Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 20

American Expat Tax Refund upon Leaving the UK

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

Thank you for any help,

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

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

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

Will my sister grow taller than me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Identify the sex of someone by their words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And wrongly told me I was female (when we all know I'm a number). --121.127.209.126 (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

November 21

Ornlu the Wolf

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

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

no belly button

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which Cypher is This?

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

Esheo Aorht Disas Eomta

Keyword: Death

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

Thanks in advance.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about Asheville, North Carolina. It's in the Blue Ridge Mountains, so the summers are relatively dry and mild. Winters are mild but snowier than most Southern cities. Black population makes up 17.61% of the city. —D. Monack ^talk 01:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

indian Riddle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifiability of authenticity of show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well if people have been investigated in South American for stuff they revealed on the show then no, at least not for the South American versions. I doubt it would be illegal though. However the show is popular enough that if it were completely fake it's likely someone would have uncovered that by now IMHO. This source also seems to suggest the show isn't fake [1]. But to put it a different way, why would you bother when you can easily find (and you can easily find, believe me) a lot of real people for the show? That's a whole load cheaper, you don't need to fluff around with script-writers, actors and all the jazz nor do you risk you show being destroyed when people find out. (Actually there may still be some but likely a lot less) Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Anyone been to Anguilla?

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

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

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

Interview Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bear in mind that "textbook" answers may be appropriate for some jobs and organisations, but not others. For example, if I'm recruiting a red hot salesman I expect a very different answer when I ask about salary than if I'm recruiting most other positions. That's an extreme, but it's all about shades of grey. A good bit of advice I learned is to remember that they aren't really interested in you as a person*, but in how you'll fit the job, team and organisation. So, if they ask about your hobbies, don't get overexcited, but reflect on why they asked the question and what your answers says about you vis a vis those three elements. (*They might be, if you're very lucky, but assume they're not). --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I would call that a "cage light":[2]. Fribbler (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Incarceration Limit / Life Imprisonment

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

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

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

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

I don't think anyone is claiming to not give life sentences. In fact, Speck was originally given the death penalty. In Speck's case, his ashes were spread in a secret location[3] but many others never left Joliet Prison (Prison Cemetery internments) Rmhermen (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

November 22

Silkie Chickens

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

• Suggest you contact a poultry breeder. This ref [4] says they are "reasonably quiet". Exxolon (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

dating a singer sewing machine

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

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

I was very excited when I saw this question. Now I just feel like a third wheel. Maybe one day I'll find love.[[5]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NByz (talk • contribs) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The Singer site [6] says your machine was madein 1925 at Elizabeth , New Jersey, USA. A subpage there[7] says it dates from August 11, 1925, and suggests it is a Model 66. Check the nameplate for the exact model number. Manuals are available at [8], either for purchase of hardcopy or for free download of a PDF file. As a child I enjoyed playing with my an old treadle Singer, but never quite figured out how a sewing machine worked without having it pass a threaded needle back and forth through the fabric! Understanding chain stitch was (and is) beyond my spatial skills. Edison (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

English grammar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excel Sheet at work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blue Nylon Shrimp That Squirts Blue Fluid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC word usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drinking juice after brushing your teeth

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

Never mind, I've got it.[9]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

November 23

Chicken petting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Premier League season tickets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy theory proved to be true

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIA drug trafficking? Although there's no evidence it was deliberately used to try and kill of the black race, as some people have repeatedly claimed. There's evidence coming to light about Russian history: e.g. that the 1930s famine in Ukraine was deliberately caused by Stalin[10], which had been alleged for a long time by anti-communists. A small-scale conspiracy theory was around the existence and extent of the Cambridge Spy Ring, whose members were gradually revealed over decades after much rumour. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Jay-Z at Glastonbury

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

Are you sure there was a DJ? I've found a few forum posts about Jay-Z's backing band[11][[12] at glastonbury but little to nothing about DJs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

What do you call this statistics concept?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HELP!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario license plates

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

Some stuff, these are yours to discover: [13] and google[14]. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Quantum of Solace

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

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

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

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

Not highly toxic per [15] Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drinking cafe au lait

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

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

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

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

First known history of man raking leaves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 24

Factory cash backs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Batteries not included

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

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

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

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

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

And then there's the odd regulatory requirement that comes into play, such as at [16] (item 70) regarding the U.S. standards for DTV converters. (Er, yes, Senator, the remote is easier to use when there are batteries in it.) 198.29.191.149 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

workplace

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

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

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

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

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

The Interrupter

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

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

Prince William and Prince Harry: humanitarian work

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

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

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

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

interviewer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirsty mouse

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

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

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

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

Mice shows all their tiny charms and this section[17] is helpful. They do have a strong smell naturally, but make up for it by being cute, entertaining and social. There are different types (see Fancy mice). As for wild mice, it's probably ideal to domesticate from a young age, but who knows? you might just *click*, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Credit crunch

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

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

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

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

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

Removing Stains from Shirt

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

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

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

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

Asking a Girl to High School Prom in North America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digital television

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

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

According to this site: [18], until the February 17th transition date, channel 13 will be used for analog and channel 28 for digital. However, as noted above, the digital channel listed on the TV will be 13 (after if is "remapped"). After the transition date, analog 13 will cease broadcasting and the digital signal will then be broadcast on channel 13, making remapping no longer necessary. One potential problem this will cause is that you'll need a UHF antenna to receive channel 28 and a VHF antenna for channel 13. So, either you need to have both hooked up to your TV or digital converter box or you'll need to change which one is hooked up on the transition date. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia searches

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

You can find the most visited pages here [19] - but that's not quite the same thing as the most searched for because people arrive at pages via cross-links as well as by typing things into the search box. SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 25

Fundraising

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

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

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

Why do feet/legs/hands/arms fall asleep

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

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

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

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

Guns at Home in US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what does this saying mean

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

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

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

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

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

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

Owning a Telescope

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galileo's blindness had nothing to do with his solar observations.[21] --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Larger charge for credit card purchases

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feeding wild birds during winter in Scotland.

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia's coastline length measurements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Determining if a work's copyright was renewed

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

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

Aleister Crowley and George W. Bush

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

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

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

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

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

Gas pricing question

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

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

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

Gift idea for a 17 year old girl

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

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

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

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

American restaurants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 26

National Guard vs Army Reserve

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

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

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

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

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

St.Germain

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

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

Bush compared to Hitler?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, if you're interested in looking up what people have said in comparing the two erm, leaders, there's this google search result: [22]. @ Steve, do you mean six of one, half a dozen of the other, so to speak? or is it as Tamfang puts it. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. Steve must be drawing a subtle association between the cyanide found in the seeds of apples (thus representing Hitler’s chosen method of suicide) and the World Trade Center attacks which of course took place in New York City—the Big Apple. Very clever indeed. Thus a poison becomes a metaphor for the 9/11 attacks. Steve must be pointing out that the attack could also been seen as a poison eating the country from within. Even Steve’s statement “thanks for asking” is a clever postmodern reference to the New York hip-hop group Apsci’s album Thanks for Asking of which Allmusic says “the vocal manifestation of the Big Brother who is watching your every move.” [23] A very clever way to point out that the Bush administration is indeed watching our every move, just like Hitler or Big Brother. You see there are layers and layers of meaning! Brilliant, simply brilliant. --S.dedalus (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

sticky rice

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

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

point of view

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

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

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

People Bank of China 27 basis point rates changes.

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

See for example from today China Daily: "China's cut in banks' benchmark lending and deposit rates by 108 basis points." "我国央行下调存贷款利率1.08个百分点 ."

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

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

Service Sector

Why on should choose Service Sector as his career?