red line tipped with steel" where a single infantry battalion repulsed an entire Russian cavalry division. You can see the effect of concentrated fire in the film Zulu YouTube clip depicting an action in 1879 using single-shot rifles. The advent of the repeating magazine rifle spelled the end of close-order fighting as the British found out at the Battle of Modder River in the Second Boer War. We were rather ahead of the game on this at the start of WWI; at the Battle of Mons in 1914, the German infantry advancing in Napoleonic columns singing hymns were met with rapid rifle fire from British troops firing from concealed positions. It didn't take them long to catch up though. Alansplodge (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You have your units mixed up - in the time of line infantry you usually had regiments of about 500 men divided into 10 companies, each of about 50 men.[10] As well as independent companies of quite random numbers of soldiers. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends. Some regiments (particularly in the American Civil War) consisted of a single battalion, which was also called a company, and would have as little as 150 men at full strength (and most units were never at full strength). Other regiments, in the Napoleonic Wars, for example, could consist of up to 10 or even 20 thousand men. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a later time period than line infantry with muskets, though. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The American Civil War? Sure they used line infantry, and some units only had muskets. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Muzzle-loading rifles were the standard issue of both sides in the American Civil War and the British Army of the time. Were there any units actually fielding only muskets? 75.41.110.52 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the Springfield Model 1861 was a Minié-type rifled musket, and was the most common infantry weapon in the American Civil War, whilst the Pattern 1853 Enfield was a muzzle-loading rifle-musket, and was the second most common infantry weapon in the American Civil War. Secondly, the the British Army was not involved in the American Civil War. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I would agree with the answers above. Even as late as the Zulu War, the British still used the same line formation (complete with red jackets so people in space could see them), and they were massacred at the Battle of Isandhlwana (check out Zulu Dawn on Youtube if you are interested). This all began to change with the advent of the machine-gun. However, similar tactics still prevailed in the early years of WW1. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we're on the same page, Alan ;) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't happen often! Recent analysis of the Isandhlwana battlefield concluded that we lost because we were standing too far apart and couldn't concentrate our fire effectively. See Battle of Isandhlwana#Reasons for the British defeat. Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get it... why not at least kneel down and make yourself a smaller target? Or have a few people standing in front of the musketeers holding large shields? See Medieval warfare#Rise of infantry: "Bowmen were extended in thin lines and protected and screened by pits (as at the Battle of Bannockburn), staves or trenches." Archers knew better than to just stand in the open and fire, why did musketeers not use the same tactics? --Tango (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Light infantry would deploy stakes - usually to shield artillery from direct attck from cavalry, but such tactics were used. Also, digging pits and trenches in front of your main body of men will impede their mobility. In medieval times, the entire army was not made up of bowmen. This is why it would be possible to shield them. In the musket age, you'd have 70% of the army made up of men with guns. Making them immobile would really cause problems for your battlefield management. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"I still don't get it... why not at least kneel down and make yourself a smaller target?" Neither do I, which is why I think there is a ritualistic aspect. (Well there was kneeling during "fire by rank" drills, but no one knelt all the time) I think people are too quick to attribute military actions (both past and present) as purely pragmatic, when in actuality, they are often conducted according to a strict set of social norms and traditions. The era of line infantry was also the era of gentleman's warfare, where honorable conduct was of paramount importance (in some conflicts). That being said, it is difficult to reload long muskets while kneeling and impossible while laying prone. Nevertheless, if you put me in that line I'd get down whenever I wasn't reloading (or shitting myself), but I have a feeling it would be seen as cowardly even if it was effective. --Daniel 22:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There certainly was a ritualistic aspect to it all, hence the bright uniforms, flags, and people in front playing musical instruments. It certainly was also a time of gentlemanly warfare, where generals fought each other personally, as if it were a chess game. Hiding and ambushing opponents was just not done, old chap. Have the men line up and fire. Jolly good show, what! In the first few years of WW1, things were still like that to a major extent, until people started to see sense and realise war is different now. This Monty Python sketch may be of interest. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surpised no one has mentioned communications yet. It's pretty difficult to centrally coordinate multiple detached small units instantaneously with hand signals, semaphore flags and runners (basically unchanged since Julius Ceasar's day). Mobile field radio did a lot to make modern small-unit warfare possible. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Another aspect is the handling of the muskets. Soldiers where drilled to reload and fire at a very high cadence, always using the same steps, which involved biting open a paper cartridge, filling the powder into the muzzle, ramming down the paper wad, spitting in the bullet, ramming down again, priming the firing pan, and cocking the lock. Muskets can possibly be reloaded when prone, but not nearly as fast as by a man standing up and repeating the same drill over and over again. So a standing army (pun intended ;-) gave you maximal firepower. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Stephan Schulz, you can't get four rounds a minute en-masse while prone. Few people have talked about the other arms. Cavalry could only be effectively repulsed by mass action, either in fire or in square. Artillery's effect was limited to visual range only without spotted fire, making artillery's capacity to eliminate massed line or column limited. And of course the point of holding line is to prevent an overrun of your logistic areas, which are actually fairly close up. Break an opponent's line, and they can be forced to retreat onto a supply point. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, lying down for concealment and to minimise casualties was a tactic often used by the Duke of Wellington. "1,500 British Foot Guards under Maitland were lying down to protect themselves from the French artillery. As two battalions of Chasseurs approached, the second prong of the Imperial Guard's attack, Maitland's guardsmen rose and devastated them with point-blank volleys." But as you say, you can't easily reload a musket when you're lying down. You had to stand up to fight, hence Wellington's alleged command, "Up Guards and at 'em!"Alansplodge (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when the French were attacking Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte in the same battle, it's interesting to note that the French troops did not attack in line formation (or column, as they usually preferred), as it was essentially an attack on concealed troops, concealed within farmhouse buildings, and they needed to breach the walls. The Franco-Prussian War of 1879 (?) was also one in which the troops fought largely individually, as the battles were conducted in largely urban (as in town/village) areas, prohibiting the usual long lines of troops. I could bring up the French retreat from Russia in 1812, plagued by Russian troops all over the hills and everywhere. The line formation was certainly used to a great extent in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it was by no means the only tactic, as portrayed by Hollywood. Anyone who is interested in military tactics from that period may find watching the Sharpe (TV series) fascinating. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The matrix

Do we have an article that includes the whole dialogue of the architect when he meets neo, the long speech. 203.112.82.1 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No. That would be a copyright violation and we respect copyright here. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is?--WaltCip (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How would it not be? --Tango (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the speech itself copyrighted? I have a hard time believing that. If the script is copyrighted, clearly partial excerpts of it can be posted on Wikiquote as seen below. Is there a standard that has to be met?--WaltCip (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the speech itself is copyrighted. Brief passages may be cited for a given purpose, but a whole dialog cannot. It's relative, I know, but it's difficult to justicy citing larger passages as fair use. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The whole film is copyrighted, anyone using quotations from it is doing so under fair use and there is a limit to the amount that can be used. Wikiquote does have a policy on this but it's not very well enforced. Hut 8.5 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Google "the matrix" subtitles. 88.14.192.178 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything on wikiquote? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No. --Dismas|^(talk) 11:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do have at least part of it (it's from The Matrix Reloaded, not The Matrix). Hut 8.5 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Did Beyoncé steal her "All the single ladies" dance form this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xufxKCC1NJ8&feature=related Looks like it, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

February 26

What are the closed "taps" in this photograph for?

http://i.imgur.com/5P8D2.jpg I mean the ones on the building wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Firehoses, i think. 75.41.110.52 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They're fire hydrants. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not hydrants, but standpipes. A hyrdrant provides water for hoses (or a pumper trunk). The connections in the photo are for the other end of the hose, to get water into the building. RudolfRed (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See Dry riser. Nanonic (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the song Beyoncé - Countdown about?

I've watched the music video a few times now and tried to listen to the lyrics, but it seems like it's just random nonsense? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XY3AvVgDns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can't make out the lyrics, look them up on Google. Or don't. It's basically random baby-talk nonsense about how she thinks her boyfriend is cool. Shakespeare it ain't. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What's a "hot lemon"?

Somebody was ill and asked for a hot lemon. What's that? You heat up a lemon on the stove and put it on your head or something? Never heard of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 13:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hot lemon water (a drink). Mostly just hot water with lemon juice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a boring version of a hot toddy. SmartSE (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The ones you can buy over the counter for when you are ill come in powdered form and have paracetamol in as well. --Viennese Waltz 16:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(In the UK at least) the generic trademark for this kind of thing is Lemsip. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But also perhaps one that doesn't make things worse. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually drunk when someone has a cold. Also sometimes has a spoonful of honey to sweeten it. More elaborate versions have a little Ribena, or even a small amount of glycerine (if you have a sore throat). It is a comforting folk remedy. 86.164.69.124 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Music apps on app store

A question above where someone mentioned Audacity got me thinking. I have a very clever iPad app called TempoSlow, which can adjust the tempo of a song without changing the pitch. It's also remarkably cheap (I think the free version is even nearly complete, with a few non-essential features missing). Would they be able to use Audacity to make it, and port it to iTunes? It seems that Audacity has this feature (or something similar - altering pitch holding speed constant) but can they easily enough use it with iTunes? IBE (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible, but they'd have to comply with the Audacity licensing requirements (GNU GPL) and probably have to rewrite the interface from scratch. I'm not sure what the advantage would be — it's sort of like grabbing an entire box full of tools when all you need is a fine screwdriver. I don't think changing the tempo without changing the pitch is very computationally difficult — it usually involves just multiplying snippets or removing snippets. You might have to port the code into C# — I'm not sure. It would still be easier to just start from scratch in that instance. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How come all "black" singers are no longer black?

This Beyonce woman, for instance, looks anything but black-skinned. Isn't she supposed to be a typical "black" person? She doesn't even look brown. Just slightly tanned. The only time I see truly black people in media, they are typically male and some kind of cop or something. How is one supposed to interpret this? I'm genuinely interested because I no longer understand what a "black" person means if Beyonce is considered "black". Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You should not worry about such terminology. These days the politically correct way of looking at this is to say that someone is black if they self-identify as black. As you point out, it's hard to apply objective criteria, so the only solution is self-identification. --Viennese Waltz 16:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It means she is considered by her society (and perhaps by herself) to have a "significant" number of genes derived from historically Sub-Saharan African populations. It's not scientific, it's mostly cultural. It doesn't merely reflect color of skin. Definitions of Blackness have changed over time, as have definitions of Whiteness. See Race (classification of humans). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr.98 is on the right track when saying that subjective Blackness/Whiteness is cultural. This is why in the United States you have some Blacks calling each other Uncle Toms, usually deriding their "not being black enough". It's not due to the color of their skin, but more due to the environment that they were raised in, as well as their socioeconomic status. _{Note I am not a sociologist, so my information may be inaccurate.}--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be interesting to note that northern urban African Americans have, on average, 15-20% of European genes (with some variations from city to city), and as many as 30% of African American males carry Y chromosomes of recent European origin.--Itinerant1 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And plenty of people who are considered "white" by their society contain genes that originated in sub-Saharan Africa. The short story is that it isn't really about the genes except in the way they superficially relate to appearance (facial features, skin color, hair type), and even these can be deceptive. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a longstanding issue of "light-skinned blacks" being preferred over "dark-skinned blacks", especially females. This has two effects in the direction you noted:

1) Lighter-skinned blacks may be more successful, and thus more visible.

2) They may also go out of their way to have lighter skins, in order to be more successful. For example, Michael Jackson seemed to have his skin bleached. Compare early [11] and later [12] pictures of him. Makeup and airbrushing photos are other ways to lighten the appearance of the skin.

Note that when the media want to make someone look like a thug, they often darken the image, as Time Magazine did with OJ Simpson's mug shot: [13]. And yes, this is racism, plain and simple. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Jackson did suffer from vitiligo, which is a disease which produces lighten splotches of skin. See Michael_Jackson's_health_and_appearance#Vitiligo_and_lupus.2C_treatments_and_effects for a longer discussion. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am reading: "Isn't she supposed to be a typical "black" person?" From where are you deriving that? Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Average student prospects to become an investment banker"

hi all,

This is a question which i revolving inside my head every time I read something related to Investment banking or Private Equity or Venture Capitalists. I am a graduate in commerce & at present a final year student of Chartered Accountants. I am keen to know what all is required for an average student to start with investment banking or I can quote it in this way "that what all efforts a student is required to put in order to become an investment banker".

All the replies in this regards will be overwhelmingly appreciated.

Regards ′Bhawana joshi (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any work experience in banking, accounting, or any of the related fields? In what country did you obtain your diplomas, and if applicable, at what university? Do you have any outside/personal connections to banking besides simply having the academic credentials?--WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, in my experience of seeking work, they all seem to want some previous experience in investment banking. However, there are some graduate opportunities in the field, though you might have to do an (unpaid) internship first. Check out job hunting websites (eg. Monster.com or your local equivalent) and see what the adverts are saying when it comes to skills required and expected qualifications. Astronaut (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, summer internships (usually the summer before your final year) are paid (and paid very well - you usually get the graduate salary, pro-rated) and are definitely the best way to get in (it's basically a 10 week job interview and you hear horror stories of interns being made to routinely work through the night, but if you're good you'll get a firm job offer at the end of it). It is possible to get a job without an internship if a company has places to fill that it didn't fill through its internship programme. However, investment banking is a very popular job so investment banks can, and do, demand the very best from applicants. I don't think an "average student" would stand much chance. --Tango (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the song in this video clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBtwKFkqjEc Been trying to find this song forever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As the twelfth track on the remastered CD release of the soundtrack [14], it is called "Shelley Winters Cha Cha". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And it was composed for the film by Nelson Riddle. Deor (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does evolution hate zebras?

They are all white and black in a savanna setting. Logically, such an animal should've evolved into some kind of dirt-colored creature. The pattern might be okay, but the colors?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons why the zebra's stripes may help them survive - see Zebra#Stripes. Hut 8.5 19:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons mentioned in the Zebra#Stripes section, is also the subject of an in brief story in the 18th February issue of New Scientist, p 18: The stripes confuse tsetse flies and Horseflies, and provide an unattractive surface to land on. J Exp Biol, DOI:10.1242/jeb.065540. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You might also look at Camouflage#Motion_dazzle. AJCham 09:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just thanx

Just wanted to tell you all how good wikipedia is looking now and in such a short time. Music, botanics, youve nailed it. Compliments for everyones commitment, wishing you all success. Find solace in that you are educating and education hopefully leads us into a better era. Kind regards Xil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.3.139 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, from all of us here at Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the best way to say thanks is to join us, and help make it even better. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

cutty sark

what was life on bourd the cutty sark like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.100.94 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

These pages are from the Cutty Sark Preservation Society, who currently own the ship:

• Life on Board
• The crew on Cutty Sark
• 1870-1878: The China Tea Years
• 1878-1883: Tramping for cargoes
• 1883-1895: The Australian Wool Years

The first two pages seem like they may be of particular use to you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

cutty sark answer now please

Please, I have now to find out wat the life was like abourd the cutty sark if not answered be 4 1155 then thanx alot so plese help

Presumably this is for your homework, which we're not going to do for you, however have you read Cutty Sark for a starting point? And then a few google searches for things like "life on the cutty sark" or "life on 19th century ships" should get you the rest--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, you need to be more patient. You posted you're follow-up question 8 minutes after the first post. You really shouldn't expect an answer that fast. Sometimes answers take a week on here, although often you get a partial answer within a day. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There's some really good film of the Cutty Sark at sea in the 1920s here and here. It gives a hint about how difficult life was - heavy manual work, no safety equipment (if you let go, there was nothing to stop you falling-off and being killed). Bad food, long hours on watch, not much sleep and no way of drying your clothes. My grandfather was an apprentice on a sailing ship from the age of 15 and had some tales to tell. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious now; were we in time? Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

...Or did he miss the boat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Junk mail economics

I get ads for the same cable company (U-verse) mailed to me about once a week. I have difficulty figuring out how such a practice can be profitable for them. Surely if a consumer doesn't respond to the first hundred such ads, the chances of them responded to number 101, one week later, with the same exact offer, must be absurdly low. Are there any studies on the effectiveness of repeat mailings that show that this really is in their interest ? StuRat (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Once you have the infrastructure in place, sending an email costs almost nothing. So even if the chances of you replying to email 101 are absurdly low, they're still probably a little higher then almost nothing. Vespine (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I see a clarification is needed here: I mean snail mail, not email. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a discussion of "repetition effects" in advertising. Goals are to have you "overlearn" their message, and to "drown out" the message of the opposition. The article notes the risk of "wearout and negative effects." A rational consumer might hear or see an ad once and base his purchasing on what he heard. Advertisers do not really expect the consumer to run out and buy their products without many repetitions. The hazard from overzealous repetition is that the consumer may develop a positive attitude after a certain number of reps, which turns to a negative attitude after too many reps. In the 1970's US TV advertisers introduced the "irritating" commercial, a type which caused viewers to complained to one another about, and to vow never to buy the indigestion remedy or cleaning product. Yet when "indigestion" struck or there were stains the regular detergent just could not remove, the annoying brand was likely the one which came to mind. The profit they might gain from you installing their cable service seems to be enough to motivate the annoying repetition of junk mail. Edison (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Virgin media are certainly doing themselves no favours by continuing to ignore the spirit of the UK Mailing Preference Service (by mailing 'the occupier' at my address). I now have a big stack of their junk mail. Astronaut (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It has always puzzled me that people will complain about spam in their email or annoying telemarketers, both easy to ignore, but seem to care very little about the incredible wastefulness of junk mail. I get credit card offers several times a week. These people in Virginia or Arizona or wherever are sending a letter, and sometimes that stupid little fake sample credit card, all the way to Alaska on the off chance that I might decide to take them up on another card exactly like the three they know I already have and barely use. And I don't even open them, they go straight in the shredder. And their stupid letter from Virginia gets buried in the dump in Alaska. It's obscene that the U.S. mail gives these idiots a break with their bulk mail rates. They're mailing me garbage that I now have to get rid of. i should send them a bill. Actually, sometimes I do open them up if I thin they included a "business reply envelope." I tear up everything else, including the outer envelope, stuff it in there, and send it back to them. Unfortunately this wastes still more resources, but I bet if enough people did it they would get the message and stop sending them out. Who's with me? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember reading a satirical article appearing, I think, in Reader's Digest some 30 years ago, where archeologists from the future were digging through the ruins of our society to study it, and concluded that the end came when the Post Office lowered the rate for bulk postage, and everyone was buried alive in the subsequent flood of junk mail, much like Vesuvius buried Pompeii. StuRat (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

February 27

Free wi-fi on board?

Is the wi-fi network on planes free of charge and free of limitations? XPPaul (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's going to vary by airline. American Airlines charges for it [15], and it looks like Delta does, too. RudolfRed (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the whole premise myself. During takeoff and landing, they want you to turn your phone, laptop, tablet, etc, off. As in all the way off, not just sleep mode or airplane mode. Supposedly this is because these devices will somehow interfere with the plane's avionics and cause a crash, even with all wireless features turned off. But when you are up 30,000 ft it is somehow ok to have a wireless router and dozens of devices going at once. How does that work? How do they get wifi up there at all, and could you hypothetically do it yourself with the Android phone with the built in wireless hotspot? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have long since concluded that this was a myth; otherwise Al Qaida would be looking to bring down planes by shipping a few dozen iPods. I have decided that if they allowed phone calls on planes (other than the very expensive air to ground), people would kill each other long before ocean was crossed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Airlines normally don't give you an explicit reason to turn everything off, but I could imagine several for not using your laptop, cell-phone or what-you-got during takeoff and landing: by a harsh maneuver the device could fly off your hand, you won't pay much attention to security instructions, and a laptop on your lap would delay a possible evacuation (what would you do in case of an accident, throw the laptop on the floor, where someone could stumble, or carry it and have your hands occupied?). XPPaul (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No. As Beeblebrox said above, they do indeed give an explicit reason to turn such devices off, namely that they interfere with aircraft equipment. The question is how to reconcile this with the availability of wi-fi onboard. --Viennese Waltz 12:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure they do say that any more because by now everyone knows that is isn't true. How could a plane that could crash because someone had a mobile phone switched on in their pocket ever pass the stringent safetly requirements for passenger planes? It's a ridiculous claim. They might interfere with the entertainment system, or something, but they won't interfere with critical systems - they are all shielded from stray EM. I think XPPaul is right - they don't want you being too distracted during takeoff and landing, they also probably don't want the stray illumination from screens (you may have noticed their turn off the cabin lights for takeoff and landing at night so as not to have a difference in lighting between the inside and outside of the plane - I expect the reading lights are designed to turn off automatically in an emergency, but your laptop screen won't). There are also issues with mobile phones connecting to too many cell towers because so many are visible from the sky. And, finally, they want to be able to charge you ridiculous amounts to use their onboard phones. --Tango (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This sort of thing has been discussed many times on the RD including Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 September 23#Wifi and cell-phones on board of a plane. Some of the points discussed have already been mentioned here but I'd raise a few other key points. Airliners and regulators are generally very risk adverse and many authorities don't consider it conclusively proven that there's no way phones could interfere with the important airline systems, particularly since there have been some cases of coincidences of problems that went away when devices were turned off. And in case it isn't obviouy, landing and takeoff are considered crucial times with little room for error. Also, even if there really is some small risk, that doesn't mean it would make sense for al-Qaeda or whoever to send them to down planes. In fact iPods have lithium ion batteries, some airlines and regulators do have regulations on the size, number and packaging of lithium ion batteries because they consider them a risk. In a similar vein, the fact that some devices are occasionally left on doesn't prove there is no problem or suggest it doesn't make sense to require such devices be turned off. If there is a risk and it depends at least partially on the number of devices, then the more you turn off, the lower the risk. Finally if someone is using electronic device it's easier to tell them to turn it off then tell them to make sure it's in flight mode. (While I don't think flight attendants will generally check you actually turn it off they probably will hassle you if they see you using it again before you're supposed to. And I suspect people are more likely to comply if they know they can't use the device. Whereas if you can use the device, some may just claim it's in flight mode even if the device doesn't have such a setting or they have no idea how to set it.) BTW, remember that some planes have pico or microcells, so they do allow people to call with their phones during the flight, although generally with a high cost and not during takeoff or landing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I had thought that this warning was only put for takeoffs and landings since even a small navigation error during takeoff and landing could crash the whole plane. But if a small blip occurs at 30,000 feet, it won't noticeably affect the overall flight. 67.185.1.213 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked if the wi-fi network on planes is free of charge and free of limitations. The answer to the first question (free of charge) is yes at least for some airlines. I used it last week-end on my android phone, and it worked flawlessly. The "free of limitations" question I cannot answer. What kind of limitations would that refer to? Bandwidth/Gb downloaded? Pr0n sites? Other kinds of censorship? Dunno, I just read and wrote some emails. As to the "during landing and take-off" bit, I once overheard a crew member talking to a passenger friend, saying that the real reason for the restriction, is that take off and landing are hugely more dangerous than the rest of the flight, and that they don't want the passengers to be distracted by their electronic playthings. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Watches and Water Resistance

Per Water Resistant mark, a watch that is rated as being 200m Water Resistant (not Diver's 200m) is not suitable for diving and should be used for no deeper than a recreational pool. It states that the apparent depth misconception is due to the fact that the 200m WR rating was measured under a pool of static water and does not take into consideration the extra pressure that will be applied to the watch when the wearer moves through the water.

But suppose I am wearing a watch that is 200m WR, and I am diving recreationally to say, 50m, is the additional pressure from the movement of my hand while I am swimming able to apply the equivalent of 150m of water pressure and hence, render the watch unsuitable for diving?

Edit: I am aware of the other ISO requirements necessary, such as a uni-directional bezel, for a watch to be given a "Diver" designation, but purely in terms of the watch's ability to prevent water leakage, will a 200m WR watch be suitable for diving to 200m?

Acceptable (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the movement of the watch through the water is rather insignificant. If that was all that was going on here, then a watch rated for 200 m should be able to handle 190 m or more. I suspect that they simply lied when they gave it that rating, and this is an attempt to cover up the lie. StuRat (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Water resistant to 200m" is ridiculous. If you are going deeper than about 4m then you must be diving, in which case you should get a divers watch. "Water resistant" is useful for doing the washing up and for swimming pools, that's about it. I don't understand why they give depths for water resistance. --Tango (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd think the main difference between non-diving and diving watches is that the latter are designed for prolonged exposure. Hence non-diving watches are immersed (when tested) only 10 minutes at the rated pressure, and 1 hour at 10 cm depth, while diving watches are immersed 2 hours at 125% of rated pressure and 50 hours at 30 cm depth. In addition, diving watches are tested for immersion in salt water (24 hours) and for external forces. I've had a 50m W.R. rated watch, and eventually water came into the casing (though I never swim deeper than 2m). -- Lindert (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Style, academic publishing

I'm submitting a paper soon that uses Author (year) style citations. I'll be saying plenty of things like "Jones et al. (2010) showed that ...". I'm confused as to how to indicate possession, e.g. to refer to a system used by Jones et. al (2010). So, which of these is least jarring?

1. "Jones et al.'s (2010) system is..."
2. "Jones et al. (2010)'s system is..."
3. "Jones' et al. (2010) system is..."
4. other options?

These all look horrible and clunky to me, but I would prefer to not re-write the whole sentence to use something like "the system used by Jones et al. (2010)" I have also looked at the style guide for authors from the publishers. It does not begin to address this issue. Thanks in advance! SemanticMantis (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The option you've explicitly ruled out — "the system used by Jones et al. (2010)" — squares most completely with how I've seen it done in formal periodicals. #3 is 100% wrong. #2 and #1 both look bad. I would go with the simple re-write. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Mr. 98. Generally, you can avoid the problem by putting the citation at the end of the sentence. Unless there is a good reason too, don't mention author's names in the body of the sentence. Include them in parentheses at the end. This generally avoids the use of indirect discourse.

Examples:

Members of the alliance Crothinion prefer wet, acidic subtrates in full sunshine (Korski et al., 2007).

One study on calciphilic lichens revealed that species growing on concrete were resistant to dessication (Pinkleton and Rabycz, 2012).

Using the author's name in the body of the sentence indicates that the author is significant, and not only the information they provide. This is more common in reviews or in the discussion section of a primary article, and maybe sometimes in the introduction:

Finley et al. (1998) concluded that the species was xerothermic, whereas Rachelson (2002) and Connors (2003) found that it grew best in moist habitats.

The only exception I make to this rule is with methods or formulas:

The study area was surveyed in accordance with the methods described by Rudolphe and Hu (2001).

All data were transformed using the formula proposed by Surontong and Mbembe (2005).

Even then, I try to make sure that the sentence ends there.

Avoid using indirect discourse as much as you can. Too much is irritating.

Last of all, don't interupt a sentence with parentheses unless it's absolutely necessary:

Clumsy: Vitamin C is found in cherries (Budzinski and Wallis, 2007), greengages (Porter, 2002; My et al., 2003), apples (Kurtz et al., 1999; Szojner and Myśliński, 2007) and dingleberries (Santorum, 2012).

Better: Vitamin C is found in cherries, greengages, apples and dingleberries (Budzinski and Wallis, 2007; Porter, 2002; My et al., 2003; Kurtz et al., 1999; Szojner and Myśliński, 2007; Santorum, 2012).

The first version is almost unreadable. Actually, I once translated a sentence like this with about a dozen different fruits. In the end, it worked better as a bulleted list. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)