Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

January 13

Fame in USA

I've suddenly become very worried by the possibility that the most famous British person in the US is Simon Cowell. Firstly, how can I verify this? Secondly, what can I do about it? (ps actors don't count, as they're not famous for being themselves) almost-instinct 11:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding actors makes life a little difficult for yourself. Also defining 'most famous' is tough. You could do something as rudimentary as go based on number of google-hits with their name in speech-marks and the web address being a .com (but that's a problem as .com is both US and international). Alongside Simon Cowell, and excluding actors you could put such people as the Queen (Elizabeth the II) and bands such as The Beatles (sure they're not still performing but in terms of fame they're still hugely famous) and many other popular UK based bands. I'm not sure why you'd rule out actors, given that actors are a huge part of the group of people we'd define as 'famous'. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actors are just doing and saying what they're told to do or say by their script - eg Hugh Laurie in House is British but that has no bearing on the bulk of his fame in the US. almost-instinct 12:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also get actors who end up doing other notable things - Ricky Gervais, for example, is hosting the Golden Globes. In the short term, that skews the numbers as far as fame and popularity (which aren't always the same). You'll want to know if you're searching for the most famous British person now, or at a certain point in the year. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I would what to take Gervais' overall fame and deduct the purely acting part, leaving the British Guy On My TV portion. And I mean now-ish. Obviously, I'm in no position to be fussy ;-) almost-instinct 13:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Actors are just doing and saying ... by their script..." - How do you know that "reality show" hosts are any different? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question does not seem suitable for the reference desk, as it looks more like a request for a comment or an opinion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm: this is not a request for a comment or an opinion. To rephrase my first question: How can I can quantify Simon Cowell's fame in the US compared with other non-actor British people? almost-instinct 13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An objective measure of someone's fame could be the number or quantity of mentions in the media serving that group (in this case the US), weighted by the circulation of those media. Another dimension could be the quality of the fame - for example I expect Elizabeth Taylor gets less mentions than some fad popette, but many people would regard her as being more famous. Some people become houshold names - a survey could be done which compares the product recognition of Simon Cowell with other celebs. I suppose you could reduce someones fame by reducing their exposure in the various media. A lot of public people are almost instantly forgotten as soon as they stop appearing on tv or other media for one reason or another. There have been academic and other books and papers published about fame or celebrity - try searching in Google Scholar or Google Books. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, see Proxy (statistics). You'll have to come up with a measure or measures you think correlate with fame, along the lines of suggestions made above. Good luck with that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your conditions aare a little haphazard and arbitrary. You want to exclude the quotient of fame attaching to actors, leaving only their UK-fame-ness; but you do not want to apply the same condition to the Cowell, and exclude the fame ataching to his activity as host of a karaoke competition. That doesn't compute for me, but your milage may vary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Q Score -- I think it's exactly the type of measurement you're looking for, though note that as it's valuable marketing info you likely won't be able to get your hands on it. — Lomn 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I suppose actual values I could put into my yet-to-be-decided-on formula could include the Q score, minutes spent onscreen, viewing figures per minute, value to advertisers (either through personal endorsement or value of advertising on the shows appeared on) number of articles in the press, number of gratuitous references in the press, number of appearances on chat shows ... any more? Do any American publications produce annual lists of, say, Influential Celebreties? almost-instinct 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what is meant by "influential". You'll have publications like People with a "most intriguing people" issue. But that doesn't measure their influence, just maybe their visibility. Seems to me that Time or Newsweek had a writeup sometime back about the 100 most influential people in the world. Sorry about the vagueness, but you might be able to google it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given what I'm asking, I'm in no position to quibble with anyone else's vagueness :-) almost-instinct 16:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 1960s Quiz book that was written in the early 70s. Here and there it asks "Who was...?" about someone who had a short time in the public eye. One of those questions is about Regis Philbin, who at that time was known pretty much just for being Joey Bishop's talk show backup. Your average American certainly knows who Regis is now, and might be saying, "Joey who?" So he's a lot more famous. But is he very much more influential? And in what way? It's a slippery concept. The article about the influential had many names unknown outside of a specific profession, but were nonetheless regarded as highly influential. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By analogy with consumer products, some celebrities may get a lot of mentions in the media, but not have much impact with the public. Like a heavily-advertised new product that does not sell very well. Others may have little media attention but be noticed and remembered by the public. So you need to decide if you are going to measure the quantity of mentions in the media, the quantity of exposure of an average member of the public to them, or the extent to which people are aware of them and remember them. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are surveys of which celebrities are most recognized, but I can't immeditely lay my hands on one. In a paper in the Annals of Improbable Research, the highest-ranked British persons collectively are the Beatles, and the highest-ranked individual is George Harrison. However, the list is not comprehensive and does not include, for example, Elizabeth II or Princess Diana (either of whom is, in my subjective opinion, better known to Americans than Simon Cowell), nor does it include Cowell himself. John M Baker (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am an American who has never heard of Simon Cowell but who knows of many other notable people in the UK. Marco polo (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself lucky :-) almost-instinct 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit (quite a well-informed one, I hope) who has never ever heard of Regis Philbin (see above). Is that a good thing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been an American TV presence for a long time now, on talk shows and game shows. But he seldom does movies or TV series as such, so it's very possible he would be little known outside the USA. As far as Simon Cowell goes, I know of him but I never watch the shows he's on, but whether he's better known among the average American than ERII or Diana, would be an interesting survey to take. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of an idiotic ad campaign in the U.S. for some hair product many years ago in the U.S. which involved endorsement by some utterly unknown redheaded female, Rula Lenska, presumably some sort of celebrity in the UK. She became a standing joke for late-night TV comedians. It is a sick, sad world if Cowell is more famous than the Queen or the Beatles. (Does the question exclude dead Brits like Churchill or Henry VII?) Lenska, whomever she is or was, would probably be an improvement over Cowell. Edison (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our article suggests that is exactly what you were meant to assume, and it was an entirely manufactured "mistake". 86.178.229.168 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Elizabeth Taylor recognizably British? I always assume she's American. But she doesn't really do anything anymore; she was Michael Jackson's friend for some reason, and Maggie's voice that one time on the Simpsons. Does anyone under the age of, say, 40, even know her as a movie star? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that due to the fact that American Idol is a fairly new phenomenon, while bands like The Beatles and Rolling Stones have been around for a while, would make the musicians more famous simply by dint of longevity. The longer you exist, the more people are exposed to you. JJohnCooper (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect you may not be getting - not sure if you want it or not - is that you may want to reduce your figures by a small portion to indicate that not all Americans who know who Simon Cowell is (like myself) know that he's British. Or, are you concerned about the fame of the person regardless of whether or not people recognize him as British. (i.e.: People like me who have never really seen "American Idol," but suspect from my reading that the closest comparison is a character from my childhood, Oscar the Grouch.)209.244.187.155 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon measured against a well-known popularity benchmark. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is an impossible question to answer without conducting a survey of hundreds of people. But one thing to keep in mind is that most Americans aren't old enough to remember the Beatles. I'm sure almost everyone has heard of them, but I bet many teenagers would be hard pressed to name Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr. That said, most Americans don't watch American Idol either -- a given episode will be watched by less than 10% of the country. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be the Queen?..88.96.226.6 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

saw

Who konw saw IV Mark Hoffman working department name ?-58.152.255.207 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your question is not clear. Can you try to rephrase it? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... I think the question is: "What was the police department Mark Hoffman worked in Saw IV called?". I suppose. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,you right :)--219.73.35.84 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the phrasing confusion is cleared up and its intended meaning confirmed, while the original question remains unanswered. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness World Record citation please (1997—2001 and 2002+)

Do you have a Guinness Book of World Records, for any year 1997—2001 or for 2002+. I'm looking for a citation for The Theatre of Small Convenience, Malvern, England, which claims to be the smallest theatre (building) in the world since 2002, and for the Piccolo Theatre, Hamburg, Germany, the previous record holder. If you have one or both books, it would be great if you could provide citation details (title, publisher, edition, page, authors (?) & ISBN) to verify both claims. GyroMagician (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is that the GBR for 1991 (ed. Donald McFarlan, ISBN 0-85112-374-0, Guinness Publishing Ltd.) lists the Piccolo as the smallest theatre, on p.163. If you Google "smallest theatre in the world you will get competing claims today.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that's a good start. Yes, I thought there might be competing claims. I think it's all in the wording - The TSC claim to be the smallest theatre (building). I think the building part is key, for their claim at least. But I'd like to have it from the horses mouth, just to be sure! GyroMagician (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2002 edition, page 196, describes the TSC as "the smallest commercial theatre" in the world. The previous edition in my library, the 1997 edition, page 146, says the Piccolo is "the smallest regularly operated professional theatre". Reconcile the difference in the wording as you may. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! It's slightly absurd, but perfect for the claim on my page - now updated. I'll ignore the difference in wording, and hope I never get into a discussion about it. Thank you both very much. GyroMagician (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Translation

Can someone who speaks Arabic tell me what this means?

منيح منيح :) أنا مصري.

Luthinya (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask on the language desk? Anyway, Google Translate says: "Minih Minih:) I am an Egyptian."--Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, Google said, "Minih Minih:) I'm from Egypt" to me. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the punctuation. If you remove the period at the end, it changes it. I don't know Arabic so I don't know why that might be. But rather asking us blind men, they ought to ask at the Language desk, where people can probably explain it more accurately. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice taken. Somehow I did not spot the Language Desk the first time round...foolish of me. Thank you all! Luthinya (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Insurance number and privacy

When I apply for a job in the UK, I have to give my National Insurance number. Just wondering how I can find out how much information about me that allows my prospective employer to see? I am aware that nobody here can give me a definite answer, cause that would be legal advice, so I'm just looking for hints about what search terms I should use. The National Insurance article here doesn't mention privacy, and I've tried googling "national insurance number"+privacy, but didn't find anything helpful. Any hints would be most welcome. cheers! 89.195.20.176 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OR) - The only experience I have of this is using NiNOs to cross-check you names and dates of birth agsinst details provided for an English course for recent immigrants. So they must be able to find out those two pieces of information from it, at least--86.25.237.165 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Your NI number is used by your employer to make payments on your behalf to HM Revenue & Customs so that you build up contributions towards your State Pension entitlement. If it is a genuine number, then your emplyer has no legal access to any information about you whatsoever. There may be some very limited information (such as previous names and addresses) exchanged if the number is not genuine. As far as I know, there is no obligation on you to give your NI number until you have a contract of employment. I wonder why a prospective employer is asking for this, unless they have had problems with illegal immigrants in the past. HM Revenue & Customs hold a database which includes previous names, addresses and date of birth, but this is not available to employers and is used only for checking purposes. Dbfirs 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(later) Prospective employers are able to check that the name and date of birth that you have given correspond to your NI number. Most employers will not need to do this in advance because the information is automatically checked free of charge after the first pay-day, but some will wish to pay for a "pre-check" if they have had problems with employees giving fake details in the past. Dbfirs 22:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Canada the equivalent of the NI number is the Social Insurance Number. The SIN (as it is called) allows you find out quite a lot of things about you, especially credit checks, and is a much sought-after piece of information by identity thieves. I would recommend not giving either number to anyone not entitled to have it. Your employer is of course entitled to have it, and you'll have to trust them not to misuse it. Of course you are already trusting them since they employ you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, prospective employers need to ensure that they are employing people with permission to work in the UK, and the easiest way of doing this is to check that they have a valid NI Number, with the cross-check that the date of birth matches. Failure to do this could cost a large fine and/or imprisonment. [1] gives more detail on this. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Social Security Numbers in the United States is more complex and more insidious, but I have a very strong feeling that it applies to the social-insurance numbers in many other countries. The Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service will give employers very little direct information, but that's not where the greatest danger lies.

Rather, the number is used as an extremely handy (even essential) unique identifier for databases, both for law enforcement and for purely-commercial purposes. And even the purely-unofficial use is problematic, since it allows all sorts of cross-checking between private databases that can be either helpful or harmful. Hospitals, schools (when not forbidden by law or policy), banks (by law) and credit-reporting agencies use Social Security numbers to identify individuals, so their privacy policies have to be rigorous and their technical safeguards very secure (which they often are not). Having someone's Social Security number, plus (for starters) a name and date of birth, makes it much easier to steal his or her identity for fraudulent purposes, so it's always wise to be careful with it.

How much of this applies to analogous numbers in other countries I don't know, but since credit-reporting agencies, private detective agencies, direct-marketing companies and the like have branches, affiliates, associates and subsidiaries in many nations, I think the potential problems could be very similar. In totalitarian and post-totalitarian states with huge secret police forces and limited tolerance for dissent, they're much greater. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Municipal Airport and various of small airports in LA

Is there any difference between orange county airport and municipal airports. Is the airprot in Compton Airport, El Monte Airport Santa Monica Aiport is these likely for out of state. Could they go to Mexico or New York or the Midwest? Or those airports is only west coast states. Since Municipal means city and orange county could be international because it goes to Mexico.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Airport is owned by Orange County, California. It's the only commercial airport in Orange County. The List of airports in the Los Angeles area shows larger airports such as Los Angeles International. That list also shows Compton, El Monte, and Santa Monica (among others) as general aviation airport, which usually means small private planes. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHat's the contrast between small private planes and public access airports? Does private ones menas only certain groups can access the airports for business purpose or it just menas the airplane tickets costs is higher?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read our lengthy airport article. It also has links to articles about specific types of airports. Orange County airport has scheduled passenger service; like LAX or other airports you're probably familiar with, it's serviced by many airlines and people can just walk in and buy a ticket and fly somewhere. Some general aviation airports don't have any scheduled passenger service; you drive up to the air service's building and you rent a plane to fly it somewhere, or you take a flying lesson, or their pilot flies you where you want to go, or whatever. (You would call them in advance of your visit.) Many airports, including John Wayne Airport, have both the regular passenger terminal and the GA "terminals". Anyone can buy a ticket from a private operator like this; it's not restricted to "certain groups". The cost of having a pilot fly you in a Cessna or Piper to where you want to go will be much higher than getting a ticket at any airline that services regular passenger terminals. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion of the wiki

Please provide me with data showing the growth of users on your site since the start of 2001. I am trying to create an S curve demonstrating the diffusion of the wiki. Technomamab (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything we have is in pages linked from Wikipedia:Statistics -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might be misreading this (in which case, disregard please), but your wording ("your site") seems to indicate you think this site is in some way centrally planed, when it is in fact completely community-driven (grass roots, so to say (my, I do use a lot of parentheses, don't I)), and there is no real central committee, just community rules. I think that's an important point to note if you are researching the wikipedia phenomenon. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not 100% true - we do have the Wikimedia Foundation - they own things like the name, the logo and the domain names - and since they collect money and pay wages for the (tiny) staff and also provide servers, etc, they do (in effect) "own" the site. SteveBaker (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in effect. The quite literally and exactly own Wikipedia. --Jayron32 02:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they own "Wikipedia" the name (and associated trade dress), and the physical servers on which Wikipedia is hosted, but they don't own the content of Wikipedia. All contributions to Wikipedia are still copyrighted (owned) by their contributors. The Wikimedia Foundation simply has a non-exclusive right to their use. -- 70.90.187.65 (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

Round protrusions on side of 18-wheeler trailer

What are the 6 (a bit of a 7th one is visible on the right edge) round things on the side of this truck? Some of them are dented in. Thanks -- Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.94.172 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ventilators maybe? SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Light? Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protrusions from structural support beams making some kind of structure inside? Interesting! --Ouro (blah blah) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access covers for wiring or pipes? Is this a 'fridge' truck by any chance? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a setback to allow for some type of hardware that is used to anchor some other type of device that would be used to secure a load, to prevent the load from shifting while in transit. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a fridge truck (as far as I can tell). I see them all the time, and it was bugging me enough to take pictures of them. I'll just have to ask a truck driver, I suppose. Maybe some trucker web forum will know. --Sean 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty curtain Steve Baker is right, those are ventilation covers. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I've asked several of the traffic folks here at work. Some of them have been dealing with trucks since the 70s and none of them had seen these kinds of marks before. They all came up with the same guess, though - that they were punched into the panels to provide extra support for load bars. Normally, the bars are either latched in or kept in place with pressure, but it's possible that there was some kind of requirement to provide a more secure place for the bars to fit in. The guys I asked have tons of experience, so I feel pretty confident that they're not standard on North American trucks. Matt Deres (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from the picture, but I'd say they're either vents or recessed tie-down points (ie. anchor points that don't protrude into the main volume of the trailer). --Carnildo (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Question

In a multi-storey building in New York, what would the 'Metro Level' be? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 00:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess, and could be totally wrong, that it's the level at which the "Metro" station is, i.e. the commuter train, likely below street level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be. Just like Paris, right? :) Thanks! --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 01:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article[2] which I actually found by googling ["empire state building" "metro level"] on a hunch, where it talks about Bloomingdale's, indicates that the metro level is indeed the subway level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Bugs! Funnily enough, that is the EXACT building I am writing about! --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice searching, BB. Bus stop (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here I find a sentence on the same topic: "The new Metro Level (call it anything but the basement, pleeease) is only the first phase …" Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Bus Stop! I will remember that! --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, KageTora! Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did we get in Boston? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We took the subway. Weren't you paying attention? :) JJohnCooper (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Did he ever return? No, he never returned, and his fate is still unlearned..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird wind turbine google earth shadow

Hi all. There is a wind turbine at Lat 52.656818, Long 0.683378. The google earth image seems to show a tower without the nacelle and blades. But the shadow seems to indicate their presence. Anyone know how this can be explained? Thanks. - Akamad (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Google Maps link here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally this page and this one say that that this turbine (on Turbine Way in Swaffham) is an Enercon E66 like this one; it's apparently part of this place, and indeed Wikipedia has a photo of this precise turbine (right). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people have spotted the same anomaly and theorise as to why. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for no reason other than completeness, here is a short documentary about climbing it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwmalCmwtFU -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, here is a proper link [3]. There are a couple of possibilities:

There could be a seam between two photos taken at different times running nearby. The mapping system blends those maps together to try to hide the seam. What can happen is that (perhaps) the tower was built - the first photo taken - then the generator and blades were added and the second photo taken. The result might be that the shadow fell into one photo and the tower into the other. However, such seams are generally much more obvious - so I suspect that's not it in this case.
Google's photos are often taken by aircraft flying up and down in regular strips over the ground - in order to keep the number of strips to a minimum and thereby save fuel, time and money - they don't just take 'looking straight down' photos - but also photos that look sideways out over the ground. Because the Google Maps interface is presenting a more or less straight down view, the mapping software tries to correct for tall objects that come out weirdly when a photo taken on a slant is presented as a plan-view map. This correction relies on the software correctly estimating the height of the object. The way they calculate that height is by comparing two photos taken a few seconds apart as the airplane flies along - when you compare those two photos, the tops of taller objects move relative to the ground beneath them from one photo to the next. The software can figure that out and apply the necessary corrections.

I'm betting that it's the second of those things: OK - now consider a windmill. The blades are spinning in the wind. This will confuse the height-estimation software because the blades are moving either much more or much less compared to the ground than an object of that height should (depending on which direction our photo-plane was flying). The height estimation software may simply be confused into doing crazy stretching or shrinking - or it may have clever tricks to recognise this situation. We know Google's software does things like that because it's not often confused by things like cars driving along roads that are roughly parallel to the direction of flight of the plane. However, what it probably does in cases of confusion is to remove these fast-moving features completely...and I'm 99% sure that's what happened here.

It conveniently explains why the tower is being drawn - but the moving parts are gone. I'm a little surprised that the blades weren't also removed in the shadow - but this is a complex situation - and Google don't publicize the fine details of their algorithms for height data extraction and motion detection - so we can only speculate.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st theory would entail the pre-construction and post-construction photos to have both been taken when the sun was at pretty much the same angle (despite being perhaps weeks apart); that seems like too much of a coincidence. The 2nd theory (at least some kind of strip-stitching artifact) is credible. It works even without a height-estimation issue, if the strips are horizontal (that is West-East), which an evident stitch boundary a little north would support. In this case, by coincidence, the blades and the tower end up in different strips. The frame used for the tower has the arms in a Y position, but they two upward ones are cut off and the lower one hidden by the tower. A different configuration is visible in the strip used for the shadow section. The two strips may have been taken maybe 30 minutes apart, or maybe Google's plane has multiple cameras (as the streetview car does) and they don't care about perfect time synchronisation when merging their view (bar weird stuff like this, they wouldn't need to). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the blades are included in the picture but the plane in which the blades lie is such that they are all but invisible from our vantage point. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - even the big box containing the bearings and generator is missing. In the photo, the top of the tower seems to just end with a smoothed-off look. It's pretty clear that the software just screwed up due to the motion of the blades. SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the absence of the nacelle is the most difficult to explain thing. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Google's photos are often taken by aircraft flying up and down in regular strips over the ground - in order to keep the number of strips to a minimum and thereby save fuel, time and money - they don't just take 'looking straight down' photos - but also photos that look sideways out over the ground. I just wanted to point out that all aerial photos (orthophoto or otherwise) necessarily look "straight down" only at the one point directly beneath the camera. All other points in a photo are at some angle. The photos aren't this way by choice--it's just the nature of photography. This isn't to say the process doesn't involve taking photos to the side. I'm not sure about that--at least the flight strips are usually laid out so that they overlap each other enough to provide two views of each point. Also, unless I'm mistaken Google doesn't fly planes, take photos, or do the orthorectification themselves. They purchase the imagery from vendors who have already done all that. I've seen various imagery that was definitely orthorectified before Google purchased it (USGS imagery, for example). It doesn't make sense that Google would spend all the money to do the hard work when they can just buy it from numerous sources. Pfly (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I looked at the Google Maps link for a while and found it odd. Here's my best guess (basically what Steve said!): When aerial photos are orthorectified and mosaicked there's always a bunch of "touch-up" work to do. Software can automate the process to some degree but to do a really nice job you need people to tweak things here and there "by hand". Sometimes this means hiding seams better by doing some smoothing and "cloning". Tall objects often cause weird distortion the software can't handle. You can see "by hand" fixes on things like bridges. The Golden Gate Bridge, for example (see link here). You can see that the overhead cables and the shadows have been fixed up to some degree, but it's obviously not perfect. Sometimes the photo angles work out and by luck things look fairly good. Other times they don't work out and there's no easy fix. Each vendor has to choose between how much time and human effort they want to put into making everything look perfect and how acceptable it is for things to look a bit odd here and there. Since utter perfection is rarely required by the customer the vendors typically accept a bit of oddness here and there. That's what I think happened with this wind turbine: The upper part of the tower came out of the orthorectification software looking all wrong and instead of trying to fix it they just removed it. If so, they did a pretty good job. Does it look like the tower or any ground below has been retouched? Signs of "cloning", blurring, smoothing, etc? Not obvious to me, but maybe. Pfly (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'cloning' isn't obvious because that's not how it's done. Because they have multiple photographs of the same point on the ground - but taken from different angles, the software can pick out pixels from whichever photo(s) provide the least distortion or confusion. So long as the strips of pictures were taken close enough together in time that the shadows didn't move or the sun go behind a cloud or something - then the process is essentially perfect except when there are 3D objects on the ground and you have to do this height estimation/correction step. For something like the Golden-Gate bridge, you can be sure that someone went in and did the best possible retouching job imaginable - but for some random windmill that hardly anyone will ever care about, they'll let the software do it's thing and if is screws up occasionally, that goes with the terratory. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the blades are depicted. It's just that they are depicted in the ground vegetation and other texture in the area on the ground which is surrounding the top of the tower. It seems that perhaps the software made a compromise between the semicircular configuration of the moving, and therefore perhaps somewhat blurred blades, and the surrounding ground texture and color. The result is I think a somewhat circular area in the ground behind the top of the tower. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Google doesn't update their maps nearly as often as they claim. The picture of my house shows a car in the driveway that we haven't had in six years or so. JJohnCooper (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do they claim otherwise? They claim (truthfully) that they update some of their pictures every few months, or whatever, they don't claim to update all their pictures on a regular basis. --Tango (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 people in NYC cab?

Can three adults and two children ride in a NYC cab? Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 01:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I googled ["new york" taxi how many people] and it led me to this city government page [4] which gives a variable answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether it's an SUV or sedan vehicle, and whether the front passenger seat is currently occupied by the driver's shopping/laundry/dinner. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on where you want to go; it may be almost as convenient and much cheaper to take the New York City Subway. --Jayron32 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do they still have "jump seats" in cabs? Or are those considered unsafe now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are planning a tourist trip that will go to several places. I'm getting too old to do too much walking (I can go a few miles a day). Efficient use of our time is important. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you weren't asking just from curiosity. :) You might want to call Yellow Cab or whatever, and find out what your options are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an American big city I have ridden in a cab with more people than this, in transit between bars. It involved someone (an off-duty female cop) sitting in a lap, or laps- memory of the occasion is a bit fuzzy. Edison (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the off-duty female cop seemed to stick with you somehow. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should really consider the subway. You're from Georgia (based on your userpage)? I don't think you'd find the subway the least bit difficult, and a lot cheaper than taking cabs everywhere, even considering 5 people. If you get tired or lost, then a cab's an easy fix, but especially if you're worried about capacity and you're in the city (including the boroughs), the subway makes a lot of sense. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My wife wants to take the subway - walk to the station, walk from the station to where we are going. At any rate, we will be doing a lot of walking, and I want to avoid the extra walking to and from the subway. (I don't know if I can hold out for that much walking.) Plus I think it would be a more efficient use of time to take cabs. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 16:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Apple experts need to weigh in here as far as a practical solution. Specifically, how frequently are there subway stations, and does getting to and from them require a lot of stairs-climbing, or do they have escalators/elevators? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with NYC is limited, but In the past I've noted that at certain times of day the pedestrians are moving at about the same rate as the cars. Depending on where you're going, the subway may actually get you where you're going faster. (That's what it's for, after all.)

Certainly if you were going to Boston I'd recommend the subway over taking a cab.

But if you insist on sticking to the streets, why not take two cabs? It may be easier than trying to find one of those relatively rare SUV cabs. APL (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If five elephants can get into a Mini... then yes. (old joke: two in the front and three in the back for the younger Wikis).Froggie34 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could definately get five adults in a London taxi cab. See Hackney carriage. 89.243.186.173 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that most New York City cabs will take 5 people in addition to the driver. Everyone has to wear a seatbelt, and most cars only have seatbelts for 5 people, including the driver. If your priority is efficient use of your time, then taking the subway may be the better choice. It can be faster than a cab, especially during rush hour, when parts of Manhattan approach gridlock. However, taking the subway does involve climbing lots of stairs, though some stations will have elevators. Stations with a symbol for handicapped access on the subway map will have elevators, though they may require extra walking to reach. Another option to consider is the bus. Manhattan has a large network of bus lines, and buses obviously require less climbing of stairs and will deliver you closer to some destinations. Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York State doesn't requie seat belt usage in cabs.[5] So unless the city has a different law, that shouldn't be a problem. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The taxi used in Cash Cab seems to be able to seat 5 adults easily, with three rows of seats. I have seen such cabs availible around New York myself. There are a variety of models of cars used for taxicabs, so I am sure you will find similar "minivan" style taxis plentiful. Also, besides the "hold up your hand and wait" sort of taxicabs, you can also call ahead and arrange for a taxi. Just let them know before they send a car you need seating for 5 adults. Problem solved. --Jayron32 18:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I wasn't aware of the exemption for taxicabs. So this should be possible. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw Cash Cab the other day and noticed two seats in the middle row and three in the back. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clothing line made of money

how do i get my clothing line listed into wikipeda http://www.yowatchawurth.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yowatchawurth (talk • contribs) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with any other article, you would need to prove notability via independent, reliable sources. You would also need to write it in such a way that it does not sound like an advertisement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy - You don't.

Your clothing line almost certainly doesn't meet our Notability guidelines - as such, any article you wrote would likely be deleted soon after you created it.
If you are trying to promote your clothing line this way - it's a really bad idea. Remember, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. That includes your worst competitor and dissatisfied customers.
You'll almost certainly end up writing it like an advert - and that's not allowed either.
Everything you write must be backed up by independent sources. That means books, newspaper articles - things that neither you, nor the company wrote. That makes it incredibly tough for you to put any 'meat' into the article.
You will be accused of Original Research and Conflict of Interest - neither of which are looked upon favorably here.

This is an encyclopedia - think about that. Just how many clothing lines do you think warrant an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica? Just because Wikipedia is large and open doesn't mean that it's here to advertise your clothing line for you...nothing could be further from the truth! If your clothing line became so awesomely famous that it justified an article about it - then someone would almost certainly have written it already...if it's not that famous then there shouldn't be an article about it.

Sorry. SteveBaker (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here. When I saw "clothing line", I thought the OP meant "a piece of string hanging horizontally in my garden to tie clothes to while they dry". And I think you are assuming the same thing. But after a bit of thought, I reckon the OP is talking about a line, like a brand, of clothing (as in: "Tattered and Torn is a clothing line...") As far as I can tell, no actual clothing lines have Wikipedia articles at present, but plenty of brands of clothing do (which doesn't mean that the OP's is notable, of course). Marnanel (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some free advice: Get yourself a proper website designer! Your website is AWFUL! If you wish to impress people with your design skills - you need a well-designed website. Yours does not resize properly - in Firefox, the text in the "store" section overlaps so you can't read it...all of that centered and underlined text is ugly, ugly, ugly. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elegance, schmelegance. When you go to an "elegant" website like google.com, how are you supposed to know the current time?! --Sean 15:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discerning customers of money clothing know better than to trust a "prim and proper" well-designed website. This is simply a matter of targeting a specific audience. The website bears striking similarity to other websites targeting the same audience, such as those that sell anti-police-RADAR-varnish for speeders' cars and medical saline bags for improvising SWAT-team-style door breaching charges. Such companies need not care about "spelling", "color matching", or other hallmarks of clean website styling, because their target audience will be dissuaded by those symptoms of reputability. Nimur (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After clicking on this site I was sure it was going to tell me about Nth dimensional quantum gravity vibration auras and how we can use them to insure homeopathic eternal life and free energy for all. APL (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Just stick some dollar bills onto a cheap T-shirt using 9 dimensional quantum gravity vibration (you'll need a handy Casimir-effect generator) and homeopathic eternal life will immediately be yours! SteveBaker (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - If I were you I wouldn't be advertising my illegal activities so much. It's a crime to "mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together" US money of any kind. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 USC CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY. --LarryMac | Talk 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to ask - if it is illegal to burn money, how legal is it to stitch it into clothing? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued". You left off an important part of USC 331. This page, including a letter from the Department of the Treasury, implies that without some sort of fraudulent intent there's no crime. [6]

I'm no legal scholar (not by a long shot), but isn't that implying that the act of destroying the bills must be intention (say, by sewing it into a garment) and not accidental (say, by accidentally setting your clothing on fire [it happens!])? Of course, if one could still spend the garment, then it's clearly "fit to be reissued", and there's no problem! – Clockwork Soul 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think we can assume good faith here and not go around offering alarmist legal advice. APL (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XBOX 360 HDMI cables

I have an XBOX 360 and an HDMI TV (says so on the front). Can I buy these cables and will it work? Sorry if it sounds like a dumb question, but the cable seems fairly inexpensive and I wanted to know if I was missing something or will be needing to buy something additional, etc. Thank you in advance. --24.187.98.157 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First look at the back of your 360 and make sure there is an HDMI connector on it. If there is, then, yes, that HDMI cable will work fine (as long as it's a functional and working male-to-male HDMI cable). I think, but am not sure, that some Xbox 360s lack an HDMI port. Our Xbox 360 article is not explicit about this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got an HDMI cable from Argos for my 360 (Arcade) for £4.50 - works perfectly. I just wish they'd do the same with hard-drives, but they force me to pay extortionate prices for a hard-drive just because it is official xbox (really makes me rather mad so i've not bought one). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this Jeepney?

Yesterday, I noticed a jeepney that was simultaneously releasing black smoke and a lot of embers from its exhaust. However, the driver doesn't seem to care about the problem. What is wrong with the jeepney and were the passengers on board in danger? --121.54.2.188 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect people who have never visited the Philippines will have trouble answering your question to your satisfaction. From the perspective of the driver, there was nothing wrong with the Jeepney because it was still rolling along making money! From your perspective, it sounds as if the engine combustion was out of sync - possibly due to bad sparkplugs. SteveBaker will likely be along shortly to break it down in excellent detail. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about that. Blue/black smoke generally means that the engine is burning oil - typically because the piston rings are worn or the cylinder walls are scored. (White smoke indicates water getting into the engine - a cracked head, cracked block or (if you're very lucky) a blown head gasket). If you're seeing blue/black smoke then - aside from the smells and pollution - you'd need to top up the oil more often than usual - and you'd certainly feel a drop in power due to poor compression. But the Jeepney might continue to run for years in that state so long as the owner doesn't forget to check the oil regularly.

If the jeepney had a diesel engine then there might actually be nothing wrong with it at all - beyond perhaps being somewhat in need of a tune-up.

But "embers"?! Really?! I can't begin to imagine what would be causing that. Embers are bits of solid material and it's really hard to imagine a source for solid materials coming out of an internal combustion engine. Maybe the "creative" mechanics in that part of the world tried to use cardboard to fix up an exhaust leak or something crazy like that!

SteveBaker (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the "embers" are from deposits on the inside of the exhaust system. If the vehicle is runny smokily enough (and it sounds like it is) then it would almost certainly deposit on the exhaust, and this would potentially build up enough to come out as small solids. FWIW I used to rally a Twin Cam Escort that was a little smoky for a while (100 miles per pint of oil) and it had a fuel pump problem which starved the engine when running flat out. The symptoms of that were a sudden loss of power and a sheet of flame about 15 foot long coming out of the exhaust, where the unburnt oxygen burnt off the coating of the exhaust. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that flame-thrower car in this list ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be :-) --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. I assume that the danger of the jeepney exploding/catching fire is unlikely since the embers are only formed at the exhaust and not at the engine itself. --121.54.2.188 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SIM card rejected??

My 11 year old cousin messed it up big time. He was playing around with my cell, and went to my settings, and entered the wrong PIN and PUK codes so many times that now, whenever I switch my cell on, I get a message saying "SIM card rejected". Is my SIM card done for? Will I have to change my SIM, and my phone number to boot? Is there any way my service operator, or my nearest Nokia store will be able to help me? Is there a way around this?? Please help.... I don't want my parents to know....They'll get mad at me for not keeping the cell out of reach of my bro... 117.194.229.140 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The funny thing is, if I call my cell number from my landlind, I can hear a voice tell me "The subscriber is currently swtiched off." Does that mean I've still got hope?? 117.194.232.93 (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the nearest Nokia store can help you. Get there at once! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take proof of purchase (if possible) and the original box (if possible) and any passwords or original information that was set up when you first got the phone. Dbfirs 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That happened to me once, and eventually my parents did find out, but all we had to do was contact my service provider (In this case Orange) and they sent back a envelope to put the SIM card in, and then a couple of weeks later they sent a replacement free of charge. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that Chip Place ?

A while ago I saw a documentary on either the History Channel or Discovery Channel about French Fries. What we call in New Zealand, chips. ( We use the same word for thin sliced bagged ones also - what the English call crisps - discovered in that New York restaurant by accident - or tantrum - in the 1800's. ) In this film, we saw a place that sold a scoop of chips that looked to be at least a foot high, but at what seemed a relatively cheap place, but I cannot remember the name of the diner or cafe. It was in Indiana, I believe, but there could be other places like that. Does anyone know ? It looked like more than anyone ( except me ) could eat. If I ever get to the US, I would like to try that place out. Thank You. The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but if you get as far as the UK, I recommend you tackle a chip butty at the Grindleford Station Cafe.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you didn't see it at the Food Network instead? It seems like there's always a show on there on "extreme" foods and the places that serve them. TresÁrboles (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for that. I am sure that wherever one can go in the world, the chips will be good, and if not, don't go there again for a while. I don't recall ever watching the Food Channel, but it might have been borrowed from there, or a similar programme. The one I watched was about unusual foods. As for reccommeded places, an excerpt from a British magazine was posted on the wall of the Wainoni Fish Supply, 88a Wainoni Road, Christchurch. The article listed good fish and chip shops all over the world, and this shop in question was one of them - which explains why the owners put it up. We have gone there on and off for over twenty years, before which we went to one in Hampshire Street, Aranui. As for truly best, we do have a best fish and chip shop in New Zealand competition. I recall that one item used to cost ten cents in 1974, and now costs up to two dollars in Christchurch, and more if it is a special like Blue or Red Cod. I shall endeavour to find the place if - no - when, I get to America.--The Russian Christopher Lilly 08:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Good luck! Although I would imagine that most fish and chips you will get in any Commonwealth nation will be better than what you can find in the States. I also doubt the quality of fries at any place that sells them in sky-high stacks. (Hey, "Sky-High Fries", I should trademark that!) TresÁrboles (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SWOT Analysis

ABC Company deals in knitwear. The company offers high quality jackets, suits and woolen sweaters. Currently company is performing better than its competitors in terms of market share and product quality. The manager of the company identifies that more sales can be generated through market diversification before seasonal trends change in local market. Company is exploring international markets for exporting its product. For better performance in local market, company is planning to remove deficiencies of its service staff through training.

Conduct SWOT analysis of ABC Company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanibhatti (talk • contribs) 12:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for posting here. We don't do your homework for you, but you may like to look at our article on SWOT analysis for information about how to do it. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{dyoh}} "Do Your Own Homework" template (for future use) ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Panasonic lumix drc zr1

Does this digital camera have an auto exposure bracketing (aeb) function? Thanks. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try Google?
As Google so succinctly puts it "Did you mean: Panasonic lumix dmc zr1 ?"
If you did then I suggest the search "Panasonic lumix dmc zr1 bracketing".

DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did try google, and could not find an answer to my question. Thanks for the search string though, worked perfectly. Now it's just a matter of finding that option in the menus... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what search string did you try? I tried a variety of 'panasonic lumix dmc zr1 bracketing' 'panasonic lumix dmc zr1 auto bracketing' 'panasonic lumix dmc zr1 auto exposure bracketing' 'lumix dmc zr1 bracketing' with and without the correct name for the camera, as always suggested by Google, and all of these give the ZDnet review with the specs which clearly specify yes as the first result. Even 'lumix dmc zr1' and 'lumix drc zr1' give the cNet and dpreview reviews as the first and second results which also specify albeit perhaps it's harder to notice if you don't realise it's there (and the dpreview doesn't call it auto even though it's clearly referring to auto exposure bracketing). I can sometimes see how someone would have gone wrong in their searching, but in this case I'm having difficulty seeing it (as I sometimes do) so am interested in seeing how people go wrong with such basic stuff (since I admit, it annoys me as it does a number of contributors when people don't even appear to have done the most basic of seaches). BTW, please don't be offended by this but you may want to consider brushing up on your searching skills since it can be a fairly important and basic skill nowadays and you seemed to have difficulty with what seems to me from my own tests to be one of the simplest of searches. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drinks

My father, who is a very smart man, did not know the answer to this question, so I come to my second standby.

Are there any mixed drinks or cocktails which contain beer?

Thanks for your time. JJohnCooper (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Tan and Irish Car Bomb come to mind. We also have an entire article on Beer cocktail. Nimur (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Shandy. --LarryMac | Talk 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a bit too easy. Why is a flaming Dr. Pepper any cocktail without Dr. Pepper in it? JJohnCooper (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One from my experience is when one fills a beer bong with cheap beer for a friend, then when the friend is not looking, two shots of vodka are poured surreptitiously into the funnel. This may fall short of the terms "mixed drink" and "cocktail", however. The addition of the vodka is not noticed, the same way that the beverage as a whole is not savored. Disclaimer: This may kill you, I suppose, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beer and tomato juice, or V-8. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Flaming Dr. Pepper is not any cocktail without Dr P, it's a specific cocktail without Dr P. However I still don't quite get the question. After all, a Monkey's Brain shooter doesn't contain an actual monkey's brain (more's the pity), nor does the aforementioned Irish Car Bomb contain any high explosives. --LarryMac | Talk 18:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A boilermaker could be considered "mixed". Dismas|^(talk) 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No cocktail actually contains any cock tail. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? APL (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong. This requires one to have a big cock. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate the old "winter warmer", popular with the Bow Street Runners, called a Dog's nose. Take a pint of dark beer, preferably porter (or, nowadays, stout which was originally "stout porter"), mull (or microwave) it until hot, add a single or preferably double gin, then sprinkle with powdered or freshly grated nutmeg. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a few ladies in college that were fans of what they called a "Diesel." One part beer to one part Pepsi. To say it was vile is an understatement. Livewireo (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia paper.

Actually, this has nothing to do with dyslexia (I think). I have seen several examples of how the brain can re-order mis-spelt words, and read and understand their true meaning as long as the first and last letters are correctly positioned. But I can't find the examples that sometimes pop up in my Inbox and I want to show a friend such an example of mis-spelt text as he doesn't believe me. Anyone here able to help? Thanks.92.30.6.162 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on the subject (see above). That could be a good place to start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the paragraph you are thinking of. Here is another, more scholarly link. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've just been compared to a device that removes dead skin cells. I wonder if there's a barnstar for that? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it. Could have been far worse, I'm sure. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic [second] link. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - and thanks. Sometimes you folk are like a backscratcher - you know - a long handled device that reaches the itch you can't reach yourself. Brilliant. Fast, and exactly what I was looking for. Amazing. Thanks immensely. Very grateful. 92.30.6.162 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuro'e wleocme. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dno't froegt taht smoe plopee wlil sepll it "lysdexia". ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoharp repair

My autoharp has seriously lost its tuning, and I can't seem to get it back. Any suggestions? I'd be happy to take it in for repair (Vancouver BC) but I can't find a local place that specializes in folk instruments. Should I trust general instruments shops or finding a luthier?Aaronite (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "Luthier Vancouver BC" into Google gives me this: [7]. There are lots of options here. Give a few a call; even if one shop doesn't do the work they may know of someone that does. --Jayron32 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are tools including a digital tuner for the Autoharp. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

moving an image

need to move an image from commons to infobox, don't know how Mlpearc (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you want to use an image which is hosted on Wikimedia Commons in an article with an infobox? Images hosted on commons can be imported with the usual syntax. We have a help page for Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, and an information page about images that have been moved to commons. There is no reason to move an image from commons to Wikipedia. Images that are hosted over there can be used seamlessly - just use the full image file name and the wiki software at Wikipedia will automatically locate the file from Commons. Can you link the page that's causing trouble? Nimur (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to move this image that I uploaded to commons: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Don_1.jpg to the infobox at User:Mlpearc/Don E. Branker

If you can help Mlpearc (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image was added by Dismas. Franamax (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matsutake prices in UK?

What is the price for a Matsutake toadstool in the UK? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some discussion of matsutake prices in Canada, Washington State and Osaka. You could ask at a Vietnamese restaurant about nấm tùng nhung which is the same toadstool Tricholoma nauseosum.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a UK-based supplier, but I did find this article. The Manchester-based chef used 1.5 kilos of them in his pie, at a cost of £2250, or £1500 per kilo, back in 2005. Ka renjc 12:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, here in Japan the price of matsutake has fallen a lot, but then the tastiness of matsutake has fallen a lot. (They're imported and thus that much older. And maybe they weren't tasty even when fresh.) Once every couple of years I optimistically order something at a restaurant with matsutake and sure enough its taste turns out to be minimal and uninteresting. But of course it's imaginable that matsutake sold in Britain are better than those sold in Japan. -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shellfish and cheese

I was watching an episode of "Chopped" on the Food Network the other day. One of the judges told a contestant that it is essentially a culinary sin to combine shellfish with cheese. (The contestant thought it tasted good, but the judge was adamant that it just isn't done.) Is this true? Is there a reason why this is so? I tend to think it would be a pleasing combination. Thank you. — Michael J 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [shellfish cheese] and found many entries. This first one[8] is from a site called "cooking.com". My first thought was maybe there was some health-related issue, but apparently not. It's not a question of being kosher, since shellfish are not kosher in any case. So I don't know what that judge's problem was. But maybe one of wikipedia's Galloping Gourmets will have some insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While shellfish are not kosher, many bony fish are, and there are some (mainly Sefardic) Jews who will not eat dairy + fish together as sort of a tradition against it (not that it's truly prohibited) -- this translates into an effective ban on cream cheese + lox for some. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stunned that some Jewish folks would actually eschew bagels with cream cheese and lox. My Jewish friends can't get enough of it (nor can I). As regards kosher, once of them told me once that the concerns about freshness and other issues that drove the kosher laws are no longer really a practical problem; but that keeping kosher, separate sets of dishes, etc., is good "because it reminds you that you're Jewish". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unaware of any kosher rules that have anything to do with freshness, but this somewhat rare minhag of a ban on fish and milk is, granted, not a very prevalent tradition, and I do not know its reason. The effective ban on meat and fish, largely held by all observant Jews to some degree, is overtly stated to be a protection against "danger" -- what the danger is I cannot answer, but I don't eat fish at all (I think it tastes bad and smells worse and it's thus a danger to me!). Keeping kosher in the biblical sense has nothing to do with freshness and asserting that it does appears foolish, as a kosher diet is no fresher than a non-kosher diet. Separation of dishes, a rabbinical prohibition, is in fact put in place in order to prevent a violation of a biblical prohibition, and I could elaborate in another forum if you so choose. :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the reasoning on the dishes. Regarding "freshness" or edibility, the most obvious thing that comes to mind is pork, which can be deadly if not cured properly. But the so-called "unclean" animals seem to have more to do with being "bottom-feeders". For example, as I understand it, catfish is not kosher. Anyway, the kosher laws anymore seem to have as much to do with identifying oneself as Jewish as anything, especially in countries like the USA where Jews have successfully assimilated and to some extent have lost their "differentness", to put it one way. Although I'm reminded of this one: A Jewish guy is in a butcher shop and inquires about the price of ham. A loud clap of thunder is heard outside. The customer looks toward the heavens and says, "I was only asking!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're argument possesses no merit because you give provide examples of things that appear as evidence to your hypothesis, yet completely neglect to mention the obvious examples that provide evidence to the contrary. Goats will eat a lot of things that most other herbivores wouldn't eat, yet they are kosher. And koalas are notorious for their selective eating habits, yet they are not kosher. And are you really asserting that improperly cured pork is any more poisonous than improperly cured beef? It may be that all scavengers are not kosher, but if you take all species into account, the majority of animals are not kosher, including many non-scavengers. And "kosher laws anymore [sic] seem to have as much to do with identifying oneself as Jewish as anything" -- I don't understand what you meant by that. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, enlighten this ignorant, meritless soul: What's the reasoning behind the kosher laws? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God provided little reasoning behind his word and his will, for we are to adhere in a spirit of observance, not in a spirit of immediate personal gratification because X is enjoyable and Y is dangerous. I have an mp3 file by Mordechai Becher that will enlighten you to a much greater extent that I could, and I'll email it to you if you give me an address. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bit of an urban legend around shellfish and dairy products. I recall a Newfoundlander I know recoiling in horror when I mentioned that I'd had ice cream for dessert after having lobster at dinner. He said it was dangerous to do because of some way that milk interacted with "the stuff in the lobster" and that it would usually result in a horrible belly ache. Never affected me in any way like that, though, and I've done it several times. Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shellfish and dairy isn't too uncommon. Clam chowder counts if you believe clams are a shellfish. Lobster bisque certainly counts. I've even seen clam chowder with cheese in it... Staecker (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was so obvious it should have hit me in the face. The problem is that Michael J didn't specify which kind of shellfish was being discussed on the show. If he's still reading this, perhaps he could enlighten us. Crustaceans and mollusks are both usually lumped into "shellfish". If it was a high-falutin' cooking show, I would guess clam chowder was not on the menu, unless they were clams that were really expensive, i.e. that cost a lot of clams. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

It's not really a "high-faultin' cooking show." It's a competition show where contestants are given a basket of ingredients not commonly used together, and told to make a meal out of them. They are allowed to add other ingredients from the show's pantry, if they choose. The episode in question was Episode 4.2 and the shellfish in question was littleneck clams. Chef Amy Roth grated some cheese into her appetizer. — Michael J 15:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Routine and delicious dishes along the south of France are Moules and/or Oysters grilled under cheese. Lovely.Froggie34 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that judge was imposing either his personal prejudices, or ignorance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topically returning to crustaceans, I'll just mention Lobster Thermidor. Deor (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find lobster to be pretty bland, so most anything would help it. Maybe even ketchup. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had always heard that the combination was "prohibited" in Italian cooking, not in general. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shellfish and cheese is one of those things like drinking white wine with red meat (or for the low-falutin, like putting ketchup on a hot dog... it should NOT be done). Certain tastes generally don't complement each other well; either because one of the items masks desireable tastes in the other food, or because it accents undesirable ones. While there is certainly no accounting for taste, the prohibition likely comes from the notion that cheeses, especially heavy tasting or sharp cheeses, may mask or alter the flavors natural to the shellfish, and thus change its taste in less than desirable ways. --Jayron32 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are wondering about the ketchup on hot dogs comment, see ~~Ketchup on hot dogs~~. Nevermind that, I see that another good article was changed into an ineffectual redirect which doesn't address the original subject at all. See this old revision of the real "ketchup on hot dogs" article. Dismas|^(talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jayron. The pungent creaminess of cheese tends to mask the delicate sea flavours of say, a scallop. It can work though. Vranak (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The judges on Chopped are generally idiots, anyway. They try to come across as respectable chefs, when what they are, is snobs. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tex-Mex food features lots of shellfish and cheese. I have eaten many a delicious seafood enchilada, crawfish and shrimp quesadilla, and so forth, without any ill effect, culinary or otherwise. As a categorical prohibition, it sounds ridiculous to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cheese, chocolate and bacon are all foods that can basically taste pretty good with anything. Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has enjoyed a rather tasty seafood lasagna once or twice in my life (Amedeo's Restaurant, Raleigh, NC), I am inclined to agree with you on that. I didn't endorse it, I just gave the reason why the prohibition exists. --Jayron32 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. This is all good information. (It seems like the answer from 67.51 says it all!) ... Now I'm going to go have some clams dipped in cheese sauce! — Michael J 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of this quote by Henry David Thoreau?

"When a dog runs at you, whistle for him"Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) ([here if you joind cfpmedia]) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You whistle for dogs that are friendly to you, so presumably if a dog is trying to attack you, you want to let him know you are friendly. He's probably speaking in metaphor; so when you find a person who is attacking you, set yourself up as his friend/ally and it will disarm your attacker. --Jayron32 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly sounds like it would be the right interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, a version of "always feed the mouth that bites you". Ericoides (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the him is referring to the dogcatcher, since the quote does not specify what gender the dog is, and that the quote means, don't be afraid to seek out help from a specialist if it is required. Googlemeister (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. Before political correctness fucked up proper English grammar, it was proper to use the masculine pronoun where the gender of the antecedant was unknown. So, if you didn't know the gender of the dog, "him" would be perfectly legitimate, especially in the early 19th century. Plus, since there are no dog catchers mentioned, and there IS a dog, the antecedant for the pronoun "him" is the appropriate noun before it, which is the dog. So, the him is refering to the dog you whistle for... I'm not even sure they had "dogcatchers" during Thoreau's time. --Jayron32 20:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, damn political correctness forcing Shakespeare to use the singular they. Next thing, thou shalt be forced to use the plural you when thou meanst only a single person. No respect for proper English grammar. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it great when people make stuff up you didn't say, and then try to refute those points, that you never said? That's awesome, isn't it?--Jayron32 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of the great Yogi, "I really didn't say everything I said." Googlemeister (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, most people (in my experience) assume dogs are male at first guess. (I have a female dog, and no matter how many times I call her "her" with strangers, they insist on referring to her as a "good boy" and "he" and etc. The dog, incidentally, does not care, and neither, really, do I.) (And I don't think Thoreau is talking about a dog-catcher. It would be very un-Thoreau to recommend calling an expert, in any case.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All dogs are boys, all cats are girls; everyone knows that almost-instinct 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dog's an it. Buddy431 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dog's a 'he' - but will become an 'it' in just a matter of weeks. SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the meaning to be a somewhat facetious suggestion that, in order to look as if one has control of the dog, wait until he is running towards you of his own accord and then call / whistle for him so that it looks like he is coming because you called. It's like a magician "commanding" a rock to fall when it was damn-well going to fall anyway. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also not the kind of thing Thoreau would be advocating. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When training a puppy it is good policy to give the command that relates to the puppy's activity. i.e. If you want him to come at a whistle, then whistle while he is coming. The dog needs to associate certain sounds - or actions - with certain activities. My dogs know, for example, that when I take my glasses off in the lounge at night we are all going to bed. However deeply asleep they appear to be the click of the specs brings them to their feet. So, although I don't understand the quote, there is sense in the principle.Froggie34 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoreau is not giving puppy training lessons. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once whistled at a dog, and it became angry at me because it was a very high-pitched wistle. However the dog had a leash on. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the statement in the context of "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." To wit, when a dog charges you, call him and (hope?) it will turn out for the best. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Chai

Every time I go to a Persian restaurant, I'm always enthralled by the tea they serve, usually with dessert. However, I'd like to have it at home. I've never been able to figure out how to prepare it. I know that usually there is rose water in it, but past that...I'm stumped beyond seeing a few leaves at the dregs and the brew is usually orange-colored. Can anybody enlighten me on blend of tea, preparation methods, and other ingredients? Thanks!72.219.150.173 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one person's advice. There's a lot more out there if you just Google for obvious sets of search terms (such as ones including Persian and chai). One of the principal requisites seems to be actual Iranian tea, although some sites suggest using a mixture such as 2 parts Darjeeling and 1 part Earl Grey if you can't get the real stuff at a local specialty shop. (Since Earl Grey already contains bergamot flavoring, I might omit the optional rose petals, cardamom, and other spices if I were using it.) You might also try asking the staff at the Persian restaurants you visit how they make it. Deor (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US state and territory capitols

When is the last time that a US state or a US territory that became a state moved it's capitol city?

Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a wikipedia article that lists states and their capitals. I know some of them have changed, though certainly none recently. Looking up all 50 could be kind of tedious, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really click "Save page" after typing this? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

No, a nearby radio interfered with my wireless mouse and it clicked save against my will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska contemplated moving her capital from Juneau (where it had sat since moving from Sitka in 1906) to the more-central Willow, but this proposal was defeated in a 1982 referendum. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of capitals in the United States#Historic state capitals. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capitals_in_the_United_States Apparently the winner is Oklahoma city. Googlemeister (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living in Providence, Rhode Island, let me clarify something, since a very rushed perusal of that list seems to indicate that Providence's becoming the capital of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in 1900 (simultaneously with the opening of a magnificent state house designed by McKim, Meade and White) was the most recent move of a state capital. But as that list also indicates, the capital was rotated among the chief towns of each of Rhode Island's five counties (Providence, Newport, Bristol, East Greenwich [Kent County] and South Kingstown [Washington County]) until 1854, when the rotation was reduced to just Newport and Providence. So Providence has almost always been one of the colony's and state's capital cities. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Oklahoma City's "capitalization" is apparently more recent (1910), the above is less important. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the table at the top of List of capitals in the United States, you can see that it's sortable (which is what those bowtie icons in the top line mean). One category you can sort by is the date that the most current capital became one. I took a section of such a sorted table to give the capitals established or moved since 1861: —— Shakescene (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State	Date of state- hood	Capital	Capital since
Oklahoma	1907	Oklahoma City	1910
Alaska	1959	Juneau	1906
Rhode Island	1790	Providence	1900
Arizona	1912	Phoenix	1889
South Dakota	1889	Pierre	1889
West Virginia	1863	Charleston	1885
North Dakota	1889	Bismarck	1883
Louisiana	1812	Baton Rouge	1880
Connecticut	1788	Hartford	1875
Montana	1889	Helena	1875
Wyoming	1890	Cheyenne	1869
Georgia	1788	Atlanta	1868
Colorado	1876	Denver	1867
Nebraska	1867	Lincoln	1867
Idaho	1890	Boise	1865
Nevada	1864	Carson City	1861

American timber house construction - dampness from soil?

The timber houses include, I think, a frame of timber to support the weight which includes large vertical timbers. How are these timbers stopped from coming into contact with the moisture of the soil? I'm imagining that if they were merely rested on something waterproof, then they would not be stable in high winds. So how are the structural timbers kept from being in contact with the soil, while still being firmly attached to it? I'm interested in both modern construction, and construction used one or two hundred years ago. Thanks 78.146.81.118 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a house, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beautiful_Post_and_Beam_Horse_Barn.JPG shows that the wood frame sits atop a concrete pad. I seem to recall that there are usually some bolts or similar set into the concrete when it is poured, and that there are metal pieces that you attach to these bolts, and to the wood frame to hold it in place. There are probably other ways that it is done, but that is the way I remember my neighbor building his garage. Googlemeister (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Shallow foundation and the articles linked therein. Before the use of concrete, drystone foundations or mortared stone foundations were used in many cases, I believe (at least I recall seeing them in some of the more rural This Old House projects). Deor (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia at least, it is/was common to have the frame on top of brick pillars. This is in areas with enough rock for the pillars to go onto directly. nb Also helps keep insects out. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern construction bolts the wood frame to a concrete foundation. Older construction would use a drystone or brick foundation, or simply resist rot through sheer mass: a ten-by-ten beam won't rot very fast in most soil conditions, and rotting can be further retarded by application of creosote or tar to the wood.. --Carnildo (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly on the houses I've owned and seen built here in Texas, the wood frame sits on top of the concrete slab. Suprisingly, they don't seem to use pressure-treated lumber or any other kind of treated wood. Carnildo is being quite optimistic when talking about 10 by 10 beams...even if that's centimeters! 2"x4" seems to be used for most of the framing with 4"x4" reserved for corners and such like. SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Old New England homes and barns will sometimes have giant structural pieces like Carnildo describes. It was an easy way to make things strong when you've got more trees than you know what to do with. APL (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Older homes have some truly massive structural members. I remember visiting my aunt's century-old house in West Virginia, and being amazed at the size of the exposed beams visible in the basement. The main beam supporting the middle of the first floor was a pair of beams each a foot across and twenty feet long, supported where they met by a post just as large. The rest of the frame was similarly larger than modern houses -- I don't think there was anything smaller than a four-by-four in use. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are they always bolted to metal sticking up out of a concrete slab, or can they just rest there due to their weight without actually being attached? 78.149.116.255 (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except perhaps in extremely dry climates, wood buildings with the structural members resting directly on the ground suffered rot of the wood in contact with the ground in just a few years. If the beams rested on a stone foundation or on a rock or rocks at the corners (with intermediate rocks or rock piles under long sills) it might last a century or longer. Edison (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do they sometimes topple over in very high winds? 78.149.251.193 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Destruction_following_hurricane_andrew.jpg Googlemeister (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for American standards, but the principles of building are universal. Wooden buildings can be fixed to the ground in a number of ways. Concrete slab foundations are suitable in many environments, but such Shallow foundations can be problematic in areas where the ground routinely freezes, experiences subsidence or movement, has high water table/surface flooding,or is sloping. Wooden framing is typically 'tied' to the slab using steel connectors and brackets such as this and these. Local building regulations should have specifications for such foundations to meet appropriate earthquake or storm loadings. (Eg. in earthquake zones, they are expecting to withstand substantial lateral movement). Alternatively, the house can be constructed on piles. These could be reinforced concrete, wooden piles set in concrete, wooden piles tied to concrete or stone, or treated round wooden piles driven directly into the ground. (Known as tanalized or treated roundwood) This document provides information on various types of piles and their fixings and bracings. Gwinva (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corian sink repair

Hello! I have a Corian sink that has a small crack in it, and no matter how I try to patch it, water still leaks through. Does anyone have any solutions? Thank you!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the company is able to come out to fill the crack and make it look seamless. You can probably call the company to ask about specifics in getting your sink repaired. I'm not personally aware of any homebrew fixes for solid surface sinks. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most people say it's a job for a professional - but there is one company I know of who sell a $30 repair kit: http://www.refinishingonline.com/ - there is a "how-to" at associatedcontent.com/article/1313115/how_to_repair_your_cracked_corian_countertop.html - however, I'm skeptical just because almost every DIY site on the web says you can't do it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

Russian Metal

I am trying to find rock music sung in Russian, I have managed to listen to Bi-2 and Kipelov among other but seem unable to find a hardrock band that sings in Russian without having the near perfect Iron Maiden type vocals. What I am looking for is rock music in Russian with vocals more death metal like. Examples would be Seether, or Entombed, or Slayer etc, any help in this would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I just need some band names —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal knowledge here, but would start with our Category:Russian heavy metal musical groups and investigate from there. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Dead

Hi can anyone tell me where i can find a video on the web of the Mister Dead from the Harry Enfield show. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.2.103 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you don't think we're neglecting you - I looked all over the place and came up with nothing. The only reference I could find was that there is one Mr Dead sketch on the VHS version of "The Best of" show - but it didn't make the DVD version. Since nobody else replied - you're probably out of luck. SteveBaker (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

Prohibitionist in the Mikado

In Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado the song "As some day it may happen" contains the line, in one version "And that singular anomaly, the prohibitionist" (replaced in another version by "the lady novelist"). What was a prohibitionist and what was he/she seeking to prohibit in 1885? --rossb (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives "A person who advocates or favours the introduction of a prohibition, esp. one restricting the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcoholic drinks", with English newspaper quotes from 1842 and 1866 which are rather ambiguous, but probably referring to alcohol in some way. Algebraist 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every recording I've heard of that song says "the lady novelist". Was "prohibitionist" in an early version, or was that added some time later? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a reference to the Lord Chamberlain, who banned The Mikado for a time (ref Hansard 10 June 1907). Our article for another G&S comic opera, Utopia, Limited says "Gilbert also throws some barbs at the Lord Chamberlain's office, as he loved to do." -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This[9] article is pretty good. The "lady novelist" line is original, put different performances have used different lyrics over the years. It's not unusual for G&S lyrics, especially topical to be tweaked to be more relevant to modern audiences. PhGustaf (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, tasty Hansard link. Any idea what the play poking fun at the Kaiser was? 86.178.229.168 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The complete annotated Gilbert and Sullivan" says that "the lady novelist" was the original wording and that it was changed by the author to "the critic dramatist" or "the scorching bicyclist" or "the scorching motorist" in Edwardian revivals - and Sir Henry Litton later changed it in the 1920's and 30's to "the prohibitionist" and in 1942 to "the clothing rationist" - so evidently, the intent is to change the target of this acrimony to whoever was the more hated figure of the times. "The wall street banker" might be appropriate for 2010. SteveBaker (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though it really doesn't matter who you put upon the list, for they'd none of 'em be missed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of that there is no manner of doubt; no probable, possible shadow of doubt; no possible doubt whatever. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says wikipedia ain't got no culture? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even to this day, if you hear the D'Oyly Carte perform the piece, they will change those particular lyrics. I heard them in 1992-ish where the list included the big-toe fetishist. Marnanel (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was Sir Henry Lytton, SteveBaker. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking help

I'm home and I'm ravenous. I have pasta but no tomato sauce, no oil and no butter. Can I make a buttery type sauce with evaporated milk? I don't need it to be great but I'd rather not eat plain pasta. I have lots of spices and really little else but the evaporated milk to work from. In fact, other than spices, I'll tell you what I have since the list is really short. I have canned pineapple, canned peaches, a few kinds of jam, a jar of almond butter, mayonnaise and a loaf of whole wheat bread, some fresh corn, a few cans of evaporated milk, a can of sweetened condensed milk, canned cranberry sauce, a whole bag of tangerines, and three different types of pasta. That's it.--162.83.138.11 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed milk sandwiches are rather nice. You could put mayo on the pasta, and have the sweetcorn with it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second the mayo on the pasta. Hot mayonaise is essentially Hollandaise sauce, which can be tasty on pasta. You could add some tarragon to it and make an ersatz Béarnaise sauce. Any other green herbs would be nice too. With all of the canned fruit and cranberry sauce or jam, and maybe a little vinegar, you could make a nice fruit chutney. --Jayron32 04:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the evaporated milk (mixed with a little water), and the jam and fruit you could make a sort of bread and butter pudding. DuncanHill (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question certainly rings a bell[10] Richard Avery (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would mix the cooked pasta with drained pineapple and sweetcorn (removed from the cob), with a few tangarine segments. If the almond butter is anything like ordinary butter then I would have some of that too. If the spices include herbs or pepper, then I would add some of those. I expect it is too late now. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Experiment! Some of the best dishes come out that way. Whatever you make will at least be (a) edible and (b) interesting. The bad things don't get made a second time and make great stories to tell your grandchildren ("Back in ought-nine we were so short of food we ate pasta with pineapple and mayo - you kids of today don't know what it's like to suffer!") - the fortuitously good things become family classics. SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, I'd run to the store (even a 7/11 will probably do), grab some hard cheese (e.g. parmesean or romano), and some peppercorns. Roast the peppercorns on a skillet until they start to jump around, then mash them into tiny pieces. Add them and the grated cheese to the hot pasta, mix and let the cheese melt a little. Delicious and simple with a bare minimum of additional ingredients. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if you could do that, you'd be able to get some tomatoes and butter - and then the entire question becomes moot. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trees saved

How many trees were saved by digital piracy of books last year? Neon Merlin 04:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to know. We would need to know how many people that read a pirated version of the book would have bought a paper version had the pirated version not been available and that information is not available. --Tango (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also how many people who wouldn't have bought a copy of the book, did so because they enjoyed the piratewd copy so much... -- SGBailey (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because of the way publishing works, not buying a paper edition has zero effect on trees saved in the short-term, because the paper edition has already been printed. (The publishing industry is not, on the whole, print on demand.) What you'd need to know is if the total purchases made by piraters would have instead led to a new print run altogether had they occurred. This seems unlikely to me, but I don't really have a feel for the magnitude of the numbers involved. To put it more concretely, let's say the first print run of a book was 5,000 copies. No matter what piracy occurs, if another print run is not made, the total number of trees consumed will be the equivalent of those 5,000 copies. If, however, the publisher thinks the market is large enough, they can run off another 5,000 copies (or whatever). The question is, if the pirates had bought physical copies, would they have led to the publisher thinking the market is large enough for another printing? I suspect not. And keep in mind we are talking about individual book titles here—it is not a case where the aggregate of pirating matters, but how many of a given title. I suspect only in cases of extremely popular books would this have any effect (e.g. Harry Potter, Dan Brown), but by the same token of them being extremely popular probably means that the impact of piracy is probably negligible to decisions like printing runs. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flip side of the question, and probably even less answerable, is how much extra fossil fuel was burned by pirates getting and reading their books digitally, instead of turning off the computer and getting and reading a hard-copy of the book? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More fossil fuel? Computers use absolutely tiny amounts of power compared to the amount needed to ship meatspace objects about the place. Algebraist 13:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even more, when the unbought books have to be shipped back, due to the pirates getting them electronically. :) The gist of the original question was the implication that pirates are somehow helping the environment. It's clear, from the various answers here, that they aren't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although conventional publishers do fixed length print runs - regardless of number of sales, when books don't sell, the book stores generally have to rip off the covers and send those back to the publisher to get their money back from unsold books. What happens to the remainder of the book is that the paper gets recycled when the bookstore throws out hundreds or thousands of unsold books. The can't simply put them into landfill because they can't have people pick them up and read them...they MUST be pulped. So I think we can equate books-sold to trees-cut-down. But the whole recycling thing makes that very complex. Also, it's a lot easier to re-sell or lend your paper books than it is to lend a DRM-laden eBook to a friend who (probably) has a different eBook reader anyway. So this is really a mess!

Anyway, let's try to get a maximum, optimistic number: $45 million dollars worth of eBooks were sold in the US in each of the last two quarters of 2009 (compared to $20 billion of paper books). The worldwide numbers are not much bigger because in the biggest book markets (China & India) - there are virtually zero eBook readers. So let's say (generously) that there are $400 million worth of eBooks sold per year. We don't have numbers for eBook piracy - but I'd be really surprised if it were 1 book pirated for every book sold...so again, let's say that $400 million worth are pirated. eBooks are pretty cheap - most of them are around $9 - so let's say that there are 40 million books pirated worldwide per year...and let's be REALLY generous and say that every pirate would have bought a paper book had he/she not pirated it (that's VERY unlikely if video-game and music piracy rates are statistically similar). How many trees does it take to make 40 million books? Well, Technical Association for the Worldwide Pulp, Paper and Converting Industry says that (with some considerable complication and some nasty assumptions) says that it takes 17 trees to make a ton of paper and that much paper is enough for 1000 books. So 40 million books is 680,000 trees. That sounds like a lot - but 1.8 billion new trees are planted by the lumber industry in the USA every year. So with all of these best-case assumptions, all of world-wide book piracy can can only account for about 0.004% of the US annual tree production. It's utterly, utterly negligable.

But - I think we're being way too optimistic here. Paper is made from the waste from the lumber industry and 30% of the paper in new books comes from recycled material and paper books are read, re-read, loaned, sold-as-used and kept over generations of readers. When books are tossed out, their paper is often recycled. So you can't say that one pirated eBook saved one actual paperback - it probably saved about 1/10th of a paperback. Also, there is the assumption that if the pirate hadn't pirated the eBook, he'd have bought a paper book...but that's crazy! He'd have bought an eBook instead - because he's a person who has an eBook reader and happily uses it - and he's also a person who is out to save money (and eBooks are typically half the price of paper books and have a $0 shipping fee). So in truth, would eliminating eBook piracy cause even ONE actual, paper book to be purchased? I very much doubt it.

Worst of all. If eBook piracy is rife - and paper book piracy is zero (who photocopies a 400 page novel?!) then what piracy is doing is dissuading publishers from providing an electronic version of their books. That means that people who pay for eBooks are very often unable to find an electronic version of it - so they are forced to buy a paper copy anyway. If that happens then eBook piracy results in the sales of MORE paper books -- not less!!

So, I conclude that the number of trees that eBook piracy is saving is at best negligable - and almost certainly some negative number. Piracy is dissuading publishers from making eBooks available and that is causing significant number of paper books to be sold that otherwise would be eBook sales.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. -- SGBailey (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new page on Wikipedia

Dear Author,

I am new on Wikipedia. I'm currently working on a project to post an article on Wikipedia. But I don't know how it can be done. please help me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongenter (talk • contribs) 07:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Contents is your friend. It can be easily accessed on the Main Page in the third box down on the left side of the page. Richard Avery (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For questions about Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Help Desk is the best place to ask. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Your first article. But beware - starting an article on Wikipedia can be awkward and frustrating for new users. You're far better advised to contribute to some existing articles first, so you get the hang of it, before posting a new article. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American states

I was surprised to see in the question US state and territory capitols above that some American states only joined the US in the 20th. century. Were Alaska, Arizona, and Oklahoma really seperate independant countries before they joined? And while Hawaii became an American state, why did some islands in the pacific whose name escapes me recently go in the opposite direction and become independant nations? 92.29.80.215 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were territories. Most of the U.S. states were originally territories, except for the 13 colonies which went directly to statehood, and a few (Maine, Vermont, West Virgina, maybe others) that were originally part of another state; and Texas, which was independent for about 10 years before it joined us (or we joined it, as they say). For various reasons, other U.S. territories (such as Cuba and the Philippines) were eventually given their independence (although we lived to regret the decision about Cuba, at least). The most likely candidate for a 51st state would seem to be Puerto Rico, but due to ambivalence about the notion, it remains a territory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the area of what is now the US was land that was previously claimed by England/Britain, France, or Spain, or more than one of these at different times; or in the case of Alaska, by Russia. Under those countries if an area had enough population it was typically organized into colonies, while less populous areas did not have their own governments. Areas of the US that did not directly become states generally became territories and were then often divided into smaller territories which in turn became states; many of the straight-line boundaries in the western US result from these later divisions. Hawaii was an independent country before it joined the US as a territory. Vermont's status was disputed before it became a state -- both New York and New Hampshire claimed it, but it was de facto independent as well. --Anonymous, 20:54 UTC, January 17, 2010.

Yeah, Puerto Rico doesn't seem likely anytime soon, from either side. Statehood votes there have been close enough that it's not implausible one would someday win, though I haven't heard of any recent movement to vote again. But PR's accession would significantly shift the balance of power towards the Democrats, permanently as far as anyone can tell. Two senators and I think a half-dozen representatives or so; maybe eight electoral votes. The Republicans won't permit that if they can stop it (nor would the Dems, if the shoe were on the other foot). When the political effect of statehood is clear, it's not going to move unless either (i) one party is so dominant that they can just impose it or (ii) you can admit another state to balance the effect. (ii) seems out of the question; there's no red statehood candidate on the horizon. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wealth of information in the article called U.S. state, including a lot of "see also" links to various subjects. One of them would likely list the states by order of admission, and if you really want to learn a lot about how the U.S. developed, you could go to each of the 50 state articles and see where they came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clever animated map near the top of Territorial changes of the United States that shows the growth of the country (and Canada, too). The point at which a region changes from light blue to dark blue indicates the transition from territory-hood to statehood. Deor (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Hawaii on the one hand and Samoa, Tonga, Nauru, etc. on the other is that by the time decolonization became the rage after World War II, Native Hawaiians made up a minority of the Hawaiian population, which was well-integrated into the American economy and society. Statehood was much preferred among the locals and was achieved in 1959. There is a small secessionist movement in Hawaii to this day. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's an odd concept for old-worlders to think of a nation expanding the way the US did, but I suspect that most of the new world expanded the same way. Some of Canada's province joined Confederation (similar idea to the Union of States that is the United States)in the 20th century, as late as 1949. I wonder if Mexico or Brazil have similar histories. Would the relatively recent founding of Brasilia count? Or the fact that some cities in North America are barely 100 years old, compared to the millennia that London or Paris have behind them?Aaronite (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Mexico's states were territories before becoming states. See Territorial evolution of Mexico. The last territories to become states were Baja California Sur and Quintana Roo in 1974. As far as I know, Mexico didn't really have a "frontier" like the U.S. and Canada, except for the part north of the Rio Grande they lost to the U.S. in the Mexican-American War. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Canada, similarly to the US, most of its area was previously under British rule, although some parts were French before that; and the more populated areas were organized into colonies while other areas were not. Areas that joined Canada and did not become provinces became territories or districts, which might later be broken into smaller territories or districts, and some later became provinces or were added to existing provinces, as their population grew. Newfoundland (now called Newfoundland and Labrador), like Canada, gradually advanced to independence (within the British Commonwealth) in the late 19th and early 20th century, but it went bankrupt in the 1930s and voluntarily returned to British control until it joined Canada in 1949. --Anonymous, 21:04 UTC, January 17, 2010.

As far as a nation expanding in the Old World, I'd like to see an animation of Russia's spread over the centuries. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good map of it in the Philip's Atlas of World History. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 13 original states seem to have been regarded as 13 independent and sovereign countries in the papers signed by the British ending the American Revolution. Edison (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the wording of the Declaration of Independence also. But immediately they started putting together a central government, in the Articles of Confederation. In some sense, you could compare the working agreement among the 13 states with the EU. One difference is that most everyone had a common heritage, so achieving cooperation and union was probably easier and more natural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions with the most replies

Which is the question that generated the most lengthy discussion in the Reference desks? --Belchman (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to look at questions that have previously been asked and answered, you may want to consider looking through the Reference Desk Archives. As to finding out which question generated longest discussion, I'm not sure how you would find it...there have been an awful lot of questions that have been asked! Chevymontecarlo (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably take a coder 2 or 3 hours to fetch the entire history of a Reference Desk and write a python script to do a word count under each section header. This would not be 100% accurate, as there are sometimes questions where a new section header is created to continue the discussion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about sex, creationism, US politics, existence of God, conspiracy theories or any combination of the aforementioned and that don't actually need much research effort tend to produce the most verbose responses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like, "If God was US President, which political party would she support?". Oops, misses out creationism and conspiracy. 78.149.251.193 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertine Party. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Preadtor drone: total death toll

Hello, I'm trying to find out the total death toll in Pakistan due to predator drone strikes. Any ideas? Denito (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Drone attacks in Pakistan appears to have totals for years, but I don't know if those are considered to be accurate or comprehensive. (I suspect not.) Graph #3 on this page suggests the numbers are higher than on the Wikipedia page. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksDenito (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Newell

In Ft. Worth, Texas there is a street named Jack Newell Blvd. Who was the Jack Newell that the street was named for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamric2000 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A developer, like so many street namesakes: [11] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FSH level

if your fsh level is 15.2 would follistim be helpful to conceive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.147.46 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a request for medical advice? Marnanel (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on both, and the reader can see if they answer his questions: FSH and Urofollitropin (a.k.a. Follistim, among other things). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who is the sponsor/ publisher of wikipedia.org? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.112.17 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation. Marnanel (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation, a charity, owns the servers, etc., the money comes from donations from the public and grants from various charitable foundations (and a small amount from commercial deals - licensing the Wikipedia trademark for use in phone's with a Wikipedia feature, etc.). --Tango (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's license terms are so open, there are many hundreds of publishers of the information. You can read Wikipedia's content on around 2000 different web sites. There is a reasonably complete list on WP:Mirrors and forks. However, these other sites tend to be out of date - and they often miss images or whatever. Some of them allow you to edit the articles - but then they are guaranteed to be out of date compared to Wikipedia since once an article has been edited, it can't easily be updated with new content from Wikipedia. Hence, most readers come straight to the source and that drives these other places into relative obscurity. SteveBaker (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of snow on the generation of knowledge

OK, that's deliberately grandiose. Let's look, on the one hand, at the recent storms in North American and Europe and correlated snow days, and on the other hand, the amount of material added to Wikipedia (either new articles created or edits made). Obviously if a storm is so severe it knocks out electricity one might expect our editors to go quiet, but if it is merely a situation of offices or schools closed, was there an upsurge in contributions from employees working from home? There certainly were other effects: Online dating soars as temperatures plunge, according to the BBC on 7 January. Perhaps a clever Wikipedian could track this by area? Or has it already been done? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had snow in the UK, but I don't think we had any storms. It is often said that the UK is very bad at coping with snow compared with other countries, and closes down with even a small amount. 78.149.251.193 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfully grandiose, but you are assuming, BB, that Wikipedia is a major contributor to knowledge production, which is not necessarily the case IMHO. The simple answer must be that the snow helped improve the level of knowledge in the general population about how to cope with snow - but it adversely affected knowledge production in general, due to the closures of schools and workplaces. I wonder if there was an effect on the number of patents filed. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the policy, Wikipedia should not produce any new knowledge at all. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only daily statistics which I can think of are these. They aren't broken down by region, but it looks to me that there were slightly fewer edits made over the periods of heavy snow in much of the Northern Hemisphere, although that probably correlates better with the Christmas and New Year holiday period. Warofdreams talk 12:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say: Wikipedia isn't about the generation of new knowledge - it's about the recording of existing knowledge. We actively discourage people from adding new knowledge (WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH being two guidelines that say as much). It's perfectly possible that preventing people from doing other things might increase the number of articles written or improved - but with scientists not being able to reach their laboratories and archeologists being kept from their digs - really it's only going to be the mathematicians and theoreticians who'll get much done! So I'd say that the amount of new knowledge generated during the snow-in would be less than on a normal day - but perhaps more of it would be recorded and understood. SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

Bread Rising Problems

A quick query about bread, my dad and I are trying to become amateur bakers in our spare time. We've tried several different recipes, the most recent of which is posted below, for bread, but we can't seem to make it rise. The recipe was:

1 package active dry yeast

1/4 cup warm (110 degeres) water

1 cup whole wheat flour

1/4 cup brown sugar

3 cups rye flour

1 tablespoon salt

Enough hot water to create a stiff batter.

We tried making it twice, the second time with two packets of yeast, giving time for the yeast to rise, and giving time for the bread itself to rise. Neither time worked; does anyone have any insight as to why this might be happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMGTANGERINES (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our yeast article says

"Yeasts will grow over a temperature range 10 °C (50 °F) to 37 °C (99 °F), with an optimal temperature range of 30 °C (86 °F) to 37 °C (99 °F), depending on the type of species (S. cerevisiae works best at about 30 °C (86 °F). Above 37 °C (99 °F) yeast cells become stressed and will not divide properly".

If your water is at 110°F you may be harming your chances. I'd also be a little concerned about the amount of salt - salt slows down the division process. However salt is a matter of taste, and I give no advice one way or another as to whether that's too much (though I tend to think it is too much). Additional tip: dissolve the sugar in hot (but not too hot) water first, then add the yeast to the solution and leave it whilst you get the rest of the ingredients together, as a means of ensuring the best access to sugar by the said yeast. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try that! -OMGTANGERINES —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMGTANGERINES (talk • contribs) 05:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you look at a number of other recipes. You can find them on the internet. The one you have here specifies far more sugar and salt than most recipes do. Also, rye bread is not the easiest to start with as a beginner. One with a mix of white wheat flour and wholewheat flour would be better to experiment with. When you have the hang of it you can start adding a proportion of rye flour, and I'd still recommend to use more wheat than rye. A really wonderful book if you want to become experts is Elizabeth David's English Bread and Yeast Cookery. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally recommend instant yeast rather than active dry yeast. Instant yeast does not require proofing in warm water. It can be added to the dry ingredients, and you can use cold or room-temperature water. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bread rises because the yeast (being a living thing) starts metabolising and produces CO2 - the CO2 bubbles make the bread rise. So this is all about making sure the yeast stays alive and happy until you bake the bread. My wife (who is pretty good at baking bread) tells me that it's important that the yeast is fairly fresh. It's a living organism - so yeast that's been sitting in your cupboard for a year isn't going to work as well as stuff you bought yesterday. She disagrees with Coneslayer and say's that it's important to mix it in warm water...again, these are living things and need to be treated carefully. (Right up to the point when you put them into the oven and murder them all in the searing heat!) SteveBaker (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instant yeast and active dry yeast can both work fine in my experience. Check the best-before date and follow the instructions on the packet. (If you're lucky you might even get a bread recipe on the packet.) I also sometimes use fresh baker's yeast (compressed yeast) that I can get for a few pence at the supermarket bakery counter (UK). Again you need to make sure it is fresh, and you need a recipe that tells you how much to use. Happy baking! Itsmejudith (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pins for current disaster

I saw on the Golden Globe Awards the participants wore ribbons. What were the colors? By any chance will there be awareness pins for the Haiti relief efforts? Will there also be ribbons like the ones at the Golden Globe Awards available with proceeds going to the disaster relief? Where can I find those types of things?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, the pins were red, yellow (sic), and blue, like the flag of Haiti (which contains no yellow). I don't know where you can get them from, though. Marnanel (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prison

It si often portrayed in movies and such that when one goes to prison you need to protect yourself from various assaults, hence prisoners make shaks and such like. What I would like to know is A. How much more likely is opne to get stabbed or killed in prison thatn in civilian life and B. If one is forced to protect oneself are crimes in prison investigated by the police as with crimes in civilian life, or is there some other process, C. If one needs to kill other prisoners while in prison in order to survive, what is the percentage rate of people that are sent to prison that do eventually get released D. Is it plausible to say that one might go to prison for a minor infraction, and never be realeased due to situations that arrise in prison. E. what is the average amount of time spent in prison, eg. Bob steals a chocolate, gets sentanced to 1 year, but could get out in 6months with good behavior, but due to stabbing another prisoner, gets 5 years added, in that time he is caught with contraband and gets a further 2 years and thus spend lets say 5years in prison for esentially stealing a chocolate. F. What percentage of people die in prison, eg Bob shoot a burgalar and gets 2 years, he is a family man with a wife an 2.5 kids, but dies in prison. The country does not matter as I am just curious, and hence this is not a legal question, I just want to know, I doubt I will ever be in this position as I am a well balanced member of society. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the country doesn't matter but to a certain extent, it does. I'm willing to bet that a prisoner's welfare is quite different when comparing, for example, an American, German, or British (sorry if "British" is the wrong term) prison to a North Korean or Kenyan prison. And this difference would skew the numbers you're looking for quite dramatically. That being said, I think you might be overlooking a couple points. First, when you watch a movie or a TV show you have to remember that you're watching a work of fiction. Things need to happen to move the story forward or build drama. The stories are rarely true to life. Second, using your chocolate thief as an example, such a person would be put into a minimum security prison where the prisoners aren't quite hardened criminals. There are more people that are getting out in just a couple of months and it's not likely for anyone to be in there for much more than petty assaults and definitely not anyone who is in for murder. So, why would they need to stab anyone and get that additional five years? Dismas|^(talk) 09:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, you are allowed to say "British". It isn't a rude word. It's just that it's used inaccurately from time to time - like "American" in fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

In this case British is not only allowed, but correct, if you intended it to mean a prison in the United Kingdom. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also prison sexuality and prison gangs (rather US biased articles).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Relative likelihoods of being stabbed vary too much to quantify e.g. Low probability in a closely monitored prison contra High probability in a poor inner-city area, or High probability in a badly overcrowded prison contra Low probability in a genteel neighbourhood. B. The prison service in most cases investigate and testify to a court about incidents in prison that have no outside connections, about which police should be informed. Court hearings can be held in a prison. C. The question contains a non sequitur: "need to kill other prisoners to survive" is an unproven claim. The information that seems to be wanted is the percentage of prisoners that die in prison (I don't know). D. Yes, it's plausible in many ways. One might die of a disease a week after entering prison. E. The average time spent in prison has a numeric answer (I don't know it). The example that is added "Bob steals..." is just gratuitous sensationalism. F. Seeks the same information as question C. The example that is added "Bob shoot[sic] is more gratuitous sensationalism. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a little view of life in UK prisons, try this article. It says things like "predatory homosexuality is as rare in British prisons as malt whisky, in fact in some prisons it's a great deal rarer. There's probably more chance of you being raped or sexually assaulted 'outside' than in here." and "In my experience there's far less random violence in prison than in wider society. I was in an adult long-term prison at 19, and the only time I've ever been attacked it was by the screws." It is possible that prisons in other countries are very different, so you'd have to research each country in turn. 86.183.83.191 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldlime to know the answerto C, what percentage of people sent to prison, get released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute one item of what Cuddlyable3 says - neighbourhood of a prison isn't significant, since a) prisoners aren't generally sent to a prison in their neighbourhood b) the contact between a neighbourhood and a prison in it is minimal What is significant is the security level of the prison. There is a whole world of difference between a minimum security prison and a maximum security prison. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On question F) the percentage of people who die in prison is relatively low. In Western countries outside of the USA, there is no death penalty, and even life sentences in the vast majority of cases really mean something like 20 years. Inmates are generally taken from a younger segment of society, so death from age-related causes in prisons is rare. As stated above, the problem of prison violence is less severe than portrayed in movies and such. Prisoners' health is looked after by the State, any deaths in custody must be investigated, etc, meaning there are a number of factors in favor of prisoners finishing their sentences and getting out. I would assume that that number is well over 95% in those countries, but I'm sure studies must exist somewhere. In the USA, there are some negative factors, including the existence death penalty (which, in percentage terms, barely registers as a statistical blip) and more rigid sentencing for serious offenses, but this article says the death rate in prison is still lower than in the general population. So, to summarize, the overwhelming majority of persons entering prison will eventually be released. --Xuxl (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prison scrubs in the courtroom

Resolved

In a recent CSI: NY, the defendant was brought into the courtroom in orange jumpsuit scrubs and handcuffs -- I thought this wasn't allowed, so as not to serve as a visual illusion to the court that the defendant appears to be a criminal before the proceedings even get underway. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counsel can object to the way a defendant is presented and the Judge will rule on the matter. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I overlooked that this was the hearing prior to the court case, so perhaps, if there is no jury, there is no potential harm. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how can i get my pictures from Kiddie Kandids now that they are chapter 7

now that Kiddie Kandids is in Chapter 7, I doubt that I will get my pictures. and it will be double blow if I can't at least get them in digital form. how do I go about attempting to get my pictures?!?